Infidel Dog

On the other hand, what is actually happening is you guys aren't happy with what happened to your "Woke" label - just like you weren't happy when people noticed it was actually your team pushing what you wanted to call "Fake News." Or "Climate Change" from "Global Warming" because it became too easy to notice the Global disasters that were supposed to happen from warming weren't happening. A few bad weather events we'd seen in the past but the existential disaster you promising wasn't coming. So now you're pouting because those of us who refuse to ignore the obvious see what you wanted to call "Woke" actually is. So you want to change it to "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" DEI. Not to worry that's garbage too and when we get the time we'll be by to point at that and offer our chuckling interpretation of "Look the Emperor has no clothes." BTW did you know CRT actually spins out of something the original cultural Marxists were simply calling Critical Theory. All it means is if something exists in the culture which is working to hold it together it needs to be attacked. So now they want to concentrate on race now. What was evolving out of the culture was becoming a successful construct. People were starting to learn how to get along with each other. Marxists couldn't have that so they started telling people "No, white people must always be victimizers no matter how hard they try to get along or how bad many of them have it themselves and blacks must always be victims until the end of time. I don't know...cause history or new interpretations of history or something. And if you think it doesn't it exist my advice is shove it up your ass and stop pushing it.

Not exactly. It was more an Emperor's New Clothes kind of thing. They saw what it actually was and said look at that. That's what it is. Kind of like when I call a Progressive a Prog or when others call them the "Regressive" left. Know the tree by the fruit it bears. Like that.

I see Mikey gave you a laughing smiling for that so apparently even you two know how ridiculous it is then. You forgot Mitch McConnel, Adam Kinzinger, Lindsey Graham et al though. Over in the land of actual Republicans they're not even calling that group RINOs anymore. They call them the "Uniparty" now because there's no real difference between them and Democrats.

Neither actual Republicans nor actual conservatives invented Wokeism. So who did?

Nope. The Cultural Marxist migration happened. Try what you're always expecting everybody else to do for you and look it up. The evidence of Progs existing (like AOC as a minor example) and what they're about is available to anybody who wants to look around. And the chaos these two poisonous ideologies have wrought is well documented by anybody with eyes and ears who's willing to watch and listen. As to listening to both sides, take your own advice for once and try it.

And AOC is nothing but a little dab of glue at the end of the chain described above waiting for the next link.

No it doesn't. It takes a thought movement called "cultural marxism" to get a foothold in American universities after the Communists get kicked out of Germany during the second world war. Then it takes another toxic European ideology called Progressivism to move in and adopt it. After that, poof, the magic is done and before you know it churches are socialists and socialist are religious. Climate cultists have us convinced any summer heatwave is evidence the world is coming to an end from global warming, there's no such thing as girls or boys anymore so if your girl thinks she's a boy just cut her breasts off. Here's a handful of puberty blockers for your boy. Too much crime? No problem. Make felonies misdemeanors and misdemeanors felonies so you can imprison your political rivals. And if eventually anybody, like say some Republicans in congress says anything like "Hey...wait a minute this is nuts," not to worry, have your acolytes blame them for it.

You can tell I'm just laughing at you now, right? You're getting ridiculous. The time is coming you're going to have to stop Black Knighting me. It's funny but it's only funny for so long. After a while we start to get embarrassed for you.

And that's nothing but a conspiracy theory from a liar who calls people conspiracy theorists then dons his tin foil hat whenever it becomes convenient. But let's say it is somehow true. Ron De Santis through his evil cabinet was going to try to indoctrinate children into believing the civil rights era didn't happen and somehow the race of those involved was questionable anyway. Luckily for us then that heroes like yourself and the NEW York Times had saved the day by running around in circles pulling your hair out, squealing, "THERE WAS AN EDIT! AN EDIT!! Did you hear me? AN EDiT!!! OMG! An Edit!" It was a late Edit. Stuffed into a review that didn't have any power to actually decide on what the curriculum would be but that doesn't matter because Beave, R&R and their New York Times saved the day by revealing the the horror of the EDIT. OK, let's jump down that insanity hole with you for a sec and assume you're correct. You and yours have saved us all from having the future indoctrinated into believing there was no civil rights era and there weren't real blacks involved anyway. Let's pretend that was De Santis's nefarious plan before the NYT and their army of NPC progs thwarted it by running around in circles, pulling their hair out SQUeee-ing about "THE EDIT!" Very well. Even by your own admission the De Santis conspiracy is not going to happen now. You saved the day. Good for you. But what are you still complaining about?

Beave, Beave. Beave. Can you honestly not tell that if you're trying to bring attempted murder, and the 2020 election into a conversation about this conspiracy theory you have that Ron DeSantis is trying make Rosa Parks white all you're doing is trying to build some more ridiculous strawmen you hope you can suck me into attacking so you can accuse me of building strawmen. And you still haven't answered the actual question. If your conspiracy theory is not going to happen and it's not, what are you complaining about? You get so exited Beave, it's amusing. You run around like this doing this slinging insults and hoping you can get me to chase you into your little field of strawmen and I and a few others just sit here chuckling like this .

I'm going to help you Beave, because you seem to be having trouble manufacturing strawmen that the facts support. Here's the full paygated NYT article Rebound only wants to parcel out in chunks. https://news.yahoo.com/florida-scoured-math-textbooks-prohibited-121246612.html Lots of fun little half-truths and conjecture for you to use as straw for your steadily growing little strawman army. I'll still be wondering what you're actually complaining about though, when nothing you appeared to be concerned about in your title is actually going to happen.

Oh, well if the King of Lies says so it must be true. But what we do know for an objective fact is the claim in the title of this thread is not going happen. So one more time. What are you complaining about? That an edit stuffed into a review of minimal importance too late for the publisher to stop it means what? To the future of the curriculum I mean. Nothing right? So I'll even do it again. What are you complaining about then, really? Stuff you'd like to believe might happen while you call anybody who isn't on board with your fantasized future scenario of what you'd like to believe a conspiracy theorist? That's all I'm getting.

Now as to the edits. The Rosa Parks one was stuffed into a final revision before a review which didn't even have power of final decision on what would or wouldn't be accepted as curriculum. The reviewers could only offer opinion. The publisher of the the Rosa Parks offering containing the sneaky edit that was snuck in at the last moment before the Mickey Mouse "review" called it an abhorrent miswriting of history. Something like that anyway. And they're not happy with the "staff" that stuffed the bogus edit in before they could see it. They say those people have been identified and the situation has been rectified. But that isn't the story Beave wanted you to believe in his title, is it? Go ahead lie some more and say it was. What blows my mind is even after the publisher responded to the NYT story telling you the Rosa Parks edits will never actually happen some of you are still all in on the lie. The Publisher of the review offering with the sneaky last minute edit is no longer eligible BTW. There are different stories as to why but you won't be seeing that bogus edit in any curriculum textbook. So again, what are you complaining about?

And as always every claim made above is blathered up BS diversion from the point. The Point is at has remained throughout this thread that the Title of this thread is a lie. This one: In DeSantis’s revised history curriculum, Rosa Parks wasn’t black or a civil rights activist That's not going to happen. No textbook in the final form will contain anything like that. So if it's not going to happen what are you nutbars complaining about? I'll give you fanatics credit for one thing. Some of you true believers are so locked into this lie that it's almost impressive.

Let's check that out. Here is how my very first post in this thread began. Really? Did they now? Who says so? My god, Beave you have finally said something that may be correct. Was it an accident? I began asking you to justify the title of your thread and I'm still doing it. We're precisely where we started. Where the snake first began to swallow its head. Well can you then? Can you show me in the Publisher's response to the New York Times. Where they say the current textbook will be altered to say Rosa Parks was just some woman of non descript racial origins? Still can't do it, eh? How about showing me how it's possible for Ron De Santis to be responsible for something that's not going to happen? Is that proving to be too much even for the King of Lies? And also one more time. If you can't show me where the curriculum will be minimizing the race or importance of Rosa Parks to the civil rights story, what are you complaining about?

I admit, Beave sometimes your willingness to say, present a picture of an Aardvark and tell them it's a tomato impresses even me. Here's what's currently up at the Studies Weekly Publishing website: Now show where in there it claims their next text book will contain anything that suggests Rosa Parks was not a civil rights icon or black. Then show me how what doesn't exist was the work of Ron De Santis. If you can't do that then what you appear to be claiming in the title of this thread is a lie. You should admit it and move on. But you won't. You can't. Liars can't admit they're lying. Instead you want to blather on about unrelated tidbits that have nothing to do with your central claim or inference or whatever that is in the title. And none of that matters because if there is nothing in the current revised curriculum as it will appear in their upcoming text book claiming Rosa Parks was just another bus passenger of unspecific race then what are you or your fellow, fringe, far left, numbskulls complaining about?

See that? You can't preach-teach garbage like that in Florida schools and public institutions anymore. Doesn't matter how you try to justify it. That's all HB 7 says.

No King of Lies. It's you again. They told you right to your face what happened but you seem to think if you just repeat the lie over and over again instead then what you want to believe becomes the truth. It doesn't. This is what happened. The Florida legislature was in the process of considering a bill that would make it illegal for schools or government to introduce policies mandating the preach-teaching of any kind of racism. Not even black against white. Not even the white woke against normal whites. In the meantime there was a publisher of Florida curriculum that had been publishing textbooks for grade threes. Their next volume was coming up for review before publishing. Just before the review somebody (either the New York Times) or an editor of the publishing house slipped an amateurish looking edit into the review and it appeared in the New York times. It marginalized Rosa Parks status as a civil rights icon and a black woman. In a response to the New York Times that appeared to be claiming that would be the new Florida curriculum the Publisher called the Rosa Parks claim an "abhorrent historical inaccuracy" and would never make it past the final review. It would not be in the final curriculum. The insinuation was some part of staff was responsible for stuffing in the edit when it was too late to stop it. The publisher claimed those responsible had been identified and the situation was rectified. As far as I know NYT and other leftist media lip servers never offered a retraction for their lie and their little fringe army of indoctrinated fanatics on social media started slinging out the inference of the edit as fact. That Ron De Santis had ordered a curriculum where Rosa Parks became a non-descript white woman. That never happened. It's not going to happen. Beave is lying again. He seems to think if he just keeps lying and launching insults we'll stop noticing he's lying. Speaking for myself that's not going to happen.

BTW, in case you missed it an "unapproved change" is not "an accident." It's incompetence or sabotage.

Well if you seriously want to get into what the publisher did or didn't say why didn't you just go back to the other thread you want to lie about in this one and click the quote. It's easy. Here, I'll show you: They also said they identified the individuals responsible and "rectified the situation." Would you like me to show you how to quote that bit, King of Lies?

Blather all you want Beave this title you posted for your thread is a lie. "In DeSantis’s revised history curriculum, Rosa Parks wasn’t black or a civil rights activist" We know it's a lie because the curriculum publisher says it's a lie. There is nothing in their current curriculum anything like that. I'll give you credit for one thing, King of Lies, you don't disappoint. Your prevarications are still at 100%

Neat trick, Beave. I imagine you think that because that concerns a different topic you can just pull it out your butt in fantasy form and call it truth. Did it not occur to you that I was there and can tell what really happened. Beave, who I used to call King of Lies, posted a lie from the New York Times concerning what a publisher was going to publish as curriculum in Florida. We know it was a lie because the Publisher posted on the front page their website that it was a lie. What he's trying to post as the story is not the central story we could call the point on what we were actually talking about. That was that he lied and the New York Times lied. That was the actual point. However what Beave wants to move the goal posts to was something I told him about reading between the lines to conjecture as to what I suspected what might have been happening behind the scenes. It wasn't important. Just fun. You can do that and Beave has done a lot worse. For example he uses that spin from an unrelated story to obfuscate from the issue of Ray Epps who has never been charged but is on video committing crimes. Crimes such as inciting the invasion of the capitol or participating in crashing a sign into a police line. Many J6 prisoners are doing serious time for less with less in your face evidence than the blatant right before your eyes evidence Epps committed crimes and they refuse to charge him. And here's some more reading between the lines conjecture for you, Beave. If they won't charge Epps for crimes we can watch him commit on video that's suspicious. It cries out Fedsurrection over Insurrection.

Well if you're talking "woke" I prefer this one:

Ray Epps was connected to the feds during the Fedsurrection. It's blatant. Get over it. Tucker showed video showing Epps lied to the subcommittee. They knew. They had access to the same video. They didn't care. He became their pal.

We need a Prog to English dictionary. Something like... Conspiracy theory: Name describing the condition where it becomes preferable to ignore the obvious. As in... 'Don't believe your lying eyes, it's a conspiracy theory."