Cancel Culture

if true, this is quite disturbing

drummerboy said:

if true, this is quite disturbing

The tweeter says it’s “the option to opt their children out of learning about Black History Month.” The letter says it’s from a school counselor who’ll be “coming around and teaching lessons related to equity, caring, and understanding differences.”

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

if true, this is quite disturbing

The tweeter says it’s “the option to opt their children out of learning about Black History Month.” The letter says it’s from a school counselor who’ll be “coming around and teaching lessons related to equity, caring, and understanding differences.”

The letter clearly states it's in relation to Black History Month.

drummerboy said:

The letter clearly states it's in relation to Black History Month.

It does indeed. “Learning about Black History Month” implies classroom instruction about Black history. It’s not that.

regardless, it would be interesting to hear the rationale for why the district feels they need to have an opt out for a lesson on diversity.

ml1 said:

regardless, it would be interesting to hear the rationale for why the district feels they need to have an opt out for a lesson on diversity.

Because it involves a counselor, maybe.

(One of the replies to the tweet was from someone who posted a screenshot of his or her text exchange with the district, which suggested that the district was not aware of this 240-student school’s letter.)

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

regardless, it would be interesting to hear the rationale for why the district feels they need to have an opt out for a lesson on diversity.

Because it involves a counselor, maybe.

I suppose.  But it isn't described as a counseling session.  It's an in-class lesson.  But who knows, maybe in Indiana it's required to get parental consent any time a school counselor addresses a class.

ml1 said:

I suppose.  But it isn't described as a counseling session.  It's an in-class lesson.  But who knows, maybe in Indiana it's required to get parental consent any time a school counselor addresses a class.

This week I've already become an in-depth expert on Canadian jurisprudence regarding emergency powers, so pronouncing confidently on Indiana educational policies will be easy.

ml1 said:

But who knows, maybe in Indiana it's required to get parental consent any time a school counselor addresses a class.

I can feel the level of my disturbance over this letter shifting by the minute.

(I also don’t envy a school counselor whose office number appears in a viral tweet.)

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

But who knows, maybe in Indiana it's required to get parental consent any time a school counselor addresses a class.

I can feel the level of my disturbance over this letter shifting by the minute.

(I also don’t envy a school counselor whose office number appears in a viral tweet.)

I didn't mean to convey that I was disturbed by this letter.  And I get that it's only one little school in one little town.  It just seems like a microcosm of the movement in many areas of the country to protect white students from feeling uncomfortable when race is discussed in school.

aside from that, by itself it's more molehill than mountain.

ml1 said:

I didn't mean to convey that I was disturbed by this letter.

You didn’t. The OP did.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

I didn't mean to convey that I was disturbed by this letter.

You didn’t. The OP did.

I guess I was thrown by being quoted in your comment.

ml1 said:

I guess I was thrown by being quoted in your comment.

That’s a risk in group discussions, which I hoped my use of the word “disturbance” — harking back to DB’s original comment — would mitigate.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

I guess I was thrown by being quoted in your comment.

That’s a risk in group discussions, which I hoped my use of the word “disturbance” — harking back to DB’s original comment — would mitigate.

I only half pay attention to db

ml1 said:

I only half pay attention to db

Which half?

STANV said:

Which half?

the upper…

I admit he sucked as a presidential candidate but my man Mike makes some good points here. His point #2 is about cancel culture gone wild.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-22/san-francisco-school-board-recall-is-a-sign-for-the-democratic-party

Smedley said:

I admit he sucked as a presidential candidate but my man Mike makes some good points here. His point #2 is about cancel culture gone wild.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-22/san-francisco-school-board-recall-is-a-sign-for-the-democratic-party

of his points 1, 2, and 3, what proportion do you think each contributed to the demand for a recall election?

27.2%, 36.8%, and 30.1% 

But seriously I have no idea -- that is an odd question and I don't see what would be the point of guesstimating.

The broader point is that voters ain't buying what Democrats are selling, or as Bloomy says "Swing voters will decide the 2022 midterm elections, and right now, polls show they are swinging away from Democrats."

Last we took up this discussion in the wake of the Nov election, I recall the prevailing wisdom on here was that it was the media's fault. Do you think the SF school board recall was the media's fault? Or is it perhaps, as Bloomy writes, a troubling sign in a broader sense, that should lead Democrats to consider some changes? 

Smedley said:

27.2%, 36.8%, and 30.1% 

But seriously I have no idea -- that is an odd question and I don't see what would be the point of guesstimating.

The broader point is that voters ain't buying what Democrats are selling, or as Bloomy says "Swing voters will decide the 2022 midterm elections, and right now, polls show they are swinging away from Democrats."

Last we took up this discussion in the wake of the Nov election, I recall the prevailing wisdom on here was that it was the media's fault. Do you think the SF school board recall was the media's fault? Or is it perhaps, as Bloomy writes, a troubling sign in a broader sense, that should lead Democrats to consider some changes? 

I don't think I was part of that "prevailing wisdom," but rather part of the intersecting wisdom saying that Democrats need to do a better job selling, and I think that is still relevant here. Was the SF school board recall the media's fault? No, but to the extent that the SF school board recall will have any impact at all beyond SF, that's both a problem with the media AND a problem with Democrat's ability to effectively engage with the media.

It's not like SF is going to go Republican, after all, so in the sense of "what actual Democrats are actually doing," it's clearly ridiculous to claim that "Democrats" have somehow lost in SF. OTOH, to the extent that people can publish articles in national media publications and claim that SF is somehow emblematic of school boards all across Democratic-led communities, and get a hearing.. well, clearly there's some poor brand management going on... When the cartoon version of your party gets more traction than the actual doings of your party, there's some problems.

here's a good piece that sheds a different light on the San Fran recall, as apart from the simplistic "OMG they're too woke!"

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/02/san-francisco-school-board-recall/

San Fran is pretty far left and it's not representative of the Democratic Party nationally. But the whole situation is SUCH a gift to Republicans who will have lots of fun making that connection, noting of course that Pelosi is from there. 

A major US city keeps its schools closed for a year and a half while the school board worked to rename public schools named after George Washington and Abe Lincoln. It's like something out of The Onion.  

Smedley said:

27.2%, 36.8%, and 30.1% 

But seriously I have no idea -- that is an odd question and I don't see what would be the point of guesstimating.

exactly.

but somehow Bloomberg thinks he knows that it was a significant contributor.  I'll take a shot at guesstimating -- if the schools had not been closed for a very long time due to the pandemic, I'd guesstimate that the chances that renaming schools in SF would have led to a recall were probably in the vicinity of 0.000001%.  

People with a "cancel culture" ax to grind will tell us otherwise though.  Probably to try and distract us from the real cancelations going on in states trying to do away with teaching about race.

How much do people think "cancel culture" actually affects electoral outcomes? Is it all just media noise and doesn't actually make a real difference, or is it an actual thing outside of twitter and Fox? Eg, did Youngkin's VA win owe anything at all to cancel culture, or was the claim that it did purely Fox chryon content?

Smedley said:

San Fran is pretty far left and it's not representative of the Democratic Party nationally. But the whole situation is SUCH a gift to Republicans who will have lots of fun making that connection, noting of course that Pelosi is from there. 

  

the Republicans will do that anyway, so it's pretty much a wash from that standpoint.  What people in the reality-based world seem to always forget is that the Republicans don't actually need something true to base those stories on.

PVW said:

How much do people think "cancel culture" actually affects electoral outcomes? Is it all just media noise and doesn't actually make a real difference, or is it an actual thing outside of twitter and Fox? Eg, did Youngkin's VA win owe anything at all to cancel culture, or was the claim that it did purely Fox chryon content?

does anyone think the renaming of Jefferson school was a determining factor in the most recent SOMA school board election?

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

27.2%, 36.8%, and 30.1% 

But seriously I have no idea -- that is an odd question and I don't see what would be the point of guesstimating.

exactly.

but somehow Bloomberg thinks he knows that it was a significant contributor.  I'll take a shot at guesstimating -- if the schools had not been closed for a very long time due to the pandemic, I'd guesstimate that the chances that renaming schools in SF would have led to a recall were probably in the vicinity of 0.000001%.  

People with a "cancel culture" ax to grind will tell us otherwise though.  Probably to try and distract us from the real cancelations going on in states trying to do away with teaching about race.

I don't think one needs to "have a 'cancel culture' ax to grind" to think the SF school board plan was just plain old friggin' ridiculous. At some point it just goes too far. 

 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/us/san-francisco-school-name-debate.html

PVW said:

Smedley said:

27.2%, 36.8%, and 30.1% 

But seriously I have no idea -- that is an odd question and I don't see what would be the point of guesstimating.

The broader point is that voters ain't buying what Democrats are selling, or as Bloomy says "Swing voters will decide the 2022 midterm elections, and right now, polls show they are swinging away from Democrats."

Last we took up this discussion in the wake of the Nov election, I recall the prevailing wisdom on here was that it was the media's fault. Do you think the SF school board recall was the media's fault? Or is it perhaps, as Bloomy writes, a troubling sign in a broader sense, that should lead Democrats to consider some changes? 

I don't think I was part of that "prevailing wisdom," but rather part of the intersecting wisdom saying that Democrats need to do a better job selling, and I think that is still relevant here. Was the SF school board recall the media's fault? No, but to the extent that the SF school board recall will have any impact at all beyond SF, that's both a problem with the media AND a problem with Democrat's ability to effectively engage with the media.

It's not like SF is going to go Republican, after all, so in the sense of "what actual Democrats are actually doing," it's clearly ridiculous to claim that "Democrats" have somehow lost in SF. OTOH, to the extent that people can publish articles in national media publications and claim that SF is somehow emblematic of school boards all across Democratic-led communities, and get a hearing.. well, clearly there's some poor brand management going on... When the cartoon version of your party gets more traction than the actual doings of your party, there's some problems.

I'm not sure the answer is to try to refute these stories, because research is pretty clear that trying to refute an unfair or inaccurate framing usually ends up promoting the narrative you're trying to counter.

a better strategy for Democrats is to tout successes, as well as warn people of the very real censorship and "cancellation" Republicans are trying to carry out. That, and the GOP authoritarian white supremacy of course.