14 ms·

CRT and gender studies should not be part of the high school curriculum in public schools and should not receive any sort of government funding in universities

CRT and gender studies should not be part of the high school curriculum in public schools and should not receive any sort of government funding in universities because at best they are pseudoscience. Private institutions not receiving government funding should teach whatever they like, including white nationalism. Discrimination based on race should either be allowed in all circumstances or disallowed in all circumstances. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race so it's hypocritical to have this as government policy while explicitly prohibiting discrimination against minorities. Uneven enforcement calls for punishing those not enforced against, not letting guilty minorities walk. Any further attempts of sealioning will be ignored.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
so "restricting freedom of speech in any way" really means it can be restricted in some cases. This was your definition, not mine. Again interesting that you consider discrimination based on race in all cases as an acceptable position equal to no discrimination based on race. The unequal enforcement bit would mean that white neighborhoods should be given the same level of enforcement as minority ones. Is that really what you want? Where literally everyone is treated by the police exactly how they treat minorities?
- trention 4y ago
  I consider "restrictions of freedom of speech" justified only in the context of employment, during work hours, where said restriction directly influences your working output. If public school teachers want to teach woke pseudoscience on their own premises, during their off hours, using their own money, that's OK. I have absolutely no problem with increasing policing in white neighborhoods. The risk to people who are not criminal lowlifes is not zero, but is negligible. And I place 0 weight on the lives and well-being of criminal lowlifes.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    So, "restricting freedom of speech in any way" is actually "restricting freedom of speech in any way unless during working hours and influences working output". This revised definition now supports the use of DEI in the OP article. I will take your word that you'd be happy with increased policing even if it affected you personally, but I doubt that if you actually experienced it that you would be happy with the outcome.
    - trention 4y ago
      It's actually not consistent (and the example is compelled speech not restricting speech). But then again, I shouldn't be breaking what I said earlier about responding to sealioning.
scaramanga 4y ago
It didn't take long for my point to be proven in a dramatic act of unaware self-parody. Thanks for making it perfectly clear to OP (I mean, original question asker) - if OP was indeed, genuinely unaware of what far right wing narcissistic rage looks like, which i kind of doubt. I can be racist (teach white nationalism), you can't call me racist (that's the dread cultural cultural marxism again!). I should be subject to no laws (that restrict fascist propagandisation or mobilisation), but laws that restrict the rights of women, blacks, degenerate leftists etc. should be enforced presumably to the point of street execution (it's your own fault! gotta obey those laws!) And so it goes..
- trention 4y ago
  I suggest you work on your reading comprehension and attend logic 101 lest you continue inventing idiocy out of thin air.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

so "restricting freedom of speech in any way" really means it can be restricted in some cases. This was your definition, not mine. Again interesting that you consider discrimination based on race in all cases as an acceptable position equal to no discrimination based on race. The unequal enforcement bit would mean that white neighborhoods should be given the same level of enforcement as minority ones. Is that really what you want? Where literally everyone is treated by the police exactly how they treat minorities?

trention 4y ago
I consider "restrictions of freedom of speech" justified only in the context of employment, during work hours, where said restriction directly influences your working output. If public school teachers want to teach woke pseudoscience on their own premises, during their off hours, using their own money, that's OK. I have absolutely no problem with increasing policing in white neighborhoods. The risk to people who are not criminal lowlifes is not zero, but is negligible. And I place 0 weight on the lives and well-being of criminal lowlifes.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  So, "restricting freedom of speech in any way" is actually "restricting freedom of speech in any way unless during working hours and influences working output". This revised definition now supports the use of DEI in the OP article. I will take your word that you'd be happy with increased policing even if it affected you personally, but I doubt that if you actually experienced it that you would be happy with the outcome.
  - trention 4y ago
    It's actually not consistent (and the example is compelled speech not restricting speech). But then again, I shouldn't be breaking what I said earlier about responding to sealioning.

scaramanga 4y ago

It didn't take long for my point to be proven in a dramatic act of unaware self-parody. Thanks for making it perfectly clear to OP (I mean, original question asker) - if OP was indeed, genuinely unaware of what far right wing narcissistic rage looks like, which i kind of doubt. I can be racist (teach white nationalism), you can't call me racist (that's the dread cultural cultural marxism again!). I should be subject to no laws (that restrict fascist propagandisation or mobilisation), but laws that restrict the rights of women, blacks, degenerate leftists etc. should be enforced presumably to the point of street execution (it's your own fault! gotta obey those laws!) And so it goes..

trention 4y ago
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension and attend logic 101 lest you continue inventing idiocy out of thin air.