LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[carpedm9587]

What you posted literally contained:

It's based on critical theory and challenges traditional educational systems

"traditional education systems" is code for bourgeoisie. If you don't know what critical theory is, that's fine.

Yes, it contained that. No, I don’t do “codes.” I take things at face value, generally. Yes, I am familiar with critical theory in general. My comment about “alignment” referred to the rest of your explanation, specifically the “Marxist” component. I have no problem with critical theory in general. I have never read anything about it that gives me cause for concern.

[NorrinRadd]

Everything we believe is a “belief system,” Seer. So is it your position, “anything that any religion in America objects to should be eliminated from the school curriculum?” It’s a simple yes/no question.

If there is no practical way to achieve that, all public schools should be eliminated.

[carpedm9587]

You have been assimilated.

Because I hold a different view? How do you know it is me rather than you that has been assimilated?

[carpedm9587]

If there is no practical way to achieve that, all public schools should be eliminated.

What would be left if everything objected to by any religion in America were eliminated from schools?

[NorrinRadd]

There is no need to force kids to read "The Pride Puppy," "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" and "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope." Maybe we should force the kids to read the Bilbe, the Torah and the Koran.

Robert Gagnon has some good materials. They'd need to be drastically recrafted into children's versions.

[Diogenes]

Yes, it contained that. No, I don’t do “codes.” I take things at face value, generally. Yes, I am familiar with critical theory in general. My comment about “alignment” referred to the rest of your explanation, specifically the “Marxist” component.

Then you are not familiar with critical theory.

I have no problem with critical theory in general. I have never read anything about it that gives me cause for concern.

Seeing as you're ignorant of it, that doesn't say much. I should point out that I'm not coming from a Christian view and there are atheists who are quite concerned about critical theory.

[carpedm9587]

Then you are not familiar with critical theory.

Seeing as you're ignorant of it, that doesn't say much. I should point out that I'm not coming from a Christian view and there are atheists who are quite concerned about critical theory.

Perhaps I am not familiar with the brand you appear to have … umm… developed? Critical theory cuts across multiple aspects of society to achieve a common purpose: understand systems and structures that are unjust and expose them, whether in law, education, healthcare, or any other aspect of society. I find it to be a refreshing approach that promises much and hope the coming generations learn how to apply such skills to their world and their work.

As for “roots in Marxism,” I don’t subscribe to “bogeyman thinking.” The words Marxism, Communism , Socialism, Capitalism, and all the rest are branches of philosophical and economic thinking. I have yet to encounter a branch of philosophy or science or economics that was devoid of value. Even theologies have value. The key is sorting the chaff from the wheat in any given branch.

[Diogenes]

Perhaps I am not familiar with the brand you appear to have … umm… developed? Critical theory cuts across multiple aspects of society to achieve a common purpose: understand systems and structures that are unjust and expose them, whether in law, education, healthcare, or any other aspect of society. I find it to be a refreshing approach that promises much and hope the coming generations learn how to apply such skills to their world and their work.

As for “roots in Marxism,” I don’t subscribe to “bogeyman thinking.” The words Marxism, Communism , Socialism, Capitalism, and all the rest are branches of philosophical and economic thinking. I have yet to encounter a branch of philosophy or science or economics that was devoid of value. Even theologies have value. The key is sorting the chaff from the wheat in any given branch.

So the SEP that I quoted earlier in the thread to Star is subscribed to "bogeyman thinking"? It's nice to the SEP being thrown under the bus.


The whole post, with emphasis:

If you want, you can view the old Cultural Marxism Wiki page

https://web.archive.org/web/20140519...ltural_Marxism

Old SEP

Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School.

Edited SEP

“Critical theory” refers to a family of theories that aim at a critique and transformation of society by integrating normative perspectives with empirically informed analysis of society’s conflicts, contradictions, and tendencies. In a narrow sense, “Critical Theory” (often denoted with capital letters) refers to the work of several generations of philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School.

Apparently the SEP is now a peddler of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Also, which "neo-Nazi" positions do I hold?

ETA: Don't feel bad, Star once threw UC Berkeley under the bus.

[seer]

How did you come to THAT conclusion from what I said?

You said you like the Gender Bread Person. That picture contains a clear lie. There are three symbols for sex - there are not three sexes.

[seer]

Unfortunately for your argument, it’s not “the same.” Children are exposed to hundreds of books in school. Some are read to them. Some they read. Some are simply available on the shelves in classrooms and libraries for free selection. There is a world of difference between “forced” and “exposed to.”

And the lawsuit was about “religious liberty,” and you have not made the case that any religious liberties were transgressed. So I’m still not seeing the problem with the judicial decision.

I don't care about the religious argument, I care about LGBTQ IDEOLOGY being forced on young children. Should not the school then offer a course, with no opt out, explaining why many cultures and peoples,and religions find these behaviors abhorrent and immoral? Would you be supporting that? And it is not just about books on the shelves - that has nothing to do with the opt out policy. It is about what is going on the the class room. Again from the link:

Maryland’s largest school district does not have to allow parents to opt their K-5 children out of classes and books that discuss LGBTQ topics like sexuality and gender, at least for now, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

[carpedm9587]

So the SEP that I quoted earlier in the thread to Star is subscribed to "bogeyman thinking"? It's nice to the SEP being thrown under the bus.

The whole post, with emphasis:

ETA: Don't feel bad, Star once threw UC Berkeley under the bus.

First, I have no idea what "SEP" refers to.

Second, you aren't quoting Berkeley, you're quoting Wikipedia. While a good starting point for some discussions, not an authoritative source.

Third, I have no idea why you think the distinction between the old and new pages is relevant. They both link CT to roots in Marxism.

Fourth, I have not idea why "roots in Marxism" is somehow bad. You appear to be engaging in the genetic fallacy.

Finally, the world is replete with good things that had dubious roots. The roots of something provides historical perspective; it does not tell us if the thing is good or bad in and of itself. It may ping our radar and make us look more closely, but it doesn't prove that a hing is good or ill. That is only done by looking at the thing itself. By way of example, the roots of modern gynecology trace to horrific experiments on black women. That horrendous beginning does not mean we should be tossing out all of gynecology. Similar things arose from Nazi experiments, U.S. military experiments, and most philosophical disciplines.

I look at CT (and its various branches) and see a discipline that encourages examining social and legal frameworks for vestiges of injustice and exposing them. Setting aside the words you appear to hate, how can "examining social and legal frameworks for vestiges of injustice and exposing them" be seen as a bad thing?

[carpedm9587]

You said you like the Gender Bread Person. That picture contains a clear lie. There are three symbols for sex - there are not three sexes.

A "lie" is an intentional statement made to deceive. It implies intent on the part of the speaker/writer to deceive. The third symbol on the gingerbread man represents hermaphrodites, a small but real group that does not conform to simple male/female dichotomy (i.e., they possess the primary and secondary characteristics of both sexes). The world is not simply XX and XY, Seer. There are such things as trisomes, quadsomes, and quintsomes. There are characteristics that are normally associated with the X chromosome that migrate to the Y (and the reverse). We all start life (first 6-7 weeks of gestation) as phenotypically female. Only after that does the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induce changes that result in the development of the testes. If the signals that trigger that change are compromised, the results is a compromised sexual identity. Genetics is not the neat/tidy world of Mendel's experiments.

The symbol on the GenderBread man is correct, though I would have preferred, though it could be misleading to some (i.e., the size of the symbols is the same, but the hermaphrodite population is substantially smaller. On the other hand, a smaller logo can also be interpreted to suggest "lesser significance/importance" rather than "smaller population," which is probably why they are the same size).

There is no lle here, and I do not condone lying.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have to admit that I was not familiar with the term. Looking it up, I found: "Critical pedagogy is an educational philosophy that encourages students to think critically and question the information they receive. It's based on critical theory and challenges traditional educational systems for empowerment and social justice. Critical pedagogy encourages students to explore their surroundings and the status quo, and examine power structures, patterns of inequality, and oppressive acts. For example, instead of just accepting the information in a textbook, students should be encouraged to conduct their own research and read alternative narratives."

I'm trying to find something to object to in this, and I cannot see it. What exactly is the objection to critical pedagogy?

Bravo on your posts so far. However, do you notice how quickly those who cannot actually provide a rational answer for their views quickly resort to personal remarks?

'Twas ever thus.

[carpedm9587]

I don't care about the religious argument, I care about LGBTQ IDEOLOGY being forced on young children.

I know you do. So do I, except I don't want to shield them from exposure because I don't have your anti-LGBTQ+ mindset. I welcome exposing our children to the rich variation in human personhood, and encouraging them to be accepting and kind to one another. I find the various "anti-X" attitudes of so many who lean right (anti-black, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-LGBTQ+, etc.) sad and unacceptable. Note (to head off yet another tirade) this does not mean ALL right-leaning people are anti ALL of those things. But all of these sentiments come more from the right than they do from the left. You don't find a lot of neo-Nazi, anti-black people in groups that lean to the left. You don't find a lot of "women belong in the kitchen as mothers" sentiment from left-leaning people. And so forth.

Should not the school then offer a course, with no opt out, explaining why many cultures and peoples,and religions find these behaviors abhorrent and immoral? Would you be supporting that?

No. It is not the place of public schools to teach religious principles. In a history class, the full range of human activity is fair fodder. So a history class that is covering the history of slavery needs to explain the arguments that were made by slave holders, including the religious ones. When covering the woman's suffrage movement, it needs to cover the resistance to women voting, including the religious ones. When covering the modern civil rights era, it needs to cover the resistance to those rights, including the religious ones. But all of these should be reported and explained - not put forward as "right."

And it is not just about books on the shelves - that has nothing to do with the opt out policy. It is about what is going on the the class room. Again from the link:

Yes - that is correct, and the courts ruled appropriately. There is no breach of religious freedom here (the focus of the lawsuit) and the school is perfectly in the right refusing to let parents pick and choose what their kids listen to in the classroom. That is a road to academic chaos. At 8:40, Johnny, Peter, Betty, and Jane need to be excused because their parents don't want them hearing about a same-sex couple that is featured in the book being reads that day. At 9:00, Fed, Sally, also need to be excused because the history test makes reference to modern gender/sex battles. At 9:25, Jim, Nancy, Elizabeth, Moe, and Harvey need to be excused because their parents don't want them to hear about evolution. At 10:45, John, Fred, Chris, Sally, and Heather need to be excused because their parents don't want them to hear about how modern medicine can save lives - only god can save lives. And the list goes on and on and on. Multiply it by 20-30 classrooms and ask where these "opted out" kids are supposed to go and you have a logistic nightmare. Then you have the problem of how you craft tests when many subjects have been "opted out" from by various parents and the children don't know the material.

No. If you want to affect curriculum, go to a school board meeting. Expect to be resisted by all of us parents who do not share your particular prejudices. If you lose in that venue, accept that you live in a democracy and work to change the culture, take your child to a different school, or find a different place to live.

[Diogenes]

First, I have no idea what "SEP" refers to.

Feel free to actually click the link. If you don't know the shorthand for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,, then idk what to say but your claim that your familiarity with critical theory is completely erroneous.

Second, you aren't quoting Berkeley, you're quoting Wikipedia. While a good starting point for some discussions, not an authoritative source.

I never said I was quoting Berkeley and my quoting Wiki was in response to Star doing the same. You seriously can't follow quote links or conversations can you?

Third, I have no idea why you think the distinction between the old and new pages is relevant. They both link CT to roots in Marxism.

The SEP linked the old page, I merely gave both.

Fourth, I have not idea why "roots in Marxism" is somehow bad. You appear to be engaging in the genetic fallacy.

Then you don't understand the genetic fallacy. But, as long as we're naming fallacies, fallacy fallacy.

Finally, the world is replete with good things that had dubious roots. The roots of something provides historical perspective; it does not tell us if the thing is good or bad in and of itself. It may ping our radar and make us look more closely, but it doesn't prove that a hing is good or ill. That is only done by looking at the thing itself. By way of example, the roots of modern gynecology trace to horrific experiments on black women. That horrendous beginning does not mean we should be tossing out all of gynecology. Similar things arose from Nazi experiments, U.S. military experiments, and most philosophical disciplines.

Critical theory and its variants are dubious in their own right.

I look at CT (and its various branches) and see a discipline that encourages examining social and legal frameworks for vestiges of injustice and exposing them. Setting aside the words you appear to hate, how can "examining social and legal frameworks for vestiges of injustice and exposing them" be seen as a bad thing?

Marxism and its variants have no interest in actual justice. It's simply about deconstruction so the revolutionaries recreating a world where they have the power. I would suggest looking into James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian if you want a breakdown of critical theory. There would be some schadenfreude regarding atheists bemoaning the replacements of Christianity that they sought to destroy if the results weren't so destructive.

You appear to be easily duped by linguistics niceties.