• aski3252@exploding-heads.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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”.