Not The Onion

12304 readers

1225 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

493

Texas rejects science textbooks with too much information about climate change (www.msnbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Would you reject a science textbook if it had too much information about ionic bonding?

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

Depends how much the Ionic Bonding Lobby Group was paying me.

[–] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

everybody knows the licentious covalent bonding is where it's at~

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope. Then again, I'm not a fundie loon 🤷

[+] intensely_human@lemm.ee -10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So if the textbook was say 10 chapters, and 7 of them were about ionic bonding, that wouldn’t be a problem?

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

if it was a textbook about chemical bonds, then no.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And what if it’s not, but rather the sort of textbook you’d expect in a high school science class?

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

well if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're talking about actual legislation and ideologically based censorship, so please

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Based on this headline it could be the situation I’m describing: that literally they have a problem with too much focus being put on a single topic, in a class that’s supposed to cover many topics.

So no, you don’t know that yet. Unless you can present more evidence that it is.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

From the article:

Among the reasons the board rejected books: They had too much information about the climate crisis; they were published by companies with environmentally friendly policies; they portrayed fossil fuel use in an insufficiently positive light, potentially harming the state’s economy; and they included teachings about evolution but not creationism.

With this information, I sincerely doubt the board was finding honest problems with the texts. They rejected textbooks because they didn't include creationism -- there clearly isn't any legitimate desire for science.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

it could be the situation I’m describing: that literally they have a problem with too much focus being put on a single topic

If you truly believe that, I have a mountain chalet in Florida to sell you.