Social Emotional Learning

[Cerebrum123]

How are they separate, except in some 'contemplation of my belly button' sort of way? If they are producing present day injustice that we are required by the law of love to try to correct, then we are both affected by them and responsible for taking action to mitigate them, the consequences of their sin. Perhaps the difference in our viewpoints is more like the differences that arise between theoretical and applied mathematicians.

To say that we are responsible for the sins of our ancestors implies we bear the guilt of those sins regardless of what we do about it. No serious Christian disagrees that we should be fighting injustice that is in our power to stop. The main disagreement is over what should be done and why. How much power we actually have is also a point of debate. Many Christians are not committing the same sins as their ancestors on this topic, many are helping where they can. Yet they are still being told everything wrong in this country is their fault, and that they are inherently bad because of whom they are descended.

As for judgement - if we act to mitigate their sins, then we would incur no judgement. But if we don't act and allow the injustice, their sin becomes our sin - because of our own hardness of heart. But then what is the PRACTICAL difference between us bearing their guilt transitively, and us incurring our own guilt if we allow the injustice to persist - when it comes to judgement? To me, not much. But there is a technical difference in that we can choose NOT to incur their sin by NOT acting as they did and by working to eliminate the injustice they created.

But if we just wash our hands and say too bad my ancestors stuck you in a living hell - well, what is the difference between that and just NOT giving a cup of water to a person in prison, or NOT helping the poor, etc?

Changing hearts and minds while treating people as individuals is not "nothing", but is portrayed as such by those who insist on a specific course of action. Neither is trying to prevent negative changes from being made "nothing". The more coercive you are in your approach the more you risk a greater backlash down the road that will undo all of the progress that has been made. There have also been a myriad of policies put in place with the intent to make things better for the black community but had very bad consequences and made things worse. Most of them involve throwing money at the problem. It fails for the same reason that most people who win the lottery end up back in poverty not long afterward. How about instead of rushing to failure as the left has been doing for decades we take the longer but stable route of teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish?

TWeb doesn't embed YouTube Shorts videos, but this is a rather poignant point on the topic of CRT and related teachings.

[Mountain Man]

How are they separate, except in some 'contemplation of my belly button' sort of way? If they are producing present day injustice that we are required by the law of love to try to correct, then we are both affected by them and responsible for taking action to mitigate them, the consequences of their sin. Perhaps the difference in our viewpoints is more like the differences that arise between theoretical and applied mathematicians.

As for judgement - if we act to mitigate their sins, then we would incur no judgement. But if we don't act and allow the injustice, their sin becomes our sin - because of our own hardness of heart. But then what is the PRACTICAL difference between us bearing their guilt transitively, and us incurring our own guilt if we allow the injustice to persist - when it comes to judgement? To me, not much. But there is a technical difference in that we can choose NOT to incur their sin by NOT acting as they did and by working to eliminate the injustice they created.

But if we just wash our hands and say too bad my ancestors stuck you in a living hell - well, what is the difference between that and just NOT giving a cup of water to a person in prison, or NOT helping the poor, etc?

Here's the disconnect:

You are right that we should help others, but you are wrong about the reasons. You seem to be trying really hard to formulate a Biblical argument for whites to pay reparations to blacks, but the scriptural support simply isn't there.

[Cow Poke]

IMO it seems pretty likely that the majority of the time a kid needs to go outside of their family for serious mental help (e.g. by reaching out to a school counsellor of some sort), because their family is not sufficient for them to solve that problem on their own, it's probably because their family is part of the problem. The first question any such kid is going to ask is whether the counsellor's going to keep it confidential from the parents, and if the answer is no, then the kid will refrain from getting help when they need it. For this reason, having any sort of family reporting requirements for school counsellors probably defeats the purpose of them and means kids with bad parents have no source of assistance.

Most of the problems kids face these days seem to come from outside the home -- no parent in their right mind would ever tell a girl to chop off her breasts because she likes to climb trees and play baseball.

[rogue06]

Most of the problems kids face these days seem to come from outside the home -- no parent in their right mind would ever tell a girl to chop off her breasts because she likes to climb trees and play baseball.

download (3).jpg

[Cow Poke]

First, my use if the verse was in the context .....

When you start off by taking a verse out of context, the rest of the argument just falls apart.

[oxmixmudd]

To say that we are responsible for the sins of our ancestors implies we bear the guilt of those sins regardless of what we do about it.

No it doesn't. It just means that we bear responsibility to try to do something about it. I certainly never implied bearing guilt is what I meant by that. You and others just took it to mean that because of your own preconceptions. Likewise, my use of the term never carried with it the implication that a son could be held legally liable for the sins of the father either. As in some pagan cultures where if the father committed murder, the child might be required to pay with his life. I am sorry you made the mistake of taking my words to mean that, but nowhere did I imply anything like that, or say anything that implied anything like that. I am talking about the fact we as a society people and culture have a responsibility to correct the injustice brought upon the black community through slavery and racism over centuries. The only purpose in referencing the sins of the fathers being visited on the children was to recognize the simple cause and effect relationship over time. And that is why I said I was referencing it, and I have also explained that several time. But those focused on my use of that reference are not listening.

No serious Christian disagrees that we should be fighting injustice that is in our power to stop.

Then no Christian here should be disagreeing with me that we have a responsibility to correct the injustice brought on the black community through centuries of slavery followed by racism. Yet nearly every Christian here disagrees with that concept rather aggressively.

The main disagreement is over what should be done and why.

I don't think it's that limited. Most people are arguing with me about the idea we have any responsibility to try to correct the problem at all. Some deny there is a problem to start with.

How much power we actually have is also a point of debate. Many Christians are not committing the same sins as their ancestors on this topic, many are helping where they can. Yet they are still being told everything wrong in this country is their fault, and that they are inherently bad because of whom they are descended.

Far to general to be true. Be a bit more specific and we might be able to find something useful to talk about.

Changing hearts and minds while treating people as individuals is not "nothing", but is portrayed as such by those who insist on a specific course of action. Neither is trying to prevent negative changes from being made "nothing".

This seems to be a response to something I didn't actually say, but is too vague for me to even really know what you are talking about.

The more coercive you are in your approach the more you risk a greater backlash down the road that will undo all of the progress that has been made. There have also been a myriad of policies put in place with the intent to make things better for the black community but had very bad consequences and made things worse. Most of them involve throwing money at the problem. It fails for the same reason that most people who win the lottery end up back in poverty not long afterward.

I don't know how many times I've said giving away money is not the solution, but on the off chance you are listening this time, I'll say it again. Giving away money is not the solution.

How about instead of rushing to failure as the left has been doing for decades we take the longer but stable route of teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish?

This isn't reality. A lot of the money that has been spent or proposed to be spent has been trying to get disadvantaged kids better education, better environments, better nutrition. And that is all about 'teaching people to fish'. Other programs provide help getting into and through colleges and universities. also 'teaching people to fish'. But those programs are under constant attack by conservative groups that claim they are 'racist' or in some other way 'unfair'. Which goes back to the underlying racism in our society that has from the emancipation proclamation continuously erected roadblocks to every possible mechanism that would allow the black community in this nation to find equality. Many conservatives, and maybe some Liberals too, don't what black people in this country to actually be equal to whites. Because if they are, then white people lose some of their power, and some of their wealth.

Think about it. Conservatives cry racism when a program that gives first children in a family to attend college scholarships because the majority of recipients are black. But the reason most are black is because of the massive education and wealth divide in this country that exists on racial lines. That is such a classic example of how white people in this country participate in and continue to promote the racial divide in this country.

TWeb doesn't embed YouTube Shorts videos, but this is a rather poignant point on the topic of CRT and related teachings.

What he says makes sense, assuming how he is characterizing the situation, both on the right and on the left, is true. I am not sure that he is fairly characterizing either side. But his main point I agree with.

[Starlight]

download (3).jpg

It's amusing that the anti-science conservatives are these days so all-in on their science denialism that they even go a step further and assert it's the other side who's doing science denialism. wow.

[Diogenes]

No it doesn't. It just means that we still bear responsibility to try to do something about it. I certainly never implied that is what I meant by that. You and others just took it to mean that because of your own preconceptions. Likewise, my use of the term never carried with it the implication that a son could be held legally liable for the sins of the father either. As in some pagan cultures where if the father committed murder, the child might be required to pay with his life. I am sorry you made the mistake of taking my words to mean that, but nowhere did I imply anything like that, or say anything that implied anything like that. I am talking about the fact we as a society people and culture have a responsibility to correct the injustice brought upon the black community through slavery and racism over centuries.

Reparations is literally forcing current and future individuals to pay for the problems of the past. The issue becomes what do you mean by "correct the injustices". No one would say we need to end discrimination and create a level playing field and ensure equal opportunity. The issue becomes when "correcting injustice" becomes trying create "equality of outcome" and creating a prejudicial system as over-correction of the pendulum.

Then no Christian here should be disagreeing with me that we have a responsibility to correct the injustice brought on the black community through centuries of slavery followed by racism. Yet nearly every Christian here disagrees with that concept rather aggressively.

I would easily wager the disagreement is on how to correct the injustice.

I don't know how many times I've said giving away money is not the solution, but on the off chance you are listening this time, I'll say it again. Giving away money is not the solution.

And yet reparations is a driving call to "correct injustice".

This isn't reality. A lot of the money that has been spent or proposed to be spent has been trying to get disadvantaged kids better education, better environments, better nutrition. Other programs provide help getting into and through colleges and universities. But those programs are under constant attack by conservative groups that claim they are 'racist' or in some other way 'unfair'. Which goes back to the underlying racism in our society that has from the emancipation proclamation continuously erected roadblocks to every possible mechanism that would allow the black community in this nation to find equality. Conservatives, and maybe Liberals too, don't what black people in this country to actually be equal to whites. Because if they are, then white people lose some of their power, and some of their wealth.

The problem with merely spending money is that it's often wasted. I'm curious if your exposure to "conservatives" includes men like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.

Think about it. Conservatives cry racism when a program that gives first children in a family to attend college scholarships because the majority of recipients are black. But the reason most are black is because of the massive education and wealth divide in this country that exists on racial lines. That is such a classic example of how white people in this country participate in and continue to promote the racial divide in this country.

Using race as a criterion for anything is by definition racist. Again equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome. You seem to prefer the latter and that is where you are receiving pushback.

[oxmixmudd]

Here's the disconnect:

You are right that we should help others, but you are wrong about the reasons. You seem to be trying really hard to formulate a Biblical argument for whites to pay reparations to blacks, but the scriptural support simply isn't there.

I'll say it yet again on the off chance you are listening this time: Giving away money is not the solution. Now if I've said several times now that giving away money is not the solution, it should be trivially obvious my point was not to try to build 'a Biblical argument for whites to pay reparations to blacks'.

[oxmixmudd]

It's amusing that the anti-science conservatives are these days so all-in on their science denialism that they even go a step further and assert it's the other side who's doing science denialism. wow.

Yep. That very cartoon denies the science that identifies biological and psychological reasons for some instances of transgenderism. So perhaps Peppermint Patty is just a Tomboy fully comfortable with her female body but not necessarily interested in being the societal female stereotype. But that does not in any way mean that transgenerism itself is unreal, or not something that some people have to deal with or need help dealing with. The implication of the cartoon is that transgenerism is just a make believe construct - which is in fact,and as you point out, an 'anti-science' position.

OTOH, there is a lot going on related to accomodating transgenerism that is - I think - likely dangerous to children, and unfair to women (Athletes especially). And it is that juxtaposition of science and unbalanced activism that is ultimately the source of the agressive nature of the pushback against it.

[Diogenes]

Yep. That very cartoon denies the science that identifies biological and psychological reasons for some instances of transgenderism. So perhaps Peppermint Patty is just a Tomboy fully comfortable with her female body but not necessarily interested in being the societal female stereotype. But that does not in any way mean that transgenerism itself is unreal, or not something that some people have to deal with or need help dealing with. The implication of the cartoon is that transgenerism is just a make believe construct - which is in fact,and as you point out, an 'anti-science' position.

Assuming that gender is a "social construct", being "transgender" would equally be a "social construct". The hilarious thing is that procedures like HRT and SRS necessitate that "gender" is based on "sex". One could argue a dysphoria based on lack of sex-specific hormones influencing the brain, but the logical treatment in that case would be to give males male hormones and females female hormones and not to cross sex hormones as in the case of HRT and certainly not to disfigure the patient or create a permanent wound.

[oxmixmudd]

Reparations is literally forcing current and future individuals to pay for the problems of the past. The issue becomes what do you mean by "correct the injustices". No one would say we need to end discrimination and create a level playing field and ensure equal opportunity. The issue becomes when "correcting injustice" becomes trying create "equality of outcome" and creating a prejudicial system as over-correction of the pendulum.

Part of the problem here is that you are making the same mistake anti-evolutionists make. Equality of outcome is not something you can apply to individuals. It is something that can only be applied to populations. The equality of outcome that must be promoted is the equality of outcome that eliminates the STATISTICAL disparity in wealth and education. There will still be poor black people, just like there will always be poor white people. But you will know when we have purged ourselves of systemic racism and the legacy of slavery when statistically the black white disparities on those issue are reduced to the natural statistical variance of all populations, not just the black/white populations.

....




Using race as a criterion for anything is by definition racist. Again equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome. You seem to prefer the latter and that is where you are receiving pushback.

In the example I gave, race wasn't the criteria, but the program itself had an observable racially biased outcome. And that will be true of any program or effort that targets eliminating the EXISTING racial inequity. In fact, the the only way that the existing racial inequity can be removed is if things happen that RAISE the wealth and education of black people wrt what it currently is. And whatever those things are, they will always appear as a bias in outcome. So by saying no bias in outcome can exist, we are saying the status quo must be maintained, and we will not allow it to be corrected.

The reality is, we must forbid bias in outcome the LOWERS black wealth, education and quality of life, and we must allow bias in outcome that RAISEs black wealth, education, and quality of life - until the EXISTING racial bias is removed.

The way we keep such allowances from become fundamentally unfair or corrupt is by using criteria that target the effects of the existing bias, e.g. in this case, awarding scholarships to fisrt in family college attendees. A criteria that is not racial ... except in a society where the percentage of black families where no-one has attended college is greater than white. And it is self correcting too. Once the existing racially defined educational imbalance is removed, so will the racially biased outcome of the scholarship program. (the actual formulation of such a program - to hasten its effect - would need a feedback that used the existing bias as a slewing factor)

[Diogenes]

Part of the problem here is that you are making the same mistake anit-evolutionists make. Equality of outcome is not something you can apply to individuals. It is something that can only be applied to populations. The equality of outcome that must be promoted is the equality of outcome that eliminates the STATISTICAL disparity in wealth and education. There will still be pool black people, just like there will always be poor white people. But you will know when we have purged ourselves of systemic racism and the legacy of slavery when Statistically the black white disparities on those issue are reduced to the natural statistical variance of all populations, not just the black/white populations.

Your solution to racism is more racism, good job. You advocate equality of outcome while I would advocate equality opportunity. It seems I accurately understand your disagreements.




I'm not going to get sucked in further.

[Starlight]

And it is that juxtaposition of science and unbalanced activism that is ultimately the source of the agressive nature of the pushback against it.

I take issue with this because I think it's clear that Republican propagandists were looking hard for what to make an issue of and they saw an opportunity to generate political mileage out of an anti-transgenderism crusade. Careless liberals going to far might have made for fertile ground, but it was very much a Republican attitude of "let's find a culture war cause" that's motivating the current pushes. US conservativism for decades has been about finding minority groups to hate and despise, and transgender people are just the latest victim of the right-wing hate-mill.

[oxmixmudd]

Your solution to racism is more racism, good job. You advocate equality of outcome while I would advocate equality opportunity. It seems I accurately understand your disagreements.




I'm not going to get sucked in further.

No - you're argument forces the status quo. You are blindly adhering to some sort of absolutist reasoning. You must compensate for the inequality that already exist if you wish to eliminate the bias. To de-bias any system, you must apply a correcting curve which is the inverse. But this can be done without being unfair. You just have to target that which is already emphasized in the black community through the existing disparity. Where resources are limited, you apply the existing bias as a feedback to allocate those limited resources in such a way that the existing bias will be reduced.