this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
125 points (98.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7210 readers
321 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I sure hope you're taking the piss because Republican governors have been banning all sorts of books that range from ones that teach about trans rights and climate change for some time.
I'm at work right now but if you want sources I can provide them it's just going to take a couple hours.
Moreover they've made it illegal to teach theories that the parents have an issue with obviously slanted towards stopping the education on evolution.
I understand that you may have your own values and that's fine but it doesn't change that the Republican party has been staunchly anti science and anti worker for the majority of recent history
Yeah, I would like to discuss examples of alleged book bans. There has been a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and I'm interested in having a discussion based on the facts of each case, not the clickbait titles and rhetoric.
Are you talking about CRT? My understanding is that teachers never actually taught CRT, at least at an elementary level, so this is just virtue signaling from Republicans and a chance for Democrats to "dunk" on them. AFAIK, very little, if anything, actually changed in how teachers teach throughout most of the country.
Likewise, the much contested changes to curriculum in Florida is again largely virtue signaling from both sides. I read through the curriculum, and it looks much like what I was taught in my very progressive school system. Granted, that was a long time ago, but it also doesn't seem to go against what we've discussed in my company's recent DEI meetings either (which I enjoyed).
Every time I actually like at the facts, both sides just seem ridiculous. The Florida curriculum doesn't "stop woke" (whatever that means), nor does it promote slavery apologism. And I'm pretty sure I'll find something similar in most cases.
Sure, but I don't mix my religious/moral values and my politics. I support policies that expand individual freedom, not policies that promote my personal worldview.
For example, I don't think anyone should use drugs, but I'll fight for drug legalization because I don't think that's the government's business. I don't understand trans people, nor do I think gender is actually distinct from sex (gender as described by progressives is largely a cultural thing imo), but I'll fight for trans people to be treated fairly. I think abortion is disgusting, but I'll fight for a woman to never be prosecuted for seeking an abortion, and I think there should be a safe medical path forward for a woman who does not want to keep the baby.
My values don't match either major party, nor do my policy preferences. So I pick whatever candidate I think is more liberty-minded and rational. Lately, that has been Democrats, but sometimes it's Republicans. It really depends on the election.
This is an interesting article that discusses that. Basically, it says both Democrats and Republicans reject scientific consensus, Republicans are just more systematic about it because they prioritize unity over scientific accuracy.
Democrats are better than Republicans here, at least lately, but that doesn't mean they're perfect. So don't just accept what a Democrat claims as true just because they claim scientific consensus. Likewise, don't reject what a Republican claims WRT science until you actually check the sources. There's a lot of interesting data that goes against the Democratic narrative especially WRT climate change, particularly in the urgency of their claims (politicians love to pile on the rhetoric and urgency).
I think it's more correct to say they're pro business. I live in a red state with very few worker protections, but that doesn't mean the legislature is "anti worker," they're just limiting the government's intrusion into the private sector. People are still free to form unions and whatnot, there just isn't state support for it.
As a worker, I wish we had a few more protections, but I think it's disingenuous to say my state is anti worker (and no, inaction isn't evidence of hostility).
No, I was talking specifically about teaching the theory of evolution in Florida and the law they passed which prevents theories from being taught if a parent complains about them and what's the only theory that parents are going to complain about why the theory of evolution. In several republican-leaning states so many books have been banned with so much educational value that librarians have had death threats for for refusing to comply from right-wing voters.
And the party routinely proposes and passes laws that give tax breaks to corporations bailouts you name it. All while repeatedly curtailing efforts to have any sort of safety nets for workers like better minimum wages, better access to food, better access to housing and better access to health care.
And you can say it's all in the name of fiscal responsibility but it's not it's been proven in front of them with their own numbers that socializing or health care system would not only increase quality but decrease cost. You know why it doesn't get done because their donors come from the medical insurance industry and it would stop lining their pockets.
Here's an article that goes through how evolution is taught in schools across the US. In essence, no state bans evolution, and most states explicitly require teaching it.
For Florida specifically (quote is from the above article, and here's an article about the mentioned standards):
I don't know if the recent (this year?) curriculum changes touch on evolution, but the federal court system has consistently held that states and public school districts cannot require intelligent design to be taught (see others in the "see also" section).
The most I've seen is that states can require mentioning alternatives to established theories, as in they need to demonstrate that there's rarely complete consensus in science and that new evidence can change even very established theories. To me that sounds very reasonable, provided the alternatives also have actual, scientific evidence for them.
Oh yeah, it's never been about that, that's just the excuse they give to sugarcoat it.
What they're actually interested in is stimulating the economy, meaning increasing stock valuations and reducing unemployment. Those look good and help them get reelected. If they focused on workers, that would reduce profits (and thus stock prices) and slow economic expansion (and this increase unemployment).
Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. If you're a small business owner, investor, or specialized employee, it's great! If you're a blue collar worker that can easily be replaced, it's horrendous.
The fiscal responsibility bit is just an excuse to get people on board.
Democrats come at it from a different angle. They bill themselves as being socially responsible and protecting workers, but what this actually means is reducing corporate profits and consolidating workers into unions, because unions generally means votes. This means smaller businesses tend to suffer because the barrier to start a business gets higher (need to provide more benefits to workers), and they tend to cater to the interests of larger companies that want to entrench themselves. They do this by regulating industries, which again raises the barrier to entry for a new business. They also want the unemployed vote, hence all of the social programs for the poor. Unions don't need universal healthcare, UBI, etc, so they're not that motivated to reduce unemployment if they can cater to those displaced.
At least that's my perspective, but maybe I'm just jaded from years of disappointment from both sides of the aisle.