4 ms·

It does, for example, the provision regarding >(B) the United States is a fundamentally racist country; Could be interpreted as preventing proper discussion ab

• zepto 5y ago
  Ok, so you just proved the point. These bills do not prevent teaching about Tulsa. That claim has always been a lie. As for what you call “proper” discussion about what caused the Tulsa massacre. Nothing in the bill prevents people talking about how the massacre was caused by racism. Nothing in the bill even prevents discussion of the idea that the US is fundamentally racist, or why people might believe that to be true. The only thing the bill prevents is teaching that the US is fundamentally racist as if it were an absolute truth or fact, rather than an idea that some people hold. So no. You are simply wrong about what the bill means.
  • geofft 5y ago
    My claim (upthread) was "honest and uncensored discussion." You can talk in censored ways about it, yes. If you think it's okay to censor particular views because they're obviously wrong or misguided... you're totally free to hols that view, but that's still censorship.
    • zepto 5y ago
      Your claim I was responding to is this: “Could be interpreted as preventing proper discussion about what caused the Tulsa massacre” > If you think it's okay to censor particular views because they're obviously wrong or misguided... you're totally free to hols that view, but that's still censorship. It’s a false claim to say that these bills ‘censor’ particular views. That is the lie. They seek to prevent certain views being taught as fact that can’t be debated. I.e. the bills do the opposite of what you assert.