Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, VRHorn said:

Looks like @DonkeyCigars and @Satoshi need to start grooming their new IDs. Maybe attempt 4 or 5 will work for GRUHorn...

You've gotten excited and gone on a neg spree on me this AM; should I go ahead and register CowCigarettes or something like that? Would that make you happy?

[Brisketexan 105349]

14 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

2020-2021 has broken you. You are broken. 

Naah, not broken.  My resolve is steeled, yes.  But I've been reading the tea leaves pretty accurately for several years now.  I'm good with my read, it's got a pretty good track record.

13 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

There’s a difference between political and partisan.

Literally everything we do as Americans is impacted by political issues in some way.

Only one party makes EVERYTHING partisan and tries to conflate that into politics.

And only window licking morons fall for it.

This.  Lots of this.  Selling partisan bullshit while "just asking questions" is trolling 101.  Sure, DC isn't very good at it, but that doesn't stop him from trying.

[jimmyjazz 46141]

My Aunt posted this on FB in response to a post about celebrating the diversity in everyone's background:

Quote

This is exactly why CRT is so dangerous. Apologizing for being white is an absolute insult to God who made you whatever color you are. Shame on Americans who are buying into this dangerous idea.

I get tired of her FOX-y obsessions and sometimes can't refrain from responding:

Quote

there is not an elementary, middle, or high school in America teaching CRT. It is almost exclusively taught at the graduate level, most typically at law schools. It is not what you think it is.

Her response was utterly predictable:

Quote

Maybe not in your school district, but it is in Loudoun County and Fairfax County, VA, and some of our NC school districts are, or attempting to ban it.

 

 

Once they're bought in, there is no turning back.

[Js1 85580]

Why did she mention Loudoun and Fairfax, VA, specifically?  And then "our NC school districts"

Could it be because there's a VA Governor election in a month??

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

My Aunt posted this on FB in response to a post about celebrating the diversity in everyone's background:

I get tired of her FOX-y obsessions and sometimes can't refrain from responding:

Her response was utterly predictable:

 

 

Once they're bought in, there is no turning back.

Your example I think is a good one to illustrate how Americans these days are talking past each other, instead of communicating.

It seems to me that there is a problem in definitions. When people who have a problem with "CRT" are saying "CRT is in our schools and sucks let's ban it!" they are not using CRT as a technical or academic term, which I would argue is pedantic and not hearing what people are saying, but rather looking for a way to disqualify what is being said.

We know that in the science of language and words (linguistics), language changes over time.

In the modern world where technology has enabled hyper-connectivity and communication, two points:

1). Language change is extremely fast. Whereas in the past it could take generations, language change between communities and populations is extremely mutable.

2). Language change is often socially problematic. Long before divergent dialects lose mutual intelligibility completely, they begin to show difficulties and inefficiencies in communication, especially under noisy or stressful conditions. 

So when people like your aunt (or most people who have a problem with CRT in public schools or whatever) are talking about CRT, they aren't talking about the academic framework, they are talking about something that is attacking their identity and worldview and social capital-- something that aims to help and enable and pull up the underrepresented minority, at the expense of the historically represented and powerful anglo.

[jimmyjazz 46141]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Why did she mention Loudoun and Fairfax, VA, specifically?  And then "our NC school districts"

Could it be because there's a VA Governor election in a month??

Well, in this case I think it's justifiable.  She moved to Herndon VA soon after college and raised her kids there.  More recently, she moved to North Carolina because that's where most of her kids live these days.  She probably stays in touch with a lot of her old VA friends.

But yes, she is quite prone to buying the FOX hype.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Your example I think is a good one to illustrate how Americans these days are talking past each other, instead of communicating.

It seems to me that there is a problem in definitions. When people who have a problem with "CRT" are saying "CRT is in our schools and sucks let's ban it!" they are not using CRT as a technical or academic term, which I would argue is pedantic and not hearing what people are saying, but rather looking for a way to disqualify what is being said.

We know that in the science of language and words (linguistics), language changes over time.

In the modern world where technology has enabled hyper-connectivity and communication, two points:

1). Language change is extremely fast. Whereas in the past it could take generations, language change between communities and populations is extremely mutable.

2). Language change is often socially problematic. Long before divergent dialects lose mutual intelligibility completely, they begin to show difficulties and inefficiencies in communication, especially under noisy or stressful conditions. 

So when people like your aunt (or most people who have a problem with CRT in public schools or whatever) are talking about CRT, they aren't talking about the academic framework, they are talking about something that is attacking their identity and worldview and social capital-- something that aims to help and enable and pull up the underrepresented minority, at the expense of the historically represented and powerful anglo.

The initial problem is the mischaracterization of what is being taught as CRT.

CRT is not a nonce word, it means something.

What people seem to be objecting to is the characterization of white people as evil, or oppressors.  Some CRT does that.  Some DEI does that.  Whether that's actually being taught in any middle or high schools is another question altogether.

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The initial problem is the mischaracterization of what is being taught as CRT.

CRT is not a nonce word, it means something.

What people seem to be objecting to is the characterization of white people as evil, or oppressors.  Some CRT does that.  Some DEI does that.  Whether that's actually being taught in any middle or high schools is another question altogether.

 

Exactly my point. 

It happens that words morph into something quite different than the origin. Words mean something, of course and as you say, but only because of a social contract that we all engage in to determine that to be the case. Words are not like numbers, which have a definite meaning no matter what (the number 100 is always 100, etc.).

If your point is that you are not willing to allow that CRT has been re-defined/morphed to mean something completely different to the basket of deplorables that use it, then I think there should be some introspection as to why that is.

Is it because you want to ridicule and then disqualify those people by calling out a technicality (pedantry)?

Is it because of something else?

Should there be an alternative word created to better express what these people mean when they say CRT to differentiate from what the academics mean when they say CRT? 

Edited October 7, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[wildcat09 29393]

44 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Your example I think is a good one to illustrate how Americans these days are talking past each other, instead of communicating.

It seems to me that there is a problem in definitions. When people who have a problem with "CRT" are saying "CRT is in our schools and sucks let's ban it!" they are not using CRT as a technical or academic term, which I would argue is pedantic and not hearing what people are saying, but rather looking for a way to disqualify what is being said.

We know that in the science of language and words (linguistics), language changes over time.

In the modern world where technology has enabled hyper-connectivity and communication, two points:

1). Language change is extremely fast. Whereas in the past it could take generations, language change between communities and populations is extremely mutable.

2). Language change is often socially problematic. Long before divergent dialects lose mutual intelligibility completely, they begin to show difficulties and inefficiencies in communication, especially under noisy or stressful conditions. 

So when people like your aunt (or most people who have a problem with CRT in public schools or whatever) are talking about CRT, they aren't talking about the academic framework, they are talking about something that is attacking their identity and worldview and social capital-- something that aims to help and enable and pull up the underrepresented minority, at the expense of the historically represented and powerful anglo.

Teaching white children about slavery, the Tulsa massacre, and Emmitt Till is not something that harms white people.

[DDD Dad 14351]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

You've gotten excited and gone on a neg spree on me this AM; should I go ahead and register CowCigarettes or something like that? Would that make you happy?

You could just go with Chrispy 3.0 or something.

[Brisketexan 105349]

8 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Exactly my point. 

It happens that words morph into something quite different than the origin. Words mean something, of course and as you say, but only because of a social contract that we all engage in to determine that to be the case. Words are not like numbers, which have a definite meaning no matter what (the number 100 is always 100, etc.).

If your point is that you are not willing to allow that CRT has been re-defined/morphed to mean something completely different to the basket of deplorables that use it, then I think there should be some introspection as to why that is.

Is it because you want to ridicule and then disqualify those people by calling out a technicality (pedantry)?

Is it because of something else?

Should there be an alternative word created to better express what these people mean when they say CRT to differentiate from what the academics mean when they say CRT? 

All of this presumes that we can have an honest discussion of any of the underlying issues.  But we cannot, so this is masturbatory folly.

"CRT!" is "anything that runs contrary to the MAGA doctrine of 'America is the bestest ever, and nothing bad ever happened here.'"

Just like "SOCIALISM!" is literally ANY political concept that is not MAGA doctrine.

Labels have no meaning except "not MAGA-approved, so it's evil!"  This is where our political dialogue is.  This the entire point, and the entire problem.  There is a rigid dogma that exists that has no real ties to any intellectual concepts, values, or policies:  is it MAGA?  Then it's AWESOME!  Is it not MAGA?  Then it's evil anti-american antifa CRT Socialism etc.  The poisonous presence of a cult of personality untethered to any objective reality or values is the only political matter of any import in our country.  It's like having a massive cancerous tumor -- no other health issue or matter of personal comfort makes a shit.  That's the number one priority, and there's not even a close second.

[jimmyjazz 46141]

The MAGA crowd has been duped into thinking that primary and secondary schools are (a) teaching CRT and (b) that CRT = "white people bad".

Neither is true.  This isn't a case of a word or definition morphing over time.  It's a case of willful and intentional deceit to manipulate the base.  Brushing it off as a semantic concern is equally deceitful.

While I have no doubt that a small subset of child educators do believe that, in general, white people are "bad", the vast majority don't, and they don't teach any such nonsense.  I am a white American father of four, and I WANT my kids to be taught how Native Americans were treated by colonists and settlers, I WANT my kids to be taught how black people were brought from Africa to work as slaves and breed further generations of slaves, I WANT my kids to be taught how Japanese Americans were treated in WWII, and I WANT my kids to be taught about Reconstruction and Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement and how that movement still hasn't played out as well as it could have.  And then (age appropriate) I WANT them to be taught about George Floyd and other senseless modern tragedies and how such events seem to happen far more to minorities and how our societal structure might feed into it.  THIS, by the way, is the closest to CRT any high school student should ever get.

[hpslugga 4062]

36 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Your example I think is a good one to illustrate how Americans these days are talking past each other, instead of communicating.

They certainly are talking past each other, but not in the way you think.

36 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It seems to me that there is a problem in definitions.

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.

36 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

When people who have a problem with "CRT" are saying "CRT is in our schools and sucks let's ban it!" they are not using CRT as a technical or academic term, which I would argue is pedantic and not hearing what people are saying, but rather looking for a way to disqualify what is being said.

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. 

36 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

So when people like your aunt (or most people who have a problem with CRT in public schools or whatever) are talking about CRT, they aren't talking about the academic framework,

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. 

36 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

they are talking about something that is attacking their identity and worldview and social capital

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.

[hpslugga 4062]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

All of this presumes that we can have an honest discussion of any of the underlying issues.  But we cannot, so this is masturbatory folly.

"CRT!" is "anything that runs contrary to the MAGA doctrine of 'America is the bestest ever, and nothing bad ever happened here.'"

Just like "SOCIALISM!" is literally ANY political concept that is not MAGA doctrine.

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.

[Brisketexan 105349]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

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.

QFMFT.

[David Dennison 18947]

 

[hpslugga 4062]

55 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Teaching white children about slavery, the Tulsa massacre, and Emmitt Till is not something that harms white people.

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. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by hpslugga

[David Dennison 18947]

The history of the United States is not pretty. It is often violent and overwhelmingly racist. The Founding Fathers we venerate were rife with contradictions and hypocrisy. That's why we teach American mythology in our schools. And it's why college level history is crucial to understanding what actually happened.

[Captainant 27783]

Had to copy this from the GQP death cult thread because it's very apropos here:

 

but donk would have us believe the problem is just semantics, and not deeply rooted racism backed by intellectual dishonesty.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The history of the United States is not pretty. It is often violent and overwhelmingly racist. The Founding Fathers we venerate were rife with contradictions and hypocrisy. That's why we teach American mythology in our schools. And it's why college level history is crucial to understanding what actually happened.

Good post.

Not to diminish it, but I think it's basically true in most countries in the world that have a fairly robust education system and even the slightest history of colonialism or even territorial expansion.  I wonder if any of the others have a tendency toward nationalistic mythology. I'm sure UK does.

Edited October 7, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[hpslugga 4062]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Had to copy this from the GQP death cult thread because it's very apropos here:

 

but donk would have us believe the problem is just semantics, and not deeply rooted racism backed by intellectual dishonesty.

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

[DDD Dad 14351]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Had to copy this from the GQP death cult thread because it's very apropos here:

 

but donk would have us believe the problem is just semantics, and not deeply rooted racism backed by intellectual dishonesty.

Quiet part out loud version 508.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

24 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

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

... looking for a justification for the overt racism being wished to express, i.e. this "negative" effect outweighs (or should outweigh) any attempt by individuals or institutions to address the needs of "other" Americans who are not of Anglo Saxon descent, not Christian, and/or 'don't fit the narrative of what America First means.' Either assimilate (which is not possible) or assume one's place in society that has been created for you based on the God given laws of primacy as intended by the creators and founders. ~This is the vibe I get from the whole thing.

Or to put it as the America First Caucus Policy Platform statement stated:

"The America First Caucus (AFC) exists to promote Congressional policies that are to the long-term benefit of the American nation. The North Star of any policy proposal will be that which serves the American people, and any consequential analysis of policy platforms must be based on this first principle.
As this implies a degree of ideological flexibility, a certain intellectual boldness is needed amongst members of the AFC to follow in President Trump’s footsteps, and potentially step on some toes and sacrifice sacred cows for the good of the American nation."

 

Perhaps the GOP operative sees making all American children feel welcome and included in this country is a sacred cow that just needs to be sacrificed.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Mrs Whiggins

[Poe It Up 126]

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

You could just go with Chrispy 3.0 or something.

Chrispy is a lot funnier. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Poe It Up
Forgot A

[Willfully Horn 8049]

On 10/6/2021 at 11:27 AM, Captainant said:

So I'm not sure why they care so much about an issue that doesn't affect them

This question is why I’m posting this. I’m wondering if any conservative Christians here would explain what she means?

This isn’t CRT, per se, but a broader question. I wish I understood the thought process that leads to this conclusion. I think lumping this dynamic into politics is inevitable, but it’s more like a cognitively dissonant worldview that then frames political thought, IMO.

[Brisketexan 105349]

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This question is why I’m posting this. I’m wondering if any conservative Christians here would explain what she means?

This isn’t CRT, per se, but a broader question. I wish I understood the thought process that leads to this conclusion. I think lumping this dynamic into politics is inevitable, but it’s more like a cognitively dissonant worldview that then frames political thought, IMO.

When you understand that American "conservative christianity" is just the religious cosplay version of white supremacy, it makes perfect sense.

[washparkhorn 9939]

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This question is why I’m posting this. I’m wondering if any conservative Christians here would explain what she means? This isn’t CRT, per se, but a broader question. I wish I understood the thought process that leads to this conclusion.

Blasphemy, in my humble opinion. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

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.

Thanks for the post and write up.

I think in your analogy, the people using "CRT" incorrectly (at least in my previous posts, like referencing Jimmy's aunt) are not the Dwight Jaynes who have strategically manipulated the word to mean something different. These people are those who ingest the term because as you said "over the years, that...become doctrine and dogma and that's why you have the false association." But because we live in a world where "over the years" can be replaced with "virtually overnight" you have a guy like Rufi or whatever his name is acting the part of Dwight Jaynes to market a term to people because it's easy/pithy and vague enough to be everything to everyone, as a gripe.

Otherwise, the only other thing I would mention from your post is to raise the point again (which has been raised, acknowledged as true and accurate on this thread many pages back) that CRT challenges identity, worldview and social capital because it's aim is not to just educate in a vacuum, but it is to educate in order to attempt to inspire change and conflict because that change necessarily comes from a reshuffling of some rules and some cards that end up looking like, in the short term, a net negative for the hegemonic group in power and a gain for the minority (again, at the visible and material expense of others). That is why it's a contentious subject and one that is being fought.

If power and money weren't at stake you'd never hear anyone talk about it except for in the weird conspiracy theory corners of the internet next to gay frogs and pizza parlours.

If just teaching accurate history (which I am all for like the previous poster said) was all this was about, you'd not hear much from it. Nobody is ever interested in paying for the sins of their father as it feels very unfair and people will naturally fight that.

Edited October 7, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Biff Tannen 45742]

I cannot believe this thread is 37 pages.

[DDD Dad 14351]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I cannot believe this thread is 37 pages.

[hpslugga 4062]

14 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Thanks for the post and write up.

I think in your analogy, the people using "CRT" incorrectly (at least in my previous posts, like referencing Jimmy's aunt) are not the Dwight Jaynes who have strategically manipulated the word to mean something different.

You're describing the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. It's still bad information...as in it's wrong.

14 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

But because we live in a world where "over the years" can be replaced with "virtually overnight" you have a guy like Rufi or whatever his name is acting the part of Dwight Jaynes to market a term to people because it's easy/pithy and vague enough to be everything to everyone, as a gripe.

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.

14 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Otherwise, the only other thing I would mention from your post is to raise the point again (which has been raised, acknowledged as true and accurate on this thread many pages back) that CRT challenges identity, worldview and social capital

I'm not going to respond to this any further until you articulate what those "identities, worldviews and social capitals" are. 

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by hpslugga

[jimmyjazz 46141]

7 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This question is why I’m posting this. I’m wondering if any conservative Christians here would explain what she means?

This isn’t CRT, per se, but a broader question. I wish I understood the thought process that leads to this conclusion. I think lumping this dynamic into politics is inevitable, but it’s more like a cognitively dissonant worldview that then frames political thought, IMO.

Well, the conservative wing of white America is terrified of losing their majority status.  It is inevitable, and estimated to happen ~ 2040.  So, to them, there is only so much pie, and in order for them to feel good about themselves, they must cast someone else in an equally negative light.  It's virtually zero-sum in their twisted world, and wholly un-Christian, but here we are.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

 ...you have a guy like Rufi or whatever his name is ...

It's Rufo, and as someone who is fond of late of using a term multiple times as coined by C.S. Lewis and as written about in articles in The American Conservative, The Federalist,  Jacobin, and The Christian Post you ought to take the time to spell it correctly. After all, the man is the reframer of this outrage.

[Brisketexan 105349]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the conservative wing of white America is terrified of losing their majority status.  It is inevitable, and estimated to happen ~ 2040.  So, to them, there is only so much pie, and in order for them to feel good about themselves, they must cast someone else in an equally negative light.  It's virtually zero-sum in their twisted world, and wholly un-Christian, but here we are.

It's because the conservative wing isn't as ignorant of history as they'd like you to believe.  And they have a particular pattern that concerns them very, very, very much.

In America, when one racial group has the numbers/power, how has it treated minority groups?  ANSWER: super, super shitty.

When non-whites become the majority, how will they treat the new minority group of white people?  If they follow the established pattern: super, super shitty.

In summary, white people are afraid that minorities will treat them as shitty as they have treated minorities.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

You're describing the distinction between misinformation and disinformation.

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. 

 

1) I was saying that what once took 12 years to take hold etc., can happen overnight. Digital speed of connectedness, etc.

2) Jimmy actually summed it up pretty good below, inadvertently, when he said, "Well, the conservative wing of white America is terrified of losing their majority status.  It is inevitable, and estimated to happen ~ 2040.  So, to them, there is only so much pie, and in order for them to feel good about themselves, they must cast someone else in an equally negative light.  It's virtually zero-sum in their twisted world, and wholly un-Christian, but here we are."

CRT at a very minimum challenges the American, white, male and the patriarchal hegemony that has cascaded from him from 1600 to now, and all the inherent privilege and comfort that the general population that identifies as such trusts and banks on for future comfort, and at worst, it is a tool to educate, enable and affect and disrupt this, in effort to make the pie more equitable by making the pie grabbing exercise fairer.

Naturally this has short term costs and pain-- and a material and noticeable net negative for those who it would argue had nothing to do with setting up the rules in which the game was played and now are being punished for the sins of their father. These are the people who have glommed on to the anti-CRT movement and are fighting tooth and nail because they see it, reasonably from that perspective, as a threat.

Personally I don't care one way or another, we teach our children the oft-ugly, historic truths which would make us "CRT" parents, I guess.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

8 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It's Rufo, and as someone who is fond of late of using a term multiple times as coined by C.S. Lewis and as written about in articles in The American Conservative, The Federalist,  Jacobin, and The Christian Post you ought to take the time to spell it correctly. After all, the man is the reframer of this outrage.

Got it; I am flippant because I didn't care to put the effort to googling it and because I don't care about this guy or buy-in to his outrage but I see you are at least googling terms (assuming you weren't already familiar as it's a bit esoteric) and so I should match that effort.

[956 Worldwide 34777]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good post.

Not to diminish it, but I think it's basically true in most countries in the world that have a fairly robust education system and even the slightest history of colonialism or even territorial expansion.  I wonder if any of the others have a tendency toward nationalistic mythology. I'm sure UK does.

In all seriousness, a school or even university historical curriculum that even makes a passing nod at bypassing didacticism for an attempt at rigor and self-criticism of the ruling ethos is almost entirely foreign outside of the West. In fact, with a few exceptions like Germany grappling with their mid-century unpleasantness, it’s almost wholly an Anglophone effort. 
 

This isn’t a criticism, just a gentle reminder of where we stand when we give into our very Puritan tendency to self-flagellation. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's because the conservative wing isn't as ignorant of history as they'd like you to believe.  And they have a particular pattern that concerns them very, very, very much.

In America, when one racial group has the numbers/power, how has it treated minority groups?  ANSWER: super, super shitty.

When non-whites become the majority, how will they treat the new minority group of white people?  If they follow the established pattern: super, super shitty.

In summary, white people are afraid that minorities will treat them as shitty as they have treated minorities.

EXACTLY!

And how is that perspective and point of view not anything but actually very rational when you consider the cake is baked, it's too late to change the hundreds of years of how you have treated people. It only makes sense to fight tooth and nail to maintain power and influence, right?

I'm reminded of Louis CK at the 1:23 second mark.

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by DonkeyCigars
edit to add timestamp

[Brisketexan 105349]

Or.....and go with me here, this is SUPER-crazy.....the people in power now could work to do things like 1) make sure that we have strong institutional protections for all, including minorities, to protect against abuses of power, 2) work to build more integrated communities/communities with at least bridges and understanding between them to minimize future enmity and abuses, and shit like that.

Nope.  Instead, white America has a pattern that works for them: treat everyone outside their in-group super-shitty.  Plan: continue such treatment to the bitter end.

Smart plan.  I don't see how that could possibly backfire.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

11 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

In all seriousness, a school or even university historical curriculum that even makes a passing nod at bypassing didacticism for an attempt at rigor and self-criticism of the ruling ethos is almost entirely foreign outside of the West. In fact, with a few exceptions like Germany grappling with their mid-century unpleasantness, it’s almost wholly an Anglophone effort. 
 

This isn’t a criticism, just a gentle reminder of where we stand when we give into our very Puritan tendency to self-flagellation. 

I suppose, for one thing, it requires a degree of material comfort and leisure, as well as a degree of "national self-confidence" to come to the point of self-reflection.  So it is American exceptionalism at cross-purposes.

Edited October 7, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 105349]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose, for one thing, it requires a degree of material comfort and leisure, as well as a degree of "national self-confidence" to come to the point of self-reflection.

This.  Refusing to confront past failings is the sign of a weak and cowardly person/nation.  If we are truly great, and are truly expecting to be the vanguard through this century, we should own our bullshit, demonstrate what we've learned, and LEAD.

Needing to lie to yourself to protect your fee-fees is what the pathetic Obamacare pajama guy would do.

CONCLUSION: we are a weak, weak nation.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Brisketexan

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or.....and go with me here, this is SUPER-crazy.....the people in power now could work to do things like 1) make sure that we have strong institutional protections for all, including minorities, to protect against abuses of power, 2) work to build more integrated communities/communities with at least bridges and understanding between them to minimize future enmity and abuses, and shit like that.

Nope.  Instead, white America has a pattern that works for them: treat everyone outside their in-group super-shitty.  Plan: continue such treatment to the bitter end.

Smart plan.  I don't see how that could possibly backfire.

Could do what you say, but it seems to be a high-risk, low-probability plan. It's easier for a group of people to engage in base tribalism because that's probably the default at this level of scale and likely that is what will happen when the other demographics take the power and influence and any work to diplomatically co-exist without pain will likely fail anyways.

I'm actually surprised you, the guy who always throws his hands up in exasperation that we are doomed to be slaves of our own slavish human nature and tribalism and nasty instinct, fail to grasp this. How can you not see from a different perspective, whether you agree or disagree, how fighting CRT tooth and nail could be considered existential for a group who has historically been in power and treated themselves to privilege at the expense of others?

[956 Worldwide 34777]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose, for one thing, it requires a degree of material comfort and leisure, as well as a degree of "national self-confidence" to come to the point of self-reflection.  So it is American exceptionalism at cross-purposes.

Well, there’s that. And the fact that although we think of ourselves as a “young” nation, we, together with the Brits, possess far and away the oldest continually functioning governmental system and so our structures are consolidated and legitimate. (Setting aside some oddball monarchies). 
 

So they can withstand a bit of criticism and critique. Historically speaking nearly all other regimes are still in the position of continual self-justification. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

White Replacement "Theory" (it's pseudoscience) is the driver.

This book took hold in the United States during the Eugenics Period of our history. 

Hitler loved the book, which led some its followers to go on and follow Hitler and his iconography  The book is a lynchpin of white-racist counter-culture in America:

White supremacy is based on pseudo-scientific theories of the genetic superiority of the white “race.” Many of these claims track back to four books arguing that perceived racial differences are both hierarchical and vitally important to the proper social order:

• Count Arthur de Gobineau’s 1853, The Inequality of Human Races;
• Frances Galton’s 1870 Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences
• Madison Grant’s 1916/1924, The Passing of the Great Race; and 
• T. Lothrop Stoddard’s 1920 The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.

Overview of U.S. White Supremacist Groups, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 2006 - https://www.academia.edu/2484782

[Brisketexan 105349]

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Could do what you say, but it seems to be a high-risk, low-probability plan. It's easier for a group of people to engage in base tribalism because that's probably the default at this level of scale and likely that is what will happen when the other demographics take the power and influence and any work to diplomatically co-exist without pain will likely fail anyways.

I'm actually surprised you, the guy who always throws his hands up in exasperation that we are doomed to be slaves of our own slavish human nature and tribalism and nasty instinct, fail to grasp this. How can you not see from a different perspective, whether you agree or disagree, how fighting CRT tooth and nail could be considered existential for a group who has historically been in power and treated themselves to privilege at the expense of others?

Oh, I get how stupid we are.  We are the Wermacht, knowing that the war is lost, STILL blowing up all of their OWN INFRASTRUCTURE to slow the allied advance.

Result: still conquered by the allies, but ALSO have all of your bridges and ability to conduct commerce completely destroyed.

Brilliant outcome.  Perfect.  Bravo.

How do you think a strategy of "continue to cruelly and even violently oppose giving any quarter or decency to minorities, up to and concluding attempted violent overthrown of the government" will pay off when minorities inevitably become the majority?  It's short-sighted and completely self-defeating.

[DDD Dad 14351]

Y'all are being trolled.

[TwiceHorn 31537]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Refusing to confront past failings is the sign of a weak and cowardly person/nation.  If we are truly great, and are truly expecting to be the vanguard through this century, we should own our bullshit, demonstrate what we've learned, and LEAD.

Needing to lie to yourself to protect your fee-fees is what the pathetic Obamacare pajama guy would do.

CONCLUSION: we are a weak, weak nation.

Well, on the one hand, we have a significant minority if not less-than-vocal majority that feels we need to do the required self-reflection.

Then we have the very vocal bunch of regards that won't have any of it.  Those are the weak ones.

Edited October 7, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I get how stupid we are.  We are the Wermacht, knowing that the war is lost, STILL blowing up all of their OWN INFRASTRUCTURE to slow the allied advance.

Result: still conquered by the allies, but ALSO have all of your bridges and ability to conduct commerce completely destroyed.

Brilliant outcome.  Perfect.  Bravo.

How do you think a strategy of "continue to cruelly and even violently oppose giving any quarter or decency to minorities, up to and concluding attempted violent overthrown of the government" will pay off when minorities inevitably become the majority?  It's short-sighted and completely self-defeating.

Not good.

But from their perspective, they probably feel like anything other than fighting to the death even if there is a 1 in 100 chance they can win, is better than a 100% of surrender and subjugation as a loser, to pay for hundreds of years of crime against other fellow humans. Especially when you consider that people are people and power and privilege corrupt absolutely, across demographics and race.

Especially when you consider that even the best laid plans of mice and men, when push comes to shove, nasty human instinct is the only thing that is true about people. 

You seem to think there is an "underrepresented minority exceptionalism" aspect that would be more peaceful and loving and gracious than the evil anglos. I'm not sure what we can base that belief upon and that in itself feels problematic if not racist.

For people like you and I and others on here, we don't worry about such things and so it feels wild-eyed and crazy to see CRT, and life, through such a lens. But the vast majority of Americans who are mildly comfortable due ONLY to privilege of being born into the right caste...well they have something to fight for and it makes sense why they do it.

[Satchel 6949]

When one looks at our increasingly dark cultural profile, Mississippi may be a better fit for some if these businesses.

[hpslugga 4062]

32 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

1) I was saying that what once took 12 years to take hold etc., can happen overnight. Digital speed of connectedness, etc.

Yeah that goes two ways, unlike what Dwight Jaynes did. Today, we have a nearly inexhaustible source of information at our fingers that helps us to learn to dispel the idiocy that gets passed around, which is why it doesn't take nearly as strong of a hold. Yeah you're talking about the internet, but the internet has been one of the prime drivers of people falling out of favor with religion, just as an example, at a faster pace than Enlightenment figures could have ever dreamed. To have debunked Dwight Jaynes would have required a judicious study of Mouse Davis' offense and a judicious reading of Ellison's book (and his critique of Davis, which is not widely available) and a careful comparison of the two when you're all finished. Hardly anyone went through that trouble, which is why you never hear any coaches talking about how Mouse Davis =/= Run-and-Shoot. It, like I said, became doctrine and dogma to the broad public. To debunk "Ban CRT!" takes about a 2 minute google search. So yeah, bullshit spreads quickly, but it also gets killed quickly too. Yeah it's become a doctrine and a dogma, but only to those who live in that chickenshit little cult/ghetto that believes in such degenerate nonsense.

32 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

2) Jimmy actually summed it up pretty good below, inadvertently, when he said, "Well, the conservative wing of white America is terrified of losing their majority status."

That doesn't really answer the question. It tangibly touches on social capital, barely, but you also kept referring to worldviews. Again, what "worldview" is being challenged? If you're going to say "the view that whites should be in the majority and therefore in power," ok fine but I doubt you'll go that far because that's probably the most assailable worldview that there is, and you know that. 

32 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

CRT at a very minimum challenges the American, white, male and the patriarchal hegemony that has cascaded from him from 1600 to now, and all the inherent privilege and comfort that the general population that identifies as such trusts and banks on for future comfort, and at worst, it is a tool to educate, enable and affect and disrupt this, in effort to make the pie more equitable by making the pie grabbing exercise fairer.

CRT is an examination in how race is a systemic factor in law enforcement/jurisprudence. That's not a "challenge" to anything. When you turn on a flashlight and see a cockroach running around under your refrigerator, you are not "challenging" that cockroach. Similarly, when you observe data on how minorities have been systematically railroaded via the law, that's not a "challenge." 

32 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Naturally this has short term costs and pain

Such as?

32 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

-- and a material and noticeable net negative for those who it would argue had nothing to do with setting up the rules

How so?

32 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

in which the game was played and now are being punished for the sins of their father. These are the people who have glommed on to the anti-CRT movement and are fighting tooth and nail because they see it, reasonably from that perspective, as a threat.

Again, a threat to what?