The only real purpose of all those mechanisms is to silence any opposition or criticism of the board and speaker. Bluntly, they're about maintaining power, not about improving civil discourse
This regressive movement wants power and has developed this anti-racism ideology, irrationality, and doublespeak so that its power will be unquestioned, not even subject to question. This movement is allying with others, the only requirement being irrationality and hostility to traditional individual freedoms.
That parent should sue the school board for its unconstitutional denial of his/her right to speak. The suit should demand the antiracist ideology be extirpated from the school system and school board. It is anti-American and anti-human.
We are very, very close to becoming another North Korea, governed by a hateful, malevolent, implacable, and all-powerful, regressive directorate. G-d help us.
This behavior is only enabled by voters who put them in place. Sane candidates need to be supported and publicized to offset this progressive movement. The board members are not fools - they are pursuing and advocating what they believe in, as deviant as that may be. The fools are the voters who continue spitting into the wind and electing the deviates.
It's about quiet censorship, and good for this author for calling it out by name. We need to, whenever we run into this censorious impulse, quietly but firmly reject it's very premise. As in, "There is nothing in the least in my comments having to do with hate - please confine your comments to the actual content of what I said."
Also, when coming from a government official - whether elected or the hired help - such accusations may, in fact, still violate the First Amendment's restriction on government infringement of free speech. Labeling an individual's speech as unacceptable would sure seem an infringement ...
The only real purpose of all those mechanisms is to silence any opposition or criticism of the board and speaker. Bluntly, they're about maintaining power, not about improving civil discourse
Exactly
Same as it ever was…
This regressive movement wants power and has developed this anti-racism ideology, irrationality, and doublespeak so that its power will be unquestioned, not even subject to question. This movement is allying with others, the only requirement being irrationality and hostility to traditional individual freedoms.
That parent should sue the school board for its unconstitutional denial of his/her right to speak. The suit should demand the antiracist ideology be extirpated from the school system and school board. It is anti-American and anti-human.
We are very, very close to becoming another North Korea, governed by a hateful, malevolent, implacable, and all-powerful, regressive directorate. G-d help us.
"My point was simple: experience can inform a discussion, but it should not determine who is right before the discussion begins."
Great article, thank you!
This is all so true!
This behavior is only enabled by voters who put them in place. Sane candidates need to be supported and publicized to offset this progressive movement. The board members are not fools - they are pursuing and advocating what they believe in, as deviant as that may be. The fools are the voters who continue spitting into the wind and electing the deviates.
Yes, I hate that you disagree with me, so it is hate speech. I hate your speech.
It's about quiet censorship, and good for this author for calling it out by name. We need to, whenever we run into this censorious impulse, quietly but firmly reject it's very premise. As in, "There is nothing in the least in my comments having to do with hate - please confine your comments to the actual content of what I said."
Also, when coming from a government official - whether elected or the hired help - such accusations may, in fact, still violate the First Amendment's restriction on government infringement of free speech. Labeling an individual's speech as unacceptable would sure seem an infringement ...