Journalists Robert Samuels and Toluse Olorunnipa, authors of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “His Name Is George Floyd,” are still unclear why they were told they couldn’t read from their book or talk about systemic racism to a room full of high school students in Memphis.
Two days before an event at Whitehaven High School, they said they were “blindsided” by the last-minute restrictions, which they believed event organizers issued in accordance with Tennessee laws restricting certain books in schools. They said they’d also been told the week before the appearance that their book wouldn’t be distributed at the event.
One thing is for certain, the authors said: The students paid the price ultimately.
This reasoning is exceptionally racist to even suggest. The logic that black people on the whole commit a higher rate of crimes enough to reflect statistically because they think it’s ok because of their races’ past, is a conservative talking point and a scare tactic.
It’s like suggesting that, because white people tend to make it further in their careers, is it because society as a whole favors white people to be more capable of higher paying jobs? Or is it because white people actually have higher work ethic? The latter is racist to assert, even if you juxtapose it with the actual reasoning like it’s supposed to be considered just as equally.
It seems like you’re just brushing on the point but still missing it. Sure, the studies need to be made again with regards to the actual data. But the data is public. The conclusions can be made without published scientific work. Those help, but conservatives sure aren’t quoting published research papers when they say things like “drag harms children” or “a fetus is a baby”.
The point I’m making is that just bringing up that the guy who formalized the concept falsified his findings, is not enough justification to deny the people talking about their personal convictions to an audience willing to listen, and it’s damn sure not enough for an institution to decide to snip and cut certain things such a group might want to talk about in a way that neuters the point.
The Tennessee school/government has an agenda, just as much as they might claim the group in question does. If that researcher hadn’t have been deposed as a liar, they’d be saying the same things and making the same restrictions, just like they did in the years before he was outed as a liar.
The difference in this conversation is that I only care about the science and don’t care about the politicking.
That’s fine and dandy. But this is an article about politicking and you’re making a point as if the science invalidates the fact that the politicking is the major motivation.
Whether you like it or not, social science bleeds into politics and vice versa. It’s not really something you can take one without the other.
I guess we’re done here?
Asking that the experiments are replicated in order to verify their reliability is not a political stance.
Insuring veracity shouldn’t be on a left or right spectrum, everyone should be aspiring to be as correct as possible, regardless of the politicking.
Again, invoking science on a post about politics.
Social science in particular relies on many wide concepts and general statements. Sometimes, being as correct as possible is beside the point.
In this case, we don’t have to cite a research paper to understand that conservatives are stifling dissenters to their own world view.
Citing “as correct as possible” on a post about politics is questionable at best. Insisting on reconducting the research before denouncing a clearly political action is basically missing the forest for the trees.
Have a good one, mate
You’re just asking questions.