New Education Standards in Texas

[Talon]

Show me anywhere else in the US where those on the left of the US spectrum are trying to undermine science with religious ideology on a state level and I will concede both sides are bad. -.-

This point needs bolding and emphasizing.

Anyone remember Paul Broun, who claimed "evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell"? He wasn't just some random ignoramus, he was a Republican Congressman who sat on the freaking House Science Committee.

I don't doubt there are left-wing nut-jobs out there, but does anyone take them seriously? Are they elected public officials? Do they wield power and influence not in spite of their lunacy, but precisely because of it?

If anyone wants to claim "both sides are bad", they need to meet the above burden of proof. Good luck with that.

[s_stabeler]

Maybe I need to spell it out like I would to my little sister. The issue is that the standards are biased, not which side they are biased towards. IOW, the issue isn't that the standards have a bias towards republican views- the issue is that the bias is there at all. That it is the republicans doing it is only relevant insofar as the republicans should be blamed- however, the solution isn't to replace the republicans on the Board of Education with democrats, but to replace them with people who care more about teaching the kids properly, and less about their personal biases.

[Kheldarson]

Maybe I need to spell it out like I would to my little sister. The issue is that the standards are biased, not which side they are biased towards. IOW, the issue isn't that the standards have a bias towards republican views- the issue is that the bias is there at all. That it is the republicans doing it is only relevant insofar as the republicans should be blamed- however, the solution isn't to replace the republicans on the Board of Education with democrats, but to replace them with people who care more about teaching the kids properly, and less about their personal biases.

Except you're never going to get rid of bias. That's impossible, particularly in history. The issue is to have the bias within an acceptable measure and with an attempt to balance it. We'll always have textbooks and standards written with Europeans as the "heroes": who wants to put down the majority of the countries most Americans can still trace their roots too? But good textbooks and standards try to take care to show how other areas did as good or better than us or how Europeans affected their systems negatively. Texas right now has no balance. And honestly, the neo-conservative bent they have where they outright ignore facts is scarier than anything I've seen from liberals, which is mostly downplaying our heroes.

[Gravekeeper]

Maybe I need to spell it out like I would to my little sister.

You're little sister must live in a state of perpetual confusion given how well you are explaining yourself. At no point was it suggested that the solution was to replace Republican members of the education board with Democrats. You clearly said this is a situation where "both sides are bad" holds some water.

That is demonstrably false. Moving the goalposts to a completely unrelated argument that no one was making ( and being unnecessarily condescending about it as well ) doesn't change that. I mean fuck I even said there are a handful of moderate Republicans on the sane side of this. So what the hell are you even talking about?

Again, unless you can demonstrate this scenario occurring at a state level anywhere in the US from a left leaning group trying to replace science or rewrite history based on ideology, you are wrong. It is one side that does this and has been doing this sort of "Christian Nation(tm)" bullshit for years.

[s_stabeler]

if you are claiming that it's only republicans doing this- and I admit I wouldn't know- then the implication is that by replacing the republicans, you would resolve the issue. THAT is more what i meant- that the UNDERLYING problem causing this to even be POSSIBLE is that there are no requirements to be on the Board of Education.

and while I'll admit I might have been getting condescending, it was actually born out of frustration that you seem to be either missing or ignoring the point I'm trying to make- that the issue is the politicisation of the Board of Education, not who is controlling it at the moment.

[Gravekeeper]

if you are claiming that it's only republicans doing this- and I admit I wouldn't know- then the implication is that by replacing the republicans, you would resolve the issue. THAT is more what i meant- that the UNDERLYING problem causing this to even be POSSIBLE is that there are no requirements to be on the Board of Education.

For the second time, no, that is not the implication and I was the one that brought up the point that there are no qualifications to sit on the state board.

You said, and I quote:

But the greater issue is how educational standards are set by people using their political beliefs, rather than the facts. And yes, I agree that both sides do it- that does NOT make ti acceptable for either side.

That is what you said. Those are your words. Until you can demonstrate that somewhere in the country, on a state level, there is a left leaning political group trying to replace facts in education with ideology, you are wrong. You even just admitted as such.

So no, I am not missing or ignoring your point. I was the one that made your point to begin with. So don't get snippy with me over your mistake.

[Hyena Dandy]

on a state level, there is a left leaning political group trying to replace facts in education with ideology, you are wrong. You even just admitted as such.

Anyone trying to push Howard Zinn as a basic highschool history textbook, which, yes, there are. They're less succesful because of the power that Texas has, and saying "On a state level" can put them out, but the "On a state level," as in in state government, was never something that was said.

Yes, wanting to use politics instead of historical consensus in education is a problem, that BOTH SIDES DO HAVE. It's just that one of them is more successful. >_> The fact that it's often used as a double-standard doesn't mean that it's not true that the left isn't a perfect haven of truth and all good things that we should never self-criticize.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, wanting to use politics instead of historical consensus in education is a problem, that BOTH SIDES DO HAVE. It's just that one of them is more successful. >_> The fact that it's often used as a double-standard doesn't mean that it's not true that the left isn't a perfect haven of truth and all good things that we should never self-criticize.

No one said that either. One side being worse than the other obviously doesn't mean the other side is perfect. You're also saying that if given equal power, the opposing side would go ape shit with it over public education as well. Facts be damned. Which is, again, the "both sides are bad" meme.

Also, your counter point is Howard Zinn? A historian with a PHD? AKA someone with qualifications? -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

Also, your counter point is Howard Zinn? A historian with a PHD? AKA someone with qualifications? -.-

My counterpoint is someone whose historical work presents as much of a simplistic and unconsidered narrative as anything about the 'Heroic white people who came and brought civilization to the natives.' His work is important and useful as a counterpoint, but when it is one of the only things present, it gives as biased and one-sided a view as those who would reduce American history to that of the heroic power of 'European Civilization.' He asks 'Yes-or-No' questions which any historian can tell you, all 'Yes or Nos' will almost universally be answerable with 'Yes.' He also presents 'Either-Ors' which don't allow that the answer will be both.

You're also saying that if given equal power, the opposing side would go ape shit with it over public education as well.

I am perfectly capable of knowing what I am saying. What I am saying is that it's true that both do it, and that to deny it is foolish. I make no claims about the success or the quality, though with what I have learned, there have been lies on both sides.

Truth is not a political issue. It is a truth issue.

[Gravekeeper]

My counterpoint is someone whose historical work presents as much of a simplistic and unconsidered narrative as anything about the 'Heroic white people who came and brought civilization to the natives.'

But "heroic white people who came and brought civilization to the natives" is not what is going on here. Here is the full list of shit the board has tried to do:

- Remove/discredit evolution from science and biology textbooks.
- Push abstinence only education in biology and health textbooks.
- Push young Earth creationism.
- Downplay or remove the contribution of minorities to American history.
- Try to push the Christian Nation mythos into history textbooks and highlight Ronald Reagan as the hero who saved the world from communism and saved the economy ( the *modern* economy, as in the last 20 years. All Reagan. ) by lowering taxes.
- Hush up Thomas Jefferson talking about the seperation of Church and State.
- Emphasis the "importance of religion to the Founding Fathers".
- Downplay Lincoln in the Civil War in favour of emphasizing Jefferson Davis.
- Criticize the Civil Rights movement and downplay Martin Luther King Jr.
- And of course the current one, hush up slavery and pretend the Civil War was about States rights.

I'm sure there's more I missed.

Now, please tell me how Zinn is in any way equal to this or where in the country anyone is abusing state or federal political power to try and impose Zinn's historical perspective on public education.

I am perfectly capable of knowing what I am saying. What I am saying is that it's true that both do it, and that to deny it is foolish. I make no claims about the success or the quality, though with what I have learned, there have been lies on both sides.

Yet again, please offer a single piece of evidence of shit of this magnitude coming from the opposing side.

Removing "success or the quality" from the argument is absurd. If you remove success/quality from the argument, you can make the argument that ANY issue has problems of equal weight on both sides. This is the entire problem with the "both sides are bad" fallacy. One side of an issue is doing something colossally assholish or whatever, but because there is a single vague suggestion the other side might have thought about doing it once then both sides are bad! Thats not how it works. Both sides are not equal here.

So, one more time: If you are both going to stick to this argument then please offer any evidence to support your assertion or please stop trying to argue it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Removing "success or the quality" from the argument is absurd. If you remove success/quality from the argument, you can make the argument that ANY issue has problems of equal weight on both sides.

No. It is not.

There's a difference between this, and other instances of the idea, one which you seem to be blinded to. When intended as a criticism of the left or a defense of the right, it is bullshit. However, when used as a criticism of a general situation, it is to engage in partisan chicanery to rush to shut down any criticism of your side.

[Gravekeeper]

No. It is not.

There's a difference between this, and other instances of the idea, one which you seem to be blinded to. When intended as a criticism of the left or a defense of the right, it is bullshit. However, when used as a criticism of a general situation, it is to engage in partisan chicanery to rush to shut down any criticism of your side.

I am not shutting down "any criticism of my side". Don't put me into one of your baseball teams, these are your politics not mine. I also did not politicize this argument either, stabeler did. I even pointed out that moderate Republicans oppose the board as well and specified it was a block of Christian fundies at the root of the problem.

stabeler threw out the "both sides are bad" specifically in reference to politics and stated that both sides do this. We're still waiting for an significant example of the opposing political side doing this in the US.

So either provide examples or concede there are none. But stop trying change the subject of the argument.

[Hyena Dandy]

Don't put me into one of your baseball teams, these are your politics not mine.

Bullshit. That's like arguing I've not got a side on UKIP or Golden Dawn. I'm against them.

You comment on our politics, follow our politics, and engage with our politics. To act like you're not part of our politics just because you can't vote in the general election is obfuscation, and I don't know if you're trying to both of us, or just yourself.

And I have mentioned an example, you move the goalposts. You are playing the game whether you like it or not. The issue is a fundamental disrespect for history. And I was raised in a liberal area. This does mean on the one hand that I missed out on a lot of the conservative side's more egregious problems.

I was also taught that American blacks opposed WWII, which was fought for primarily conquest-related reasons, that the only interactions between whites and natives were war and conquest, that the entire period from the 'fall' of Rome to the renaissance was a 'dark age' of religion oppressing 'science.' None of which is true, and all of which presents a false narrative.

Both sides do it. Whether one is as bad as the other is, and has been, and always will be, irrelevant. Because politicking won't fix the fundamental problem. "Better" doesn't mean "Good," and I for one would like an education which is good, not education which just sucks slightly less by being closer to true.

"They both do it" is bullshit when used as defense or attack. Not when used as commentary on an issue.

[Gravekeeper]

You comment on our politics, follow our politics, and engage with our politics. To act like you're not part of our politics just because you can't vote in the general election is obfuscation, and I don't know if you're trying to both of us, or just yourself.

Just because I disagree with one side does not mean I am a card carrying member of the other side or believe that the other side should take over an issue regardless of its complexity or qualifications. History and science are not political issues. They are facts and information.

And I have mentioned an example, you move the goalposts. You are playing the game whether you like it or not.

I never moved the goalposts. They are still in the same place they were to begin with. And no, you did not provide an example let alone evidence. You provided a hypothetical "anyone".

Let me outline the goalposts for you as repeated several farking times:

Show me anywhere else in the US where those on the left of the US spectrum are trying to undermine science with religious ideology on a state level and I will concede both sides are bad.

I don't doubt there are left-wing nut-jobs out there, but does anyone take them seriously? Are they elected public officials? Do they wield power and influence not in spite of their lunacy, but precisely because of it?

If anyone wants to claim "both sides are bad", they need to meet the above burden of proof. Good luck with that.

Again, unless you can demonstrate this scenario occurring at a state level anywhere in the US from a left leaning group trying to replace science or rewrite history based on ideology, you are wrong. It is one side that does this and has been doing this sort of "Christian Nation(tm)" bullshit for years.

Until you can demonstrate that somewhere in the country, on a state level, there is a left leaning political group trying to replace facts in education with ideology, you are wrong. You even just admitted as such.

The goalposts never changed.

The issue is a fundamental disrespect for history. And I was raised in a liberal area. This does mean on the one hand that I missed out on a lot of the conservative side's more egregious problems.

The issue is revisionist history to fit a narrative of what they think America was/should be. Also, again, which side is it that is willing to take over a state education board just so they can rewrite history, science and biology textbooks to fit their believes? Right.

Both sides do it. Whether one is as bad as the other is, and has been, and always will be, irrelevant.

It is completely relevant if not critically important to the entire country. It is the fundamental problem with the whole damn country and pushing the balance fallacy only makes it worse.

Because politicking won't fix the fundamental problem. "Better" doesn't mean "Good," and I for one would like an education which is good, not education which just sucks slightly less by being closer to true.

and, yet a fucking gain, no one suggested politicking this problem. The issue was there are no qualifications for the board, and a group of fuckhole social conservatives are taking advantage of that with political power. No one suggested replacing them with Democrats. Conversely, neither you nor anyone else has been able to come up with an example of a group of fuckhole liberals doing the same thing anywhere in the country. You have not even come close to meeting the burden of proof here, nor have the goalposts changed at any point.

So you can say "both sides are bad" till your blue in the face but it doesn't make it true. It's a balance fallacy and the sooner the collective American consciousness can let go of it, the sooner things might start to get fixed.

Thus, to put it politely, put up or shut up.

[s_stabeler]

Gravekeeper, what i SAID was that the both sides are bad argument holds SOME water- emphasis SOME- I don't believe even for a second that both sides are equally bad. What I meant by that- and I am saying it specifically- is that the issue is that both sides to some extent, manipulate education standards to reflect their own beliefs. yes, the republicans do it far more. however, my point was that to concentrate on the fact that it was the republicans that did the manipulation is to perpetuate the problem, since the problem would not be fixed by putting people that simply have different agendas on the Board of Education.

My proposed solution- which you have completely ignored in favour of putting words into my mouth- is for there to be a requirement that any member of the Board of Education prove they have teaching experience, and/or subject matter expertise- however, there must be an equal number of people with experiance in each subject ( so if you have a religious fundie, presumably with experience in teaching religion, you must also have a scientist, a mathematician, an IT person, a historian, and so on)