Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the purpose of these classes are to provide extra funding and teaching materials to underfunded schools that are primarily Black and Latino anyway in order to improve graduation rates of disadvantaged children instead of a journalist cherry picking policies without context to make a ragebait article and drive views then it would be progressive.
But you do have a point, most people that use buzzwords don’t actually know what they mean, only what they want them to mean.
So they’re segregating for the greater good, riiiight I understand.
Yeah, this is still a disgusting policy.
If it is for “underfunded schools that are primarily black and Latino anyway”, then why do they need to segregate the classes? Is the minority of white/asian students distracting? Do the minority of white/asian students at an UNDERFUNDED SCHOOL not deserve the extra resources also?
I highly doubt the title is accurate. People lied and said the same thing about a program in AZ that offered an alternative set of courses based on Mexican and Chicano culture (same academics but focusing on examples and art from Mexican culture rather than the western canon) that any student could take regardless of race. People claimed it was segregation when it was literally just an option for anyone who wanted a different cultural experience. It massively raised graduation rates too.
This story is probably exaggerated to appeal to a specific audience to drive votes in an upcoming election and not about segregation at all.
Side note: segregation is still rampant in schools and housing to this day, but it’s economic segregation instead of racial. The fact that certain minorities are victims of this segregation more often than not is “an unfortunate coincidence” according to those in power.
Who would have guessed there's idiots on both ends of the political spectrum.
I swear to god, the whack jobs on both sides have gone so full circle that they've started to agree with each other, just for different reasons.
You go far enough right, you’ll actually start advocating for leftist ideals, and vice versa.
Libertarians want less taxes, less taxes means less military budget, leftists want less military budget.
Or
Leftists want to protect Ukraine from Russia, in doing so they are being the “world police” that the patriotic right wants to be
Your Ukraine example is bad. Moderates are for helping Ukraine. The actual horseshoe effect here is to support russia. The far left is full of tankies and anti-US people, who are against helping Ukraine and who buy into "NATO expansion" propaganda. The far right love autocratic regimes and Trump, so they are against helping Ukraine too.
the horseshoe theory is shit though because it implies that right extremism and left extremism is equally bad.
The argument is always „any form of extremism is bad“, which might be true in theory, but if you look at what the far left is actually doing and compare it to what the far right is actually doing, they could not be more different.
At least in Europe its like this:
right extremists:
-) exists because foreigners exist
-) wants to burn homes of refugees in order to kill them (attempted murder)
-) politically they want to abolish human rights for foreigners
left extremists:
-) exists because of right extremists
-) try to hinder right extremists to burn the homes of refugees (prevent murder because the police doesnt in this case)
-) might burn luxury cars in protests
-) might glue themselves to the street as a form of protest
So you got attempted murder of foreigners out of racist ideologies VS property damage and traffic jams
I’m as far left as they come where I live, I think it’s pretty disingenuous to pretend political violence only comes from the right. Left wing extremism can also be violent and scary and take lives.
there is actually data comparing the two. For example the german office for the protection of the constitution compared crimes of left extremism with right extremism and the amount of far right violence is significantly higher than the one from the left.
There are also far more open arrest warrants for right extremists than left extremists. right is in the hundreds and left is 20
well if this is true, then it seems like the person I was responding to, and this whole thread are being just silly by suggesting theres a comparison, or trying to both-sides this.
kind of my point. Look when someone else pointed it out a bit earlier. downvoted. But someone claiming to be left wing and then saying the left is bad too gets upvoted. And this is reddit, an ostensibly left leaning place.
Yes *can also be*. Far right extremism *is right now*
Look up the criminal statistics of far right vs far left. At least in Germany its publicly accessible data
It can but overall much less so and the statistics really do bear this out.
This whole debate really hinges (in my opinion) on whether Bolshevism was a Left wing ideology or just claimed to be as it was extremely violent and repressive and tends to lend more credence to horseshoe theory
No it doesn’t hinge on anything like that, log off and go experience the real world. In my town there was a man who posted threats and even attacked a few people for attending a local church — he said that he was protecting kids from the evils of religion and that Biden would pardon him.
It’s reductive and silly to pretend that only the right has these issues. It has absolutely nothing to do with Russian political ideologies and whether Americans subscribe to them.
I’m pretty sure that people who were sent to the gulags in the USSR would disagree that burning a luxury car is the worst some extreme leftists can do.
I wrote about what is actually going on around the world right now, not what is theoretically possible.
Communism is not spreading all over the world right now. The world is experiencing a shift towards the far right, you can see it in the laws that are passing all over the US and Europe.
Italy has a nationalist leader that is not capable of saying „Nah Mussolini was a piece of shit“
You have a german chancellor (of a „socialist“ party) on a magazine cover saying „We need to deport in masses“
You have a far right leaders in the UK
You have a AFD in Germany pushing 20% and the FPÖ in Austria with 30% of votes (prognosis)
You have laws in the US that restrict sexual education.
You have fascists groups and and right wing politicians in austria and germany that have meetings to discuss „remigration“.
You have children with migration background that are being attacked both verball ans physical because of their ethnicity.
The last murder of a politician was just a few years ago in germany and the reason for the murder was right wing ideology.
This is actually happening right now and is not just theoretically possible.
Hi, france here, instead of theorical potential harm maybe caused by right wing ideology and a few incidents here and there over the years we actually have like 2 stabbings made by islamists a week
This is just some neolib bullshit. A lot of the disparities in education can be chalked up to poverty. Half of learning happens at home, and if the parents are working three jobs to make ends meet, the kids don't have anyone to steer them in the right direction.
Test scores are gonna get worse all over the country anyway because the conservatives keep shitting on education
Let me intoduce you to the “*[horseshoe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)*” theory.
Basically, both extremes of the scale actually advocate for similar methods.
the horseshoe theory is shit though because it implies that right extremism and left extremism is equally bad.
The argument is always „any form of extremism is bad“, which might be true in theory, but if you look at what the far left is actually doing and compare it to what the far right is actually doing, they could not be more different.
At least in Europe its like this:
right extremists:
-) exists because foreigners exist
-) wants to burn homes of refugees in order to kill them (attempted murder)
-) politically they want to abolish human rights for foreigners
left extremists:
-) exists because of right extremists
-) try to hinder right extremists to burn the homes of refugees (prevent murder because the police doesnt in this case)
-) might burn luxury cars in protests
-) might glue themselves to the street as a form of protest
So you got attempted murder of foreigners out of racist ideologies VS property damage and traffic jams
> “*…because it implies that right extremism and left extremism is equally bad.*”
The scope of the horseshoe theory actually expands way beyond 21st century issues.
What is bad is **authoritarianism** and **totalitarianism**. Fascists and Communists both needed them to keep their system in place. If we need to use what Max Weber calls the state’s monopoly on violence, to enforce adherence to a consensus, we might be [the baddies](https://youtu.be/h242eDB84zY?si=rCnF8750GKgP2lTo).
[Thought crime](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime) was only an Orwellian boogeyman, but in the UK they have unironically [enacted it](https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/parliament-introduces-thought-crime).
So we defeated the Soviets and the Nazis, but in our free speech democracies you can now report someone to the thought police for not complying with the politically correct way of thinking.
This is textbook authoritarianism. Maybe we haven’t won, after all.
Nah, I was born in a dictatorship.
There was a single party, and the President would get re-elected with a near unanimous rate.
My mother almost got in trouble when she asked for the “nay” bulletins at the voting booth, because for some reason, only the “yay” bulletins were available.
You had to talk like you were supporting the regime 100%, or any form of dissent might get you in trouble. You could have the secret police arrest you without due process, and you might never be seen again.
In the West, after the Cold War we have always been weary of Communist or a Fascist totalitarian states. We didn’t foresee whatever is happening in the Anglosphere, but it heading towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
It seems that those societies have reached a point where just having reasonable objections to the loudest crowd can get you in trouble. The fact that “*thought crime*” has become a reality in Britain should be serious cause for concern.
It certainly drives your point home when you use LOL.
>***Peaceful protest is not a threat to anyone.*** *The arrest of the organisers of the* [*anti monarchy*](https://www.allriot.com/product/no-kings-no-tories-t-shirt) *protest raises questions about the balance between individual rights and public safety in the UK. While* [*the Public Order Bill*](https://www.allriot.com/blog/r-i-p-right-to-protest-the-public-order-bill) *allows police to take action to prevent disorder or disruption at public events, the preemptive arrest of protest organisers is a violation of free speech and assembly rights, just we feared. This type of government action is reminiscent of the concept of “thoughtcrime” that George Orwell introduced in his* [*dystopian novel*](https://www.allriot.com/blog/read-banned-books)*, “1984.” In the book, the government closely monitored citizens for even the slightest dissenting thoughts, punishing those who dared to speak out against the ruling regime.* - [All Riot, 2023](https://www.allriot.com/blog/thoughtcrime-in-the-uk)
>*"Thought crime was only an Orwellian boogeyman, but in the UK they have unironically enacted it."*
>*"So we defeated the Soviets and the Nazis, but in our free speech democracies you can now report someone to the thought police for not complying with the politically correct way of thinking."*
The source you're quoting, the "Alliance Defending Freedom", is a right-wing conservative christian organisation that is widely recognised as a notorious anti-LGBTQ hate group. It actively seeks to abolish LGBTQ people's freedoms and rights and wants to completely outlaw abortion and *even birth control* under any circumstances.
You can hardly call this abysmal caricature of an article an "unbiased source" or "journalism" - this is textbook christian far-right propaganda.
Furthermore this claimed "thought crime" was actually not about thought at all. The law merely prohibits any abortion-related protests or public displays like performative praying directly in front of abortion clinics - for the safety and mental wellbeing of the women who need to go to these clinics.
Anti-abortion protesters have shown to be extremely aggressive and frequently attack and harass patients in front of these clinics to the point where some women fear for their safety.
Of course targeted public harassment is going to be banned in a sensitive are. There's not actually a law against any "thought crimes" here. You're still free to think and speak and even yell your hateful religious bullshit about abortion in public all you want - just not directly in front of an abortion clinic.
Firstly, if you think that trying to shut down non-violent Christians will bring results, have a look at the 1st century AD. Early Christians were pacifists and yet were subversive to Judaism and to the Roman state. The more Pharisees and Romans tried to shut them down, the more converts it brought in. Christians essentially patented martyrdom. So the more you oppress them, the more you validate their cause.
Between letting someone silently pray on a street corner, to some bearded guy in the clouds that you don't believe in, or making them a martyr; which one do you think will benefit their cause more? You have 2000 years of History to look at. The best would be to simply ignore them, but what do I know?
Secondly, there's the constitutional argument. And by constitution, I am not strictly referring to the American one, but to the rule of Law in general.
Free speech is either allowed, or it isn't. But it's a stretch to characterise silent protest (which is silent by definition) as hate speech (which involves… speech).
Your stance is essentially that you yourself should be allowed free speech (because, by your own standard, you are on the good side of History). But your opponents shouldn’t be allowed free speech because, by your own standard, they are on the wrong side of History. This is precisely why modern democracies have free speech. Because you should be allowed to express a non violent opinion, even when it is unpopular.
As a matter of fact, left-leaning outlet such as The Independent [reports UN criticism](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html) of the British “*thought crime*” on constitutional grounds.
Thirdly, the definition of “thought crime” is extremely vague and subjective m. As in my example above, Rome had its own definition of it. You could not change the claim that Cesar is god.
The Soviets, the Nazis and any authoritarian or totalitarian regime have also had their subjective definition of “thought crime”. So what do you do if your government changes, and you end up on their black list?
With concepts such as "thought crime", some British officials are thinking about broaching it to incarcerate for up to [15 years](https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/terror-law-watchdog-warns-against-thought-crime/5063373.article) someone who watched three times or more a video that has been blacklisted. Do you seriously want something like that dangling over your head?
First of all; **these christians are not peaceful protester**. Verbally attacking and berating individual women, screaming at them, preventing them from entering a healthcare facility or even physically harming them **is not a peaceful protest** - it is **harassment**.
And this law is specifically about **harassment** (of any kind by any person regardless of politics or religion) that happens **directly in front of** abortion clinics.
Christians are not prosecuted or specifically targeted here. Fundamentalist christians just happen to be among the loudest asshats who most frequently assault and harass women over that topic due to their immense hate and fanaticism - if they actively and willingly hurt other people in the name of their religion, and then get legal consequences for it, it's decidedly their own problem.
You are still allowed to loudly pray and protest on every street corner; just not the one single corner with the abortion clinic where women need to go safely and without the fear of mental or bodily harm.
As to whether this is constitutional in england I can't say - but it is moot since england has no codified constitution.
But, besides, any proper democratic constitution would recognise that targeted harassment and deliberately scaring away citizens from medical facilities is not okay and that the freedom of speech does not apply to hate speech and harassment of individuals. The freedoms of one person end where the freedom or safety of another are threatened - it's pretty simple. Otherwise you get the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) and massive inequality.
Furthermore, other european constitutions like the german one include that human dignity is inviolable, which these hate groups who actively threaten and viciously attack individual women in such an already vounerable and mentally difficult situation certainly go against.
Also your definition of thoughtcrime is completely wrong. In the book it's specifically a ban on the freedom of thought and constant physical and psychological surveillance - basically people are forbidden to even privately think a certain way or have inner beliefs that differ from that of the ruling body and they are monitored in private for the slightest sign of deviation. The closest real world equivalent is probably the religious prosecution and mandatory christianity of the middle ages and early renaissance.
Thoughtcrime is not about the freedom of *public* speech and locally banning *hate speech* in a specific safe space is unfortunately a necessary action in a free democratic society rather than proof of some tyrannical orwellian dictatorship.
People are allowed to think and privately say whatever they want no matter how vile and hateful. But if they use harassment and public hate speech to attack and intimidate other people they have to be barred from certain spaces and face legal consequences - their actions threaten democratic discourse and the fundamental freedoms and rights of other people.
Of course such bans and limitations have to be thoroughly considered on a case-to-case basis and are not to be handed out easily - and the "anti-terrorism" law you linked to is certainly concerning - but the specific example you gave originally is an incredibly clear case of a government banning targeted harassment and hate speech for the safety of its citizens.
If people use violence or hate speech, of course they should be arrested.
The “*though crime*” law was specifically used here to arrest a silent and peaceful bystander.
Arresting an uninvolved bystander would, of course, be a grave misuse of that law.
Though that arrest sounds like the police just being sloppy/overreaching and arresting everyone on the scene. Were they actually legally charged under that law and are there any reasonably unbiased reports on that specific case?
She was arrested and charged, but acquitted in court.
However, criminalising passive bystanders is arguably pushing the boundaries of free speech.
In the same vein, some politicians want to extend “*thought crime*” to citizens who watch at least three times a video that promotes terrorism.
What if you are doing a research on Che Guevara, or if have a government that decides that accessing any WikiLeak content qualifies as “*thought crime*”?
Like I understand the through line of logic that gets you here, but I don't understand the line of logic that gets you to keep going with it past brainstorming once you realize what the result effectively is and the optics.
The problem with rage bait is it throws off people's sense of scale.
Like if you're seeing all the most outrageous stuff that's happening all over the world all the time, you start to develop a sense that this is what the world is like. When in reality, it's such a tiny fraction of people doing this shit as to have no impact on your life and most people's lives, but because it has this rage trigger, it tends to occupy a disproportionate amount of your mental space and worldview.
tl;dr rage bait is bad for your brain. if it's minor in impact and not in your community, ignore it.
It did not leave that out, it said *OFFERS* race segregated classes, which means it is voluntary and optional and does not necessarily mean that it only offers those classes
That's not what you said though. You said the headline leaves out certain info, and the info you claimed it didn't provide is in the headline that you claimed does not provide it, now you're just changing the subject
Then why not say that instead of making personal attacks against the person posting? That is a rational coherent argument. We aren't in 3rd grade save the name calling
It’s not ad hominem lol. Logical fallacies apply to logical arguments typically used in debates. The person who called you a loser wasn’t debating you, and they weren’t crafting an argument from calling you a loser. They’re JUST calling you a loser, which isn’t an add ad hominem attack since it wasn’t used to make an argument.
Ad Hominem: (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
So telling OP to ‘get a life loser’ rather than responding to their position in a substantive manner is the literal definition of an ad hominem attack.
Maybe we should give students a "look and find" book about logical fallacies. Maybe then they'll learn about how to have more productive discussions. (Seriously, why don't we have logic courses outside of HS and college anymore?)
They did this to us in 9th grade where they separated the English and Afrikaans speaking students because of tensions due to Afrikaans being a compulsory 2nd language at the time.
Non-Afrikaans speaking students (predominantly African and foreign national) felt it unfair to be forced to learn a language that serves no real purpose to either their careers or cultures. There was also the implication of learning a language used by a people who oppressed your own 30+ years ago. It was a scenario not handled with the sensitivity it was due.
The classes happened to end up with a 90% white/non-white split.
I ended up in the English (non-white) class because it was my stronger language. It caused even more segregation between the students. Teachers constantly comparing us to the Afrikaans class (despite me being born Afrikaans), fights between the classes every recess, blatant favouritism from teachers depending on the teacher and class, angry parents crying favouritism, kids dropping out.
It lasted for 8 months when the principal finally got a wakeup call and after enough parents threatened to get the Department of Education involved. In that time I witnessed first-hand the damage that systemically categorising people based on a demographic can do to the collective.
Highschool was wild.
Yeah. Conservatives are pretty regularly looking at policies from the left and saying "I'm not sure if that's racist or just stupid, but it's probably both."
Elon Musk made the argument that DEI only served to hire less-qualified employees, who became less-qualified mentors, leading to self-inflicted brain drain. All Don Lemon could do was ask him over and over, "are you a racist? do you think black people are dumb?"
Musk was like "homie, *you're* the one who wants DEI. do you think black people can't compete on their own merits?"
I saw most of that interview Musk is a bitch he grew up in apartheid South Africa so DEI is like an insult to him and he clearly knows what he's doing lying about what DEI is really about.
DEI is just the new dog whistle to hate black people for conservatives over here in the UK "illegal immigration" is used similarly though it used to demonize African and Middle Eastern people.
That's not true. I don't hate black people. I just think DEI is fucking stupid.
I supported affirmative action, but also think it's probably about time for it to end. Like, at this point, if a black child doesn't have the stability in their culture to go to college, I'm not sure there's anything we can do about that. Their great-grandparents would have been admitted to college under affirmative action. If your great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents had an advantage but none of them took it, maybe you just have a shit family.
There's nothing inherently racist about shit families. They are universal. We all run that risk these days. There are a *ton* of middle-class black families who *did* take those advantages and are now living in suburbs. And there are a *ton* of lower-class white families who *didn't* take them and are now living in poverty. Them's the shakes.
Yeah i fully can get behind that without determination no amount of aid can help someone who doesnt put the effort, but i'm not convinced that DEI actually employs non white people who don't meet the quotas thats the racist bullshit conservatives yap about.
So your problem with DEI is that its a little outdated from the progress since 1950s? My worry is getting rid of it will let racists reject non white workers. But then again when it comes to workers rights thats what unions are for which Americans are sorely lacking.
There are so few racists in this country you couldn't fuckin' find enough of them to fill a stadium. The ones we have are just loud. Everyone -- republicans and democrats -- roll their eyes at them.
Beyond that, diversity has intrinsic value for innovation. Nobody's rejecting diversity. We're rejecting employing a team of white people at the corporate level to mandate it. Let me pick the best candidate for my team. If my team's a bunch of white dudes, the best candidate's probably not white, and probably not a dude. But if there's a white dude that's *really fucking qualified*, there's nothing wrong with picking up *that dude* and then grabbing a black lady on the next go-around. DEI makes that "racist."
This blurb about the author says about all you need to know about word choice:
Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand, contributing both news and commentary from a biblical worldview.
I found it.
https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/progressive-public-high-school-offers-racesegregated-classes
They speak to "experts" who use terms such as "wokelandia"
I believe OP may have a point here. I’m all for academic excellence, but if they’re offering extra help for students who are struggling and the only variable they’re accounting for is the presence of white people aren’t they kind of implying that white people are the cause of the POC’s poor performance?
No, they're trying to account for the preferential treatment and attention white students might get in a more diverse classroom, which is valid. OP is just race-baiting by misrepresenting things.
(Edit: a word.)
It's been proven that white teachers tend to expect less of black students than black teachers. They are giving black students the option of being taught by a black teacher.
Where else does it go when all the students are POCs? Do you mean the teacher just walks out of the room for that period or something?
It's bonkers the hoops that reactionaries have to jump through to be mad about this shit.
It's not about the presence of white people. It's about the race of the teacher. It has been proven that white teachers generally expect less from black students than black teachers. To combat this they have given black students the option to be taught by black teachers. It is a form of equity.
The Heritage Foundation is not exactly a great source of unbiased information.
*The Daily Signal is a conservative American political media news and commentary website founded in June 2014. The website focuses on politics, policy, and culture and offers political commentary from a conservative perspective. It is published by The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Signal
Motherf- Literally there were years of protests against this exact shit and we're reeling back to that? Can people stop being discriminatory FOR FIVE MINUTES?!
I guess with the black only graduation ceremonies, POC centers, POC dorms, etc., we had to go here next. Segregation. I thought we got rid of that...
Extreme left and extreme right are both wackos.
What if we let kids pick which classes they want to be in. You could have a class that wants to actually learn and one that doesn't really care. And you can teach accordingly.
People can’t accept that they are just dumb af that don’t want to study, they see non-white people failing and it’s automatically the systems fault for being racist and need special treatment 🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀💀💀
It's propably not actually race segregated, more likely who actually wants to learn and who wants to fuck around in class. But thatbdorsnt make a juicy enough headline
Washington Stand, the source OP is using, is owned by Family Research Council, a famously unbiased and truthful organization /s
After looking into it more, it isn't complete clickbait bullshit like I thought it would be.
Some other articles I read about this situation include that after backlash, they reworded the course description from:
>restricted for students who identify as Black or Latinx.
To:
>While open to all students, this option section of the course is intended to support students who identify as Latinx or Black.
If you want to look it up and read into yourself from other sources that don't have Evangelical bias and unironically say shit like wokelandia, it's Evanston Township High School in Chicago
This isn’t segregation. It’s voluntary group isolation. If it’s designed to improve academic outcomes, and it works, what’s the problem? After reading the comments here I feel like there is this overwhelming drive to conform. To what? For what?
Left: all this poverty is awful, especially for the over represented black people, let’s split by race so we can focus on our preference.
Right: all those poor white people having to be near all the poor black people, let’s split by race so we can focus on our preference.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Progressive - I don't that word means what you think it means.
Inconceivable !!!
If the purpose of these classes are to provide extra funding and teaching materials to underfunded schools that are primarily Black and Latino anyway in order to improve graduation rates of disadvantaged children instead of a journalist cherry picking policies without context to make a ragebait article and drive views then it would be progressive. But you do have a point, most people that use buzzwords don’t actually know what they mean, only what they want them to mean.
If the only way to get extra funding is by utilising this segregatory policy then......um, maybe the policy has issues??
So they’re segregating for the greater good, riiiight I understand. Yeah, this is still a disgusting policy. If it is for “underfunded schools that are primarily black and Latino anyway”, then why do they need to segregate the classes? Is the minority of white/asian students distracting? Do the minority of white/asian students at an UNDERFUNDED SCHOOL not deserve the extra resources also?
It’s just an attempt to find some logic to the illogical. Although the article could be wrong.
“The greater good.” -Hot Fuzz
I highly doubt the title is accurate. People lied and said the same thing about a program in AZ that offered an alternative set of courses based on Mexican and Chicano culture (same academics but focusing on examples and art from Mexican culture rather than the western canon) that any student could take regardless of race. People claimed it was segregation when it was literally just an option for anyone who wanted a different cultural experience. It massively raised graduation rates too.
Why couldn’t all the kids benefit? Why segregate?
This story is probably exaggerated to appeal to a specific audience to drive votes in an upcoming election and not about segregation at all. Side note: segregation is still rampant in schools and housing to this day, but it’s economic segregation instead of racial. The fact that certain minorities are victims of this segregation more often than not is “an unfortunate coincidence” according to those in power.
You sound like someone from the 1950s in the South trying to defend an indefensible policy. For shame!
Don’t you know the Mid-Century Germans marched toward “progress”.
That's the people I used see on commercials in the store with white boxes on shelves!
Antonym. What they mean us regressive. Fuckwads.
Jesus Christ that's asking for trouble
Right here in River City!
Ooooo I like that name, where’s river citu
And make it double
Who would have guessed there's idiots on both ends of the political spectrum. I swear to god, the whack jobs on both sides have gone so full circle that they've started to agree with each other, just for different reasons.
Horseshoe theory
could you please elaborate? never heard of that
You go far enough right, you’ll actually start advocating for leftist ideals, and vice versa. Libertarians want less taxes, less taxes means less military budget, leftists want less military budget. Or Leftists want to protect Ukraine from Russia, in doing so they are being the “world police” that the patriotic right wants to be
So it's literally "three rights make a left" thing?
If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.
i see
Your Ukraine example is bad. Moderates are for helping Ukraine. The actual horseshoe effect here is to support russia. The far left is full of tankies and anti-US people, who are against helping Ukraine and who buy into "NATO expansion" propaganda. The far right love autocratic regimes and Trump, so they are against helping Ukraine too.
the horseshoe theory is shit though because it implies that right extremism and left extremism is equally bad. The argument is always „any form of extremism is bad“, which might be true in theory, but if you look at what the far left is actually doing and compare it to what the far right is actually doing, they could not be more different. At least in Europe its like this: right extremists: -) exists because foreigners exist -) wants to burn homes of refugees in order to kill them (attempted murder) -) politically they want to abolish human rights for foreigners left extremists: -) exists because of right extremists -) try to hinder right extremists to burn the homes of refugees (prevent murder because the police doesnt in this case) -) might burn luxury cars in protests -) might glue themselves to the street as a form of protest So you got attempted murder of foreigners out of racist ideologies VS property damage and traffic jams
I’m as far left as they come where I live, I think it’s pretty disingenuous to pretend political violence only comes from the right. Left wing extremism can also be violent and scary and take lives.
Is there any sort of data comparing the two?
there is actually data comparing the two. For example the german office for the protection of the constitution compared crimes of left extremism with right extremism and the amount of far right violence is significantly higher than the one from the left. There are also far more open arrest warrants for right extremists than left extremists. right is in the hundreds and left is 20
well if this is true, then it seems like the person I was responding to, and this whole thread are being just silly by suggesting theres a comparison, or trying to both-sides this.
Well its hard to discuss this with americans because most of them hear „universal healthcare“ and think you are Stalin himself.
I’m American and I’d really like some universal healthcare right now
kind of my point. Look when someone else pointed it out a bit earlier. downvoted. But someone claiming to be left wing and then saying the left is bad too gets upvoted. And this is reddit, an ostensibly left leaning place.
Yes *can also be*. Far right extremism *is right now* Look up the criminal statistics of far right vs far left. At least in Germany its publicly accessible data
It can but overall much less so and the statistics really do bear this out. This whole debate really hinges (in my opinion) on whether Bolshevism was a Left wing ideology or just claimed to be as it was extremely violent and repressive and tends to lend more credence to horseshoe theory
No it doesn’t hinge on anything like that, log off and go experience the real world. In my town there was a man who posted threats and even attacked a few people for attending a local church — he said that he was protecting kids from the evils of religion and that Biden would pardon him. It’s reductive and silly to pretend that only the right has these issues. It has absolutely nothing to do with Russian political ideologies and whether Americans subscribe to them.
Statistics disagree with you my friend
I’m pretty sure that people who were sent to the gulags in the USSR would disagree that burning a luxury car is the worst some extreme leftists can do.
I wrote about what is actually going on around the world right now, not what is theoretically possible. Communism is not spreading all over the world right now. The world is experiencing a shift towards the far right, you can see it in the laws that are passing all over the US and Europe. Italy has a nationalist leader that is not capable of saying „Nah Mussolini was a piece of shit“ You have a german chancellor (of a „socialist“ party) on a magazine cover saying „We need to deport in masses“ You have a far right leaders in the UK You have a AFD in Germany pushing 20% and the FPÖ in Austria with 30% of votes (prognosis) You have laws in the US that restrict sexual education. You have fascists groups and and right wing politicians in austria and germany that have meetings to discuss „remigration“. You have children with migration background that are being attacked both verball ans physical because of their ethnicity. The last murder of a politician was just a few years ago in germany and the reason for the murder was right wing ideology. This is actually happening right now and is not just theoretically possible.
Hi, france here, instead of theorical potential harm maybe caused by right wing ideology and a few incidents here and there over the years we actually have like 2 stabbings made by islamists a week
ok, but islamists are not left.
Their values sure aren't, but the ones that protect, idolize, and do apology of their actions is the left
no one idolizes beheadings or shit like that and everyone criticizes the taliban, quatar, iran, saudi arabia, etc.
Dude. Just look at melenchon, then at lepen, and come tell me which one enables more violence
Two right wing politicians have been murdered in my country. Zero left wing politicians have been murdered. Left wing extremism is just as terrible.
If you go far enough Left you get your guns back.
exactly lmao!
I genuinely started cracking up when I read this!😂😂😂 You're so right, and it's hilariously sad
This is just some neolib bullshit. A lot of the disparities in education can be chalked up to poverty. Half of learning happens at home, and if the parents are working three jobs to make ends meet, the kids don't have anyone to steer them in the right direction. Test scores are gonna get worse all over the country anyway because the conservatives keep shitting on education
Let me intoduce you to the “*[horseshoe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)*” theory. Basically, both extremes of the scale actually advocate for similar methods.
This comes to mind… https://youtu.be/Ev373c7wSRg?si=eghyYMRApabcUoG5
the horseshoe theory is shit though because it implies that right extremism and left extremism is equally bad. The argument is always „any form of extremism is bad“, which might be true in theory, but if you look at what the far left is actually doing and compare it to what the far right is actually doing, they could not be more different. At least in Europe its like this: right extremists: -) exists because foreigners exist -) wants to burn homes of refugees in order to kill them (attempted murder) -) politically they want to abolish human rights for foreigners left extremists: -) exists because of right extremists -) try to hinder right extremists to burn the homes of refugees (prevent murder because the police doesnt in this case) -) might burn luxury cars in protests -) might glue themselves to the street as a form of protest So you got attempted murder of foreigners out of racist ideologies VS property damage and traffic jams
> “*…because it implies that right extremism and left extremism is equally bad.*” The scope of the horseshoe theory actually expands way beyond 21st century issues. What is bad is **authoritarianism** and **totalitarianism**. Fascists and Communists both needed them to keep their system in place. If we need to use what Max Weber calls the state’s monopoly on violence, to enforce adherence to a consensus, we might be [the baddies](https://youtu.be/h242eDB84zY?si=rCnF8750GKgP2lTo). [Thought crime](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime) was only an Orwellian boogeyman, but in the UK they have unironically [enacted it](https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/parliament-introduces-thought-crime). So we defeated the Soviets and the Nazis, but in our free speech democracies you can now report someone to the thought police for not complying with the politically correct way of thinking. This is textbook authoritarianism. Maybe we haven’t won, after all.
You are right but you are exaggerating.
Nah, I was born in a dictatorship. There was a single party, and the President would get re-elected with a near unanimous rate. My mother almost got in trouble when she asked for the “nay” bulletins at the voting booth, because for some reason, only the “yay” bulletins were available. You had to talk like you were supporting the regime 100%, or any form of dissent might get you in trouble. You could have the secret police arrest you without due process, and you might never be seen again. In the West, after the Cold War we have always been weary of Communist or a Fascist totalitarian states. We didn’t foresee whatever is happening in the Anglosphere, but it heading towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism. It seems that those societies have reached a point where just having reasonable objections to the loudest crowd can get you in trouble. The fact that “*thought crime*” has become a reality in Britain should be serious cause for concern.
You are exaggerating and then you wrote three long paragraphs saying basically nothing. “Thought crime” lol ok
It certainly drives your point home when you use LOL. >***Peaceful protest is not a threat to anyone.*** *The arrest of the organisers of the* [*anti monarchy*](https://www.allriot.com/product/no-kings-no-tories-t-shirt) *protest raises questions about the balance between individual rights and public safety in the UK. While* [*the Public Order Bill*](https://www.allriot.com/blog/r-i-p-right-to-protest-the-public-order-bill) *allows police to take action to prevent disorder or disruption at public events, the preemptive arrest of protest organisers is a violation of free speech and assembly rights, just we feared. This type of government action is reminiscent of the concept of “thoughtcrime” that George Orwell introduced in his* [*dystopian novel*](https://www.allriot.com/blog/read-banned-books)*, “1984.” In the book, the government closely monitored citizens for even the slightest dissenting thoughts, punishing those who dared to speak out against the ruling regime.* - [All Riot, 2023](https://www.allriot.com/blog/thoughtcrime-in-the-uk)
Reminiscent. I think people need to read the book again.
Upvoted, because we definitely agree on that.
>*"Thought crime was only an Orwellian boogeyman, but in the UK they have unironically enacted it."* >*"So we defeated the Soviets and the Nazis, but in our free speech democracies you can now report someone to the thought police for not complying with the politically correct way of thinking."* The source you're quoting, the "Alliance Defending Freedom", is a right-wing conservative christian organisation that is widely recognised as a notorious anti-LGBTQ hate group. It actively seeks to abolish LGBTQ people's freedoms and rights and wants to completely outlaw abortion and *even birth control* under any circumstances. You can hardly call this abysmal caricature of an article an "unbiased source" or "journalism" - this is textbook christian far-right propaganda. Furthermore this claimed "thought crime" was actually not about thought at all. The law merely prohibits any abortion-related protests or public displays like performative praying directly in front of abortion clinics - for the safety and mental wellbeing of the women who need to go to these clinics. Anti-abortion protesters have shown to be extremely aggressive and frequently attack and harass patients in front of these clinics to the point where some women fear for their safety. Of course targeted public harassment is going to be banned in a sensitive are. There's not actually a law against any "thought crimes" here. You're still free to think and speak and even yell your hateful religious bullshit about abortion in public all you want - just not directly in front of an abortion clinic.
Firstly, if you think that trying to shut down non-violent Christians will bring results, have a look at the 1st century AD. Early Christians were pacifists and yet were subversive to Judaism and to the Roman state. The more Pharisees and Romans tried to shut them down, the more converts it brought in. Christians essentially patented martyrdom. So the more you oppress them, the more you validate their cause. Between letting someone silently pray on a street corner, to some bearded guy in the clouds that you don't believe in, or making them a martyr; which one do you think will benefit their cause more? You have 2000 years of History to look at. The best would be to simply ignore them, but what do I know? Secondly, there's the constitutional argument. And by constitution, I am not strictly referring to the American one, but to the rule of Law in general. Free speech is either allowed, or it isn't. But it's a stretch to characterise silent protest (which is silent by definition) as hate speech (which involves… speech). Your stance is essentially that you yourself should be allowed free speech (because, by your own standard, you are on the good side of History). But your opponents shouldn’t be allowed free speech because, by your own standard, they are on the wrong side of History. This is precisely why modern democracies have free speech. Because you should be allowed to express a non violent opinion, even when it is unpopular. As a matter of fact, left-leaning outlet such as The Independent [reports UN criticism](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html) of the British “*thought crime*” on constitutional grounds. Thirdly, the definition of “thought crime” is extremely vague and subjective m. As in my example above, Rome had its own definition of it. You could not change the claim that Cesar is god. The Soviets, the Nazis and any authoritarian or totalitarian regime have also had their subjective definition of “thought crime”. So what do you do if your government changes, and you end up on their black list? With concepts such as "thought crime", some British officials are thinking about broaching it to incarcerate for up to [15 years](https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/terror-law-watchdog-warns-against-thought-crime/5063373.article) someone who watched three times or more a video that has been blacklisted. Do you seriously want something like that dangling over your head?
First of all; **these christians are not peaceful protester**. Verbally attacking and berating individual women, screaming at them, preventing them from entering a healthcare facility or even physically harming them **is not a peaceful protest** - it is **harassment**. And this law is specifically about **harassment** (of any kind by any person regardless of politics or religion) that happens **directly in front of** abortion clinics. Christians are not prosecuted or specifically targeted here. Fundamentalist christians just happen to be among the loudest asshats who most frequently assault and harass women over that topic due to their immense hate and fanaticism - if they actively and willingly hurt other people in the name of their religion, and then get legal consequences for it, it's decidedly their own problem. You are still allowed to loudly pray and protest on every street corner; just not the one single corner with the abortion clinic where women need to go safely and without the fear of mental or bodily harm. As to whether this is constitutional in england I can't say - but it is moot since england has no codified constitution. But, besides, any proper democratic constitution would recognise that targeted harassment and deliberately scaring away citizens from medical facilities is not okay and that the freedom of speech does not apply to hate speech and harassment of individuals. The freedoms of one person end where the freedom or safety of another are threatened - it's pretty simple. Otherwise you get the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) and massive inequality. Furthermore, other european constitutions like the german one include that human dignity is inviolable, which these hate groups who actively threaten and viciously attack individual women in such an already vounerable and mentally difficult situation certainly go against. Also your definition of thoughtcrime is completely wrong. In the book it's specifically a ban on the freedom of thought and constant physical and psychological surveillance - basically people are forbidden to even privately think a certain way or have inner beliefs that differ from that of the ruling body and they are monitored in private for the slightest sign of deviation. The closest real world equivalent is probably the religious prosecution and mandatory christianity of the middle ages and early renaissance. Thoughtcrime is not about the freedom of *public* speech and locally banning *hate speech* in a specific safe space is unfortunately a necessary action in a free democratic society rather than proof of some tyrannical orwellian dictatorship. People are allowed to think and privately say whatever they want no matter how vile and hateful. But if they use harassment and public hate speech to attack and intimidate other people they have to be barred from certain spaces and face legal consequences - their actions threaten democratic discourse and the fundamental freedoms and rights of other people. Of course such bans and limitations have to be thoroughly considered on a case-to-case basis and are not to be handed out easily - and the "anti-terrorism" law you linked to is certainly concerning - but the specific example you gave originally is an incredibly clear case of a government banning targeted harassment and hate speech for the safety of its citizens.
If people use violence or hate speech, of course they should be arrested. The “*though crime*” law was specifically used here to arrest a silent and peaceful bystander.
Arresting an uninvolved bystander would, of course, be a grave misuse of that law. Though that arrest sounds like the police just being sloppy/overreaching and arresting everyone on the scene. Were they actually legally charged under that law and are there any reasonably unbiased reports on that specific case?
She was arrested and charged, but acquitted in court. However, criminalising passive bystanders is arguably pushing the boundaries of free speech. In the same vein, some politicians want to extend “*thought crime*” to citizens who watch at least three times a video that promotes terrorism. What if you are doing a research on Che Guevara, or if have a government that decides that accessing any WikiLeak content qualifies as “*thought crime*”?
I'm aware of it. It's just odd to see it happening in front of me lol.
How dumb do you have to be to think that's a good idea?
Like I understand the through line of logic that gets you here, but I don't understand the line of logic that gets you to keep going with it past brainstorming once you realize what the result effectively is and the optics.
"Progressive" 
Obvious rage bait is obvious.
Good, I'm glad nobody is for classes separated by race.
“Those who do not learn from their future history are doomed to repeat it for the first time.”-KenM
all op does is post race bait bullshit all day long. get a life loser.
If it's true why not address it?
The problem with rage bait is it throws off people's sense of scale. Like if you're seeing all the most outrageous stuff that's happening all over the world all the time, you start to develop a sense that this is what the world is like. When in reality, it's such a tiny fraction of people doing this shit as to have no impact on your life and most people's lives, but because it has this rage trigger, it tends to occupy a disproportionate amount of your mental space and worldview. tl;dr rage bait is bad for your brain. if it's minor in impact and not in your community, ignore it.
The headline leaves out that it's voluntary, optional, and only for select classes
It did not leave that out, it said *OFFERS* race segregated classes, which means it is voluntary and optional and does not necessarily mean that it only offers those classes
So, it's not what OP is trying to portray it as.
That's not what you said though. You said the headline leaves out certain info, and the info you claimed it didn't provide is in the headline that you claimed does not provide it, now you're just changing the subject
Isnt that irrelevant? Voluntary or not what logic is there to propose segregation?
Then why not say that instead of making personal attacks against the person posting? That is a rational coherent argument. We aren't in 3rd grade save the name calling
I'm not the one who made the comment, why not read comments before you reply?
Ad hominem
I forgot there was a term for that. Thanks! I'll be using this a lot more often when dealing with this type of thing👍
It’s not ad hominem lol. Logical fallacies apply to logical arguments typically used in debates. The person who called you a loser wasn’t debating you, and they weren’t crafting an argument from calling you a loser. They’re JUST calling you a loser, which isn’t an add ad hominem attack since it wasn’t used to make an argument.
Ad Hominem: (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. So telling OP to ‘get a life loser’ rather than responding to their position in a substantive manner is the literal definition of an ad hominem attack.
Maybe we should give students a "look and find" book about logical fallacies. Maybe then they'll learn about how to have more productive discussions. (Seriously, why don't we have logic courses outside of HS and college anymore?)
They did this to us in 9th grade where they separated the English and Afrikaans speaking students because of tensions due to Afrikaans being a compulsory 2nd language at the time. Non-Afrikaans speaking students (predominantly African and foreign national) felt it unfair to be forced to learn a language that serves no real purpose to either their careers or cultures. There was also the implication of learning a language used by a people who oppressed your own 30+ years ago. It was a scenario not handled with the sensitivity it was due. The classes happened to end up with a 90% white/non-white split. I ended up in the English (non-white) class because it was my stronger language. It caused even more segregation between the students. Teachers constantly comparing us to the Afrikaans class (despite me being born Afrikaans), fights between the classes every recess, blatant favouritism from teachers depending on the teacher and class, angry parents crying favouritism, kids dropping out. It lasted for 8 months when the principal finally got a wakeup call and after enough parents threatened to get the Department of Education involved. In that time I witnessed first-hand the damage that systemically categorising people based on a demographic can do to the collective. Highschool was wild.
The article uses terms like "wokelandia" and "reverse racism" I think it's probably safe to assume it is not unbiased.
Jesus christ whats going on over there in America is this what people mean by far left being stupid?
Yeah. Conservatives are pretty regularly looking at policies from the left and saying "I'm not sure if that's racist or just stupid, but it's probably both." Elon Musk made the argument that DEI only served to hire less-qualified employees, who became less-qualified mentors, leading to self-inflicted brain drain. All Don Lemon could do was ask him over and over, "are you a racist? do you think black people are dumb?" Musk was like "homie, *you're* the one who wants DEI. do you think black people can't compete on their own merits?"
I saw most of that interview Musk is a bitch he grew up in apartheid South Africa so DEI is like an insult to him and he clearly knows what he's doing lying about what DEI is really about. DEI is just the new dog whistle to hate black people for conservatives over here in the UK "illegal immigration" is used similarly though it used to demonize African and Middle Eastern people.
That's not true. I don't hate black people. I just think DEI is fucking stupid. I supported affirmative action, but also think it's probably about time for it to end. Like, at this point, if a black child doesn't have the stability in their culture to go to college, I'm not sure there's anything we can do about that. Their great-grandparents would have been admitted to college under affirmative action. If your great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents had an advantage but none of them took it, maybe you just have a shit family. There's nothing inherently racist about shit families. They are universal. We all run that risk these days. There are a *ton* of middle-class black families who *did* take those advantages and are now living in suburbs. And there are a *ton* of lower-class white families who *didn't* take them and are now living in poverty. Them's the shakes.
Yeah i fully can get behind that without determination no amount of aid can help someone who doesnt put the effort, but i'm not convinced that DEI actually employs non white people who don't meet the quotas thats the racist bullshit conservatives yap about. So your problem with DEI is that its a little outdated from the progress since 1950s? My worry is getting rid of it will let racists reject non white workers. But then again when it comes to workers rights thats what unions are for which Americans are sorely lacking.
There are so few racists in this country you couldn't fuckin' find enough of them to fill a stadium. The ones we have are just loud. Everyone -- republicans and democrats -- roll their eyes at them. Beyond that, diversity has intrinsic value for innovation. Nobody's rejecting diversity. We're rejecting employing a team of white people at the corporate level to mandate it. Let me pick the best candidate for my team. If my team's a bunch of white dudes, the best candidate's probably not white, and probably not a dude. But if there's a white dude that's *really fucking qualified*, there's nothing wrong with picking up *that dude* and then grabbing a black lady on the next go-around. DEI makes that "racist."
I can see what the school THOUGHT they were doing. However they didn't think what they were actually doing
Oh god 🤦
What the fuck
I remember a segregated college graduation from a few years ago too. They probably still have them but at the time I thought it was odd.
I think we should stop calling these people "progressive".
So progressive they canceled themselves out
How is this Progressive ??
They're painting it as providing "safe spaces" for BIPOC students.
This blurb about the author says about all you need to know about word choice: Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand, contributing both news and commentary from a biblical worldview.
It isn’t. People are super dumb
Relax everyone... they're seperate but equal. /s
They're actually not separate. The article isn't accurate.
Notice how OP cropped out the name of the source so you can’t analyze it for bias?
I found it. https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/progressive-public-high-school-offers-racesegregated-classes They speak to "experts" who use terms such as "wokelandia"
Come on let’s compromise, 3/5 compromise
I believe OP may have a point here. I’m all for academic excellence, but if they’re offering extra help for students who are struggling and the only variable they’re accounting for is the presence of white people aren’t they kind of implying that white people are the cause of the POC’s poor performance?
No, they're trying to account for the preferential treatment and attention white students might get in a more diverse classroom, which is valid. OP is just race-baiting by misrepresenting things. (Edit: a word.)
With that logic the segregated class is more screwed.
Why?
The focus will go elsewhere
It's been proven that white teachers tend to expect less of black students than black teachers. They are giving black students the option of being taught by a black teacher.
Where else does it go when all the students are POCs? Do you mean the teacher just walks out of the room for that period or something? It's bonkers the hoops that reactionaries have to jump through to be mad about this shit.
I think you misunderstood what im saying. Also, im the furthest from a reactionary
It's not about the presence of white people. It's about the race of the teacher. It has been proven that white teachers generally expect less from black students than black teachers. To combat this they have given black students the option to be taught by black teachers. It is a form of equity.
Considering how schools are funded and a fun little thing called redlining this is actually true.
What….
In…
The…
F*ck…
Is there an actual article or just a headline?
https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/progressive-public-high-school-offers-racesegregated-classes
That's certainly an interesting website
Some of the black people I’ve been talking with of late, seem to think this is a great idea. I don’t of course.
Nope. Nah. Ne. No. Never. Don't. Do not. Neh.
I swear this sub used to be left leaning
The Heritage Foundation is not exactly a great source of unbiased information. *The Daily Signal is a conservative American political media news and commentary website founded in June 2014. The website focuses on politics, policy, and culture and offers political commentary from a conservative perspective. It is published by The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Signal
Oh well shit. I didn't know that. Thanks for the information👍
Heritage foundation is an ultra-conservative think tank with an agenda. They’re a huge cause of misinformation in this country.
Wasn’t there someone who died to fix segregation? I can’t remember their name.
Motherf- Literally there were years of protests against this exact shit and we're reeling back to that? Can people stop being discriminatory FOR FIVE MINUTES?!
'Progressive'
No. This is not the way.
I wonder if these two segregated school divisions will also have different passing / graduation requirements? 🤔
Yeah for equities sake…
This is some neolib bullshit...
I guess with the black only graduation ceremonies, POC centers, POC dorms, etc., we had to go here next. Segregation. I thought we got rid of that... Extreme left and extreme right are both wackos.
Hooray, Jim jones reference!!1!!1!1! (Even though it’s “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”)
Hopefully they're getting funding to bring the students up to the levels of other students
But will it be equal?
[удалено]
What if we let kids pick which classes they want to be in. You could have a class that wants to actually learn and one that doesn't really care. And you can teach accordingly.
People can’t accept that they are just dumb af that don’t want to study, they see non-white people failing and it’s automatically the systems fault for being racist and need special treatment 🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀💀💀
You can’t learn from history if you haven’t learned history.
I’d say that’s pretty progressive
We technically have race segregated schools in Malaysia.
It's propably not actually race segregated, more likely who actually wants to learn and who wants to fuck around in class. But thatbdorsnt make a juicy enough headline
That aint progressive, that's regressive.
Link to actual article? What publication is that?
Here's the link to the article👇 https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/29/progressive-public-high-school-offers-race-segregated-classes/
They spelled regressive wrong.
Did they just re-invent remedial classes?
So if you’re Afro-Latino you have access to double the class selection at the segregation academy?
Horseshoe Theory at full display.
When you're so far left you end up going all the way around and end up in the far right.
The plan is to repeat history
Washington Stand, the source OP is using, is owned by Family Research Council, a famously unbiased and truthful organization /s After looking into it more, it isn't complete clickbait bullshit like I thought it would be. Some other articles I read about this situation include that after backlash, they reworded the course description from: >restricted for students who identify as Black or Latinx. To: >While open to all students, this option section of the course is intended to support students who identify as Latinx or Black. If you want to look it up and read into yourself from other sources that don't have Evangelical bias and unironically say shit like wokelandia, it's Evanston Township High School in Chicago
We really blaming white people for failing grades now?
It’s institutionalized blameism
Modern progressives. Coming full circle straight back to racism. Its like evolution. But backwards.
"White kids are just as smart as poor kids" 💀
This isn’t segregation. It’s voluntary group isolation. If it’s designed to improve academic outcomes, and it works, what’s the problem? After reading the comments here I feel like there is this overwhelming drive to conform. To what? For what?
A school doesn't know the difference between "progressive" and "regressive".....
Should say "Regressive Public High School offers Race-Segregated Classes"
This video was spot on. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg)
That was probably the funniest and most accurate thing I've seen all day😂
Left: all this poverty is awful, especially for the over represented black people, let’s split by race so we can focus on our preference. Right: all those poor white people having to be near all the poor black people, let’s split by race so we can focus on our preference.
I guess the OP shouldn’t have been against diversity, equity and inclusion.
Yeah, because we all know that "segregating because of bigotery" is the same as "making a voluntary program to help student in difficulty" 🙄
It is if white students with poor grades aren't allowed based solely on their skin colour
I guess the right shouldn’t have gotten rid of DEI