You're viewing part of a thread.
It depends very much on where you go, which is why I said middle east. And you'll find that much of the "privilege" you feel is fear of your government. If they don't fear reprisal it will go differently as it did for those idiots who were driving across the middle east trying to prove the world was all full of love.
I never said anything about banning CRT. But the talking points here are CRT concepts.
It depends very much on where you go, which is why I said middle east.
But "middle east" isn't one place, right? There are plenty of destinations in the middle east that are insanly popular vacation spots for westeners. Many people got rich through oil there and they know that it won't last for ever, so many places in the middle east have been shifting focus to tourism for decades now. Hell, the world's most popular international sport event was last held in the middle east, they are spending a lot of money to signal to westeners that they are welcome and will be treated like kings..
And it seems to be working as many westeners, especially Europeans, enjoy traveling to the middle east. I know a lot of people who go to the middle east for vacation and while I personally am not really extremly interested in traveling there, I have not heard anyone feeling afraid of the government there..
And you’ll find that much of the “privilege” you feel is fear of your government.
I don't find that at all.. I'm sure there are places in the middle east, like places in Afganistan for example, where I wouldn't feel save. But even Afganistan/the taliban are begging for tourists, so I would mainly be afraid of ending up in the crossfire, not that the government will specifically target me for being white.. There might be other groups who target me for being white and the government will probably fuck with me if I disregard the rules, but certainly not more so than the government fucks with the local people, who are generally seen as "non-white".
If they don’t fear reprisal it will go differently as it did for those idiots who were driving across the middle east trying to prove the world was all full of love.
No clue who you are talking about, you are gonna have to provide a few more details.
I never said anything about banning CRT.
But that's ultimately why politicians rant against "CRT", right? They want to "ban CRT" and so far, they have been successful in 16 states. And the problem of course is that according to those politicians, "CRT" can mean pretty much anything vaguely related to race, which is great for them because they can use "anti CRT" to ban a relatively wide range of topics.
This is what gets me with many conservatives, you say stuff like "we like free speech, we don't want to ban free speech", and then as soon as some politician wants to ban something you don't like, you support them..
But the talking points here are CRT concepts.
According to politicians, CRT can mean virtually anything even remotely conntected to race..
No clue who you are talking about, you are gonna have to provide a few more details.
As for the CRT stuff, I know there are some crazies and overreactions. I'm not for banning per se, but I am against giving it a preferred platform in education. I think this is actually what some of these "bannings" are; not that you can't think it or read about it, just that government paid educators are forbidden for presenting it as some kind of truth. CRT (at least from the definition I'm using) is philosophy. Bad philosophy. At a minimum, it is unsettled and therefor unsuitable to be taught as a curriculum. It can be taught as something that exists but then it needs to be given the treatment any such philosophy would get and I doubt e.g. High School educators have the background to even try that.
Right but tourists getting killed because they cycled through regions where ISIS was active does not represent the middle east as a whole.. That's as if tourists were killed in America by a drug cartel and you took that as a representation of all of America.
As for the CRT stuff, I know there are some crazies and overreactions.
Those "crazies" are generally politicians who are trying to use the fear of "CRT" to create laws banning the topic from being discussed at schools.
I think this is actually what some of these “bannings” are; not that you can’t think it or read about it, just that government paid educators are forbidden for presenting it as some kind of truth.
That's how the politicians try to present it as of course. But the problem is that the way they use and classify "CRT", it can mean virtually anything connected to race, which makes such laws dangerous.
Those “crazies” are generally politicians who are trying to use the fear of “CRT” to create laws banning the topic from being discussed at schools.
Ah but now you've changed what we're discussing. "Banning being discussed at schools" is not what anyone is doing. It's being banned from being taught at schools. And both of those things are not remotely the same as "banning CRT". Banning schools from using their position of authority over children to indoctrinate them on garbage philosophy is a reasonable position. Banning books from general consumption is not and I'm not aware of anyone doing that.
And, yes, scope creep is certainly a dangerous issue when it comes to the government. So I take this to mean you're for smaller government? :)
“Banning being discussed at schools” is not what anyone is doing.
Yes, that seems to be the goal of the politicians pushing the anti-CRT narrative.
It’s being banned from being taught at schools.
Because of the incredibly vague definition of "CRT", it often leads to teachers just staying away from any topic that could in any way be seen as "CRT". Discussing "controversial" topics can leave a teacher vulnerable for accusations by students and most teachers don't want to get in trouble, so they play it safe and stay away from the topic altogether.
Banning schools from using their position of authority over children to indoctrinate them on garbage philosophy is a reasonable position.
Isn't that a bit naive? Of course politicians always claim that their language and thought policing is reasonable and use justifications such as "we just want to protect the children" or "it's a matter of national security"..
So I take this to mean you’re for smaller government?
Depends on what you mean with "smaller government". In practice, "smaller government" often just means that big corporations get to do whatever they want. But yes, certainly in terms of language/thought policing, censorship and how much power politicians should have, I am on the side of "smaller government".