hpslugga

You're describing the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. It's still bad information...as in it's wrong. Dwight Jaynes was being dishonest. He was the spreader of disinformation. But even that took about 12 years to take hold within the broad base of the football world. It was not "virtually overnight." The same is true with CRT. And even with that, it's entirely besides the point because whether it's disinformation or misinformation, it's still fucking wrong and we're not going to move the goalposts to make it magically become right. I'm not going to respond to this any further until you articulate what those "identities, worldviews and social capitals" are.

Or worse, that the latter is a legitimate point of view that needs to be respected by those who detest it.

Exactly. It is harmful, however. It's harmful to religious extremists who've pined for years to include in public school texts an enormous list of lies asserted as history/science: They want to teach that the Constitution is based on Mosaic Law, which is a lie They want to teach that Africans were brought to the colonies as part of a "guest worker program," which is a lie They seek to minimize the innovations, achievements, and cultural contributions of non-whites, which is a vicious lie They seek to teach Intelligent Design as a scientific theory on par with evolution, which is a spectacular and unforgivable lie. So yeah, they're going to view any challenge to those lies as being "harmful." That's what their dogma teaches. That does not mean we should grant it any loftier consideration than dismissing it absolutely out of hand. We're absolutely right to do that, and they're absolutely wrong to take offense to that.

That's actually an old example of the phenomenon in question, but yes, it's a perfect example of how a term/concept became deliberately distorted for reasons that have only to do with the perpetrators of same strawmanning the shit out of anything they don't agree with. It's an example of Godwin's law, only way dumber.

They certainly are talking past each other, but not in the way you think. Yes, and the problem lies within the party that perpetually gets them wrong. If you find fault in people who insist on remaining loyal to actual definitions of terms, you're going at things ass backwards. What the "BAN CRT!" crowd is absolutely guilty of is invoking what's known as a strawman fallacy. It's a logical error that merits no serious consideration by serious people. I don't disqualify what they say merely because they're using a grotesquely false definition of the term; I disqualify what they say because their whines and complaints are completely meritless, not to mention dishonest. They assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact, which means they are lying. Then why are they using the term and what is it that they're talking about? Why do they not give a clear and concise summary of their issue in lieu of falsely labeling it as "CRT?" Why do they avoid doing that like a vampire avoids garlic? I'm going to give you an anachronistic analogy to try as best I can to sincerely help you with this: In my bookshelf, there's a book called Run and Shoot Football: Offense of the Future. It was written in 1965 by the architect of the scheme, one Glenn "Tiger" Ellison. Without getting into the specifics of its history, let's just look at how that term is used today. When football fans hear the phrase "Run-and-Shoot," they immediately think of Mouse Davis, Barry Sanders, Warren Moon, Andre Ware, John Jenkins, etc. There couldn't be a more faulty association between those men and that scheme because that's not the 'Shoot. Those men trace all the way back to Mouse Davis, but in its earliest days, Mouse Davis called his offense the Double Slot with Motion. Why is it then called the Run-and-Shoot? Well because some people on this planet are sensationalist, lying assholes and one of those assholes happened to be a reporter for The Oregonian named Dwight Jaynes. When Davis told him he was inspired by that same book that's on my shelf, Jaynes repeatedly insisted on using the book's title to label Davis' offense, over Davis' objections, in every article he was writing about Portland State. Why? Because it, according to him, "sounded sexier than Double Slot with Motion." Over the years, that shit became doctrine and dogma and that's why you have the false association. Who the fuck was Dwight Jaynes to just arbitrarily decide he was going to unilaterally change the lexicon of offensive strategies for his own selfish purposes? Now let's go back to CRT: Who the fuck are these people to just arbitrarily decide they're going to change academic lingo for their own selfish purposes? Seriously, who are these people? I mentioned this either on this thread or a different one a while back, but one of them was a very poorly dressed bum-looking person who spent an entire afternoon at the end of the western median dividing the eastbound and westbound lanes of Mockingbird at the 75 intersection holding up a sign that says "BAN TEACHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY AT HPISD!!!" That stupid asshole has no idea what CRT is, HPISD does not teach it, and yet he and people like him get to insist that the term's definition changes because...what, they want it to? That's not good enough, especially when you consider that if they took a class on CRT at a law school, the overwhelming majority of them would fail rather spectacularly. They pretend to be experts/authorities on the subject, which is a paradigmatic example of Dunning Kruger gone amok. What worldview of theirs is being challenged in public schools? If your identity, worldview and social capital are inextricably linked to racism, racist attitudes, bigotry, bigoted attitudes, etc, you haven't a worldview worthy of consideration. Period. If you want to come here whining and bitching about how people are "talking past each other, not hearing each other," perhaps you should start with the people bitching about CRT when they haven't the foggiest idea what CRT is, or even what they're actually mad about.

Dude, Baylor went into the 4th with the lead and Tech had to stop them on a 4th down at midfield to preserve a 7-point win.

They do that because it's a stupid person's idea of a smart thing to say. And it's not just cognitive inflexibility; it's cognitive bias that's a huge problem. The people you speak of are extremely ignorant and incompetent on such matters, but they are extremely confident in their own abilities...and they wonder why I accuse them of being afflicted with the Dunning Kruger Effect.

Lol Donda Academy "Mommy, donda esta mi educacion?" "You go to Kanye's school. Shit if I know!"

Very low ceiling with no floor

Hard stock here

I heard this in Stephen Baldwin’s voice. “If evolution is real, why didn’t the apes all die out?”

Don't forget Jerrod Heard

I'm guessing the winner of TX-OU gets the 6:30 next week?

A few remarks: 1. Omg 2. Wtf 3. I think that’s the lowest grade they’ve earned in a win since I started doing this in 2005 4. There were at least two punts TCU had where the ball took a hard bounce their way, but I do not say that’s a fail on the fieldable punts metric because I contend those balls were not fieldable. The first one wasn’t even close and I still say the second one failed to meet that description. 5. In all seriousness I’m glad this one happened the week that it did. The team hasn’t won a lot of shit grade games like these in recent years, let alone a road game against a team (chickenshit though they are) that’s had their number for the past near decade. This was a game that we found out the offense could still churn 30 points out of their asses even with a sub-par game by Casey (all QB’s are bound to have these) and that Bijan could handle a 35-carry game that is seldom seen in this age. Hopefully Sark is treating this as a loss.

"Carney also pointed out that Tucker takes a wide approach from his start point - a technique that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s but fell out of favor in the 1990s as kickers began to come at the ball from a narrower angle to increase accuracy. “Being wide allows you to get a lot of turn on the ball, you get a lot of hip and turn and rotation, which translates into power" Essentially it's a fusing of this principle along with what he also says about core strength. Some of the longest kickers in league history just flat out didn't have that. Did any coach ever look at Sebastian Janikowski, Nick Lowery or Morten Andersen and think "man if only my kickers had their core strength?" No fucking way. They looked at those guys and marveled only at their raw leg power. Justin has the leg power of a Janikowski but he also has the core control of Mike Vanderjagt, which is what makes him such a weapon...especially since he isn't the headcase those two guys were.

Lincoln Riley supported the Contras

Doesn’t mean I want her sitting next to me, does it?

If you ordered tix from TicketCity, when would you normally expect to actually receive them?

Only the playoff games really

Yeah it’s not exactly a thriving place. I just didn’t think they’d ever do that.

Probably because the rumor gets murdered by the reality that there’s nowhere to put a campus stadium. The only place that’s even remotely plausible is that area by Sikes Lake and Midwestern Parkway, but that would involve a crucial step known locally as “demolish the University President’s House.”

And if the NCAA announced that starting with tomorrow’s games that they’re going back to the two-inch tees, the 23’5” goalposts, the scuffed balls and the consequence of a missed FG moving the ball to the defense’s 20 before they took over, all those records would disappear literally tomorrow…multiple times over.

Yeah you already said that and you’re still not understanding the point: if he didn’t have that tee, there’s no way in hell he makes those 60+ yarders. Same goes for Steve Little, Tony Franklin, Ove Johansson, etc.

He certainly would’ve… twice