Nm
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
Independent here...
Is it just me or does it seem like Republicans are the insensitive jocks and Democrats are the nerds that were picked on growing up?
Both sides have good and bad, just saying though, that's the messaging I interpret watching/reading the different political leaning "news" sources.
It's a stereotype ... but I think it does apply to some, yes. It really depends on the area.
In select swaths of DC, which basically blacklists you if you're not a Progressive (with rare exceptions), being a fat guy since the beginning of this century ...
Everyone assumed I was just always a nerd, and never athletic. Most on the teams I worked on always had people making snide comments exposing the fact that they never played team sports, clearly never saw the need for allowing others to provide 'devil's advocate,' and the like.
At least in the Bay of California, they do appreciate more athleticism, although there are still similar attitudes to DC. In fact, worse than DC, too many people from the Bay think there's no where else they'd want to live, and that most people are inbred and stupid from elsewhere.
But that's all still stereotyping. Not everyone is like that. Although everyone fears anyone who is like that ... except 'wear it on my sleeve' Libertarians like myself. Oh boy did I excel at pissing people off, especially the more I countered their questions ... with my own.
Everything is always 'that's what a racist/sexist would say.'
It's because Republicans have little to no actual policies these days, so making liberals look bad is all they can do. And dont take that the wrong way, I have no problems with valid criticism or just simply a difference in policy beliefts, but to be effective politicians, you also have to have some policies. Look at what is going on in Florida schools right now with the "dont say gay", one rep tried to make it that teachers had to out gay children to their parents. That part was withdrawn, but even presenting that is nothing more than trying to shame gay children, and I think that is a perfect example of the modern GOP has become. No real policies that would actually benefit society, just try and shame liberals.
CRT is a perfect example, it isnt even taught in public schools, so banning it doesnt really accomplish anything (other than to weaken public education but that is a different discussion), but they use it to scare people into voting for them. Chris Rufo was the political strategist who pushed that in the recent Virginia races. This is a tweet he had in 3/21
"We have successfully frozen their brand—"critical race theory"—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category."
He is admitting they are putting any cultural issue they dont like, under the CRT umbrella, even though they arent CRT.
Last edited:
Devil's advocate: How does banning something that doesn't exist, in your words, weaken the public education system?
Political perception is not a 1 party tactic. It's all plays to get their respective bases to vote, and swing the few true independents for power, and power corrupts.
Try to view things from both perspectives, thinking logically, asking what's the play, that's the catch.
If nothing else, remember there's no 1 size fits all solution..big city policies don't work for rural communities and vice versa. Best to let each govern themselves, that's what we should all be striving for. And spend less time on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Twitter, and Facebook, they want your attention and will "report" any way necessary for it.
Go Knights!
Because, as Rufo illustrates in the tweet I quoted above, they are going to consider anything they dont like as CRT. This is going to be a state by state thing, so it will be different everywhere, but we could easily be getting to a point where teaching MLK or Rosa Parks, slavery, etc could be considered CRT in some states. I know in Florida Desantis has said they will fine school districts who teach CRT, but if they arent actually teaching CRT, then what exactly is the purpose of threatening fines? It is to either make sure they dont teach anything in regards to race (dont make white kids uncomfortable) or it is so they can hurt public schools with fines, making it easier to bring in more charter schools. I live in TN, our governor is wanting up to 100 charter schools from Hillsdale, which is Betsy Devos's thing, which would completely reshape public education. Our governor wants to teach "informed patriotism", which is nothing more than a clever way to say propoganda, since teachers shouldnt be teaching patriotism at all, they should be teaching history. Not to mention it is just a transfer in taxpayer money away from public schools, these for profit charter schools. I think CRT is a tool they are going to use to justify charters, by essentially making parents think that public schools are bad because they teach things they dont like.
Are you suggesting parent input and school choice is a bad thing for families/children?
It depends on to what extent. If parents want to control everything their child learns, they should homeschool, which is a choice. If they have the means they can send them to a private school, which is a choice. So there is already some levels of choice. There is absolutely no way that a school can provide a quality education based on every single parents preferences to what a child learns in school, and who gets to decide? If parent x doesnt want their child to learn about slavery, does that mean the child of parent Y, in the same class, cant learn about it either?
Secondly, taking money from public schools to give to charter schools is only going to weaken public schools, and I do think that is bad, and it is also political at this point. Parents should pay attention to what Tennessee is trying to do, because if it passes and is implemented, then it is going to be coming to red states throughout the country.
But what does a "woke version" of history even mean? THere is an ugliness to American history, we all know that, and I dont think that is really debatable. So if we teach slavery, jim crow, etc etc, does that equate to being woke?
Isn't this a completely false narrative though? No one argues that parent's shouldn't have a voice, but you can't build a curriculum around individual preferences. You have to establish it as a community (through elections, debates, school board meetings, etc). You're never going to make everyone happy. Trying to cater to a small but vocal group of upset parents is not rational public policy.
I look at it like this. There's uniform agreement that kids need to learn science. From there, we generally leave it up to experts at science education to determine the curriculum. What does "parent input" here really mean? If your a flat earther, should you be able to opt your kid out of anything that suggests the earth is a spheroid? Maybe you should. But should a vocal group of flat earthers be able to ban it from the curriculum all together? Or sue teachers because their flat earth believing kid is uncomfortable?
I want my kids to learn uncomfortable things at school. Honestly, I want teachers who play devil's advocate and make the kids debate complex, emotionally charged issues. I don't want to tie their hands and "ban" them from discussing a controversial theory. My goal is to raise a child who can intake information, assess it's credibility, and come to a rational conclusion. People who try to "shield" their kids from viewpoints they don't like are the one's actually trying to indoctrinate and brainwash.
But this is very much over stated. Yes, there have been teachers here and there who have done things like this, but this certainly isnt the norm. It would be much easier just to tell teachers they cant do this anymore, and if they continue to discipline them, than it is to essentially change entire curriculums around it. I also think you are missing, that what is going on now with schools, is 100% political, but it isnt coming from the left.
This is from your state https://apnews.com/article/business...al-injustice-3ec10492b7421543315acf4491813c1b.
So in Florida Desantis wants it so you cant teach about discrimination, if it makes white people feel uncomfortable. Things like this are going to lead to teaching a white washed version of history. Facts dont care about your feelings has turned into if facts make you uncomfortable, they shouldnt be taught. This is a disservice to children who are going get out into college or the real world, and are going to be lessser educated and behind their peers who went schools who actually taught real history and real subject matter.
Here's where I think things break down. You're arguing against indoctrination - but the policies being pushed are opposing discussion. I'll argue against indoctrination while supporting free and open discussion every single time.
You can't teach history just as a series of objective facts. It also includes the ability analyze information and form opinions and judgements. What we teach shouldn't be one sided. That's what authoritarian nationalist regimes do. Banning a theory or opinion you don't agree with is inherently doing what you claim to be fighting against.
Think of it this way. A really good teacher might challenge his students by playing devil's advocate for King George during the revolution, or discuss the legitimate grievances of post WWI Germany. That's not indoctrination. But you don't teach history from a neutral perspective if you want to learn anything. You quite literally have to learn it from multiple perspectives to understand the motivations.
What if a public school curriculum included teaching that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected? Does that go too far?
It depends on how it is taught. If it is taught as fact, then yes I think that goes to far because it isnt fact. If it is taught because you are teaching about religions in an academic sense, then i wouldnt have an issue with it, though I would think you would need to teach about Judaism, Islam, and other major religions too at least, so it doesnt come across as endorsing one religion over the next.
So how about teaching CRT and also teaching that white people are actually the ones that ended slavery because they aren't racist?
CRT is taught at law schools, it isnt taught in high school or elementary schools, and I dont see why it should be now. Why not just teach history and let students come to their own conclusions through reading and discussion? If you are against indoctrination, then I dont know how claiming white people arent racist isnt a form of indoctrination. There are white people who are racists, and our history is littered with racism. I certainly think you should teach how it progresses through out history, slavery was ended, then we had jim crow, which was eventually ended etc etc, but I dont think you should preface it with this idea that there is no racism or whatever, because that isnt true.
Lol. To begin with, they wouldn't call it "Critical Race THEORY" if it was just a matter of teaching history. I'm cool with teaching history and in fact am a history buff myself. History doesn't include teaching little kids that past oppression has anything to do with them.
You've lost me on this argument.
As best I can tell, the right and left tends to confuse the concept of structural racism with individuals having racial animus. They are completely different things.
I heard an analogy I thought was pretty good. Imagine a building is constructed prior to ADA in an era where no consideration was made for people in wheelchairs. Fifty years later you buy the building and don't make efforts to make it accessible. Not because you have anything against disabled people, but because you're cheap. But the end result is the same. Whether you're motivated by a disdain for the disabled or you're just cheap, the disabled community suffers the same 50 year old challenges regardless of your motivation.
The mistake the left makes in this situations is to call people racist. People take offense to that because - well - they aren't racist. At the same time, folks on the right ignore the structural problem, cover their eyes and say "it wasn't my problem I'm not the one who built it."
You are the one who used that term, so not exactly sure how you expected me to take it, when you literally said "so how about teaching CRT".
As I said earlier, this idea that teachers across the country are telling white kids they are responsible for slavery and racism isnt true. Yes, there are examples here and there, I get that, but generally speaking teachers are just teaching history, and this push back on it is because some people, dont want our students learning actual history. We are going to create an environment where our kids come out of school without proper education, and also, we are going to end up with terrible teachers, because honestly, who is going to want to teach history anymore knowing if they say "the wrong thing", they could end up being disciplined for it. This is a full on attempt at white washing and propoganda, that is all this is.
There are certainly people on the left who use the racism card way to flippantly, I wont disagree on that. But, I think some of it is a pushback against the idea that many on the right have, that racism isnt an issue at all.
It was in reference to Cubs saying that both/all sides should be taught.
I dont mind your analogy but it is probably pretty easy to poke holes in.
Huh? I didnt say that. I was specifically talking about religion, which isnt a 'both sides" argument. IF you want to teach religion through an academenic/historical preface then I have no issues with that, but if you want to only teach Christianity and not through an academic lens, then I do have an issue with that. If you are against indoctrination in our schools, then surely you dont want a teacher telling your children what religion is true, right?
Valid point. At the same time, you can't teach ALL of history and also demonstrate how it affects the here and now. Some things aren't really applicable anymore.
You dont have to teach all of history. I think schools should give students a basic foundation of history. So from an American history aspect you start with the settlers, then the revolutionary war, the establishment of the government, then the civil war, world wars, jim crow, etc etc. I dont think they have to get into every single detail about every aspect of our history. And then, if a student wants to pursue it more in college they can expand on that foundation and get deeper into the weeds. But what is going to happen, is kids from certain states are going to get to college and realize they are far behind their peers because the schools they went to growing up, didnt really teach them history.
Here's an example of how history should be taught if you want CRT:
The underpasses on the east coast that were built to be too low for busses to get black people to the beach. Take those kids out on a field trip to one of them and explain the history of it. Then ask any of the kids whether it affects them now. Ask them if it's worth making the underpass taller now, and whether it's worth millions of dollars to do so.
The underpasses on the east coast that were built to be too low for busses to get black people to the beach. Take those kids out on a field trip to one of them and explain the history of it. Then ask any of the kids whether it affects them now. Ask them if it's worth making the underpass taller now, and whether it's worth millions of dollars to do so.
Constantly calling people racist - even if it's true - is a losing strategy. It's how you immediately put them on the defensive and ensure they close off to gaining a deeper understanding.
I agree it is a losing strategy, but I also feel we are at a point (which is only going to get worse based on a lot of what we are talking about in this thread), where there are people who dont even really think racism is real. It is a fine line for sure, and if someone is honestly interested in learning, then I dont condone calling them racist. And I dont condone calling someone a racist over ever little thing. At the same time, we cant just ignore racism in our history, and it isnt all ancient history. Redlining was an accepted practice through the 60s, and continued in various forms after that. The civil rights movement wasnt that long ago, our justice system still has issues, etc etc. I just think we are getting to a point where we almost have alternate histories based on what party we belong to, and I dont think that is a good thing.
I agree. I was reading the wiki on CRT (since let's face it none of us know WTF it really is) and I liked this sentence:
One tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals.
I think the rest of the wiki is going to have some ideas people disagree with. But that sentence - I think - would have reasonably broad agreement on this board when presented in a non-threatening kind of way. Hence I think you can make far more progress with that line of thinking versus calling out individual acts or people as racist. I think of it like this - we can all agree a klansmen is a racist. Heck, even the klansmen will probably agree. So that's fine. But if you try to argue something like "Trump is a racist" then you are telling 70 million people they are racist by extension and you'll get nowhere. Right or wrong it's counterproductive.
I think there are different forms of racism. I think most people would agree that the open hatred types, which would be the klan, neo nazis, etc are racist. But I also think there is a form of racism that isnt intentional, and is more bred out of just ignorance. I dont think many people who would fit into that are necessarily racists, I think they just dont have an understanding of what racism really is or how it plays out in society. THe problem, is to get rid of that sort of racism, we have to be able to talk about and educate each other on it, but a lot of people just dont want to hear or it makes them uncomfortable.
And I think a large part of the problem is the politicians weaponize it. Whether it be through the southern strategy, or now CRT, they almost convince white people that they are under attack by black people and minorities, and that simply isnt true. I agree with you that not all Trump supporters are racist, but at the same time, Trump does attract racists, and he does it intentionally because that is the only way he can win. He can win the vote with people who want tax cuts and all of that, but he, and honestly much of the GOP in general, have to have other things to lean on to attact people who wont benefit from their policies, so they create a revolving boogyman to scare people. And that boogyman currently is CRT.
So I dont disagree with your point, telling people they are racists and terrible people obviously isnt going to get them to vote for you. But at the same time, we have to be able to discuss it in some form. It is a fine line, but we cant just ignore these things the GOP is pushing because people might think we are calling them racist. Democrats are terrible at messaging, but they need to be able to find away to discuss these issues, without just telling people they are racist.
But the right is the one turning into political doctrination. It isnt the left wanting books removed from schools, it groups on the right. It isnt the left pushing for "informed patriotism" to be taught, or to combat "anti American thought" that is coming from the right. "Dont say gay", is coming from the right, etc etc. I dont want children indoctrinated either, but I think you are looking at the wrong side of the aisle with regards to who wants to indocrinate children.
It's so fun when you get semantic and ignore any conversation that's been had on this board before. You're right, that technically you won't find any classes called CRT in elementary or secondary schools. But you're absolutely wrong and intentionally obfuscating that concepts from CRT have absolutely been woven into curricula across the country in elementary and secondary schooling. Some school districts have replaced their materials with third-party materials written expressly to convey tenets of CRT. I've posted a number of examples of this and yet you continue to use the strawman that CRT isn't taught to try to gaslight parents that object to it's principles being misused in classrooms around the country. The worst part is that, because CRT itself isn't taught, the creators of the materials and the instructors are cherry-picking things from CRT, removing the nuance that makes CRT a valuable theory for discussion and potential change, and applying it in destructive ways that are garnering the wrong kind of attention and reputation.
Oh, I know, you're going to say it's all evil Republicans and ignorant parents. So I just said it for you so you can save the head in the sand argument you're about to attempt.
So ... how do you teach a child that? We used to call it insensitivity, and try to teach them to be aware of everyone, "The Golden Rule."
But now, we have university academics trying to define who is pre-dispositioned and who is wrong. It's a great thought experiment that university academics have. Just like 'Micro-aggressions' prior.
And teachers are utterly lost in how to teach it.
This is just going to be like the Title IX changes of the Obama administration ... and teachers are going to be in the crossfire of administrators and parents as a result, as always. You have to have something 'common sense' in the classroom, not theories from university academics
Even Bill Maher pointed that out.
But the solution isn't teaching children they are privileged and inherently racist and/or sexist. The solution is teaching how to be sensitive to others ... everyone, especially minorities ... and that majorities are not right on their own.
The primary or even secondary classroom isn't for thought experiments of university academics.
(and sexists too)... just like Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton for that matter, were racist and sexists. Coincidentally, and ironically enough, here ... the Bushes are the least sexist and racist in comparison, removing Obama from the equation, of course.
No ... CRT is like Microaggressions, people are tired of thought experiments from elitist academics that children and teachers won't be able to discuss without causing consternation from administrators, parents and lawyers.
That's one thing we can agree on.
It isnt semantic. CRT has been around since at least Derek Bell from the 70s, but you can argue that even MLK and others were speaking of things which would now be under the umbrella of CRT, and it is a specific area of study. I dont know what examples you are talking about so I cant talk about them specifically, but as Chris Rufo has openly admitted, Republicans are now using CRT to represent anything they dont like. That isnt what CRT actually is, that is just what Republicans are telling us it is to win votes.
Last edited:
The post you are commenting on I wasnt talking about kids, I was talking about adults. You teach it to kids just by teaching honest history, and not a whitewashed version of it.
If you stretch the definition to fit your argument the way you have a propensity to do, you can fit anything into that bucket. Like when you erroneously claim that republicans are claiming CRT for anything that they don’t like. You’re simply freezing Republicans into a position just like you claim they are doing and with less merit.
Huh? I am not stretching the definition, CRT is not something that just sprung up. Derek Bell is kind of considered the "founder" of CRT (for lack of a better word) and his writings on it started in the 70s, though there were certainly writings before him that would fit. It is a specific area of study, which boosted already illustrated. It is basically the study of how race played/plays a role in our policies and institutions.
Here is a short but I think decent definition of what CRT actually is.
CRT was coined and grew within academic legal studies in the 1970s-1980s by scholar-advocates who were interested in exploring how law and other forms of public policy could secure/protect civil rights, yet also serve to reproduce and codify racial hierarchy and discrimination.2 Importantly, CRT was not created de novo. Rather it is a bundling of tenets or suppositions that have a longer history in scholarship attempting to understand persistent racial disparities in economic, political, and social experiences and outcomes, including outcomes related to health. Taken alone or combined as CRT, these tenets are widely used in the humanities and myriad sciences, including the social and population sciences. Thus, CRT is a framework for a critical (i.e., deep, historical, complex) analysis of what drives ongoing racial inequality that builds upon long-standing scientific theories and concepts, and is supported by decades of multidisciplinary scholarship.
I didnt erroneously claim anything. This is a tweet from Chris Rufo, who was the top Republican strategist in the Virginia state elections, he also works with Desantis, and I am sure other Republicans. He tweeted this in March of last year. ANd he clearly states the plan is to turn it toxic by placing various other issues under the category. And it was probably the biggest factor in the VA races, he did just what he said he was going to do in this tweet.
"We have successfully frozen their brand—"critical race theory"—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category."
Last edited:
