Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[Peter_Spaeth]

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

So your objection is to political narratives, and nothing actually in the law at all?

That was my original point. It’s rage bait for both sides, the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So your objection is to political narratives, and nothing actually in the law at all?

That was my original point. It’s rage bait for both sides, the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

We should both read the opinion and amicus briefs to understand better the specific objections to the language. I do think parts of it are vague and arguably could be construed to support certain actions, but at the same time I agree with you that there isn't anything blatant on its face, at least as I read it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We should both read the opinion and amicus briefs to understand better the specific objections to the language. I do think parts of it are vague and arguably could be construed to support certain actions, but at the same time I agree with you that there isn't anything blatant on its face, at least as I read it.

Do you recall the name of the case? I’ll track down the text.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/...rnors-pi-order

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

+1. Banning this book is stupid, imo.