Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Cope]

The question is "how does one teach history impartially?" (as a metaphor for all curriculum areas)

Given that most historians would disagree on what that means, I'm not sure parents are the best judges of that either.

The suggestion that history should be taught impartially was opposed above, not the question of how that can be achieved.

I did. It's in the Reddit link. TWC won't let me link the image so I can't do your work for you. Feel free to go there and look at the list.

The real question, of course, is where is evidence from the Indiana GOP that any of these provisions are necessary? I, and others, have yet to see any evidence which makes these provisions necessary.

Perhaps you can link to such evidence that supports the need for any of these provisions.

And again, do you support all the provisions in the bill?

I think we'd all prefer citations from the bill rather than a Reddit summary. I suspect that the list is largely a product of hysterical extrapolation (e.g. "teaching history impartially means the NSDAP can't be criticized") rather than intention or probable outcome.

[Coughdrop addict]

The real question, of course, is where is evidence from the Indiana GOP that any of these provisions are necessary? I, and others, have yet to see any evidence which makes these provisions necessary.

Of course they are necessary. They can't have kids learning about Nazism or they might ask uncomfortable questions of their parents when they see the swastika at a right-wing rally about solving the Hispanic or Muslim "problems". It's also one of the reasons the right is trying to whitewash the confederacy, so the kids won't connect the dots when they see the stars and bars at a "back the blue" rally. They want to at least have a little room to deny their true intentions.

[Infidel144]

This bill goes far beyond "favouring parental inclusion".

Have you read the bill?

[PointOfViewGun]

The senator that co-wrote the bill said that teachers should be impartial about isms like fascism and Nazism and that they shouldn't take a position against such ideals in class.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think its a pretty standard thing to require teachers to be impartial. It seems its only far-left radicals who are upset that they can't use publics school system to use as propaganda for their ideas.

[Prodromos]

I'm confused. I thought it was against the Establishment Clause for the government to teach morality in school? Or does that only apply to Christian morality?

[Cope]

Have you read the bill?

My interlocutor appears to have latched onto third party interpretations of provisions which prevent educators/schooling institutions from promoting or compelling the idea "that an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation".

[alhoon]

No Hoons, both sides are not the same. Only one side wants to protect actual Nazis.

A few idiots in one side want to protect actual Nazis. The other side has idiots that wants to steal kids from their parents and feed them gender-changing medicine.

But my point was that BOTH sides have people, unfortunately several people, that are ready to do anything to stay in power. And they have people whose numbers are raising that are ready to KILL for their beliefs.

[chilon]

The suggestion that history should be taught impartially was opposed above, not the question of how that can be achieved.


I think we'd all prefer citations from the bill rather than a Reddit summary. I suspect that the list is largely a product of hysterical extrapolation (e.g. "teaching history impartially means the NSDAP can't be criticized") rather than intention or probable outcome.

Do you support all provisions in the bill? If you don't want to look yourself, you can just admit that.

A few idiots in one side want to protect actual Nazis. The other side has idiots that wants to steal kids from their parents and feed them gender-changing medicine.

What's your source and evidence for this claim? Link?

[chilon]

Have you read the bill?

Yes, and the Reddit summary is useful because it includes the comments from the GOP sponsors clarifying and asking question such as believing that teaching about the Nazis should be impartial. Calling the perpetrators of the holocaust of low moral character would not be considered "impartial" along with condemning slave owners and those that fought to keep slavery.

Additionally, it's important to look at other bills to understand provisions like the provision of wanting criminal charges against librarians for passing along certain materials. It's useful to look at the types of materials the GOP has tried to ban recently across many red states to see what they want to criminal charge people with including. These lists include books by LGBT authors and the Handmaid's Tale.

So now that that is out of the way.
Where is the evidence that any of these provisions are necessary?
Do you also support all the provisions in the bill?

[Cope]

Do you support all provisions in the bill? If you don't want to look yourself, you can just admit that.

The attempt to shift the conversation away from the obligation to provide proof for the claims made on the previous page serves as adequate evidence that no such proof will be forthcoming. I can only assume that the objections to SB167 are based on a dramatic and misleading Reddit summary (the only "evidence" provided), combined with a healthy dose of partisanship. No aspect of the bill has been cited by any of the complainants, nor, I suspect, has any complainant read any aspect of it.

[Heathen Hammer]

Reddit is just a blog/forum and not a source of information. Its like sending links to 4chan as proof, lol. Come on, man.
In any case, Marxists seem to be upset, because they can't use public education as political pulpit at taxpayer's expense. It seems unfair to them that parents that pay into the system get to decide what is being taught, as opposed to marxists who just want to indoctrinate as many people as possible.
At the end of the day, if you are a critical race theorist, scientologist or a flat earth guy, you can always start a private school, where you can teach your niche pseudo-science of choice as you see fit.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Sure but some parents don’t want their kids to learn basic science and then they turn into me so. Food for thought.

[chilon]

The attempt to shift the conversation away from the obligation to provide proof for the claims made on the previous page serves as adequate evidence that no such proof will be forthcoming. I can only assume that the objections to SB167 are based on a dramatic and misleading Reddit summary (the only "evidence" provided), combined with a healthy dose of partisanship. No aspect of the bill has been cited by any of the complainants, nor, I suspect, has any complainant read any aspect of it.

It's important to get on the same page first before discussing anything else. You can assume whatever you want but you just look an ass as they say. I've read the bill and discussion on the comments from the bill's sponsors. It appears you have not and refuse to read it. Answers to these questions are relevant to showing how this bill represents out of control social conservatives

So again, do you support all the provisions in the bill?
Do you have any evidence supporting why any of these provisions are even necessary?

[Cope]

It's important to get on the same page first before discussing anything else. You can assume whatever you want but you just look an ass as they say. I've read the bill and discussion on the comments from the bill's sponsors.

Given the absence of any specific references, I find that unlikely.

It appears you have not and refuse to read it.

Yet I am the only person to have cited the bill (which appears to confirm my suspicion that the Reddit characterization was a product of hysterical extrapolation).

So again, do you support all the provisions in the bill?
Do you have any evidence supporting why any of these provisions are even necessary?

I have no interest in facilitating the attempts to shift the conversation away from the obligation of a claimant to evidence his/her claims, no matter how often the attempt is made.

[Infidel144]

Yes, and...

Then you should be able to quote the specific provisions in the bill that support your assertions.

[chilon]

Given the absence of any specific references, I find that unlikely.

Yet I am the only person to have cited the bill (which appears to confirm my suspicion that the Reddit characterization was a product of hysterical extrapolation).

I have no interest in facilitating the attempts to shift the conversation away from the obligation of a claimant to evidence his/her claims, no matter how often the attempt is made.

So you are refusing to state whether you support the bill in its entirety and refuse to provide any evidence for why any single provision of the bill is necessary?

That says it all right there. It's easy enough to go on the Indiana government site and read the provisions and state whether or not you agree with all of them yet you fail to do so. Clearly you have no intent to debate in good faith. When you are ready to answer the two questions I keep asking then get back to me.

Then you should be able to quote the specific provisions in the bill that support your assertions.

All of the provisions are unnecessary and together show the Indiana GOP to be out of control in their attempts to enforce their extreme partisan views. Its on the bill sponsors and supporters of these types of bills to provide evidence for why the bill is even necessary. And here, just like in Indiana, the GOP supporters evade any question about evidence for why the bill is necessary. That, in itself, is a data point supporting my view.

It's quite simple really. If the Indiana GOP, or supporters here, can't provide any evidence or support for why any of these provisions are necessary to begin with, it shows this bill is an unnecessary attempt to enforce partisan influence over education (hence out of control). Feel free to provide any evidence that supports the need for any of these provisions. Of course, I wouldn't expect supporters of these bills to view them as out of control since they are acting under the same extreme partisan beliefs as the sponsors.

For just one example, the bill would "Removes schools and certain public libraries from the list of entities eligible for a specified defense to criminal prosecutions alleging: (1) the dissemination of material harmful to minors; or (2) a performance harmful to minors."

Since there is no evidence that this provision is even necessary (feel free to provide evidence that requires a law to mandate this) and there are attempts by far-right social conservatives to ban LGBT authors and even The Handmaids Tale, this provision clearly represents an out of control group of right-wingers.

For another, it grants a minority of extremist parents too much power and control because it allows vague guides including "may not include or promote certain concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or direct or otherwise compel a school employee or student to adhere to certain tenets relating to the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation. "

Then it allows parents to force reviews of any thing they consider a violation and allow civil actions to be brought against schools. This is massive waste of time for schools and grants any extremist parent an insane amount of control over the entire school as they can force review after review and if they get one review through they can then sue the school.

None of the Indiana GOP nor any of the conservatives here (including presumably yourself) have provided any evidence any of these provisions is necessary in the first place. The House version in Indiana goes even further. It says schools may not provide instruction that socialism, Marxism, totalitarianism, or similar political systems are compatible with the principles of freedom upon which the United States was founded.

This is even more problematic and extreme because of how loaded the language is. It just assumes that European style democratic socialism is suddenly equivalent to "totalitarianism." That is both factually incorrect and an even more extreme example of the GOP's own "cancel culture" gone wild. It opens the door for wildly extreme interpretations of "socialism" and gives the most extreme right-wing parents who hold these views a lot of power over the entire education system.

Now, how about you answer the questions I posed to the other social conservatives:
Do you support all these provisions?
Do you have any evidence supporting why these provisions are necessary?

[Heathen Hammer]

All of the provisions are unnecessary and together show the Indiana GOP to be out of control in their attempts to enforce their views.

But yet he is still refusing to quote those provisions.

[sumskilz]

For another, it grants a minority of extremist parents too much power and control because it allows vague guides including "may not include or promote certain concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or direct or otherwise compel a school employee or student to adhere to certain tenets relating to the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation. "

You're not quoting the law. You're quoting from the synopsis. The law itself appears to be quite specific.

[chilon]

You're not quoting the law. You're quoting from the synopsis. The law itself appears to be quite specific.

Those are direct quotes from the "latest version" tab on the Indiana website. Feel free to check for yourself and provide the exact text from the bill if you believe that's incorrect.

Also, are you claiming the official synopsis at the top of the actual bill is not a correct indication of the laws in the bill?