Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[Brisketexan 103148]

19 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Y'all are being trolled.

By "Y'all," you mean "America," right?  Because the entirety of our opposition is built on trolling.

[TwiceHorn 30715]

33 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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. 

That is what I was trying to encapsulate by "national self-confidence": long-standing government, economic stability, some degree of "world dominance," even if fading, etc.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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?

[safe sex 11545]

None of your posts ever help.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

DonkeyKong describing CRT is roughly analogous to Ben Roethlisberger describing string theory.

[hpslugga 3984]

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It does challenge people to think critically (sometimes the answer is in the name) about historical facts and truths that have been whitewashed. 

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

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

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.

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."

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

"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. 

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. 

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

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.

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.

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Hope this helps?

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

Edited October 7, 2021 by hpslugga

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

DonkeyKong describing CRT is roughly analogous to Ben Roethlisberger describing string theory.

Is string theory still a thing? I thought it was debunked as flawed and out of favor. Or is that the joke (because Roethlisberger points out the obvious)?

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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? 

Edited October 7, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

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.

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.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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!

[hpslugga 3984]

12 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I'm using the term "CRT" to mean it how the basket of deplorables are meaning it

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. 

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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. 

[hpslugga 3984]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

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

But it's one of those things were being right or wrong is academic

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. I have no obligation to do that, and he has no right to ask it of me. He has an obligation to sit his fucking ass down and learn or go to some other school that will teach that debunked garbage. His choice.

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

; 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.

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

Edited October 7, 2021 by hpslugga

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

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. 

If you haven't read it already, read The View From Flyover Country by Sarah Kendzior first. You'll find the comparison...interesting.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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.

Edited October 7, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[hpslugga 3984]

37 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

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.

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.” 

37 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Further, you are thinking of right and wrong as an egalitarian force which seems rigid

That’s a straw man.

37 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

and inconsistent with the reality in which we live in, which is right and wrong is relative in a flexible, dynamic society,

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.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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.

[StassneyHorn 6407]

Goddamn

[hpslugga 3984]

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.

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

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

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.

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by hpslugga

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

3 minutes 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.

 

It's interesting (to me) that you selected that aspect, because I was reading point #2 and considering the perspective of an African American protestor in front of St John's church in DC after having just been tear-gassed so a President could hold up a Bible.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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.

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[TwiceHorn 30715]

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.

Edited October 8, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[DonkeyCigars 144]

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.

 

 

[hpslugga 3984]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

That’s correct.

And this isn’t the first time we’ve seen hysteria expresses with such bewildering inanities in stark opposition to learning.

-We went through this when various states actually did ban the teaching of evolution, and also when they went down kicking and screaming when such laws were deemed unconstitutional. To this day we still have a large chunk of people who cannot for the life of them tell you what it is. 

-We went through this when schools were desegregated. 

-We’ve been going through this lately with dishonest religious fanatics trying to sneak creationism into biology classes by calling it “intelligent design.”

-There’s also the fact that any time some institution wants to teach about Karl Marx, it’s met with fanatic hysteria.

-Do I really need to mention the Abstinence Only movement?

-We now have people who want to teach the things I mentioned earlier (the constitution is rooted in mosaic law, Africans were brought here as guest workers, etc). 

This is all hysteria that’s whipped up by people in power to keep those not in power fighting with each other. 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Critical thinking to which the Republican Party, at least the one in Texas, is literally opposed.

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

And IMO, you can only punt on the whole “meet new ideas head on with cogent arguments” issue so many times before you forfeit your privilege to be listened to. Legislating shit out of existence because it makes you feel funny just seems so…Bret Bielema-ish.

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

I would also add to that “but it’s not like you can’t be an agent of change to reverse that, either.”

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The other thing is that I think this implicates parental abdication of responsibility for education. 

I mean that part is there, but what do you expect when this education system of ours has been failing multiple generations? It’s not like this is a new thing. But at the same time, you’re right in that it’s what ultimately leads to the turning of the tide in that same field. Vicious cycle.

 

[Mole 4265]

It’s fair to distinguish between CRT as an academic term and CRT as a popular term. The problem is that popular CRT is based on a false reality, not simply a misunderstanding of or different definition from academic CRT.

Popular CRT rips academic language entirely from its context to make it say anything and everything, makes up and exaggerates stories about what is taught in schools, and mixes it all up into a moral panic to create this impenetrable web of grievances. It’s anger in search of a cause. The anti-CRT arguments simply create  a false intellectual basis to justify the pre-existing anger. It convinces parents to advocate against the education of their children, which is madness. 

The things anti-CRT advocates claim are happening in schools aren’t an accurate reflection of reality. In a country this size, you can surely find examples of anything, but that doesn’t mean that those examples are a reflection of what is broadly happening. That assumes that those examples are fairly and accurately reported, which is rare.

There’s also a disconnect with the meaning of the word teach. This discussion uses the word “teach” in almost religious tones — the Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation; Mrs. Sweeterson’s 6th grade social studies classes teaches world religions. Those should carry very different connotations regarding the level of advocacy, but they are often treated as the same when race and culture are involved.

A teacher could (they largely don’t, but they could) teach CRT — whatever that actually means — without ever advocating for all the things (falsely) attributed to it. It’s just a tool for understanding our culture, not a religious belief. You can teach a perspective without advocating for or against that perspective. To argue otherwise is to embrace the wokiest parts of cancel culture.

[TwiceHorn 30715]

43 minutes ago, Mole said:

There’s also a disconnect with the meaning of the word teach. This discussion uses the word “teach” in almost religious tones — the Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation; Mrs. Sweeterson’s 6th grade social studies classes teaches world religions. Those should carry very different connotations regarding the level of advocacy, but they are often treated as the same when race and culture are involved.

A teacher could (they largely don’t, but they could) teach CRT — whatever that actually means — without ever advocating for all the things (falsely) attributed to it. It’s just a tool for understanding our culture, not a religious belief. You can teach a perspective without advocating for or against that perspective. To argue otherwise is to embrace the wokiest parts of cancel culture.

Excellent point, as usual.

[TwiceHorn 30715]

3 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

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.

 

 

3 hours ago, hpslugga said:

I mean that part is there, but what do you expect when this education system of ours has been failing multiple generations? It’s not like this is a new thing. But at the same time, you’re right in that it’s what ultimately leads to the turning of the tide in that same field. Vicious cycle.

 

I didn't mean homeschooling per se.  But if you're a hardcore creationist (white supremacist), feel free to teach your kids that we don't subscribe to the theory of evolution (civil rights) and do your best to explain why your family is like that.  You're parents, for fucks sake, they're your kids, teach em how you want em taught.

Leave the rest of us alone to get educated.

And, I think I disagree that education is wholly failed.  I grant that it fails a lot of students, from racial minorities, to economically disadvantaged, to flat morons.  But, due to home circumstances and innate lack of talent, that is always going to be an issue.  It may be made worse by underfunding and moronic social agendas, but the problems with those groups are intrinsic and difficult even with proper funding and without moronic social agendas.

In other words, while Trumpkins are dumb and gullible, an improved education system would not eliminate them.

Goes back to brisket's and my big question:  What are we going to do with the morons?

Edited October 8, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[DonkeyCigars 144]

55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

I didn't mean homeschooling per se.  But if you're a hardcore creationist (white supremacist), feel free to teach your kids that we don't subscribe to the theory of evolution (civil rights) and do your best to explain why your family is like that.  You're parents, for fucks sake, they're your kids, teach em how you want em taught.

Leave the rest of us alone to get educated.

And, I think I disagree that education is wholly failed.  I grant that it fails a lot of students, from racial minorities, to economically disadvantaged, to flat morons.  But, due to home circumstances and innate lack of talent, that is always going to be an issue.  It may be made worse by underfunding and moronic social agendas, but the problems with those groups are intrinsic and difficult even with proper funding and without moronic social agendas.

In other words, while Trumpkins are dumb and gullible, an improved education system would not eliminate them.

Goes back to brisket's and my big question:  What are we going to do with the morons?

Are you implying that a creationist is a white supremacist? or are you just giving two extreme examples? I'm confused as to what you mean there.

Otherwise to your question, I'll spoil my response because it is probably off-topic and a derail and I want to keep others on track with replying to you and the direction of the discussion as you are taking it

Spoiler

this is why I'm a huge Yang Gang guy, three words: Universal Basic Income. We pay the morons and otherwise well-meaning but lazy or low-skill people to stay home and paint or craft or raise kids or watch tv or whatever and get out of the way of those who want to roll up their sleeves and create and build and do. UBI, baby.

 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Are you implying that a creationist is a white supremacist? or are you just giving two extreme examples? I'm confused as to what you mean there.

Otherwise to your question, I'll spoil my response because it is probably off-topic and a derail and I want to keep others on track with replying to you and the direction of the discussion as you are taking it

  Hide contents

this is why I'm a huge Yang Gang guy, three words: Universal Basic Income. We pay the morons and otherwise well-meaning but lazy or low-skill people to stay home and paint or craft or raise kids or watch tv or whatever and get out of the way of those who want to roll up their sleeves and create and build and do. UBI, baby.

 

No, the parenthetical is just a substitute for the more benign creationism.  I'm sure many parents have counseled their children that evolution is just a theory and "we believe differently" because of what the Bible says.  I'm not quite sure how that conversation goes if you're decrying or discounting the diversity education/CRT.

[Captainant 26861]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm sure many parents have counseled their children that evolution is just a theory and "we believe differently" because of what the Bible says.  I'm not quite sure how that conversation goes if you're decrying or discounting the diversity education/CRT.

Awww cmon now! Evangelicals LOVE citing the bible to justify slavery and subjugation of non-white men. 

It's all cut from the same cloth. To wit - I'm pretty comfortable arguing not every creationist is a white supremacist, but every white supremacist is a creationist. Use of the church and religion as a cudgel to attack "other" groups is a tale as old as time.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Awww cmon now! Evangelicals LOVE citing the bible to justify slavery and subjugation of non-white men. 

It's all cut from the same cloth. To wit - I'm pretty comfortable arguing not every creationist is a white supremacist, but every white supremacist is a creationist. Use of the church and religion as a cudgel to attack "other" groups is a tale as old as time.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of white supremacists who lack faith.  

They pretty much all ACT like they have faith, though.  It's just another tool in the toolbox.

[FOXHOUND 998]

On 10/7/2021 at 12:52 PM, 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.

Forget 1964 Civil Rights Bill, these people absolutely want to go back to pre Brown v Board of Education.

Any type of acknowledgement of diversity, inclusion, examination of history and the intergenerational impact, etc is seen as a threat to people like that. They want non-white people to be invisible and their kids to in an insulated bubble without learning the true history and keep the American mythology version going. There were a lot of young white people in those nationwide BLM protests last year, marching for equal justice, people like this GOP operative don't want that. That was the real reason for the CRT hysteria this summer.
 

[wildcat09 28387]

I see donkey is embracing postmodernism again, huh?

[DonkeyCigars 144]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I see donkey is embracing postmodernism again, huh?

I've said no less than 4 times that I am empathizing and seeing the situation through the eyes and shoes of others, these deplorable people who decry and protest what they think is CRT (despite it not being so, by technical definition).

I've also stated that, like our friend hpslugga, I reject postmodernism and agree with his assertion that the best thing about truth is that it's immalleable.

Since you brought it up, here is a humorous thought:

We know for a fact that these same people (people like them) decried and hated Postmodernism first, in the 70's, when progressives and academics and colleges were teaching it. Yet now it is the lens through which they see the world!

The greatest irony of all is that the most likely outcome for CRT will be the same: in 30-40 years when the aggrieved white person deplorable who hates CRT today is the minority in the future, CRT will be something they advocate for as a tool to try and retain a voice and be seen as they fruitlessly try to stop from being drowned out and quieted as the demographic wave engulfs them.

It's actually quite poetic and beautiful, in a way.

 

 

[TXSG8R 3325]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

I didn't mean homeschooling per se.  But if you're a hardcore creationist (white supremacist), feel free to teach your kids that we don't subscribe to the theory of evolution (civil rights) and do your best to explain why your family is like that.  You're parents, for fucks sake, they're your kids, teach em how you want em taught.

Leave the rest of us alone to get educated.

And, I think I disagree that education is wholly failed.  I grant that it fails a lot of students, from racial minorities, to economically disadvantaged, to flat morons.  But, due to home circumstances and innate lack of talent, that is always going to be an issue.  It may be made worse by underfunding and moronic social agendas, but the problems with those groups are intrinsic and difficult even with proper funding and without moronic social agendas.

In other words, while Trumpkins are dumb and gullible, an improved education system would not eliminate them.

Goes back to brisket's and my big question:  What are we going to do with the morons?

I wish we could move more towards the German model. Figure out who is academically inclined versus those that will have to learn a skill to make money in middle school and get those kids on the right path.  Stop wasting time and money on pushing everyone towards college. Create value in skilled labor. Make college merit based and free for those that qualify. It’s ridiculous that there isn’t a path for a HS kid to become a journeyman electrician, plumber, mechanic, etc. 

[Brisketexan 103148]

29 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I wish we could move more towards the German model. Figure out who is academically inclined versus those that will have to learn a skill to make money in middle school and get those kids on the right path.  Stop wasting time and money on pushing everyone towards college. Create value in skilled labor. Make college merit based and free for those that qualify. It’s ridiculous that there isn’t a path for a HS kid to become a journeyman electrician, plumber, mechanic, etc. 

The problem starts with the fact that our society only truly values one thing -- as Eddie Izzard put it:

Quote

You have the American dream! The American dream is to be born in the gutter and have nothing. Then to raise up and have all the money in the world, and stick it in your ears and go PLBTLBTLBLTLBTLBLT!! 

We don't have an honest and sincere path towards non-college prosperity because as a society, we only value super-success, with the trappings of wealth.  If you ain't rich, you ain't shit.  So why would we create a model that would funnel people to a path that means they ain't shit?  Why would you condemn someone to such a wretched future?  The way around that is....to value paths that make a good living, and provide you and yours with a good life.  Of course, to REALLY do that, consistently, you also need to have a broader social mechanism that makes for a decent life for those of modest means: decent available healthcare, affordable housing, functioning schools, all that socialist commie shit that America HATES.

We have an all-or-nothing worldview.  You're either rich, to be worshipped as a God because being rich means you have merit (see the rise of Donald Trump: what poor people think a rich man looks like), or you're worthless, just a leech along for the ride.  That's really fucked up.  But, we're a really fucked up society.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The problem starts with the fact that our society only truly values one thing -- as Eddie Izzard put it:

We don't have an honest and sincere path towards non-college prosperity because as a society, we only value super-success, with the trappings of wealth.  If you ain't rich, you ain't shit.  So why would we create a model that would funnel people to a path that means they ain't shit?  Why would you condemn someone to such a wretched future?  The way around that is....to value paths that make a good living, and provide you and yours with a good life.  Of course, to REALLY do that, consistently, you also need to have a broader social mechanism that makes for a decent life for those of modest means: decent available healthcare, affordable housing, functioning schools, all that socialist commie shit that America HATES.

We have an all-or-nothing worldview.  You're either rich, to be worshipped as a God because being rich means you have merit (see the rise of Donald Trump: what poor people think a rich man looks like), or you're worthless, just a leech along for the ride.  That's really fucked up.  But, we're a really fucked up society.

Have you read any of the works of John Cobb? (I was raised Methodist, so I'm familiar with him to a small extent).

He has an essay--mostly he is talking about higher ed, but he mentions public schools in the essay. It's germane to your point to an extent. It's funny (coincidentally I mean), because I was thinking about wealth today and Jesus talking to the disciples and then your post comes up. There really is no escaping the market.

Here is a link if you've not seen it before:

https://www.religion-online.org/article/four-types-of-universities/

 

[Brisketexan 103148]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Have you read any of the works of John Cobb? (I was raised Methodist, so I'm familiar with him to a small extent).

He has an essay--mostly he is talking about higher ed, but he mentions public schools in the essay. It's germane to your point to an extent. It's funny (coincidentally I mean), because I was thinking about wealth today and Jesus talking to the disciples and then your post comes up. There really is no escaping the market.

Here is a link if you've not seen it before:

https://www.religion-online.org/article/four-types-of-universities/

 

I haven't.  LOVE his salad, though.

I'll dig into this, as it does interest me.  And it also disillusions me further, as I resign myself to the fact that there is no system that doesn't become just another mechanism for the self-interested folks who happen to take the early lead in terms of power to use to cement and grow their power.  Communism?  What a sweet idea....that in short order turns into Animal Farm writ large, with the party elite looking for all the world like oligarchs living like fat cats.  Capitalism?  Great source of innovation and wealth creation....that eventually becomes a mechanism for functionally enslaving everyone else into creating wealth for the top 1%, and the rest should be happy with the scraps from their labor that they are allowed to keep.

Treating human beings as beings with value, worthy of dignity, is a fucking fantasy.  We're evil shits.  The only choice we have is the flavor of evil we wish to live under.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

Anarcho-syndicalism deserves a shot. 

[HenryJames 64901]

[washparkhorn 9894]

trolls be bitches.

[Satchel 6889]

This is long and instructive. It features the inventor/creator of CRT. 
“Ignorance itself is not malicious, it’s holding onto that ignorance in light of facts that it becomes malicious.”

Good stuff:

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by Satchel

[cactusflinthead 26791]

On 10/7/2021 at 4:10 PM, DonkeyCigars said:

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? 

Got a new name picked out?

This one is just about done.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

4 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Got a new name picked out?

This one is just about done.

Put some money on my books and come visit me from time to time.

[wildcat09 28387]

 

Dear GR Horn, fuck you, you terrorist-loving scum.

[Captainant 26861]

17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Dear GR Horn, fuck you, you terrorist-loving scum.

@Satoshi kindly eat a bag of dicks, this clip really puts the lie to your false narrative.

[Brisketexan 103148]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Dear GR Horn, fuck you, you terrorist-loving scum.

When you understand that the entire approach of the Satoshi GRUhorn bunch is disingenuous "who, me?" terrorism, most often stochastic terrorism, then you realize that they shouldn't just be negged off this board.  They are actively pursuing a path intended to harm other people.  They are actively TRYING to bring about the result of harm to other people.  They're fucking American terrorists.  Fuck em all.

[Satoshi 129]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

@Satoshi kindly eat a bag of dicks, this clip really puts the lie to your false narrative.

 

31 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Dear GR Horn, fuck you, you terrorist-loving scum.

That sounds like a terrible situation that should be handled by local law enforcement. One Twitter video testimonial doesn’t justify a nationwide DOJ initiative. 

[Satchel 6889]

7 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

 

That sounds like a terrible situation that should be handled by local law enforcement. One Twitter video testimonial doesn’t justify a nationwide DOJ initiative. 

What would? A couple more?