Liberal Parents Oppose 'Anti-Racist' School Curriculum

[sumskilz]

Here's what Martin Luther King had to say about this:

They found themselves under the gripping yoke of Egyptian rule.But soon a Moses appeared on the scene who was destined to lead them out ofthe Egypt of slavery to a bright and glowing promised land. But as soon as theygot out of Egypt by crossing the Red Sea, they discovered that before they couldget to the promised land they would have to go through a long and difficult wilderness.And after realizing this, three groups, or rather three attitudes, emerged.One group wanted to go back to Egypt: they felt that the fleshpots of Egypt weremore to be desired than the ordeals of emancipation. Then you had a second groupthat abhored the idea of going back to Egypt and yet could not quite attain thediscipline and the sacrifice to go on to Canaan. These people chose the line ofleast resistance. There was a third group, probably the creative minority, whichsaid in substance, “We will go on in spite of the obstacles, in spite of the difficulty,in spite of the sacrifices that we will have to make.”

I'm confused as to why you think this is relevant to Black people standing up on principle against ideological nonsense.

[ABH2]

Meanwhile, religious schools who teach guilt about everything are alive and well.

So, you admit that the idea of social justice is basically akin to that of original sin? The two are pretty much indistinguishable to me beyond that one applies to all of humanity and the other applies only to white people or white males. OH, and at least with original sin Catholics can always argue back to a first principle - God. There is internal consistency. Social justice's version of original sin is just a hodge podge of nonsense used to justify discrimination.

[Col. Tartleton]

It's pretty reasonable to say all humans are inherently prone to doing bad and you need to make an effort to do the right thing. This is basic socialization.

It's not okay to say some humans are inherently prone to doing bad and other humans can only ever be victims. I mean that's not even true of sociopaths.

[jockmcplop]

So, you admit that the idea of social justice is basically akin to that of original sin? The two are pretty much indistinguishable to me beyond that one applies to all of humanity and the other applies only to white people or white males. OH, and at least with original sin Catholics can always argue back to a first principle - God. There is internal consistency. Social justice's version of original sin is just a hodge podge of nonsense used to justify discrimination.

I would say that the way social justice has been applied seems to be like original sin, racist original sin too.
The idea of social justice is that society should be just, that has nothing to do with original sin. You can have justice without white guilt. I feel nothing but pride in the fact that I am a white male who campaigns for causes I believe to be right. I have no guilt about that. Unfortunately this is not norm among left wingers, who want to use guilt to try and control the political thoughts of others.
Original sin is mind control. Teaching kids that they are original sinners is the most effective way of controlling them. "You are bad - here's what you do to redeem yourself." Its a powerful and evil idea.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

I don't understand why liberal parents disapprove of the curriculum. If they were consistent with their world view, this very type of curriculum should be the corollary of believing in cultural relativism and of attributing the plights of non-whites to the legacy of imperialism, capitalism and institutionalized racism that manifests itself as white privilege. Which means they should have welcomed it, if anything.

[athanaric]

I don't understand why liberal parents disapprove of the curriculum. If they were consistent with their world view, this very type of curriculum should be the corollary of believing in cultural relativism and of attributing the plights of non-whites to the legacy of imperialism, capitalism and institutionalized racism that manifests itself as white privilege. Which means they should have welcomed it, if anything.

Because they're plain old hypocrites incapable of reflection. Well, maybe at least some of them may now start questioning their beliefs - being affected yourself is often the only way people realize that something's wrong.

[The spartan]

So, you admit that the idea of social justice is basically akin to that of original sin? The two are pretty much indistinguishable to me beyond that one applies to all of humanity and the other applies only to white people or white males. OH, and at least with original sin Catholics can always argue back to a first principle - God. There is internal consistency. Social justice's version of original sin is just a hodge podge of nonsense used to justify discrimination.

Essentially? No. I don't know how you read that in my one sentence point. Teaching people to be inherently guilty is pretty close to original sin. I am just pointing out that his outrage on this topic is partisan based as it is objecting against a curriculum viewed as "liberal" while comparable curriculum have been used on a much larger scale for years.

[Col. Tartleton]

This sort of thinking is antithetical to liberalism. It's utterly reactionary.

An eye for an eye seems like the appropriate verse.

[ABH2]

I don't know how you read that in my one sentence point.

Teaching people to be inherently guilty is pretty close to original sin.

Make sense to any of you? Me neither. I thought about just repeating these two lines a few times, but I'd just ask others to see if they understood. On one hand you are a hypocrite if you have no problem with religious schools that teach original sin because the concepts are "pretty close." But on the other, don't you equate social justice with the concept of original sin.

I mean, there is some sense to it, but in the complete opposite way The Spartan means. Original sin as a concept teaches that all human beings are fallible. Social justice teaches that white people and only white people are responsible for the sins of white people from anytime in the last few centuries. It's collective guilt that is used to legitimize discrimination against whites.

So the real question is why a bunch of people who normally look down on the religious are stealing and bastardizing their ideas.

[Davius]

Whitie is getting his comeuppance.

You mean liberals are getting their comeuppance. I love when liberals eat their own.

[Col. Tartleton]

I don't. I want them to be healthy, happy, and prosperous.

No one benefits from their bad ideas, least of all them.

[The spartan]

Make sense to any of you? Me neither. I thought about just repeating these two lines a few times, but I'd just ask others to see if they understood. On one hand you are a hypocrite if you have no problem with religious schools that teach original sin because the concepts are "pretty close." But on the other, don't you equate social justice with the concept of original sin.

I mean, there is some sense to it, but in the complete opposite way The Spartan means. Original sin as a concept teaches that all human beings are fallible. Social justice teaches that white people and only white people are responsible for the sins of white people from anytime in the last few centuries. It's collective guilt that is used to legitimize discrimination against whites.

So the real question is why a bunch of people who normally look down on the religious are stealing and bastardizing their ideas.

Ah, I was in complete confusion as to what the heck you were talking about until I got to the bold bit, it explains quite a bit. No "social justice" does not teach that because "social justice" is not a catchphrase trademarked by Fox News. Social justice is a very complicated section of sociological and physiological study, it doesn't have standards like "white people and only white people are responsible for the sins of white people from anytime in the last few centuries".

[ABH2]

The only thing clear to me about social justice is that whenever it is mocked, someone will claim it isn't what you are saying it is even though they themselves will never provide a coherent definition or recognize common beliefs attributable to it. Even when you have examples of people trying to implement it doing exactly what you said it is. I mean, if those were provided, then the person could not endlessly claim you are creating a strawman, misrepresenting the concept, or simply making things up. They'll demand sources, but then dismiss the sources as insignificant or non-representative of the 'serious' work done in academia.

This story here is social justice taken to its logical endpoint. It is an example of everything that people like me warn about and what those who defend social justice deny is or will ever happen.

This is a pattern that probably everyone in this forum sick of social justice has encountered and would recognize. Just a never-ending game of shifting goalposts or denial of reality and reason.

it doesn't have standards like "white people and only white people are responsible for the sins of white people from anytime in the last few centuries".

No, of course not. It just has the concept of white privilege where any statistic that shows a disproportionate outcome for non-white minorities is attributed to institutional racism which has its roots colonialism/imperialism and/or slavery. Having white skin means you have this privilege no matter what. Even if you yourself are not racist, you are a beneficiary and thus share the collective guilt of your race. And since it isn't predicated on the individual, why this means that the 'institutions' of society need course corrections to compensate for the systematic discrimination. By course corrections, they mean the system needs to actively select for minorities or provide them advantages over other groups. So, it is quite literally systematic discrimination in the name of combating discrimination.

So even though I didn't say social justice had that as a 'standard,' what I described is in fact what social justice warriors believe. If it's not whiteness, it's maleness. Or both.

Social justice is a very complicated section of sociological and physiologica

1. This obviously makes no sense.
2. There is nothing complicated about social justice no matter how much its adherents throw barely intelligible word salads at you. Social justice is really just a set of tautological arguments constructed of logical fallacies.

The moral of this and every other story of social justice is that identity politics is cancer.

[The spartan]

The only thing clear to me about social justice is that whenever it is mocked, someone will claim it isn't what you are saying it is even though they themselves will never provide a coherent definition or recognize common beliefs attributable to it.

Or you could just look up "Social Justice" on wikipedia or whatever. It clearly isn't how you defined it, though.

Even when you have examples of people trying to implement it doing exactly what you said it is. I mean, if those were provided, then the person could not endlessly claim you are creating a strawman, misrepresenting the concept, or simply making things up. They'll demand sources, but then dismiss the sources as insignificant or non-representative of the 'serious' work done in academia.

Spoken like a disciple of the 24 hour news cycle. "Facts are what you feel! Not what fancy smart people decide after much study."

This story here is social justice taken to its logical endpoint. It is an example of everything that people like me warn about and what those who defend social justice deny is or will ever happen.

This is a pattern that probably everyone in this forum sick of social justice has encountered and would recognize. Just a never-ending game of shifting goalposts or denial of reality and reason.

I think you mean your 'idea' of what Social Justice is. Really, it just sounds like you are afraid of the "academic elitism". I don't know what type of "Social Justice" you think I ascribe to, but I much prefer the definitions smart people (read: academics) use rather than whatever biased crap MSNBC or Fox News likes to say about it.

No, of course not. It just has the concept of white privilege where any statistic that shows a disproportionate outcome for non-white minorities is attributed to institutional racism which has its roots colonialism/imperialism and/or slavery. Having white skin means you have this privilege no matter what. Even if you yourself are not racist, you are a beneficiary and thus share the collective guilt of your race. And since it isn't predicated on the individual, why this means that the 'institutions' of society need course corrections to compensate for the systematic discrimination. By course corrections, they mean the system needs to actively select for minorities or provide them advantages over other groups. So, it is quite literally systematic discrimination in the name of combating discrimination.

So even though I didn't say social justice had that as a 'standard,' what I described is in fact what social justice warriors believe. If it's not whiteness, it's maleness. Or both.

"Social Justice Warrior" isn't even a defined group. That is, no one came up with that term to describe their group; the modern use of that phrase is from conservatives used the term to talk about people they felt as being "overly PC". Seriously, look up the etymology of "buzz words" before you try to use them like a hammer.

1. This obviously makes no sense.
2. There is nothing complicated about social justice no matter how much its adherents throw barely intelligible word salads at you. Social justice is really just a set of tautological arguments constructed of logical fallacies.

The moral of this and every other story of social justice is that identity politics is cancer.

Oh sweet Jesus, I dropped the word "study" at the end of that, sue me, I was rewording that sentence. If you think "social justice" is nothing complicated, go teach a course in Sociology on it. It is pretty complicated .

[Humble Warrior]

The only thing clear to me about social justice is that whenever it is mocked, someone will claim it isn't what you are saying it is even though they themselves will never provide a coherent definition or recognize common beliefs attributable to it. Even when you have examples of people trying to implement it doing exactly what you said it is. I mean, if those were provided, then the person could not endlessly claim you are creating a strawman, misrepresenting the concept, or simply making things up. They'll demand sources, but then dismiss the sources as insignificant or non-representative of the 'serious' work done in academia.

This story here is social justice taken to its logical endpoint. It is an example of everything that people like me warn about and what those who defend social justice deny is or will ever happen.

This is a pattern that probably everyone in this forum sick of social justice has encountered and would recognize. Just a never-ending game of shifting goalposts or denial of reality and reason.



No, of course not. It just has the concept of white privilege where any statistic that shows a disproportionate outcome for non-white minorities is attributed to institutional racism which has its roots colonialism/imperialism and/or slavery. Having white skin means you have this privilege no matter what. Even if you yourself are not racist, you are a beneficiary and thus share the collective guilt of your race. And since it isn't predicated on the individual, why this means that the 'institutions' of society need course corrections to compensate for the systematic discrimination. By course corrections, they mean the system needs to actively select for minorities or provide them advantages over other groups. So, it is quite literally systematic discrimination in the name of combating discrimination.

So even though I didn't say social justice had that as a 'standard,' what I described is in fact what social justice warriors believe. If it's not whiteness, it's maleness. Or both.



1. This obviously makes no sense.
2. There is nothing complicated about social justice no matter how much its adherents throw barely intelligible word salads at you. Social justice is really just a set of tautological arguments constructed of logical fallacies.

The moral of this and every other story of social justice is that identity politics is cancer.

Very well said.

[sumskilz]

I don't know what type of "Social Justice" you think I ascribe to, but I much prefer the definitions smart people (read: academics) use rather than whatever biased crap MSNBC or Fox News likes to say about it.

Such as this excerpt from the peer-reviewed journal Whiteness and Education perhaps?

Whiteness Studies has made a real and felt impact in general race studies. Research focusing on whiteness is akin to a Copernican revolution in understanding insofar as the centre of the ‘race problem’ around which the racialised somatic system revolves, is more accurately grasped. This new social physics describes the blanco-centric universe as functioning around the gravitational pull of whiteness, explaining why race relations looks the way it does and assumes its power configurations. Yet the star of this new dramaturgy is far from having a stellar reputation. As reconceived, whiteness is nothing but false and oppressive (Roediger 1994), empty of cultural content (Ignatiev and Garvey 1996; Ignatiev 1997), necrophilic (Matias and Allen 2013), narcissistic (Fanon [1952] 2008), ‘grotesque’ (Hambel 2005) and a form of ‘terror’ (hooks 1997). In short, education interested in the post-biological definition of race turns its gaze towards the ‘pedagogy of the oppressor’ (Allen 2004). It is an attempt to put the heavens back on its feet and the cosmos back in order.

[The spartan]

Such as this excerpt from the peer-reviewed journal Whiteness and Education perhaps?

Your point being?

[Border Patrol]

I much prefer the definitions smart people (read: academics) use

Well... That's a definition provided by 'smart' people in a peer reviewed, academic journal.

[Iskar]

Your point being?

That being an "academic" does not protect people from producing utter bollocks such as the overtly racist exposé quoted by sumskilz, not even when said garbage is being reviewed by (obviously and sadly) equally deluded "academics".

[The spartan]

That being an "academic" does not protect people from producing utter bollocks such as the overtly racist exposé quoted by sumskilz, not even when said garbage is being reviewed by (obviously and sadly) equally deluded "academics".

...Yes, that has always been a fact of academia. It doesn't "debunk" all of academia. There are studies on the climate as well, it doesn't mean climate change isn't happening. Really the point of me bringing up academics at all is that sociologists are going to be the ones with the most 'proper' definition of social justice. Unless people here honestly think that pundits have a better grasp of it.