Article: Yes, Terry McAuliffe, Critical Race Theory Is In Virginia Schools

[strummingram]

You have been given plenty of examples that you casually dismiss because you and your ilk causally redefine things as suits your purpose.

That's absolutely FALSE. There have been NO examples, or proof, of CRT being "taught" in K-12 public schools ANYWHERE!

You people literally create fictional threats, and outcomes, and then try and pin blame on people while feigning outrage over it. It's in your imaginations!

CRT is not something that kids in elementary school would even be able to process, let alone be TAUGHT.

If you're an educated white male, and over the age of say 30 or 40, what is it about America's blatant examples of racially-prejudiced, and gender-preference origins and preferential treatment for white men that bothers you so much? Are you denying that WHITE MEN were the only human beings that were actually recognized as being full-fledged citizens when the country was founded, and all the way through to Reconstruction in the late 19th century, and up until the Women's Suffrage in the early 20th century? It's just a fact. It's reality. Are you ashamed of that fact? Are you threatened by it? You're still going to be okay. Look at the bright side; At least black people and women are not seeking REVENGE for being treated as second-class human beings for hundreds of years. That would be something worth worrying about!

 

[CaboKP]

FFS, this thread is full of bitches. Haha

 

[z_ape]

That's absolutely FALSE. There have been NO examples, or proof, of CRT being "taught" in K-12 public schools ANYWHERE!

You people literally create fictional threats, and outcomes, and then try and pin blame on people while feigning outrage over it. It's in your imaginations!

CRT is not something that kids in elementary school would even be able to process, let alone be TAUGHT.

If you're an educated white male, and over the age of say 30 or 40, what is it about America's blatant examples of racially-prejudiced, and gender-preference origins and preferential treatment for white men that bothers you so much? Are you denying that WHITE MEN were the only human beings that were actually recognized as being full-fledged citizens when the country was founded, and all the way through to Reconstruction in the late 19th century, and up until the Women's Suffrage in the early 20th century? It's just a fact. It's reality. Are you ashamed of that fact? Are you threatened by it? You're still going to be okay. Look at the bright side; At least black people and women are not seeking REVENGE for being treated as second-class human beings for hundreds of years. That would be something worth worrying about!

Not quite, but I'll pick on women's suffrage for a moment.

You realize that this was a problem for our entire species, right? Women couldn't vote anywhere in the world until approximately 1920.

This wasn't about America. Or the west, even.. This was about leadership and human beings. All apes -- what we are -- featured male leadership. Just as every dang civilization on earth did for a long long time. (Probably a few exceptions)

It took us a long time to evolve past that.

Look at the dates here

Women's suffrage - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[z_ape]

That's absolutely FALSE. There have been NO examples, or proof, of CRT being "taught" in K-12 public schools ANYWHERE!

You people literally create fictional threats, and outcomes, and then try and pin blame on people while feigning outrage over it. It's in your imaginations!

CRT is not something that kids in elementary school would even be able to process, let alone be TAUGHT.

If you're an educated white male, and over the age of say 30 or 40, what is it about America's blatant examples of racially-prejudiced, and gender-preference origins and preferential treatment for white men that bothers you so much? Are you denying that WHITE MEN were the only human beings that were actually recognized as being full-fledged citizens when the country was founded, and all the way through to Reconstruction in the late 19th century, and up until the Women's Suffrage in the early 20th century? It's just a fact. It's reality. Are you ashamed of that fact? Are you threatened by it? You're still going to be okay. Look at the bright side; At least black people and women are not seeking REVENGE for being treated as second-class human beings for hundreds of years. That would be something worth worrying about!

And women were not treated as second-class citizens. The dynamics between male and female were not all similar to what we saw between between white and black, between the free and enslaved.

 

[RileyHawk]

Not quite, but I'll pick on women's suffrage for a moment.

You realize that this was a problem for our entire species, right? Women couldn't vote anywhere in the world until approximately 1920.

This wasn't about America. Or the west, even.. This was about leadership and human beings. All apes -- what we are -- featured male leadership. Just as every dang civilization on earth did for a long long time. (Probably a few exceptions)

It took us a long time to evolve past that.

Look at the dates here

Women's suffrage - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Lol - this is incorrect. Even your link says so.

 

[RileyHawk]

And women were not treated as second-class citizens. The dynamics between male and female were not all similar to what we saw between between white and black, between the free and enslaved.

WTF?

 

[z_ape]

WTF?

It was an insult to what black folk went to just lump their experience in there with women. Of course women didn't have all the same rights as men. But that didn't put them on level with what black folk went through. Very different experience. Coming from a very different place.

I'm surprised you wouldn't have thought of that.

 

[z_ape]

Lol - this is incorrect. Even your link says so.

What exactly are you talking about? Scroll down to the timeline. The vast vast majority of the world did not allow women to vote until sometime around or after 1920.

 

[z_ape]

Hey guys, if you want to see something funny, ask @RileyHawk to explain what systemic racism is.

 

[RileyHawk]

What exactly are you talking about? Scroll down to the timeline. The vast vast majority of the world did not allow women to vote until sometime around or after 1920.

Lol - but this is what you said:

"Women couldn't vote anywhere in the world until approximately 1920."

That's simply not true.

 

[RileyHawk]

It was an insult to what black folk went to just lump their experience in there with women. Of course women didn't have all the same rights as men. But that didn't put them on level with what black folk went through. Very different experience. Coming from a very different place.

I'm surprised you wouldn't have thought of that.

No way I ever would have gotten that from your post. It was nonsensical.

 

[RileyHawk]

Hey guys, if you want to see something funny, ask @RileyHawk to explain what systemic racism is.

Why would that be funny?

You've been drinking a lot tonight, haven't you?

 

[z_ape]

Lol - but this is what you said:

"Women couldn't vote anywhere in the world until approximately 1920."

That's simply not true.

LOL. Ok, a few edge cases there. I'll give you that all day every day. Bravo, good job.

 

[RileyHawk]

LOL. Ok, a few edge cases there. I'll give you that all day every day. Bravo, good job.

Not a few. Some. And they were in YOUR link. C'mon man.

 

[z_ape]

No way I ever would have gotten that from your post. It was nonsensical.

lolwut

In my post I said:

"The dynamics between male and female were not all similar to what we saw between between white and black, between the free and enslaved."

Besides being things that were both discriminated against, they weren't very comparable. Hop on a time machine and go back to 1850. Your choice is to be a black man or a white woman. 99% of people would go with white woman.

 

[z_ape]

Not a few. Some. And they were in YOUR link. C'mon man.

That you chose to quibble about that is hilarious. Who cares, obviously it changes nothing about my observation.

 

[RileyHawk]

lolwut

In my post I said:

"The dynamics between male and female were not all similar to what we saw between between white and black, between the free and enslaved."

Besides being things that were both discriminated against, they weren't very comparable. Hop on a time machine and go back to 1850. Your choice is to be a black man or a white woman. 99% of people would go with white woman.

Yes, I know what you wrote.

 

[RileyHawk]

That you chose to quibble about that is hilarious. Who cares, obviously it changes nothing about my observation.

It demonstrates that what you posted is nonsense.

 

[strummingram]

Not quite, but I'll pick on women's suffrage for a moment.

You realize that this was a problem for our entire species, right? Women couldn't vote anywhere in the world until approximately 1920.

This wasn't about America. Or the west, even.. This was about leadership and human beings. All apes -- what we are -- featured male leadership. Just as every dang civilization on earth did for a long long time. (Probably a few exceptions)

It took us a long time to evolve past that.

Look at the dates here

Women's suffrage - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yes, so let's make sure we don't pretend that we didn't deny women the right to vote, to hold public office, to do all kinds of things that only MEN were ALLOWED to do in civilized society. The basis for women taking their husband's last name was based on his property status, same with his children.

And, let's not make the same mistake when it comes to people of the African race, which were also viewed as property.

And women were not treated as second-class citizens. The dynamics between male and female were not all similar to what we saw between between white and black, between the free and enslaved.

Women were not treated as equal to a man in basically any social status you can imagine. I used the term "second class citizen." That was me being polite. You don't like it? That's your problem.

 

[z_ape]

Yes, so let's make sure we don't pretend that we didn't deny women the right to vote, to hold public office, to do all kinds of things that only MEN were ALLOWED to do in civilized society. The basis for women taking their husband's last name was based on his property status, same with his children.

And, let's not make the same mistake when it comes to people of the African race, which were also viewed as property.


Women were not treated as equal to a man in basically any social status you can imagine. I used the term "second class citizen." That was me being polite. You don't like it? That's your problem.

Of course they weren't treated as equals. That was never debated.

There's a certain sort of person that doesn't like to hear that this sort of treatment of women wasn't just a US problem or even just a West problem. It was humanity level. So I like to point that out.

There's also the sort of person that likes to lump in women with black Americans of the period as if they were similar in treatment received.

I point out what I did because it's hard to argue against and it pisses those people off.

Riley's implosion was a good example.

I'm ornery.

 

[strummingram]

Of course they weren't treated as equals. That was never debated.

There's a certain sort of person that doesn't like to hear that this sort of treatment of women wasn't just a US problem or even just a West problem. It was humanity level. So I like to point that out.

There's also the sort of person that likes to lump in women with black Americans of the period as if they were similar in treatment received.

I point out what I did because it's hard to argue against and it pisses those people off.

Riley's implosion was a good example.

I'm ornery.

Well, I can't really write US History, let alone World History. America was supposed to be some grand experiment in self-government. It was... it IS! But, it started out as white men that owned property governing themselves. They were well aware that Africans and women were human beings, but they chose to exclude them from their experiment. What the rest of the world was doing is for them to sort-out.

Imagine being a black woman?

 

[z_ape]

Well, I can't really write US History, let alone World History. America was supposed to be some grand experiment in self-government. It was... it IS! But, it started out as white men that owned property governing themselves. They were well aware that Africans and women were human beings, but they chose to exclude them from their experiment. What the rest of the world was doing is for them to sort-out.

Imagine being a black woman?

Yeah, Anerica didn't seem to be any more socially progressive than the rest of the world, or west at least.

I just view the development of women's rights a bit differently than those of black Americans.

I'm guessing we didn't appreciate just how fundamental sex roles were in human development. You look at all the hunter gather societies still existing and they're all patriarchal. All the great apes are basically.

I think it's interesting too, that women's suffrage didn't take off world wide until after the industrial revolution. Before that the industrial revolution we lived in a time in which almost everybody did manual labor. In which children didn't go to school. There was women's work, and men's work. Each did what they were naturally best at.

Industrial revolution allowed us to move away from the country side, kids could go to school, women could go to work. Economy became much more diverse.

Before that point women were missing out on voting and the few governmental leadership roles men held, but there wasn't much more going on.

It makes sense that women's rights blossomed in a post industrial revolution world where there were so many interesting ways for them to participate.

 

[IaHawk44]

So are you denying the examples listed by the article?

Examples aren't facts.

 

[Tfxchawk]

That's absolutely FALSE. There have been NO examples, or proof, of CRT being "taught" in K-12 public schools ANYWHERE!

You people literally create fictional threats, and outcomes, and then try and pin blame on people while feigning outrage over it. It's in your imaginations!

CRT is not something that kids in elementary school would even be able to process, let alone be TAUGHT.

If you're an educated white male, and over the age of say 30 or 40, what is it about America's blatant examples of racially-prejudiced, and gender-preference origins and preferential treatment for white men that bothers you so much? Are you denying that WHITE MEN were the only human beings that were actually recognized as being full-fledged citizens when the country was founded, and all the way through to Reconstruction in the late 19th century, and up until the Women's Suffrage in the early 20th century? It's just a fact. It's reality. Are you ashamed of that fact? Are you threatened by it? You're still going to be okay. Look at the bright side; At least black people and women are not seeking REVENGE for being treated as second-class human beings for hundreds of years. That would be something worth worrying about!

Keep lying

 

[EasyHawk]

As Tulsi Gabbard put it so elequently, "McAuliffe's loss is a victory for all Americans. Why? Because it was a resounding rejection of efforts to divide us by race, the stripping of parental rights, and arrogant, deaf leaders. This benefits us all."

 

[RileyHawk]

Of course they weren't treated as equals. That was never debated.

There's a certain sort of person that doesn't like to hear that this sort of treatment of women wasn't just a US problem or even just a West problem. It was humanity level. So I like to point that out.

There's also the sort of person that likes to lump in women with black Americans of the period as if they were similar in treatment received.

I point out what I did because it's hard to argue against and it pisses those people off.

Riley's implosion was a good example.

I'm ornery.

Of course, pointing out your factual error is my "implosion". So much projecting these days.

 

[RileyHawk]

Yeah, Anerica didn't seem to be any more socially progressive than the rest of the world, or west at least.

I just view the development of women's rights a bit differently than those of black Americans.

I'm guessing we didn't appreciate just how fundamental sex roles were in human development. You look at all the hunter gather societies still existing and they're all patriarchal. All the great apes are basically.

I think it's interesting too, that women's suffrage didn't take off world wide until after the industrial revolution. Before that the industrial revolution we lived in a time in which almost everybody did manual labor. In which children didn't go to school. There was women's work, and men's work. Each did what they were naturally best at.

Industrial revolution allowed us to move away from the country side, kids could go to school, women could go to work. Economy became much more diverse.

Before that point women were missing out on voting and the few governmental leadership roles men held, but there wasn't much more going on.

It makes sense that women's rights blossomed in a post industrial revolution world where there were so many interesting ways for them to participate.

No - you're wrong again. You make a lot of blanket statements that turn out to be incorrect.

6 Matriarchal Societies That Have Been Thriving With Women at the Helm for Centuries​

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/

 

[z_ape]

No - you're wrong again. You make a lot of blanket statements that turn out to be incorrect.

6 Matriarchal Societies That Have Been Thriving With Women at the Helm for Centuries​

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/

Oh good god. I understand they exist, I've read about them before. It's obviously true that the vast majority are not. My point obviously stands.

 

[RileyHawk]

Oh good god. I understand they exist, I've read about them before. It's obviously true that the vast majority are not. My point obviously stands.

Then say "vast majority" instead of a blanket statement that isn't true. And your point is nonsense.