What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Democrats And Education - Matt Taibbi (1 Viewer)

I think the reason why people struggle with folks like Taibbi and Maher is that we're accustomed to a left-right dichotomy that doesn't exist any more.  People like Taibbi and Maher used to exist fairly comfortably on the "left" of the American spectrum while folks like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney lived on the "right."  Now you have a re-jiggered spectrum where the left is increasingly composed of illiberal woke neoracists and the right is mostly MAGA authoritarians.  People who support what used to be mainstream liberal values -- which used to include both political parties -- are kind of sidelined.

 
Maher is definitely left of center, and he's definitely a liberal.  He just isn't into identity politics (which makes sense, given that identity politics clash with traditional liberalism) and he's not tribal.


Thanks. That's exactly how I see him too. 

 
I’m old enough to remember when Maher was viewed as a centrist to slightly right leaning libertarian.   Then the Republican Party went nuts and he became left leaning.
Right, this is how I've always thought of Maher as well.  I wouldn't ever have considered him a liberal, and I don't think most liberals would either.

To Joe's point previously, what Maher calls himself isn't really relevant for two reasons; 1) just because you call yourself a liberal/conservative doesn't make you a liberal/conservative, and 2) the conversation seemed to be around how liberals viewed Maher, which may or may not be different than how conservatives view him or how he views himself.

 
Right, this is how I've always thought of Maher as well.  I wouldn't ever have considered him a liberal, and I don't think most liberals would either.

To Joe's point previously, what Maher calls himself isn't really relevant for two reasons; 1) just because you call yourself a liberal/conservative doesn't make you a liberal/conservative, and 2) the conversation seemed to be around how liberals viewed Maher, which may or may not be different than how conservatives view him or how he views himself.


Interesting. Are you saying how one identifies isn't relevant?

I disagree.

With politics, I see this happen in Conservatives or Republicans as well with the "in name only" stuff. The idea that you have to line up and check all the boxes I deem relevant to be in the "club" is a difficult way to go. But I see a lot of it. 

 
I subscribe to Taibbi's Substack (the only subscription I have) and I find nearly all of his missives thought provoking.

I definitely don't always agree with him, which is probably why he's so interesting to me. 

10-12 years ago, he would definitely have been a darling of the Left when he was relentlessly going after Wall Street and corporate interests in the wake of the financial crash, bailouts and all that followed. I'm guessing he was a darling of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

For those claiming he's anti-Left now, perhaps he his. My opinion is he has the type of mind who will always critique those who are in power at any given time and those who's policies have the most direct impact currently. I wish more journalists were like that.

 
Interesting. Are you saying how one identifies isn't relevant?

I disagree.

With politics, I see this happen in Conservatives or Republicans as well with the "in name only" stuff. The idea that you have to line up and check all the boxes I deem relevant to be in the "club" is a difficult way to go. But I see a lot of it. 
I'm saying that calling yourself a liberal doesn't necessarily make you a liberal.  I could call myself a conservative or a Trump supporter, but we both know I'd be full of it.  People lie all the time.  People delude themselves all the time.  It's your beliefs, statements, and actions that define your politics, not your proclamation of party.

The bolded isn't at all what I'm saying.  No one has to "line up and check boxes" to be a liberal, but you do have to generally espouse some liberal points of view.  If John Doe consistently espouses conservative or libertarian points of view yet claims to be a liberal, should we consider John a liberal?

 
I'm saying that calling yourself a liberal doesn't necessarily make you a liberal.  I could call myself a conservative or a Trump supporter, but we both know I'd be full of it.  People lie all the time.  People delude themselves all the time.  It's your beliefs, statements, and actions that define your politics, not your proclamation of party.

The bolded isn't at all what I'm saying.  No one has to "line up and check boxes" to be a liberal, but you do have to generally espouse some liberal points of view.  If John Doe consistently espouses conservative or libertarian points of view yet claims to be a liberal, should we consider John a liberal?


Are you saying this doesn't qualify as generally espousing some liberal points of view?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher

Views and beliefs

Photo - Maher and Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA. Maher is on the board of directors of the animal rights group.

Maher often eschews political labels, referring to himself as "practical".[60] He identifies as liberal, but stands against political correctness. In his words, "The difference is that liberals protect people, and P.C. people protect feelings."[61]

In the past, he has also described himself as a libertarian, and has also referred to himself "as a progressive, as a sane person".[62][63]

In a 2012 panel discussion with Salman Rushdie, Maher counted himself, Rushdie, and others such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris as "9/11 liberals," noting that they differentiate themselves from many mainstream liberals in saying that not all religions are alike and that they are not bigoted in criticizing a particular religion.[64] He said in a later interview: "It's ridiculous to label criticism of a religion as a phobia of a religion. I'm going to criticize any person or group that violates liberal principles...."[61]

Maher favors ending corporate welfare and federal funding of non-profits as well as the legalization of gambling, prostitution, and cannabis[clarification needed]. Maher is a member of the advisory boards for both the NORML and Marijuana Policy Project, organizations that support regulated legalization of cannabis,[65][66] and has been called "one of the brightest torches for sensible marijuana policy" and "a contemporary cannabis statesman".[67]

Maher describes himself as an environmentalist, and he has spoken in favor of the Kyoto treaty on global warming on his show Real Time. He often criticizes industry figures involved in environmental pollution.[68] He is a board member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.[6] The comedian has noted the paradox of people claiming they distrusted "elite" politicians while at the same time wanting elite doctors to treat them and elite lawyers to represent them in court.[69]

Since the 9/11 attacks, he has endorsed certain uses of profiling at airports, saying that "Places like Israel, where they have faced terrorism for a long time, of course understand that profiling is part of all detective work. It's part of all police work. If they stop calling it profiling and start calling it high-intelligence screening or something, people would go, it's about time."[70]

He opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and has summarized his opinion by saying that the United States and the world have had to pay too high a price for the war. He is skeptical of Iraq surviving without civil war.[71]

In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Maher announced his support for U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).[72] Although Maher welcomed Obama's electoral victory, he subjected him to criticism after he took office for not acting more boldly on health care reform and other progressive issues.[73]

On February 23, 2012, after his 'Crazy Stupid Politics' special streamed on Yahoo! Screen, Maher announced that he was contributing $1 million to Priorities USA, the Obama SuperPAC.[74][75]

On the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Maher says he is "more on the side of the Israelis" and doesn't consider both sides equally guilty. He acknowledges that "Palestinians do have gripes", and he has been critical of U.S. financial aid to Israel, saying "they don't need our money, they can handle it themselves." Maher also notes that most Israelis would prefer a two-state solution and oppose the hard-line stance of their Israeli government, which he describes as having been taken over by their version of the Tea Party. However, Maher has defended Israel's military actions against Palestinian militants amid criticism over civilian deaths and disproportionate casualty count between Israelis and Palestinians during the 2014 Gaza war. He argues that Israel is still showing restraint, and he finds it ironic that the same people who were incredulous over how the Jews in World War II were led "to their slaughter", can't understand why they are defending themselves now.[76][77]

Maher is a gun owner, and explained in his February 12, 2013, appearance on the late-night TV talk show Conan that he owns guns for personal home protection. However, he does not identify himself as a "proud" gun owner, commenting that being a proud gun owner is akin to "saying I'm a 'proud remote control owner'". Maher has stated that statistics showing that gun owners are more likely to harm a member of their household are caused by irresponsible gun owners, and believes that tragedies such as school shootings will not lead to a fundamental change in gun laws because both Democrats and Republicans favor guns.[78] He believes the Second Amendment is "bulls—t."[79]

On June 7, 2013, Maher expressed on his show limited support for the NSA's PRISM intelligence data collection from private phone calls and the Internet, saying that the threat of terrorists obtaining and using nuclear weapons was the tipping point for him. While he stated that he trusted the Obama administration to employ the program responsibly, he described the NSA's access to private data as a "slippery slope", and worried about whether other politicians would be as responsible.[80]

In the leadup to the 2014 midterm elections, Maher conducted a "Flip a District" contest on his HBO show. His audience was asked to select one "terrible, entrenched" member of Congress in a close election race—"the loserest loser of all"—to remove from office. Maher aimed to help oust that representative by shining a "national spotlight" on the politician during segments of his show and stand-up comedy appearances in that member's district during the Fall election.[81][82] Maher ultimately selected Republican Representative John Kline from Minnesota's 2nd congressional district, but he failed to prevent him from winning against his Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party opponent Mike Obermueller.[83]

Maher endorsed a 2014 Maine referendum to ban the use of bait, traps and dogs to hunt bears in Maine. He specifically criticized the use of bait, referring to its use as "nothing but an execution".[84]

Maher used to support the death penalty, but has since been opposed to it. When Virginia abolished capital punishment in 2021, he was ecstatic that they had done so.[85]

In 2015, Maher criticized Barack Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally, saying: "Stop respecting their medieval bull#### under the guise of, 'It's their culture.'"[86]

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Maher initially endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders on February 5, 2016. Maher later announced his support for Hillary Clinton after Clinton won the nomination from the Democratic Party primary elections in June 2016.[87] In October 2016, Maher criticized WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing leaks from the DNC's emails, saying: "I really feel like he's lost his way a little, and he hates Hillary."[88] On March 31, 2017, following her defeat, Maher responded on air to suggestions Clinton was ready to end her low profile and speak out: "Hillary, stay in the woods. Okay. You had your shot. You f*cked it up. You're Bill Buckner. We had the World Series, and you let the grounder go through your legs. Let someone else have the chance."[89]

Maher said an economic recession would be "worth it" if Donald Trump doesn't get re-elected in 2020. He said: "We have survived many recessions. We can't survive another Donald Trump term."[90]

In 2019, Maher denounced the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, saying: "It's predicated on this notion ... I think it's very shallow thinking that the Jews in Israel are mostly white and Palestinians are mostly brown, so they must be innocent and correct and the Jews must be wrong."[91] He responded to Rep. Rashida Tlaib's call to boycott his talk show: "Some people have one move only: boycott. Cancel. Make-go-away. But here's the thing, the house voted 318 to 17 to condemn the #BDS movement, including 93% of Dems. Does Tlaib want to boycott 93% of her own party?".[92]

Maher has been critical of the #MeToo movement, describing it as McCarthyite.[93][94] He has supported Chris Matthews against allegations of sexual harassment.[95]

In 2020, he criticized those who equated using the term "Wuhan virus" with racism, stating, "Scientists...have been naming diseases after the places they came from for a very long time. Zika is from the Zika Forest, Ebola from the Ebola River, hantavirus the Hantan River. There's the West Nile virus and Guinea worm and Rocky Mountain spotted fever and, of course, the Spanish flu." He added: "This has nothing to do with Asian Americans, and it has everything to do with China."[96]

Over the course of 20 different editions of Real Time with Bill Maher broadcast between April 13, 2018, and August 7, 2020[97] and in several press interviews,[98] Maher predicted that Donald Trump would refuse to concede any loss in the 2020 United States presidential election, dedicating a 'New Rules' end segment to the subject on January 25, 2020.[99] Maher highlighted Trump's own public references to Maher's assertions that Trump was "not going to leave", and quoted Trump's March 14, 2019, assertion that "I have the support of the police, the military, the bikers [for Trump]" and "the tough people",[100] citing this as evidence that Trump would seek to remain in office by force. Maher predicted there would be violence by armed Trump supporters attempting to keep Trump in power and criticized Democratic Party politicians for not taking the threat seriously:

"So my question to all Democratic candidates is: what's the plan? If you win, and the next day he claims he's voiding the election because of irregularities he's hearing about, what do you do? What do you do when the crowd that was in Virginia this week, 22,000 strong, marches on Washington? This is a scary moment. And when I've asked Democrats, 'What do we do if he doesn't go?', their answer is always some variation of 'We have to win big!'... First of all, NO! No, we don't have to win by a landslide! Jesus, ####### Democrats! I am so sick of Democrats volunteering to play by two different sets of rules. That's the new paradigm? Republicans can win by one vote, but we're not legitimate unless it's a landslide? ####. And two, do you really think it would matter if it was? That they would suddenly get rational about math and facts? They believe Hillary ran a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor!"

Maher later said in an August 15, 2020, interview with Vanity Fair that "we've baked it into the cake that he's not going to leave."[101] In the September 25, 2020, edition of Real Time, Maher criticised the framing of a New York Times story by Michael Crowley headlined 'Trump Won't Commit to Peaceful Transfer of Power', which ran on page 15 of the print edition of the paper. Maher asserted that, "I got no help from the New York Times, Washington Post, [or] CNN", adding that the media "should have amplified" the severity of Trump's threats that he would refuse to concede or commit to a peaceful transition of power.[102]

In March 2021, Maher criticized China's treatment of Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. He said the United States has "lost" to China in the "battle for the 21st century." According to Maher, China is dominating the world while United States is wasting time in a "never-ending woke competition".[103]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do find these type of discussions fascinating in how we label people. 

Just in the last few days, I've read here that Matt Taibbi is a radical leftist and Bill Maher isn't a liberal and the fact he identifies as a liberal is not relevant. 

 
I do find these type of discussions fascinating in how we label people. 

Just in the last few days, I've read here that Matt Taibbi is a radical leftist and Bill Maher isn't a liberal and the fact he identifies as a liberal is not relevant. 
That’s a slightly disappointing takeaway.

But at least it was fascinating.

 
Interesting. Are you saying how one identifies isn't relevant?

I disagree.

With politics, I see this happen in Conservatives or Republicans as well with the "in name only" stuff. The idea that you have to line up and check all the boxes I deem relevant to be in the "club" is a difficult way to go. But I see a lot of it. 
Dead-on…unfortunately there seems to be a purity test that goes on and one wrong step and your base will not only turn on you but could vilify you…IMO you see it on the right with their politics (see Mitt Romney) and on the left it is very prevalent in cultural/social issues (think JK Rowling).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do find these type of discussions fascinating in how we label people. 

Just in the last few days, I've read here that Matt Taibbi is a radical leftist and Bill Maher isn't a liberal and the fact he identifies as a liberal is not relevant. 
I haven't personally read enough of Taibbi's stuff to have an educated opinion.

With respect to Maher, this particular conversation started when you noted that other liberals felt betrayed by Maher when he criticized some liberals recently.  Specifically, you wrote:

Bill Maher gets some of this when he criticizes wokeness. It becomes a thing of "How dare _______ be critical of ________? I thought he was one of us!"
I commented that (I think) most liberals don't think of Maher as a liberal.  How he labels himself is absolutely not relevant to that train of thought.  The question wasn't what Maher himself thinks his political views are, it was what most liberals think Maher's political views are.

In the past when Maher's views have come up on this forum, it's my recollection that most conservative posters here identify him as a liberal whereas few liberal posters here do.  Again, from the above, the question wasn't "is Bill Maher a liberal", it was "do most liberals see Bill Maher as a liberal".  In my experience, the answer to that question is no.

Personally, I see him as much closer to libertarian than liberal.  By the way, Maher has frequently called himself a libertarian.

 
I haven't personally read enough of Taibbi's stuff to have an educated opinion.

With respect to Maher, this particular conversation started when you noted that other liberals felt betrayed by Maher when he criticized some liberals recently.  Specifically, you wrote:

I commented that (I think) most liberals don't think of Maher as a liberal.  How he labels himself is absolutely not relevant to that train of thought.  The question wasn't what Maher himself thinks his political views are, it was what most liberals think Maher's political views are.

In the past when Maher's views have come up on this forum, it's my recollection that most conservative posters here identify him as a liberal whereas few liberal posters here do.  Again, from the above, the question wasn't "is Bill Maher a liberal", it was "do most liberals see Bill Maher as a liberal".  In my experience, the answer to that question is no.

Personally, I see him as much closer to libertarian than liberal.  By the way, Maher has frequently called himself a libertarian.


Thanks for elaborating. I see this kind of thing a good bit as I said with my Republican friends too.

There's a lot of "Yeah, the outside might think that person is one of us. But they don't meet our standards to really be included in our group". 

 
It seems to me part of the reason folks like Tim have a different opinion of Taibbi is he confuses people by not fitting nicely into a box we can easily label. Bill Maher gets some of this when he criticizes wokeness. It becomes a thing of "How dare _______ be critical of ________? I thought he was one of us!"

It's interesting as I don't that as a problem at all.

I see that as a huge positive when a person can make a case for what they feel is right. Even if it upsets some of the people in "the tribe". 
I need to distinguish here between Taibbi’s attacks on woke and his criticism of the financial system in his earlier writings for Rolling Stone. It’s these latter, and his attacks on corporate America, that make me believe he wants a radical transformation of this country.

 
His attacks on woke behavior are only very recent and unrelated to my description of him as a radical leftist. That being said, his motivation for challenging the Democratic liberal establishment is already present in plain view. 

 
The guy has a 20+ year track record of supporting Democratic candidates, but people in this thread want him excommunicated from the left because he's not woke enough.  
Hopefully this isn’t referring to me. I don’t want anyone “excommunicated” from anything. 

 
I need to distinguish here between Taibbi’s attacks on woke and his criticism of the financial system in his earlier writings for Rolling Stone. It’s these latter, and his attacks on corporate America, that make me believe he wants a radical transformation of this country.

 
His attacks on woke behavior are only very recent and unrelated to my description of him as a radical leftist. That being said, his motivation for challenging the Democratic liberal establishment is already present in plain view. 


It's amazing the change we have seen in the past 50 years...challenging the establishment was once the hallmark of liberals but now that they have become the establishment it is hand's off.

 
It's amazing the change we have seen in the past 50 years...challenging the establishment was once the hallmark of liberals but now that they have become the establishment it is hand's off.
I can’t speak for liberals. Personally I’ve always believed that the establishment politicians in this country are generally preferable to populists in either party. There are rare exceptions, and historically this might not have been true prior to the Civil Rights movement. But I would argue that in my lifetime it has and it is more true now than ever before. 

 
Are tech and media companies not corporations? Are they not part of the left? Did 100 Fortune 500 CEOs not join a call to boycott the Georgia voting laws? Does that make them Conservatives? 
1. Yes. 
2. No. 
3. Yes. 
4. Yes. To oppose radical changes to existing laws is pretty much the definition of conservatism. 

 
1) I agree that this issue is politically damaging to Democrats.

2) I also think this whole curriculum fight is completely inconsequential in comparison to other issues facing our education system.
No doubt, particularly on #2.  We've seen our most vulnerable students fall further behind during COVID while those who could afford private or parochial schools did much better.  School choice is the civil rights issue of our time and I hope the red team grabs onto it big time (they have small time, but not enough) - it will have a big political payoff and help our students in the long run.

Also, I goggle a bit at the deconstruction of Matt Taibbi instead of analysis of his message.  Matt doesn't fit into a neat box, so causes all kinds of establishment folks to have heartache.  He's a clear thinker, so is worth listening to, even if you don't agree.  The stack of proof and logic that he backs up his articles with are generally pretty compelling.

 
I don't mean to keep badgering Tim on this but I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Taibbi is saying. 
Since you’ve asked me several questions about Taibbi (and by the way, I don’t mind being “badgered”), let me ask one of you: when you write you agree with Taibbi, do you mean that you agree about the political outcome of this issue going against Democrats (I agree with that as well) or do you agree with the parents in Virginia who object to woke and so-called “identity politics” being taught too much in school? 

 
Also, I goggle a bit at the deconstruction of Matt Taibbi instead of analysis of his message.  Matt doesn't fit into a neat box, so causes all kinds of establishment folks to have heartache.  He's a clear thinker, so is worth listening to, even if you don't agree.  The stack of proof and logic that he backs up his articles with are generally pretty compelling.
I need to keep stressing that there is no “instead”, no “either/or” for me. The fact that I regard Taibbi as a radical leftist doesn’t have anything to do with his writing on this issue, or any other issue. He is certainly a very smart guy and a good writer and always worth listening to. 
He certainly doesn’t cause me any heartache. 
 

 
Interesting. Are you saying how one identifies isn't relevant?

I disagree.

With politics, I see this happen in Conservatives or Republicans as well with the "in name only" stuff. The idea that you have to line up and check all the boxes I deem relevant to be in the "club" is a difficult way to go. But I see a lot of it. 
In today's climate, yes.  This is primarily because these labels have little to no meaning anymore.  They are (or are becoming) long hand for "things I don't like" in the "me vs you" world we're living in.  The fascinating thing for me to watch is as the extremes sprint to their corners, there are still some who insist on being labeled a certain way even though that label has significantly different meaning today than it did even 10 years ago.  

 
I do find these type of discussions fascinating in how we label people. 

Just in the last few days, I've read here that Matt Taibbi is a radical leftist and Bill Maher isn't a liberal and the fact he identifies as a liberal is not relevant. 
This isn't new here.  People who are fiscally conservative, prolife, smaller government is better types are called "leftist" and "liberal" consistently.  Of course, they are called these things by people who are sprinting to the right, but in their view they aren't moving at all.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks for elaborating. I see this kind of thing a good bit as I said with my Republican friends too.

There's a lot of "Yeah, the outside might think that person is one of us. But they don't meet our standards to really be included in our group". 
So much labeling and finding reason to reject people.

In the eyes of very republican/Trumpian conservative people these days, I'm a liberal. Yet in the eyes of liberals, I'm a conservative.............I'm politically homeless I guess, which for a follower of The Way...is right about where I figure I should be.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think the reason why people struggle with folks like Taibbi and Maher is that we're accustomed to a left-right dichotomy that doesn't exist any more.  People like Taibbi and Maher used to exist fairly comfortably on the "left" of the American spectrum while folks like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney lived on the "right."  Now you have a re-jiggered spectrum where the left is increasingly composed of illiberal woke neoracists and the right is mostly MAGA authoritarians.  People who support what used to be mainstream liberal values -- which used to include both political parties -- are kind of sidelined.
This

 
An unnamed professor criticized the move in comments to the Beacon. 

"We've had a hard time retaining good faculty at our salary levels, so anytime you see money being spent on non-student or non-faculty causes, it makes you scratch your head," the professor reportedly said. 
 

Odd complaint - given that the stipends are going to faculty. :shrug:


You left out a piece:

"Could this money be spent on students or retaining quality faculty rather than a progressive agenda that isn't likely supported by the taxpayers or voters of Tennessee?"

 
You left out a piece:

"Could this money be spent on students or retaining quality faculty rather than a progressive agenda that isn't likely supported by the taxpayers or voters of Tennessee?"


:shrug:

Seems like this could help retain quality faculty.  At least I see no evidence that it would not.

And, I imagine the "progressive" agenda is supported by some taxpayers and voters in Tennessee - or do we live in an era where only the majority view can be taught?  And, if there are no professors who deem it worth to include in their curriculum - then no money will be spent - right?

Again, this "reported professor" seems like a lot of folks who just like to whine, to hear themselves whine.

 
:shrug:

Seems like this could help retain quality faculty.  At least I see no evidence that it would not.

And, I imagine the "progressive" agenda is supported by some taxpayers and voters in Tennessee - or do we live in an era where only the majority view can be taught?  And, if there are no professors who deem it worth to include in their curriculum - then no money will be spent - right?

Again, this "reported professor" seems like a lot of folks who just like to whine, to hear themselves whine.


You think telling Professors how to change their curriculum will help retain them?  

Question...if they also offered the Professors the same amount of money to teach pro-life views or that there are only two sexes would you be good with that? 

 
No professor was required to change their curriculum.

hth


If they want the $ which you said would help retain faculty:

An all-faculty email obtained by the Free Beacon shows the university offering a $1,500 stipend after professors redesign their curricula, with another $1,500 after teaching the redesigned course. According to the email, 15-20 faculty members will be selected for the program, which begins in the spring of 2022.

"This announcement offers a competitive grant opportunity designed to support faculty who are interested in redesigning and aligning existing course syllabi with the goals established by the workgroup entitled, Infusing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Social Justice into Existing Courses/Curriculum," the email reads.

 
Question...if they also offered the Professors the same amount of money to teach pro-life views or that there are only two sexes would you be good with that? 


Depends - what is the course?  Is that relevant to the course?  What content is it replacing.

If this was some philosophy/religion class where they had been only teaching about pro-choice views - then yes, I think it would be fine to offer an incentive to provide a more rounded perspective on the issue.

Are you worried that people will be forced to learn about minorities?

 
If they want the $ which you said would help retain faculty:

An all-faculty email obtained by the Free Beacon shows the university offering a $1,500 stipend after professors redesign their curricula, with another $1,500 after teaching the redesigned course. According to the email, 15-20 faculty members will be selected for the program, which begins in the spring of 2022.

"This announcement offers a competitive grant opportunity designed to support faculty who are interested in redesigning and aligning existing course syllabi with the goals established by the workgroup entitled, Infusing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Social Justice into Existing Courses/Curriculum," the email reads.


SO, just like I said - no professors are required to change their curriculum,

 
SO, just like I said - no professors are required to change their curriculum,


Sorry, you may have missed this the first time I posted it:

An all-faculty email obtained by the Free Beacon shows the university offering a $1,500 stipend after professors redesign their curricula, with another $1,500 after teaching the redesigned course. According to the email, 15-20 faculty members will be selected for the program, which begins in the spring of 2022.

"This announcement offers a competitive grant opportunity designed to support faculty who are interested in redesigning and aligning existing course syllabi with the goals established by the workgroup entitled, Infusing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Social Justice into Existing Courses/Curriculum," the email reads.

 
According to the email, 15-20 faculty members will be selected for the program


The University of Memphis employs more than 2,400 staff and full-time faculty.  - per their web-site.

20/2400 = 0.83% of the faculty might be a part of this program.  I think the world will survive.

 
Sorry, you may have missed this the first time I posted it:

An all-faculty email obtained by the Free Beacon shows the university offering a $1,500 stipend after professors redesign their curricula, with another $1,500 after teaching the redesigned course. According to the email, 15-20 faculty members will be selected for the program, which begins in the spring of 2022.

"This announcement offers a competitive grant opportunity designed to support faculty who are interested in redesigning and aligning existing course syllabi with the goals established by the workgroup entitled, Infusing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Social Justice into Existing Courses/Curriculum," the email reads.


Ah - now I see it - no professors will be required to change their curriculum.

Glad we are on the same page.

:thumbup:

 
If you want to submarine the quality of the education system, give parents meaningful say over what curriculum is taught.  

 
Ah - now I see it - no professors will be required to change their curriculum.

Glad we are on the same page.

:thumbup:


Sorry...I must have screwed up again...hopefully this helps:

An all-faculty email obtained by the Free Beacon shows the university offering a $1,500 stipend after professors redesign their curricula

 
Oh - and University of Memphis - where 55% of the student body (of ~22,000) are non-White.

I think if 0.83% of the professors included more minority-based content, they could probably find students who would be interested in those courses.

 
Sorry...I must have screwed up again...hopefully this helps:

An all-faculty email obtained by the Free Beacon shows the university offering a $1,500 stipend after professors redesign their curricula


Excellent.  I see we have confirmed that no professors are required to change their curriculum.  Hopefully we can put this matter to rest now.

 
Excellent.  I see we have confirmed that no professors are required to change their curriculum.  Hopefully we can put this matter to rest now.


redesign

/ (ˌriːdɪˈzaɪn) /

See synonyms for redesign on Thesaurus.com

verb (tr)

to change the design of (something)

noun

something that has been redesigned

 
You think telling Professors how to change their curriculum will help retain them?  

Question...if they also offered the Professors the same amount of money to teach pro-life views or that there are only two sexes would you be good with that? 
If the state were paying faculty stipends to include more overt pro-Christian messaging, he would understand your point.  As it is, he has a strong incentive to pretend to misunderstand what you're arguing.

 
timschochet said:
Since you’ve asked me several questions about Taibbi (and by the way, I don’t mind being “badgered”), let me ask one of you: when you write you agree with Taibbi, do you mean that you agree about the political outcome of this issue going against Democrats (I agree with that as well) or do you agree with the parents in Virginia who object to woke and so-called “identity politics” being taught too much in school? 


I mean what he talks about here. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-democrats-education-lunacies    This is way more related to Hillary Clintons' "deplorables" and messaging than it is to CRT I think.

Terry McAuliffe saying, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what to teach,” was one thing. And everyone initially ripped it as a "gaffe". What Taibbi found fascinating (as did I), was how it's turned from a gaffe, to "No, that's what we really believe". 

Obviously, it's more nuanced than either side would like the headlines to read. And it seems to me Taibbi cares to dig into that. 

As I've read more of him, I find myself agreeing with his style that seems more intent on honesty and truth than it does fitting into a political box. Which was why I was so interested in you labeling him a "radical leftist". 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top