Jump to content

DonkeyCigars

crowd sourced
  • Posts

    2934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DonkeyCigars

  1. 41 minutes ago, YChang said:

    Our current gov isn’t exactly setting the state up for future success. Seems like they’re deliberately slowing down the economic growth to cater to dumbass policies.

    I think that laws/culture is either a very, very lagging indicator (meaning we won't feel these negative effects for a long time after they are put into place) or they are very, very overstated (meaning they aren't all that important except for buzzy headlines like the OP to clickbait for bloomburg because at the end of the day, taxes and profits are what drives behaviors for businesses and business people). 

    Because when you look at the sheer amount of businesses relocating HQ's to Texas, and the volume of people coming here from other states (states with more taxes and more liberal laws, to boot), it tells a story of economic growth with or without dumb policies. And economic growth is good for all residents, tax-payers and homeowners, in my opinion, so I'm all for it.

    Mostly I thought it was funny that OP started a thread and then literally same day one of the richest men in the world relocates one of the richest companies in America to Texas.

    • Fuck You 1
  2. 50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    The whole CRT panic stems from the notion that schools are liberal indoctrination centers.

    Of course, all education should strive to expose students to new and different ideas and give them the tools to evaluate those ideas themselves.  That is, critical thinking.

    The educated, by definition, are going to have more exposure to new and different ideas than the uneducated.  That is kind of the definition or essence of "liberal education."  And, some educated people are going to favor the new and different ideas over the orthodoxy because their critical thinking leads them to believe the new ideas are superior.

    Rather than meet these new ideas head on with cogent arguments as to why they are not good ideas, conservatards want to just ban them altogether, in the process giving them facile negative labels like "socialism" or "CRT" or whatever is the rubric of the day, without regard to the accuracy of the label or any intelligent dialog.

    The only really cogent criticism of "CRT" is that it might cause white kids to think poorly of themselves, especially when negative terms like "oppressor" are applied to them.  I can handle being labeled an "oppressor" because I know that it is kind of a term of art, that it doesn't mean that I am Simon Legree or the Grand Dragon.  I don't know at what age or intelligence level kids can "handle" that information.  And part of my response is "tough shit," it's true and kids need to deal with it.  I'd be interested to know what child psychologists think of the ability of young kids to assimilate this kind of "negative" information.

    The other thing is that I think this implicates parental abdication of responsibility for education.  These kind of "values" are closely related to personal morality and need to be taught at home.  If you don't agree with or like "CRT" in the classroom, teach it at home, don't try to ban it.  Same with creation/evolution, sex education, etc.  Compete on the merits.  It's what you claim you want, anyway.

    I love the way you put things sometimes and this is all very well stated.

    Your last paragraph and point is what I was trying to say when I said the following:

    Quote

     

    To act like it’s public education is not deeply and inherently political is absurd to me and frankly I can’t understand the mindset that would not see it as front and center political.

    You are outsourcing the education (and meaningful time and opportunities for deeper and richer development of soft skills and character/morals) to the state. If you do so you want to have input on what that agenda is going to look like. Especially since you are paying for the privilege.

    The other option (besides homeschooling) which financially sucks is to pay for the public schools via tax and not realize any direct value from it (there is good indirect value), and then pay extra to align your kids with a curriculum and/or agenda that makes sense for you and yours.

     

     

    • Fuck You 1
  3. 9 hours ago, hpslugga said:

    I’m only going to touch one aspect of what was said above because the rest of it reads like a very poor confession beneath its facade.

    Amazing. We’re posting on a discussion about people who want to ban the teaching of a subject, which even you concede they know next to nothing about, in public schools (when it’s not even being taught in public schools), and you’re accusing me of wanting to control how other people think. That’s just pitiful.

     

    We aren’t really talking about the subject, that’s what I keep trying and failing to get you to see. The subject is an amalgamation of many different anxieties and issues and fears. It’s not a prescriptive, defined subject that is drawing the ire and fear of these people even though these vague emotions and projections have been boiled down to the term “CRT” which we all agree is an erroneous application based upon the academic definition (which again, I argue, does not matter).

    At the end of the day we are posting on a discussion about a people who want to neuter a movement whose end result is to chisel away at their privilege and resources.     

    I don’t know, maybe if these people could get into a writers room and workshop a better term or slogan to rail against “TRC” maybe, then perhaps we could get people to get past the mental hang up of the word and drive to the root analysis of what’s driving their perspectives and thinking.

    Otherwise you will have people like yourself who will say, “nope, not true! Words have meanings and you are using that one wrong, thus you can’t have legitimate perspectives based upon a mix of lived experience and emotional response if you continue to appropriate academic culture!“

    Being rigid in your moral code is good, but it’s also being in opposition to change which is someone’s progress. Maybe not yours or even mine, but It’s all relative. That’s what I believe, at least.

     

    • Fuck You 5
  4. 12 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

    He was elected to right the ship.

    • He has been stymied by the Chamber of Commerce Democrats (very small group of dickfuck grifters in the House) and an old corrupt Senator with a newly minted Code-Pink turned corrupt as fuck Senator).
    • Add in the Trump Vaccine resistors, prosperity preachers, and right wing militia groups - and belligerent drumbeats from China. 
    • And zero help from any Republican. 

    He job is not done. The obstructionists are paid to make sure it is never completed.

    Some human and corporate citizens are despicable in their greed. 

     Biden keeping Chinese tariffs and taking a stern approach with China has been surprising to me. What are your thoughts there?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  5. 53 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    That’s a dodge.

    Truth isn’t property. It doesn’t belong to me anymore than it belongs to you. Truth has to be demonstrated. That’s why intelligent design is considered a joke. It was falsified in a court of law. Its falseness is a matter of public record; not that I simply “dislike it.” 

    That’s a straw man.

    And in that society, its truths have to be demonstrated. If they aren’t, they aren’t truths.

    The way it works is:

    Positive claims require positive evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence.

    THAT is why the “ban CRT!” crowd is a collective failure. They cannot demonstrate the truth of what they say, and it’s very likely because there is no truth to what they say. Imagine that.

    Let’s work backwards here:

    1) not sure you can deem “anti-crt” crowd a collective fail, depending of course on how you define success and failure. The fact that this contingent of people are still in the news and in the ears of legislators and educators and influencing strategy seems to open up the argument otherwise.

    2) Pointing at a truth you think has been sufficiently demonstrated and yelling down these people and putting their nose in their pee and hitting them with the newspaper while saying “see! Demonstrated truth! It’s true! Look at it!” might make you feel good, but it doesn’t do much for those whose perspective and worldviews don’t allow them to see the same things the same way as you. You can be “right” but it doesn’t make them wrong, and it doesn’t make a bit of difference in reality because it really doesn’t matter in the world we live in.

    You sound like an intelligent guy who has spent a considerable amount of time contemplating things and determining what guidelines and philosophy will dictate your life and it sounds like you’ve beaten a rigid path with this idea of a universal truth as your North Star. That is awesome. I love that.

    But that is you (and people like you) and to fail to realize that you can’t control how other people perceive and choose to interact and make sense of the world (and accept or reject their attempts as they align or differ from how you have determined to make sense of your life) and, worse yet, expect others to defer to your ideas then I think you will always be at odds and war with other people. Especially when we consider our society has shifted from something that looks a lot like how you think things should be, to something much more disparate and chaotic and different.

    Failing to allow for that or accept that feels like it could make for a noble, emotionally and spiritually satisfying fight, at least, so you got that going for you.

    Anyways I wholly disagree with you, but agree that disagreement will feel hollow and shallow because the reasons for disagreement fall outside your rigid lines of what’s acceptable and truth but I appreciate your considerations and the effort you’ve put into constructing your worldview and would like to hear more about other facets of what you believe, at the appropriate time and place on here.

    • Fuck You 5
  6. 14 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    Except it's not. When I'm right, it's not on me to move towards the wrong position under some misguided notion of "compromise." If I'm a biology teacher and some student wants me to teach Intelligent Design instead of evolution, I'm not going to meet him half way.

    And what I'm telling you is that it's their problem to deal with and not mine. 

    I think we've reduced to the problem. You are coming from a place of universal truth and that your truth, whether it's intelligent design or evolution it doesn't matter in this context, just by choosing one as the bastion of what is right, is the way.

    Further, you are thinking of right and wrong as an egalitarian force which seems rigid and inconsistent with the reality in which we live in, which is right and wrong is relative in a flexible, dynamic society, (and to the victors go the spoils and they are the ones who write the history books and rules).

    Your universal right or wrongs don't mean much in a utilitarian society where practical matters such as influence and power, built upon different perspectives of things like truth, right and wrong, dictate the action. IMO, at least, but this opinion also I think serves to explain the rationale for why these "CRT but not the real CRT" haters act they way they do, and the experiences and perspectives that inform their mindsets and subsequent actions.

    And for the record, I agree with you and think more like you and don't appreciate things that I view as a wrong position. I believe one ought to be inflexible in the face of what is not right and good. I bristle at the idea of relative morality and the idea that one thing can be true and right for some and wrong for others based on perspectives. But as is said, perception is reality, I guess.

    @Mrs Whiggins thanks for the recommendation, I'll add that to the list as well.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 7
  7. 5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    It doesn't matter what term they're using, even if they're using it as badly as Kent Hovind uses "evolution." What matters is that they are wrong. Their wrongness isn't limited to vocabulary. They're even more wrong when they discuss what lies beneath said vocabulary. It's like a rotten onion that began its rot from the inside: keep peeling that shit and it's only going to look worse. 

     

    I get that they are wrong. I agree with that.

    But it's one of those things were being right or wrong is academic; it's just not what matters when you are talking about an emotional and irrational perspective, point of view and response which is what I'm arguing is the likely case and cause. In their own minds, a goodly number of these folks at least, are justified in their fears and concerns.

    I haven't even read Hillbilly Elegy, though it's on my list, which I understand is a better treatment of this specific angle and topic. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 7
  8. 14 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

    Bwahahaha. Bravo, DC, that is played quite well, quite well indeed.

     

    As an aside and a back at you, friend, the works and essays of C.S. Lewis have been on the bookshelf of many a reader, regardless of political leanings in the current day, because he was  a very thoughtful person who wrote on topics worth thinking about. He is NOT under the sole proprietorship of the modern day intellectual right, despite what they've been bloviating about lately for their own purposes, George Will excepted--he is, at least, consistent and also provides food for thought.

     

    It's been a wild voyage, enjoy your trip.

    Amen sister. You are one of the good ones-- don't let this town take that away from you!

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 6
  9. 37 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

    None of your posts ever help.

    Not sure why you are always so crotchety, but does it get old or exhausting being so offended and aggrieved (over nothing and everything all at once, while never being addressed or spoken to) 24/7? 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 9
  10. 17 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    Let's grant that. Hope you can see why people who have a problem with that are dismissed out of hand.

    Yeah, that's a fantasy. Fantasies do not need to be coddled and one certainly has no right to demand that others do. If you, for example, wanted to go into a biology course and demand that a teacher teaches Stork Theory in lieu of pregnancy because "that's my worldview," he's gonna ask you to take your seat and stop wasting the class' time with your silliness. CRT, in the way you've outlined, is that teacher saying "tough shit."

    Yeah, reparations are hardly even mentioned in most of the CRT literature I've read (though that's admittedly limited). The issue isn't just history, it's the present. If you're one of those poor fools that seriously believes that racism in America died on August 28th 1963, you're never going to make it in the real world. CRT does not teach that reparations need to be paid to descendants of slaves. If it advocates anything, it's to say to law enforcement "stop targeting minorities." That has short term costs and pain? Either way, what you're talking about is Affirmative Action, which is a distinctly different concept than CRT. 

    Again, if that's the case, tough shit. That's not a legitimate position to take in the real world. It's legitimate in their little cult/ghetto, but it has precious little to do with the real world.

    It does, but once again, not in the way you think.

    I'm using the term "CRT" to mean it how the basket of deplorables are meaning it-- there is still that disconnect. I think if you reread my responses through that prism, it would be easier to follow the case I'm trying to make, IMO.

    • Fuck You 2
  11. 3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    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.

    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. 

    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." 

    Such as?

    How so?

    Again, a threat to what?

    It does challenge people to think critically (sometimes the answer is in the name) about historical facts and truths that have been whitewashed. In my opinion at least, and that is the minimum of what CRT is, or "CRT" as people are using it. 

    The worldview of some being challenged is one that sees the world as it is, as a place that is inherently fair and meritocratic because we live in a winner-take-all, zero-sum, finite pie world. Resources are scarce and that scarcity means that, at the end of the day, self-interest to yourself and your family-- from baseline needs to mild creature comforts to luxuries-- is the only worthwhile pursuit. That is the American way, which is why we are in the situation we are.

    "Naturally this has short term costs and pain". Such as, any actions and efforts to compensate or make-up for inequality and historic crimes will come at the expense of those who trust and bank upon that inequality (i.e. privilege) as part of their life plans-- and in a lot of ways this can be unconscious for a lot of folks. And some of these pains and costs aren't necessarily hard costs-- maybe they are indirect and little Johnny doesn't get a scholarship because of affirmative action or some other indirect effect.

    "and a material and noticeable net negative for those who it would argue had nothing to do with setting up the rules." How so? If the mindset is one of a fixed mindset which isn't about the growth of the pie but of the finite, scarcity of resources pie, then anything that aims to support and uplift those who are systematically put down will naturally have to come from the store of power and resources of those that have. It's a push and pull, no new energy is created just redistributed situation. 

    "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." A threat to what? A threat to their current idea and trust in entitled comfort and privilege, which is being disrupted and generally people don't like being disrupted.

    Hope this helps?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  12. 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.

    • Fuck You 1
  13. 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?

    • Fuck You 1
  14. 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.

     

    • Fuck You 1
  15. 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 FederalistJacobin, 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.

    • Fuck You 2
  16. 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.

  17. 31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    No leadership or accountability is killing us. Neither party wants to deal with anything other than performative nonsense and fundraising.  The powers that be seem to want everyone to memory hole Trump.
    I’ve come to the conclusion these are the good times.  

    I think it's because there is no real way to lead or be accountable. America has no shared ethic or aesthetic anymore (just look at the Met Gala when the theme is Americana-- it's an eclectic mess. j/k, kinda). It was a sheet of glass in the 1700's that is now 300mm broken shards of glass that could never be put back together-- the internet has and will forever see to that.

    There is not a way, in a two party system, to unite people with such different values and goals and beliefs. 

    So what is left? Fundraising and salesmanship and performative nonsense to justify your day rate.

    • Fuck You 1
  18. 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.

    • Fuck You 1
  19. 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? 

    • Fuck You 1
  20. 4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    I can't tell if it's intentional or whether you just have hate-derived speech in your everyday lexicon, but why do you insist on throwing inflammatory terms into every single statement you make - and then come back all contrite and whipped when anyone calls you out? Sub-species, really? Sure, it's a term applied broadly among biological circles, but when referring to people, there is clear intent. So either you're exceptionally naive and you simply misuse words to sound smart, or your intent is very clear and you're just another troll. Either way, your shit is tired.

    Imagine being so eaten up with bulverism that you think my response to Roma was hate derived or a misapplication of words. 

    • Fuck You 2
×
×
  • Create New...