10 Georgia State Senators—All Republicans—Want To Expand Government Control of Private Schools
You are not for school choice or parents’ rights when you try to ban race and LGBT subjects in private education.

Ten Republican Georgia state senators have signed onto a new bill that would prohibit the teaching of controversial race and gender subjects in schools. The twist, in this case, is that the senators are specifically targeting private schools, not public schools, and attempting to forcefully control what they're permitted to teach children regardless of parents' wishes.
This is not what it means to support "school choice" and "parents' rights," senators.
The bill, S.B. 613, was introduced Tuesday. Titled the "Common Humanity in Private Education Act," the bill asserts that "a growing number of Georgia's private and nonpublic schools have embraced curricula and programs based in critical theory. … Additionally some teachers and other personnel in private and nonpublic schools and programs have inappropriately discussed gender identity with children who have not yet reached the age of discretion."
The bill requires that private schools affirm that they will not teach a list of charged concepts that are associated with Critical Race Theory: that "an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously"; "that an individual, solely by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex"; "that meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race"; and other similar Critical Race Theory concepts. It forbids teaching students that the introduction of slavery to the United States constitutes the country's "true" founding (the controversial and eminently debatable 1619 Project). It further forbids segregating classes or programs or excluding participation from them on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity.
After this section there's a chunk that reads is though it was cut and pasted directly from Florida's just-passed "Don't Say Gay" bill, but targeting private schools instead of public systems. It says "No private or nonpublic school or program to which this chapter applies shall promote, compel, or encourage classroom discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not appropriate for the age and developmental stage of the student."
Just as with the Florida bill, Georgia's bill does not explain what it means to "encourage" discussion on the issue, nor does it define what discussion is appropriate for the developmental age of the student. And just like the Florida bill, it gives anybody who is "aggrieved" by a violation of these bans the right to bring a civil action against the private school and seek financial relief from the courts and "reasonable attorneys' fees."
Just last week, one of the bill's sponsors, state Sen. Carden Summers (R–Cordele), wrote a commentary for the Albany Herald praising a Parents' Bill of Rights that is weaving through the state's legislature, observing, "I am deeply thankful for the service of our state's trusted teachers to provide a positive classroom environment in which children can truly flourish and learn, but I believe that parents deserve the right to make sure their children are not being exposed to inappropriate material."
But S.B. 613 undermines the very idea of parents' rights. Parents choose whether to send a kid to a private school and, of course, private schools have to be responsive to parents' demands if they want to stay in operation. Summers' bill actually overrules the right of any parent who wants their children to learn Critical Race Theory or discuss LGBT issues with teachers. As with Florida's bill, it only recognizes the rights of parents to refuse these lessons. Furthermore, because of the threat of lawsuits, it also gives those dissenting parents the power to veto the wishes of all the other parents.
Not everything about the bill is terrible. Some of the restrictions against segregating students by race or ethnicity for various educational programs are directly connected to government funding and grants for private schools and compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But the reasonable part is buried completely by the very clear attempt to censor what is taught at schools that parents choose to send their students to.
This is a mockery of the concept of school choice. Parents who don't want their children to participate in these types of culturally charged issues should absolutely be able to send their kids to schools that avoid the topic. But it is a violation of parental rights to forbid private schools from providing the education that participants actually agree to by paying to send their kids there.
This is another example of politicians and activists attempting to overrule parents. It's just coming from the right rather than the left.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
29th Amendment:
No level of government shall in any way, by any law or regulation, take any action directed at the education process.
So Shackford is saying that private schools SHOULD be allowed to present age-inappropriate and sexually explicit materials to children, to practice segregation, and call children oppressors and victims... because they are "private schools". This is Shackford's 3rd piece in a week defending the sexualization of children, but this time feigning some libertarian ideal. Suddenly, Shackford supports school choice and parental rights, but only so long as it abuses children.
Shackford's obsession with sexualizing children is long past being embarrassing for Reason.
So Shackford is saying that private schools SHOULD be allowed to present age-inappropriate and sexually explicit materials to children, to practice segregation, and call children oppressors and victims.
That is not what he is saying. He is saying agents of the government cannot legislate what a private entity can and cannot do. But he can't find the libertarian inside himself and realize the government never had the moral or constitutional authority to be involved in education, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for that matter (and all of the awful amendments that appended themselves to that abortion).
CRA of 1964 was a fine punch. 90% of it was excellent. But that other 10% was turd floating in the punch bowl. Sigh. We needed a CRA, but politicians do what politicians do best and shit in the punch.
[JOIN NOW] I really make A LOT OF MONEY ($200-$300/hour) online from my laptop. Last month I received almost $50,000. this line work is simple and straightforward. lpg You don’t need to go to the office, it’s online work from home. You become independent after joining this position. I really appreciate my friend who pointed.
...
It out to me SITE….., http://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
We needed a CRA
The list of things we "need" has only trivial overlap with the things the federal government is empowered to deliver. Property rights and freedom of association are natural rights and the CRA continues to be a gross infringement on them and the founding principle of limited government.
Democrats never change.
Neither do the 'libertarians' at Reason, who inevitably favor the freedoms of the left while turning a blind eye to liberties they find distasteful.
Or consider how a cabal of large corporations, doing the government's bidding, have sought to choke off financing for non preferred forms of energy production. All while the Biden administration is attempting to blame those energy producers for failing to "invest" more in their operations.
I'm pretty sure state governments have always had the constitutional authority to be involved in education in certain ways. Probably not in regulating what private schools can and cannot teach.
If state money is involved then state strings are attached.
Shackford does not note this problem, mainly because he does not see it as a problem.
So long as he is the one pulling the strings.
All powers not given to federal government in the constitution fall to the states.
"That is not what he is saying. He is saying agents of the government cannot legislate what a private entity can and cannot do."
Has that not been fairly thoroughly debunked repeatedly?
When has Shackford been anything other than dishonest?
But he can't find the libertarian inside himself and realize the government never had the moral or constitutional authority to be involved in education, or the Civil Rights Act [CRA] of 1964 for that matter (and all of the awful amendments that appended themselves to that abortion).
Right.
And this gets to the central issue. The CRA of 1964 has spun off numerous government mandates: affirmative action, forced busing, diversity indoctrination, sensitivity struggle sessions, speech codes up the wazoo, not to mention vastly expanding legislation by court order and bureaucratic diktat.
Now, if I saw REASON routinely protesting all this, I might take REASON seriously. But to protest the civil rights establishment would mean taking on some heavy-hitters, and that ain't gonna happen. Much easier to wag a finger at some legislators who are trying to prevent indoctrination of school children.
The CRA has created more big government than the Military Industrial Complex ever dreamed of. Let's see REASON push back against it.
Well, why shouldn't they? If parents are choosing the schools, what's the problem, as long as the schools aren't actually committing any criminal acts? If we think parents need to be given wide latitude in how to raise and educate their children, it goes both ways.
Assuming the law does what he says it does, I think he gets this one right.
And seeing that this is about state money going to schools, I need to rethink that a bit.
Even then, I'm not sure it's great precedent. What happens when someone wants to ban state money going to any schools that don't teach CRT and buttsex?
The answer depends on the desires of the electorate. If that is what their representatives think the people want then that is what they will get. At least until elections indicate otherwise.
If government is going to be involved in education then that is what will happen.
The only way to have true freedom in education is to get government out of the process entirely.
>present age-inappropriate and sexually explicit materials to children
You are assuming that there is a social consensus about what is age-appropriate for children. That is blatantly untrue. To name the most obvious example, some parents allow young children to watch R-rated movies, some do not. This has been the way it has been since there have been movie ratings, and nothing bad has happened as a consequence of it. There is a general consensus against showing children hardcore pornography, but I very much doubt that is the sort of material these schools are being targeted for showing. More likely it is basic sex-ed stuff, and also informing children of facts such as "gay people exist."
I think a major issue is that the word "sexual orientation" is used to refer to both sexual attraction, and romantic attraction. So telling kids that "men can fall in love with other men and women can fall in love with other women" is regarded as somehow "sexual," even if sex is never mentioned.
>Shackford's obsession with sexualizing children
You are assuming that giving children information about how sex works somehow "sexualizes" them. This is nonsense. It is like assuming that telling children how to fix a sink will make all children want to be plumbers. You seem to think that children are inherently asexual until being told about sex somehow "activates" their sexuality. This is untrue, sexual development is a biological process that will happen regardless of when children learn facts about how sex works.
It is like assuming that telling children how to fix a sink will make all children want to be plumbers.
The problem with that analogy is that fixing sinks is not an essential, and highly pleasurable, biological function.
On the other hand, kids are going to pretty much figure that out somewhere between ages 9 and 13.
I don't see a problem with teaching the facts of how reproduction works. But beyond that I don't see any good reason for schools to be getting into sex education.
"You are assuming that there is a social consensus about what is age-appropriate for children."
You are obfuscating the fact that legislation, in a representative republic, is an accepted and historic form of social consensus.
Res Publica and all that.
You are either very ignorant or very dishonest.
"And congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of production and trade." This is the 65th anniversary of its publication in Atlas Shrugged.
Look at how sad the guy in the photo looks!
And all because he can’t teach racist doctrines or groom children!
Not lost here are the 2 rainbow flags, the limp wrist, and a blackboard that indicates he's supposed to be teaching math. It's so sad that he's not allowed to also promote his predilections to children.
@Bluwater
The 1980s called and they want their moral panic back. The idea that exposing children to information about sexual orientation will turn them gay was wrong then, it's wrong now. It's actually astounding how similar this current "protect the children" rhetoric is to the rhetoric back then. It makes it easier to discredit. Children were in no danger then and are in no danger now.
The 1980s called and they want their moral panic back.
I am sure you would be just as sanguine if he was rocking a MAGA hat and had the stars and bars pointed up behind him. Neither is appropriate in the mathnasium.
The 1970's called and said to be on the lookout for Mr. Stranger Danger aka YOU!
Children were in no danger then and are in no danger now.
https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids?s=r
Yup. Nothing weird going on here. No reason to worry about the large increase in trans identification in children over the last ten years.
Your mom just called...
She said we could keep you...
Still not too sure about that.
@VULGAR MADMAN
What is with this weird idea that sharing information about how sex works with kids is somehow "grooming" them? Generally the opposite is true. Children who are ignorant of sex and how sex works are more vulnerable to predators because they are unable to recognize what is happening to them until it is too late. That is a major reason there are so many sex abuse scandals in conservative religious communities.
Cite?
Do you like gladiator movies?
For gash
This is another example of politicians and activists attempting to overrule parents. It's just coming from the right rather than the left.
Bisa anda perhatikan salah satu Agency SEO Indonesia, seperti Salim Digital ( https://www.salimdigital.com ) bisa seperti ini.
It further forbids segregating classes or programs or excluding participation from them on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity.
Fuckin' Republicans trying to integrate schools *again*.
I'm trying to imagine what party the politician would hail from who's standing on the steps of school shouting "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever".
Well, I doubt that; I am sure you know.
But it will surprise some to learn what party sent in the US Army without regard to posse commitatus, and first split the unit along racial lines and held back the black troops.
The party that is ALWAYS there.
The Democrats.
The party of the left. The party that, bereft of any workable policies, must perpetually pit groups against each other and blame such strife as occurs as the reason none of it's policies have been applied, but instead, party functionaries must needs enrich themselves so that they might be able to continue fighting to make things do what they say.
From the articles here I would assume Libertarian, possibly Democrat.
Republicans: We are for small and restrained government... when we feel like it.
So small it can fit in your uterus.
In a thread about school and children Raspberry Turnover wants to open the discussion of pro-choice and cell clumps again.
Low-tariff Confederates welcomed the support of vigilante gangs of catchers hunting and kidnapping female "property" lest they get uppity and decline involuntary servitude of the labor of reproducing massa's issue. Remember the result? Mystical bigots now masquerading as fiscally responsible are another brand of libertarian impersonator hiding the handcuffs and gun behind recitation and arm-waving. Mimesis in predators never gets old
Do you have newsletter or website I could follow!
Do you have newsletter or website I could follow!
Like anyone could follow the nonsensical rambling...
Democrats: "We are for big government unless it stands in the way of the sexualization and demonization of children and promotes racial segregation."
You didn't say 'both sides'!
Actually it's more like, "We are for opportunity and choice... unless it's a choice for an opportunity we don't like."
“Unless it’s a choice for an opportunity we don’t like”, like cornholing the kinder. How dare they, the bigots.
So sad they won’t let you groom children.
Yes Brandy, keep defending government power over parents. Which is actually what you and others have been defending. It is republicans saying teachers don't have final say, using sunshine laws, etc to show what is being taught.
What an idiotic take as usual.
Could we get an actual journalist on this beat instead of an activist? Or least a journalist who is not an activist on these issues? It might increase the quality of the analysis.
Using "Don't Say Gay" as the title of the Florida bill is propaganda, not an honest description.
I do not imagine the legal system would let stand a private school explicitly teaching black people are inferior. Perhaps this is something the legislature should not ban, but a school should not be teaching race essentialism directed at any group.
The 1619 Project is controversial because it was not written to be good history and has no place in any curriculum as a primary history text.
Calling 1619 Project "controversial" is being insanely fucking generous. It's not controversial, it's bullshit. It's been called bullshit by any historian with a modicum of self-respect. The only people pushing it are race activists, not people who have done any actual reading or study.
Don't be generous to liars. Call them liars.
It's postmodern nazism
This is not a news site. This is an opinion site. It provides libertarian takes on the news. I would have thought you figured that out by now.
It’s a parody site.
He is an LGBT activist, his libertarianism, such as it is, is subordinate to that.
Interesting how the 1619 project isn't Dangerous Misinformation.
Nor is claiming that men can be women if they REALLY feel like it.
Are you denying the science?
For shame!
Such a school would lose accreditation, which is done by private groups.
https://ncpsa.org/accreditation/
Given the deceptive framing of the Florida bill that happens in this article, I'm not inclined to believe the assertion being made about the Georgia bill. It's getting really depressing because I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt on the leftist framing; I was on board with Shackford after the first three paragraphs. But then he used the DNC talking point of the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida that is not how he described it and it reminded me that I can't trust what he's saying about this bill.
Shackford's last 3 articles have been defending the presentation of sexually explicit and age-inappropriate materials to children and he now adds support for segregation of children so long as it is coming from the politically correct mindset.
The idea that this twit has a single libertarian bone in his body is absurd. He's only libertarian so long as it promotes the unhindered grooming of children, state protection in doing so, and a lack of parental authority as it pertains to protecting children from such.
he now adds support for segregation of children so long as it is coming from the politically correct mindset.
I don't think that's accurate. He's defending the right of parents to choose to have their children educated that way. Which is absolutely the libertarian position. It's really a no-brainer when it's about private schools. I totally agree that the reporting on similar bills aimed at government institutions has been terrible. But this is different. Parents have a right not to have their children politically indoctrinated in schools they are forced to attend and pay for. They also have a right to spend their own money filling their children's heads with nonsense.
They do. But those schools aren't also entitled to state funds if it's really about parents' choices. If you're paying your own way, you can send your kid to a nazi-indoctrination school that teaches creationism and how Astrology can advance your career. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund it.
Aha! So here's the catch. Were you wondering what Shackford wasnot telling you?
"But it is a violation of parental rights to forbid private schools from providing the education that participants actually agree to by paying to send their kids there."
Here's the kicker though-this is about being a qualifying school under Georgia's school voucher program. In order for the school to qualify for government funding, it has to adhere to state standards and not discriminate or teach that one race is inherently superior to another, that no student is inherently racist or sexist by virtue of their race, color, ethnicity, or national origin (etc).
It's basically saying, "If you're taking our money, you can't teach CRT because it's evil."
Aha, so that's what "No private or nonpublic school or program to which this chapter applies" means! Which means Shackford seems to have deliberately left out this important detail which seems to change its sponsor from being pro-choice on schooling to being confused and contradictory. So what was Shackford: mendacious or merely inattentive?
Malicious.
Which means Shackford seems to have deliberately left out this important detail
Worse. He didn't leave it out, he included it and discounted it. Leaving it out would leave open the notion that "He just skimmed it." or "He was reading it selectively." Him including it means he knows it's in there and feels we need to go ahead spending taxpayer dollars via vouchers on teh feelz anyway. We can't cut public funding if it means we might cut funding to sexualize K-3 children.
Observe that to the Sinking Mine all thought that is neither papal caudillo fascism or Lutheran National Socialism is by default fobbed off as "leftist." It's a confession that fascism and communism differ only by which gang of heretic-burners they obey, and let's pretend there is no such thing as liberal or libertarian democracy.
It's Shack using the framing of the leftists, yes. He's not just explaining what the bill does and says, he has to be deceptive about it, describing the notorious 1619 Project as "controversial" instead of "utter bullshit." Just like he's accepted the narrative of the "Parental Rights in Education" bill in Florida by calling it "Don't say Gay" bill, which is a spin applied to that bill by its leftist detractors.
And if you want the truth, I have some issues with vague phrasing in Florida's HB 1557, the Parental Rights in Education bill, specifically the much criticized third article. I think it's fine to say that educators don't need to actually teach anything about sexual orientation to six year olds, but I'm curious how wide the idea of "teaching" goes. I'm fine with the idea that we shouldn't be shoving sensitivity training and age-inappropriate discussions into first grade classrooms, but I also think there needs be license for teachers to answer basic, neutral questions kids may ask. "Why does Sally have two daddies but no mommy?"
So I'm not actually a huge fan of the Florida bill, I just dislike the way its been mischaracterized by lies and propaganda even more. I'll admit I'm likely to turn on people who constantly lie to me even if I accept one of their underlying principles. I'm more happy to work with the people who disagree with me in an honest fashion because I know I can honestly discuss issues with them.
Gay!
“I'll admit I'm likely to turn on people who constantly lie to me even if I accept one of their underlying principles.”
Reason over the last several years in a nutshell.
Deceptive framing is limiting the universe of discourse to papal caudillo governance or Lutheran nationalsocialism and dismissing all else (especially liberal or libertarian democracy) as "leftist."
Watch Scott scream as his house of grooming comes tumbling down.
I wish people would stop using "grooming" with this meaning. It confuses the heck out of me, as I see "house of grooming" and think "beauty parlor" until that other meaning slowly dawns.
@Roberta
I will translate for you. In Moral Panic Speak, the word "grooming" means the following:
1. Informing children that gay people exist
2. Informing children that humans reproduce through a process known as "sex" and giving some basic details of what that process involves.
3. Allowing teenagers to read books that, if they were movies, would probably be rated PG-13, or maybe a soft R, and in general have content that would be unexceptional in a standard Eighties rom-com.
The "Don't say gay" law explicitly says it applies to K-3. Are you trying to redefine 'grooming' in order to sexualize K-3 students or are you defending teenage third graders' (parents) expectations of sex ed as part of their public education.
Personally, I'm at a loss as to whether grooming 3rd graders or grooming 3rd grade retards is a more reprehensible position to defend.
@mad.casual
The big issue is the word "grooming." It is used to imply that knowing about sex at a young age will somehow make kids more sexual or easy for predators to seduce. This is BS. There is no evidence for it. No one is defending "grooming" of any kids. The idea that these curriculums are grooming them in any way is a blatant lie. It is an attempt by conservative people to impose their own views of what a curriculum should look like by lying and saying their preferred curriculum protects children for sexual predation, even though it does not.
I was referring to the general tendency of people to refer to informing kids and teens of basic sexual facts as "grooming", rather than the particular context of the "Don't say gay" law. For instance, in the comments to an article about "banned books" a day or two ago, a lot of commenters were using "grooming" and "sexualizing children" to refer to books that were clearly being assigned to teenagers.
In terms of K-3 students, I think they should be told homosexuality is a thing at the same approximate time they are told heterosexuality is a thing. If you can read "Snow White" to a kindergartener you can also read "Snow White, but with Princess Charming instead of Prince Charming" to a kindergartener.
I don't have a strong opinion on what exact age sex-ed should happen. When I was in second grade I asked my parents where babies came from and they gave me a straight answer. Nothing bad happened as a consequence of that. It didn't somehow "sexualize" me. If some parents want their kids to know then, so what?
It is used to imply that knowing about sex
Full stop. Flat wrong. The litigation is specifically aimed at educators and despite your stupidity about Snow White, makes no distinction with regard to homosexuality.
Continue on with your thin veil of bullshit. It doesn't make you look good and pretty much anyone above the age of 10 can smell you coming 20 ft. away. Just don't be surprised when you have to call their parents and notify them that you've moved into the neighborhood.
Pedophile gonna pedophile
Anyone got a mill stone?
2. Informing children that humans reproduce through a process known as "sex" and giving some basic details of what that process involves.
Since homosexuals can't reproduce through homosex I take it you don't think of them as human. Succinctly explains your screen name.
"1. Informing children that gay people exist"
Literally nobody has a problem with that.
"2. Informing children that humans reproduce through a process known as "sex" and giving some basic details of what that process involves."
Can you explain why it is vital we teach it to kids 8 yrs old and younger? You know, when the whole thing is more confusing than anything they have a lot of interest in.
"3. Allowing teenagers to read books that, if they were movies, would probably be rated PG-13, or maybe a soft R, and in general have content that would be unexceptional in a standard Eighties rom-com."
Nobody says they cannot read books.
But I should be under zero obligation to PROVIDE those books.
If their PARENTS wish to buy them, bully for them.
Moreover, as Ghatanathoah clearly didn't read in the "Don't say gay" bill, you should be under less than zero obligation to provide them to librarians and school teachers who teach them or require them as part of a curriculum without parents' consent.
I used 'grooming' as opposed to 'brainwashing' because there's something more visceral about what's going on.
These teachers aren't just bringing up these topics in sex ed classes or lessons. The message permeates every lesson they can shoehorn it into. This applies to the endless permutations of fad sexual identities as well as the ideas taught to educators in critical race theory seminars (they are NOT teaching kids critical race theory--they are skewing lessons to fixate on the racial animus which is the tool critical race theory uses in place of pitting 'social classes' against each other).
They are also trying to do this without any transparency.
Which is a large part of what these bills address.
Grooming is a specific term used in sex offense treatment that describes the process where the future aggressor conditions their future victim to feel comfortable in situations that will become sexually inappropriate. One example is getting children to accept keeping secrets from their parents. It appears apt in this case.
Yes, it's Democrats that are the party of grooming and pedos, not the party who absolutely refuses to acknowledge or address pedos within it's own ranks.
Trump bragged about walking in on underaged girls changing, "NOPE NO PEDO HERE!"
Matt Gaetz paid to fuck teenagers "Stop persecuting him!"
Roy Moore banned from a mall for sexually harassing kids? "Well he's still better than a Democrat..."
Conservatives are, as usual, projecting their own issues on others.
Some of the restrictions against segregating students by race or ethnicity for various educational programs are directly connected to government funding and grants for private schools
Sooooooo....not really private schools.
So if a private school wanted to have weekly viewings of porn movies, that would be fine, as long as the parents approved of course.
That seems to be Shackford's "libertarian" argument.
So if a private school wants to teach that Jews are the root of all problems, that would be fine, as long as the parents approved.
So if a private school wants to teach black kids that white kids are inherently racist, that would be fine, as long as the parents approved.
So if a private school wants to groom children into sexual penumbras and emanations, that would be fine, as long as the parents approved.
The counter argument from Shackford would be that these examples are ridiculous and the market would quickly close any schools doing the above. [Except of course for #2 or 3 which is already happening. But don't look at those.]
Every one of those examples is what government schools taught Italian kids once Mussolini and the Pope approved it in 1929. That same year prohibition fanaticism wrecked the US economy, and "Man With A Camera" showed moviegoers Soviet citizens freely drinking, snorting coke and heroin in bars and train stations. Surprised?
Not so much that, but that i should qualify for state vouchers.
Sure, why not? There is nothing to stop parents showing their kids porn movies now.
@Benitacanova
Your argument is equivalent to a gun control advocate saying that you aren't allowed to believe in the right to bear arms if you believe that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own nuclear weapons, or a censor arguing you can't support free speech if you are opposed to falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. You are, in fact, allowed to have moral principles like "parental rights," "freedom of speech," and "the right to bear arms" while allowing them to be limited in extreme circumstances.
The other thing to consider is that it is massively hypocritical to cry "parental rights" when parents are opposing something you oppose, but to also say that of course parental rights need to be abridged when the parents are supporting something you oppose.
As it happens, I took a film class back in high school where we watched a bunch of R-rated movies. My parents signed a permission slip, so it was fine.
My parents signed a permission slip, so it was fine.
You haven't even read the bill have you?
He's too busy looking for prepubescent children to molest
If they wish to give kids heroin, same deal.
https://twitter.com/kylamb8/status/1501625450937864193?t=r_80VUOJmOZMxnL3db8OZQ&s=19
Just now @PressSec actually said out loud that prohibiting the classroom instruction of sexuality to kids in Kindergarten through the 3rd grade is "discriminatory" and "bullying."
And another person on the record that wants to sexualize children at a young age.
[Link]
The progressives are objecting to the disestablishment of their woke pseudo religion.
I'm gonna need Jen Psaki to go into explicit detail about what she thinks should be taught to 3rd graders.
During show and tell time?
Jen Psucky Psucky.
@Nardz
I watched the link. Your characterization of the press secretary's words is a blatant falsehood. She was clearly talking about how classrooms should be allowed to mention that gay people exist and should not be discriminated against.
The problem is that the word "sexual orientation" is used to describe both being sexually attracted to the same sex, and falling in love with the members of the same sex. This allows disingenuous people to lie and say that children are being taught about sex, when really all that is happening is children are being told that men can marry other men and women can marry other women. Is reading "Snow White" to children "sexualizing" them, since at the end Snow White marries Prince Charming. That is portraying heterosexuality, which is a sexual orientation.
Also, what is with this weird, and really dumb idea that telling children facts about how sex works at a young age sexualizes them? Even if schools did teach sex ed in the second grade, which they don't, that would not somehow "sexualize" children. Knowledge of how sex works does not accelerate the growth of sexual organs. What you are suggesting is biologically implausible, to say the least.
Please keep going. You lack of not just comprehension but basic reading skills is doing wonders for the cause of wannabe groomers and child molesters I'm sure.
@mad.casual
We live in what is probably the most anti-grooming, anti-child molestation society and anti-child molestation era that has ever existed. The idea that there are any official curriculums in any schools, public or private, that are promoting the grooming or molestation of children is too ludicrous to be taken seriously.
The issue with the "don't say gay" bill and similar legislation is that it is so vague that anyone can interpret it to mean anything. You probably read it and interpreted its definition of "inappropriate" to mean something reasonable. Unfortunately, just because you interpreted it that way, other people are not guaranteed to do so.
"The issue with the "don't say gay" bill"
Do you frequently rage at non-existent things?
Like elections being stolen?
1 in 6 Generation Z adults identify as LGBT. I'd say your grooming is going full steam ahead.
They are virtue signaling. Their %'s is no different than any other generation.
Things look pretty bleak for the old Republican party demographics, huh?
Ideology is genetic?
You’re more retarded than I thought.
No, it's more that Republicans are currently running on a moral panic scapegoating LGBT people. It's 2004 all over again, yay!
Not at all. Republican Creation Scientists have calculated that if they can earn the hatred--not just of fertile women--but also of female impersonators and wokies, the elections are in the bag. That's supposing nobody runs against Lyin' Ted or Margarine Green Teeth...
You probably read it and interpreted its definition of "inappropriate" to mean something reasonable.
Given your statement above, you didn't read the bill at all and are arguing in favor of grooming with even less knowledge, evidence, or understanding. But please, do keep going, the more parents and parts of the general public that are aware of your pro-grooming stance, the better.
Honestly, the fact that Ghatanathoah has been allowed to live this long is proof that we do not live in "what is probably the most anti-grooming, anti-child molestation society and anti-child molestation era that has ever existed".
"I watched the link. Your characterization of the press secretary's words is a blatant falsehood. She was clearly talking about how classrooms should be allowed to mention that gay people exist and should not be discriminated against."
Literally nothing is even attempting to stop it. So, that straw man has been beaten enough and the horse you're ALSO beating is not going to get MORE dead anytime soon.
"The problem is that the word "sexual orientation" is used to describe both being sexually attracted to the same sex, and falling in love with the members of the same sex. This allows disingenuous people to lie and say that children are being taught about sex,"
Eight year olds are sexually attracted to one another? Since when? Outside of tragic victims of sexual predators, 8 yr olds could not give less of a shit about sex.
"Also, what is with this weird, and really dumb idea that telling children facts about how sex works at a young age sexualizes them? Even if schools did teach sex ed in the second grade, which they don't, that would not somehow "sexualize" children. Knowledge of how sex works does not accelerate the growth of sexual organs."
...then why it is so vital that we teach sexually immature children about sex that they cannot really have nor have much desire to have?
Eight year olds are sexually attracted to one another? Since when? Outside of tragic victims of sexual predators, 8 yr olds could not give less of a shit about sex.
He says this it's a failure to distinguish in one sentence and then a false dichotomy in the other. He really, really, really wants to teach kids about sex and is willing to lie and deceive to do it.
This is about deciding which schools receive state funding; you can teach 6th grade intro to buggery, but you just won’t get state funds.
What exactly is the issue with this, Shackleford?
A meaningful excerpt:
If NO schools are taxed or subsidized, the only problem that remains is a shortage of coercion backed by threat of violence. Jesus HATES shortages like that... or perhaps these Christian impersonators want you to believe something of the sort so they can act on it with qualified immunity.
I suspect you thought you were expressing a thought, but I cannot tell what that might be - you got the weird religious heebie-jeebies about someone deciding that K-3 grades doesn’t need to know Teh Gay, or that denying tax money to schools that attempt to teach the benefits of racial segregation is bad?
Tough shit. You’re on the side of segregationists.
“School Choice” is not and had not ever been about actual school choice. It is about keeping segregation in schools and real history out of schools.
You are full of shit and a disgusting bigot. School choice has the greatest benefits overall for poor minority students.
...as Scott bemoans that private schools might not be permitted to segregate if they wish to keep state funding...
It is quite easy to tell who read the bill, and who only read Shacklefords parade of horribles.
Reading the bill wouldn’t stop Molly from saying something stupid.
Translation: looter infiltrators use "schools" to mean GOVERNMENT schools funded by taxation at gunpoint and run by political appointees. Libertarians use the word to mean something that is not and ought not to be a part of the coercive political state.
The law says, "You can teach CRT, or inappropriate sexual material to 8 year olds, but not with our money."
Shackford: "The state is furthering hate speech!"
Parents are sick and tired of having the pro-queer and pro-cross-dressing agenda pushed down their impressionable young kids' throats at every turn. The schools must stay limited to academics; not sexuality or gender identity. Period. Good for this law. Only mentally and psych-sexually twisted perverts would support this nonsense.
First soi-disant better people insist on government schools. Then they insist on brainwashing the riff-raff to popularize bullying girls into involuntary servitude for mystical Comstockism, then add deadly prohibition and forfeiture looting laws. Now they feign surprise that women team up to defeat the televangelized zombie Republicans they want in charge of brainwashing the riff-raff!
Holy fuck, make sure the moonshine wasn’t cooled in radiators with lead solder next time and find out how much methanol is in that shit.
Do you want schools to go without any mention of boys and girls, or is it just the queers you want to be erased?
Just critical theory in general.
It's amusing how you people all learn the same bumper sticker of an idea on youtube at the same time and then are all convinced it's the biggest problem in the world, even if it doesn't exist.
It’s amazing how you can never tell the truth.
You can’t possibly win if people know the truth about your
sick racist ideas.
You mean kinda like how you thought "emoluments" were a type of skin moisturizer before you read about them on Daily Kos, and were stridently anti-war until it was time to assassinate an American citizen and his 16 year old son on foreign soil without a trial, conviction, or warrant?
What's even more amusing is how frantic you people get when your ideology is challenged.
Scott minus blinkers would be shocked to learn this is a version of a deal cut by Mussolini and the Pope in May of 1929. Papist collectivism demanded mystical brainwashing of government schoolkids. That was fine with Italian, Spanish and other caudillo fascism, and for Christian National Socialism shortly thereafter. See the newspaper account: https://tinyurl.com/3ba5ph96
So keeping tax money away from segregationists was fascist? Amazing granddad, tell us about how you beat the Nazis by teaching about teh gay to kindergartners.
It's always fun when Hanky goes on a wiki raid and strings together a series of words that, while all of them are in fact English language words, do not formulate a single coherent English language sentence when strung together. I'm sure the hundreds of priests who died and were tortured at Dachau will be thrilled to learn that Hitler was a Papist though. Just like the Democratic congressional majority, the Democratic president, and the Democratic state legislatures that proposed, introduce,d and ratified a constitutional amendment banning alcohol will be thrilled to learn they were actually God's Own Prohibitionists.
If you want to see what getting fucked up the ass by a syphilitic faggot as an 8 year old boy does to a person's brain, look no further than Hank Philips. The part of him that might have developed into a brain sadly ran down his mother's asscrack and is remembered today as nothing more than a shit stain on a mattress in a landfill somewhere in northern Kentucky.
There is nothing "eminently debatable" about the 1619 Project; it is plain wrong.
And, yes, states can regulate what information and content minors are exposed to by state-regulated entities. Perhaps that shouldn't be the case in general, and it certainly wouldn't be the case in a libertarian society, but there is nothing particularly unusual about it within the context of US law and government.
Parents should teach values, not government, and at appropriate ages. This is to stop the indoctrination of children. Yes abuse by one side can lead to the same thing from the other side. What does Reason want them to do? Ignore the abuse of young children with this sexual indoctrination?
Sexual indoctrination isn't a thing.
Marxist indoctrination, however, certainly is. Convincing hormone-addled kids that they're actually the opposite gender from biological reality is just part of the process.
"I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."
Ah, satirical movies is where your understanding of politics comes from. No wonder you're so confused.
So don't quote these things almost verbatim and expect people not to notice that you're acting like a satirical version of a hysterical conspiracy theorist.
I didn’t quote that verbatim. Neither did RRWP.
You seem to want to pretend that Marxist indoctrination doesn’t exist at all, which is absurd. Neo-Marxists have explicitly embarked on a program of indoctrination in our education system.
It's not happening
OK it might be happening but it's not a big deal
It's happening and that's a good thing < you are here
"After this section there's a chunk that reads is though it was cut and pasted directly from Florida's just-passed "Don't Say Gay" bill, "
No such named bill exists.
"Reads *is* though" is exceedingly laughable given the totality of the circs.
Thows filthy legislaturs is copypasting legislashun about edyoucashun that I cain read but still don like in muh head!
That's nice Scotty boy. Now get on the short bus and head off to your special school where no one will bother you. The adults need to talk to each other now.
Don't say "straight" the bill could also be called wokes. Look the gay community made a big mistake by trying to have a big tent with the pedos and mental case who honestly believe that 50% of all kids would be trans if they just reached them before they were 10 years old. The majority of humans are heterosexual not homosexual or bi-sexual. And very few are "confused" about their biological gender. But every minority wants to be a majority..
Sorry Scott but schools should not be pushing an agenda because one tribe or another wants to increase its membership. And time to admit there is a segment of folks who want to mainstream pedo behavior. the gay community should kick these folks out of the movement. They are sick degenerates.
How do you propose we do that? For the most part, what you call "the movement" is hostile to the average gay or lesbian these days, and the leftist organizations that pretend to speak for the movement are financed by governments and foundations with political axes to grind.
Heck, why don't you kick out Putin, Pelosi, or Biden from "the straight movement"? Your comment makes about as much sense.
Kids bully anyone who's different. Even in K-3, the kid with two mommies or daddies will be bullied for that; teachers should be able to explain that some boys marry other boys, some girls other girls, etc, and this law criminalizes that.
Do you really think this law bans a book about a mother and father just as much as it bans one featuring two mothers? Come on now.
The problem with Republicans is they keep trying to go the forbid route instead of the route the Dems take which is to allow them to sue the pants off of them. That is the way they would do it, they would have to list out what they would and would not teach in class, if they would have these blatantly racist “affinity groups” etc. Give the parents the information up front so they can make an enlightened choice if that is how they want their children taught and if they stray allow the teachers to do these things the parents should be able to recoup all the tuition plus legal fees and maybe some punitive damages just to keep them on the straight and narrow. There you go everybody should be happy with that, if you want your child sexualized and exposed to racist ideology your choice, go for it.
You clearly haven't read the bill.
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1501747042955272196?t=wI_UzWxeuWOtjsIvzy7lYA&s=19
Pete Buttigieg’s husband leads kids in a pledge of allegiance to the gay pride rainbow
[Video]
Way to be a humorless shrew.
I'm a gay man and I think this is neither humorous nor appropriate.
He's just teaching them to be edgy.
He has no business doing that.
Doesn't the word have enough real problems?
Freedom means other people will annoy you. Get the fuck over it.
Nothing says "edgy" like mouthing the official position of the party currently in charge of congress and the presidency, the entire media class, the entire corporate class, and the entire education establishment. What a rebel. Now let's have a teacher tell his kids to add "God hates fags" to the pledge of allegiance and watch you defend academic freedom and the right to teach edginess to toddlers.
Go stick your AIDS-infesed cock in some 80 year old rich dude's ass for this month's rent, Tones.
You definitely seem like someone who deserves to have an opinion on what kids are taught.
Coming from the hicklib faggot from Tulsa who thinks that people should be shot for peacefully protesting and that blackface should result in death, unless it's the governor of Virginia.
I can't wait until AIDS rots out your gaping asshole and you die gasping for your last breath from the pneumonia which will be officially categorized as a COVID death, Tony. I really can't. I might just make the trip out there so I can spit in your faggot face just as you're dying. Really savor the moment.
Do you speak to children with that mouth?
No, GRIDSboy, only in age-appropriate venues.
Is this like that dumb bitch teacher who told her students that the American flag made her "uncomfortable," and that she taught them to "pledge allegiance to the queers"?
Matt Walsh
@MattWalshBlog
This is from the Amazon Prime documentary "Mayor Pete." They proudly filmed and aired this moment. Nobody noticed until now because nobody watched the documentary.
Here's the problem. It's the internet. Everyone gets the same information at the same time, and a Darwinian process occurs wherein the educated and open-minded accept new arguments for pushing the envelope of freedom, and the very stupid behave in a hysterical reactionary way.
Politics is not a spectrum from right to left. That's an old metaphor that means next to nothing anymore, and the "horseshoe theory" need not be counterintuitive. Politics is a spectrum from smart to stupid. Some people will have neither the inclination nor ability to keep up with social justice advances, and I think they should be left to enjoy their innocence rather than being ridiculed for qualities of themselves they can't control, like stupidity.
Social media was probably a bad idea.
Here's the problem. It's the internet. Everyone gets the same information at the same time, and a Darwinian process occurs wherein the educated and open-minded accept new arguments for pushing the envelope of freedom
But it's NOT an 'envelope of freedom'.
You're not free to say that you don't want to hear about your teachers sex life, or about what they've done or are going to do to their genitals.
You're not free to point out that there were slaves in the Americas for thousands of years before Europeans ever got here--or before they ever got to Africa.
The only freedom you get is the 'freedom' to conform.
And that's no freedom at all.
I believe I already addressed your argument in my post, but very well.
I don't know nor care what teachers are or are not telling their charges. I have no reason to believe that teachers have suddenly become incapable of rational judgment, but plenty of reason to believe that right-wing politicians have an incentive to engage in a quasi-sexist harassment campaign of teachers in order to gin up moral panic in order to mine the stupid for votes.
You are being had. Why can't you see that?
“I don't know nor care what teachers are or are not telling their charges.”
And yet here you are spouting your bullshit on the topic anyway. Fuck off troll.
It's far more unseemly for a small-government advocate to be digging his grubby hands into local school curricula.
Given the demonstrably, objectively poor performance of US schools, obviously government does need to get its grubby hands dirty with education, since teachers, school administrators, school boards, and educational associations seem to be too incompetent to do it on their own.
It's either that, or we can abolish publicly financed schools and government involvement in education altogether, which is what small government advocates would prefer anyway.
- Tony
I don't have kids, so if I weren't taxed to pay for those schools, I might not, either. But I am taxed for them, so the statists have made it my business.
Reason IT people: why does "statist" generate a red-underline? That word should be added to the site's dictionary.
Yeah, why would a small-government advocate have any concern over his local government.
The great news is that syphilis has to be pretty advanced before it causes this kind of cognitive impairment. With any luck you and Biden will die on the exact same day from the exact same affliction.
Vatican City was local when Mussolini crucifixed its schools. Credere, Obbedire, Combattere!
US teachers seem fundamentally incompetent to teach even the basics of reading, writing, mathematics, or science, as numerous studies and international comparisons have shown. And for the piss-poor job they are doing, they get paid massive amounts of money by international standards.
So, no, obviously there is something wrong with US teachers and their "rational judgment".
Having admitted your total and complete ignorance on the subject, the customary move would be to shut your gaping cocksucker before any more ill-informed opinions spawned from your self-confessed ignorance come bubbling out of it along with your 80 year old sugar daddy's cum.
“I have no reason to believe that teachers have suddenly become incapable of rational judgment“
You know them so poorly.
Conform to what? Whatever the latest false claim Fox News puts out about what is and isn't taught in schools?
Teachers aren't talking about their personal sex lives and slavery in other places and times is absolutely covered.
You're not a non-conformist by simply conforming to the narrative of someone else.
Great... put in a double negative! Nice way to completely stop any Trumpanzee from ever understanding the sentence.
Tony, you are passing the envelope on totalitarianism. And your approach isn’t novel at all, it’s the same approach totalitarian have used from Stalin to Hitler.
That would indeed explain how you came to the conclusion that taxpayers have no right to audit the education they pay for to make sure it doesn't include provisions for faggot pedophiles like you to groom children.
Does anyone else find it flooring that the USA now has [WE] gov-gun toting mobs battling over education curriculum?
Q the Gov-Gun-Power war of Commie-Education in 3..2..1...
Maybe, just maybe, the USA was never founded for so much communism and [WE] gov-gun toting mob/gangster wars? Maybe, just maybe, it was about Individual Liberty and Justice.
Problem spotted ----> Communism/Socialism.
Not really. When faggot pieces of shit like you passed compulsory education laws in all 50 states, you exposed the school curriculum to the political process, and now you're just assblasted because parents are getting tired of your 19th century Prussian educational ideals with the extra faggotry and child molestation built-in. If you don't like it, feel free to go fuck yourself with Tony's syphilitic half-limp microchode, you Nazi cunt.
Are you using your real full name? Lol
Libs are the most whacky people on the planet.
we dont need to teach kids about the mental disorders of LGBQ or transgender's. These are kids that are confused and need mental help and it only effects <1% of the population so we don't need to teach this screwed up crap in schools. you are just going to make udeveloped kids want to change their sex and will regret it later in life. Let these kids figure it out themselves
The Pig Guy is losing to Tony the socialist on spelling, syntax, vocabulary, IQ... yet struggles to spew idiocy to libertarians on how government schools ought to brainwash. Here is a real-time demo of why the Jesus fascisti have lost 8%... down twice as many polees as the commie dems, while Libertarians gained 10%. The dustbin of history certainly has room for more mystical losers. Tony is single-handedly defending socialism against how many pathetic Trumpanzees?
How much kiddy porn is on your computer, Shackford?
When are you going to stop promoting NAMBLA?
Repubs are just as much for big govt. as the dems. Name one piece of legislation they passed to shrink govt.?
Umm...... Repealing Obamacare mandates and just about repealing the whole disgusting socialist nightmare.
Your sure pulling sh*t out of your *ss to make such a claim. If if Republicans RINO'S pitch x-big gov plan, Dems pitch x x10 because Democrats have a full house of Nazi's..
Sequestration
Fuck, that was easy. Didn't even have to go back more than 1 administration.
Turns out that parents making sure that the tax dollars that have been stolen from them to fund your 19th century Prussian compulsory education wet dreams are not being used to groom children for sexual exploitation by faggots like you isn't "expanding government" any more than auditing the Federal Reserve would be. If you faggot groomers ever spent any time around adults instead of spending 16 hours a day trying to figure out how to talk to children correctly to get them to fuck you, you might be able to construct some actual, adult arguments.
Republicans don't have principles, they have rhetorical tools to justify whatever they want, to be completely ignored whenever they're not helpful.
Free speech? Never heard of it when they're talking about "CRT" (noxious though it may be) and LGBT discussion.
Parental rights? Only when it's a right they agree with.
Small government? Just rhetoric to reallocate social spending to make the military budget even larger.
Businesses should be free to run the way they see fit? Well not if they want to enforce masking or vaccination rules, then the state should tell them what to do.
Businesses should be free to do business, or not, with anyone they want? Clearly choosing to wear a mask is different from the color of your skin, the state should definitely force businesses to serve people without masks.
Religious freedom? Only for Christians following conservative-approved doctrine.
2nd Amendment means what it says? Show me where it says "unlike other rights, this one is permanently forfeit for {list of reasons}".
It's naked hypocrisy and ignorance all the way down. For the party of 'fuck your feelings', turns out *their* feelings are the only thing that matters. "Principles" are optional.
In other words... as the NDSAP Program said in 1920:
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations within the state as long as they do not endanger the state or violate the ethical and moral feelings of the Germanic race.
Private schools should be free to teach whatever they want.
don't think Scott quite understands the thrust of this bill -- it's not so much intended to prevent parents from sending their kids to The Woke CRT/Grooming Georgia Private School For Progressive Kindergartners, as it is intended to prevent seemingly normal private schools from quietly performing CRT/grooming activities on kids without their parents' knowledge/consent
apparently they assume that the vast majority of Georgians don't want their kids at a CRT/grooming school
Florida's just-passed "Don't Say Gay" bill,
which has already had terrible consequences for Florida
https://babylonbee.com/news/florida-jails-already-overflowing-with-people-who-said-the-word-gay
well, CNN tried to warn you
Banning the govt from teaching gender + sex ideology is not banning gender and sex ideology. Don't like that you can't learn it in a public school? You have school choice.
This kind of backwards ass logic would nullify the entire Constitution and BoR. Most of the rules describe what govt cannot do, not what it can.