Texas Senate Bill - Can’t teach KKK is morally wrong

Page 6 of 9 [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

23 Jul 2021, 11:18 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
But again, what about non-violent branches of a klan? What are they doing, just sitting around drinking beer? They are probably involved in politics of some sort. I


I've watched enough documentaries and read enough books on the far right to know that being a member of a "white supremacist group" means there is no advocating non-violence. Have you ever seen or heard of a skinhead or fellow with a swastika tattoo are a robed klansman get in front of their fellow goons and preach love and tolerance for non-white people?

If you are referring to the odd Nazi who is cornered on camera then :roll: of course, they are snivelling cowards who don't want to attract police attention. A few might have jobs and don't want their employer to give them the sack so they make up stories.

Being a member of a far right group requires a demonstration of loyalty/fielty/obedience. Like gang initiation.


Correct; there is no such thing as nonviolent white supremacists. I could care less what David Duke claims about the Klan renouncing violence.


David Duke is non-violent white supremacist right there. If you disagree, give me a specific incident of violence involving David Duke as a perpetrator.


You do realize you're defending human trash, David Duke, don't you?


If I say he is not guilty of something specific (violence) that doesn't mean that he is a good person overall. Okay what would happen if I say "David Duke didn't cause Chernobyl explosion". Would you also say I am defending human trash? So then, are you implying that David Duke DID cause Chernobyl explosion, just because he is a horrible person so anything horrible has to be his fault by default?


No, but claiming Duke represents nonviolent racism implies it, as violence and white supremacy go hand-in-hand with violent actions.


I don't see how the two can go hand in hand. One is a belief, the other is an action. It should be logically possible to hold white supremacist beliefs without engaging in violent acts. As a matter of fact, engaging in violent acts would be detrimental to white supremacy cause since the person doing it would be thrown in jail and not much can be accomplished from jail.


Because the name itself - white supremacy - speaks of whites having power over nonwhites. And the only way that's ever been accomplished or maintained was through violence against said nonwhites, or whites sympathetic to the oppressed.


Supremacy is not referring to physical power, it is referring to mental power. Physically, everyone knows blacks are stronger. The point that white supremacists are making is that whites are smarter. And also, in David Duke's videos he never talked about who is entitled to physically overpower whom. He talked about who should get admitted to colleges or have a job, etc.


Never in the history of white supremacy has it not been about physical power of nonwhites.


David Duke never said blacks are physically weaker. On the contrary, he said they are physically stronger. He was basically trying to come up with a "politically correct" example of racial difference in order to then go on to make a more general point that races are different, so as that "starting example" he mentioned how blacks are better at sports than whites.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,102

23 Jul 2021, 11:33 pm

QFT wrote:
David Duke never said blacks are physically weaker. On the contrary, he said they are physically stronger. He was basically trying to come up with a "politically correct" example of racial difference in order to then go on to make a more general point that races are different, so as that "starting example" he mentioned how blacks are better at sports than whites.


I've actually read David Duke's blogs and his take is no different to other far righters in that white people carry the torch of enlightenment due to their superior intelligence. They still think that (and so do many mainstream Americans). Ever read a debunked academic paper called the "Bell curve" ?

In 1936 the Nazis were intoxicated over there delusion that the Aryan man was physically superior it came as a shock when black athletes at the 1936 Munich Olympics wiped the floor against the best they could put up. But then they came up with a stupid response which is that blacks were closer to apes/animals so shouldn't be competing at the same level of sport as white men. You know where they got that idea? Americans. A lot of Americans also complained about blacks being allowed to play white sports like boxing, football, baseball because blacks outperformed whites. They also put it down to racist concepts like animal strength.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

24 Jul 2021, 12:36 am

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
David Duke never said blacks are physically weaker. On the contrary, he said they are physically stronger. He was basically trying to come up with a "politically correct" example of racial difference in order to then go on to make a more general point that races are different, so as that "starting example" he mentioned how blacks are better at sports than whites.


I've actually read David Duke's blogs and his take is no different to other far righters in that white people carry the torch of enlightenment due to their superior intelligence. They still think that (and so do many mainstream Americans). Ever read a debunked academic paper called the "Bell curve" ?

In 1936 the Nazis were intoxicated over there delusion that the Aryan man was physically superior it came as a shock when black athletes at the 1936 Munich Olympics wiped the floor against the best they could put up. But then they came up with a stupid response which is that blacks were closer to apes/animals so shouldn't be competing at the same level of sport as white men. You know where they got that idea? Americans. A lot of Americans also complained about blacks being allowed to play white sports like boxing, football, baseball because blacks outperformed whites. They also put it down to racist concepts like animal strength.


I understand that comparing blacks to animals is racist and extremely degrading, so I am not saying I agree with it. I am only making one single point: and the point is that they don't believe blacks are weaker. The concept of "animal strenght" would contradict the idea that blacks are weaker. Yes that concept is racist, which I am not denying at all. But that doesn't change the fact that this concept is incompatible with them thinking that blacks are weaker.

Yes I heard that you said that prior to 1936 olympics they thought they were weaker and then after 1936 they explained it away with "animal strength". But the point is that the concept that blacks are weaker was no longer around past 1936. Yet Kraichgauer said that "white supremacy" amounts to physical supremacy. And thats simply not true. Thats why I corrected him.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

24 Jul 2021, 1:06 am

QFT wrote:
As a matter of fact, engaging in violent acts would be detrimental to white supremacy cause since the person doing it would be thrown in jail and not much can be accomplished from jail.

Well, Hitler was imprisoned after the Beer Hall Putsch, yet that didn't seem to slow him down.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,102

24 Jul 2021, 1:41 am

QFT wrote:
Yet Kraichgauer said that "white supremacy" amounts to physical supremacy. And thats simply not true. Thats why I corrected him.


I don't think that's what he meant. Perhaps Europeans have military supremacy but nowadays with mutually assured destruction there's no winners in nuclear war.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,279
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Jul 2021, 2:09 am

QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
But again, what about non-violent branches of a klan? What are they doing, just sitting around drinking beer? They are probably involved in politics of some sort. I


I've watched enough documentaries and read enough books on the far right to know that being a member of a "white supremacist group" means there is no advocating non-violence. Have you ever seen or heard of a skinhead or fellow with a swastika tattoo are a robed klansman get in front of their fellow goons and preach love and tolerance for non-white people?

If you are referring to the odd Nazi who is cornered on camera then :roll: of course, they are snivelling cowards who don't want to attract police attention. A few might have jobs and don't want their employer to give them the sack so they make up stories.

Being a member of a far right group requires a demonstration of loyalty/fielty/obedience. Like gang initiation.


Correct; there is no such thing as nonviolent white supremacists. I could care less what David Duke claims about the Klan renouncing violence.


David Duke is non-violent white supremacist right there. If you disagree, give me a specific incident of violence involving David Duke as a perpetrator.


You do realize you're defending human trash, David Duke, don't you?


If I say he is not guilty of something specific (violence) that doesn't mean that he is a good person overall. Okay what would happen if I say "David Duke didn't cause Chernobyl explosion". Would you also say I am defending human trash? So then, are you implying that David Duke DID cause Chernobyl explosion, just because he is a horrible person so anything horrible has to be his fault by default?


No, but claiming Duke represents nonviolent racism implies it, as violence and white supremacy go hand-in-hand with violent actions.


I don't see how the two can go hand in hand. One is a belief, the other is an action. It should be logically possible to hold white supremacist beliefs without engaging in violent acts. As a matter of fact, engaging in violent acts would be detrimental to white supremacy cause since the person doing it would be thrown in jail and not much can be accomplished from jail.


Because the name itself - white supremacy - speaks of whites having power over nonwhites. And the only way that's ever been accomplished or maintained was through violence against said nonwhites, or whites sympathetic to the oppressed.


Supremacy is not referring to physical power, it is referring to mental power. Physically, everyone knows blacks are stronger. The point that white supremacists are making is that whites are smarter. And also, in David Duke's videos he never talked about who is entitled to physically overpower whom. He talked about who should get admitted to colleges or have a job, etc.


Never in the history of white supremacy has it not been about physical power of nonwhites.


David Duke never said blacks are physically weaker. On the contrary, he said they are physically stronger. He was basically trying to come up with a "politically correct" example of racial difference in order to then go on to make a more general point that races are different, so as that "starting example" he mentioned how blacks are better at sports than whites.


I could care less if Duke said blacks were better at sports than whites. The fact remains, he considers whites to be superior to blacks, and historically, that white supremacy was achieved and maintained through violence. Duke is himself well aware of that fact.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,102

24 Jul 2021, 2:47 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
historically, that white supremacy was achieved and maintained through violence. Duke is himself well aware of that fact.


Precisely



Aspiegaming
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592
Location: United States of America

24 Jul 2021, 9:51 am

Today they can't teach that the KKK is morally wrong.
Tomorrow they can't teach if the holocaust really happened.


_________________
I am sick, and in so being I am the healthy one.


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

24 Jul 2021, 10:58 am

QFT wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
White supremacy IS violence. Full stop.


White supremacy is an opinion. Violence is an action. You can't equate an opinion to an action. The opinion can "result" in the action, but it doesn't have to.


No, racism itself is inherently violent. Believing yourself to be superior to other human beings opens the door to an entire host of other despicable actions and ideas.

There are no "peaceful" racists.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,323
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

24 Jul 2021, 1:17 pm

I think this bill is predicated on a concept of traditional authority. In the US, authority has always been held by white English-speaking Christians, so the beliefs underlying the KKK's agenda should be respected and upheld by conservative Texans even while disagreeing with some of their practices. Contrast that with the 9/11 terrorists who were Muslim, Arabic-speaking, foreign, and relatively dark-skinned compared to the people who established the Republic of Texas.

An outright repudiation of the KKK is therefore seen as rejection of authority as understood by mainstream Texans.


_________________
My WP story


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

24 Jul 2021, 4:21 pm

MaxE wrote:
I think this bill is predicated on a concept of traditional authority. In the US, authority has always been held by white English-speaking Christians, so the beliefs underlying the KKK's agenda should be respected and upheld by conservative Texans even while disagreeing with some of their practices. Contrast that with the 9/11 terrorists who were Muslim, Arabic-speaking, foreign, and relatively dark-skinned compared to the people who established the Republic of Texas.

An outright repudiation of the KKK is therefore seen as rejection of authority as understood by mainstream Texans.


To me it seems the opposite. The authorities are telling us that KKK is wrong, so agreeing with any aspect of KKK would be repudiation of authority. By the way, I don't like authorities that much. And that is what drives me to say things like I did in this thread.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,323
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

24 Jul 2021, 9:56 pm

QFT wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I think this bill is predicated on a concept of traditional authority. In the US, authority has always been held by white English-speaking Christians, so the beliefs underlying the KKK's agenda should be respected and upheld by conservative Texans even while disagreeing with some of their practices. Contrast that with the 9/11 terrorists who were Muslim, Arabic-speaking, foreign, and relatively dark-skinned compared to the people who established the Republic of Texas.

An outright repudiation of the KKK is therefore seen as rejection of authority as understood by mainstream Texans.


To me it seems the opposite. The authorities are telling us that KKK is wrong, so agreeing with any aspect of KKK would be repudiation of authority. By the way, I don't like authorities that much. And that is what drives me to say things like I did in this thread.

You didn't read the OP. The authorities are making it ILLEGAL to teach that the KKK is immoral.


_________________
My WP story


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

24 Jul 2021, 10:12 pm

MaxE wrote:
QFT wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I think this bill is predicated on a concept of traditional authority. In the US, authority has always been held by white English-speaking Christians, so the beliefs underlying the KKK's agenda should be respected and upheld by conservative Texans even while disagreeing with some of their practices. Contrast that with the 9/11 terrorists who were Muslim, Arabic-speaking, foreign, and relatively dark-skinned compared to the people who established the Republic of Texas.

An outright repudiation of the KKK is therefore seen as rejection of authority as understood by mainstream Texans.


To me it seems the opposite. The authorities are telling us that KKK is wrong, so agreeing with any aspect of KKK would be repudiation of authority. By the way, I don't like authorities that much. And that is what drives me to say things like I did in this thread.

You didn't read the OP. The authorities are making it ILLEGAL to teach that the KKK is immoral.


First of all, we have to be clear which authorities we are talking about. I was talking about US authorities and you are talking about Texas authorities. No matter what decision they make in Texas, this would be "in agreement with Texas authorities" by default, since the "Texas authorities" would be the ones making it. But in terms of US authorities, thats where there is a big difference. And as far as US authorities are concerned, the more you are against klan, the more you are in agreement with them.

But, back to what you were saying. I didn't know that the Texas authorities were making it illegal. I thought they just said it wasn't required. There is a big difference between these two things. If they said its not required, then I agree with them. If they say it is illegal, then I don't. I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,102

24 Jul 2021, 11:07 pm

QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),

This creates a very dangerous situation for teachers who can now be targeted by racist white students who don't want to hear about slavery or the Klan. Secondly racist teachers are no longer compelled to teach anything except bare bones about civil rights other than (and I quote)
civic accomplishments of marginalized populations" be taught in public school classrooms. Among dozens of examples listed in the bill are women's suffrage and equal rights, and the history and importance of the civil rights movement including the teaching of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech."

Outside of this restricted framework a teacher can sidestep racism but they risk opening themselves up to face punishment from school boards if they mention anything on the actions/philosophy of the KKK, Jim Crow etc,

The whole thing is stupid and a red herring anyway as from what I understand is that elementary and highschool students are not exposed to much CRT, its primarily part of graduate curriculum in college and University. This whole episode is meant to distract Texas voters from Greg Abbott's appalling and incompetent handling of power outages in Texas.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,279
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Jul 2021, 11:52 pm

QFT wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I think this bill is predicated on a concept of traditional authority. In the US, authority has always been held by white English-speaking Christians, so the beliefs underlying the KKK's agenda should be respected and upheld by conservative Texans even while disagreeing with some of their practices. Contrast that with the 9/11 terrorists who were Muslim, Arabic-speaking, foreign, and relatively dark-skinned compared to the people who established the Republic of Texas.

An outright repudiation of the KKK is therefore seen as rejection of authority as understood by mainstream Texans.


To me it seems the opposite. The authorities are telling us that KKK is wrong, so agreeing with any aspect of KKK would be repudiation of authority. By the way, I don't like authorities that much. And that is what drives me to say things like I did in this thread.


It was the federal authorities who defended the civil rights of African Americans and others against Texas authorities who favored segregation and voter disenfranchisement. You're not saying the feds are wrong in this case, are you?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

25 Jul 2021, 1:13 am

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),


If that is the case, then I agree that this legislation is horrible. Because if the teacher has a classroom of, say, 30 students, and it is in the south, then yes it is very likely 1 out of those 30 will claim to be victimized and she would get fired. Which would be totally unfair, particularly if the other 29 students agree with her.

I just didn't realize that this is what it was. I thought they just said the teacher shouldn't be forced to say its immoral. But now that you said that the teacher "is" being forced to keep her mouth shut, thats different.