How CRT may play in elections
-
I'm not sure what you are saying. Is it your contention that because they would not hire this person they should expect attacks?
The basic truth here is that white parents do not want it drilled into their children that they are racists simply by virtue of being white.
-
I'm not sure what you are saying. Is it your contention that because they would not hire this person they should expect attacks?
The basic truth here is that white parents do not want it drilled into their children that they are racists simply by virtue of being white.
@Mik said in How CRT may play in elections:
I'm not sure what you are saying. Is it your contention that because they would not hire this person they should expect attacks?
Read the article. It goes into the details on how the school board meetings evolved to the point of needing all those security and emergency security measures.
The basic truth here is that white parents do not want it drilled into their children that they are racists simply by virtue of being white.
It is also a basic fact that the schools districts are not teaching that.
Just because a bunch of misinformed school board meeting attendees accuse the schools of teaching something does not make it true.
-
In an age where bookstores are having childrens' book readings by drag queens, I think this is not so far fetched as you would like to believe.
So just what is your contention here, Ax?
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
This is such a stupid argument. Yes, CRT was originally a legal theory that was narrowly focused on the legal system and law enforcement. But when the fundamental elements (inherent systemic racism in policies, unequal outcomes, equity over equality, etc…) are being used in education and the workplace there are a whole bunch of dipshits saying “it’s not CRT because it’s not focused on the legal system”. They are missing the forest for the trees and playing semantic games…
The Brad
-
In an age where bookstores are having childrens' book readings by drag queens, I think this is not so far fetched as you would like to believe.
So just what is your contention here, Ax?
@Mik said in How CRT may play in elections:
In an age where bookstores are having childrens' book readings by drag queens, I think this is not so far fetched as you would like to believe.
Yet it is true that the schools have not and have no plan to teach CRT.
Why would "drag Queen reading to children in library" somewhere else be indicative of whether those two Georgia school districts are teaching or not teaching something?
Look at the facts. Don't get suckered in by propaganda or conspiracy theories.
-
@Mik said in How CRT may play in elections:
In an age where bookstores are having childrens' book readings by drag queens, I think this is not so far fetched as you would like to believe.
Yet it is true that the schools have not and have no plan to teach CRT.
Why would "drag Queen reading to children in library" somewhere else be indicative of whether those two Georgia school districts are teaching or not teaching something?
Look at the facts. Don't get suckered in by propaganda or conspiracy theories.
@Axtremus said in How CRT may play in elections:
@Mik said in How CRT may play in elections:
In an age where bookstores are having childrens' book readings by drag queens, I think this is not so far fetched as you would like to believe.
Yet it is true that the schools have not and have no plan to teach CRT.
Why would "drag Queen reading to children in library" somewhere else be indicative of whether those two Georgia school districts are teaching or not teaching something?
Look at the facts. Don't get suckered in by propaganda or conspiracy theories.
Look at the facts and don’t get suckered in by stupid semantic games.
-
The quality of discussion around this issue is very poor. People on the right use “CRT” without really understanding what they’re talking about and people on the left either deliberately or out of ignorance strawman the complaints by taking them too literally.
Like they’ll say “nobody teaches CRT in elementary school”, meaning no fifth graders are being taught Delgado or Derrick Bell. Ok, sure that’s true as far as it goes, but the real issue is in illiberal CRT-infused ideas, which are in fact getting applied in grade schools.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
The quality of discussion around this issue is very poor. People on the right use “CRT” without really understanding what they’re talking about and people on the left either deliberately or out of ignorance strawman the complaints by taking them too literally.
Like they’ll say “nobody teaches CRT in elementary school”, meaning no fifth graders are being taught Delgado or Derrick Bell. Ok, sure that’s true as far as it goes, but the real issue is in illiberal CRT-infused ideas, which are in fact getting applied in grade schools.
@jon-nyc said in How CRT may play in elections:
The quality of discussion around this issue is very poor. People on the right use “CRT” without really understanding what they’re talking about and people on the left either deliberately or out of ignorance strawman the complaints by taking them too literally.
Like they’ll say “nobody teaches CRT in elementary school”, meaning no fifth graders are being taught Delgado or Derrick Bell. Ok, sure that’s true as far as it goes, but the real issue is in illiberal CRT-infused ideas, which are in fact getting applied in grade schools.
This
-
This is such a stupid argument. Yes, CRT was originally a legal theory that was narrowly focused on the legal system and law enforcement. But when the fundamental elements (inherent systemic racism in policies, unequal outcomes, equity over equality, etc…) are being used in education and the workplace there are a whole bunch of dipshits saying “it’s not CRT because it’s not focused on the legal system”. They are missing the forest for the trees and playing semantic games…
@LuFins-Dad said in How CRT may play in elections:
This is such a stupid argument. Yes, CRT was originally a legal theory that was narrowly focused on the legal system and law enforcement. But when the fundamental elements (inherent systemic racism in policies, unequal outcomes, equity over equality, etc…) are being used in education and the workplace there are a whole bunch of dipshits saying “it’s not CRT because it’s not focused on the legal system”. They are missing the forest for the trees and playing semantic games…
If you want to oppose "inherent systemic racism in policies, unequal outcomes, equity over equality" being used in education and workplaces, say that. Don't cram those other things into CRT and then slap the CRT label on things you don't like. It's the people mislabeling everything with "CRT" who are playing semantics in the first place.
You don't get to incorrectly redefine "CRT" and then accuse people who use the term correctly of "playing semantics." It is those, either through ignorance or misinformation or deceptive intent, who incorrectly redefined the term who are at fault in the first place.
What's the point of pressuring schools boards to pass resolution to "ban CRT" when what you really want is to "ban teaching inherent systemic racism in policies, unequal outcomes, equity over equality"? You should not want a school board or local council to symbolically ban the wrong thing just because some other misinformed attendees cannot learn to use the right words to express what they really want to ban.
-
The quality of discussion around this issue is very poor. People on the right use “CRT” without really understanding what they’re talking about and people on the left either deliberately or out of ignorance strawman the complaints by taking them too literally.
Like they’ll say “nobody teaches CRT in elementary school”, meaning no fifth graders are being taught Delgado or Derrick Bell. Ok, sure that’s true as far as it goes, but the real issue is in illiberal CRT-infused ideas, which are in fact getting applied in grade schools.
@jon-nyc said in How CRT may play in elections:
The quality of discussion around this issue is very poor. People on the right use “CRT” without really understanding what they’re talking about and people on the left either deliberately or out of ignorance strawman the complaints by taking them too literally.
Quality of discussion altogether is made worse by using abbreviations in place of the whole phrase so frequently that the abbreviation itself becomes a word. And that word, because it oversimplifies the concept it stands for, takes on diffuse shades of meaning, many of them wrong. Precision in usage is lessened, ambiguity is accelerated, and collaboration becomes difficult if not impossible.
-
The poor quality of discussion is a feature, not a bug. The left is entirely happy if the conversation stays at a place where the mention of CRT gets you laughed out of the conversation. Ax will be perfectly happy to be shocked at ignorant and false claims of what CRT teaches, but you will note he will be unwilling and incapable of explaining what actually is being taught.
-
A rose by any other name...I don't give a red rolling rat's ass what they want to call it, in an age where we are falling farther and farther behind other first world nations in educating our children, we do not have the time, money or effort to put into this horseshit and people who wish to teach it, should be taken out behind the schoolboard building and horsewhipped.
