[PataOneil]

Nope I'm not confusing it with critical theory. Even the definition that you cited includes more than the legal theory. "And an academic movement" Please read it carefully because it's where you are going off track. Besides even the legal theory part doesn't mean that that CRT doesn't use methods that are commonly used in studying history. Because CRT does in fact use many of the same methods (including critical theory) used for studying history just in the case of CRT these methods are specifically intended to study the effects of systemic racism. My problem with your arguments is that these methods only seem to bother you when it comes to using them for CRT.

And just because the discrepancies between minority and white are falling doesn't mean that the discrimination is not still active... it manifestly is by the charts you just provided. Again your definition of CRT explicitly states that these things fluctuate over time. I certainly haven't made any claims whether or not racial inequality is as high as it was during Jim Crow or not so I'm not sure where you are coming from here. What I've said is that the USA is currently systemically racist. The charts you cited support that idea, and changing the goal posts to claim it's not as bad as it used to be has never been an issue I've tried to argue nor does CRT for that matter... it explicitly states that these things vary over time.

Again you are looking at evidence that is right in your face and choosing to believe a different narrative. And this belief seems to be based upon the completely unsupported assumption that the so called abolition of institutionalized discrimination is the whole hog when it comes to dealing with systemic racism. It simply isn't. You can refer to the definition of CRT you provided to confirm this.

"the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals.[9][10] CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction[9] which serves to uphold the interests of white people[11] against those of marginalized communities at large."

And especially this: "In the field of legal studies, CRT emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways." That last puts paid to the idea that the abolition of institutional discrimination is decisive. And this is point I made earlier in this discussion and you seemed uncomfortable with. Now you cite it.

In addition we can always refer back to the banning of CRT as a way to control the narrative around systemic racism which would be at the very least one of those intersectional social constructions discussed in the definition of CRT you provided... and at most a definitive example of a systemically racist law currently on the books.

So, you've provided a bunch of charts and definitions that go toward demonstrating that systemic racism is currently a thing. And you have not yet provided any justifiable rational that I've seen for discarding the methods of CRT.

[wat0n]

Nope I'm not confusing it with critical theory. Even the definition that you cited includes more than the legal theory. "And an academic movement" Please read it carefully because it's where you are going off track. Besides even the legal theory part doesn't mean that that CRT doesn't use methods that are commonly used in studying history. Because CRT does in fact use many of the same methods (including critical theory) used for studying history just in the case of CRT these methods are specifically intended to study the effects of systemic racism. My problem with your arguments is that these methods only seem to bother you when it comes to using them for CRT.

No, critical theory is crap regardless on whether it's used for history, law or fields like sociology.

And just because the discrepancies between minority and white are falling doesn't mean that the discrimination is not still active... it manifestly is by the charts you just provided. Again your definition of CRT explicitly states that these things fluctuate over time. I certainly haven't made any claims whether or not racial inequality is as high as it was during Jim Crow or not so I'm not sure where you are coming from here. What I've said is that the USA is currently systemically racist. The charts you cited support that idea, and changing the goal posts to claim it's not as bad as it used to be has never been an issue I've tried to argue or CRT for that matter.

It does however undermine the narrative, again, due to Occam's razor (which you brought up). But more importantly, the burden of proof does fall on CRT proponents to show that those gaps are the result of present day discrimination.

Again you are looking at evidence that is right in your face and choosing to believe a different narrative. And this belief seems to be based upon the completely unsupported assumption that the so called abolition of institutionalized discrimination is the whole hog when it comes to dealing with systemic racism. It simply isn't. You can refer to the definition of CRT you provided to confirm this.

"the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals.[9][10] CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction[9] which serves to uphold the interests of white people[11] against those of marginalized communities at large."

And especially this: "In the field of legal studies, CRT emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways." That last puts paid to the idea that the abolition of institutional discrimination is decisive. And this is point I made earlier in this discussion and you seemed uncomfortable with. Now you cite it.

Yes, very "complex ways" they cannot hope to explain or show actually exist, as it happens with constructs like subconscious racism. Just saying that systemic racism operates in "mysterious ways" reminds me of how some believers say God operates.

In addition we can always refer back to the banning of CRT as a way to control the narrative around systemic racism which would be at the very least one of those intersectional social constructions discussed in the definition of CRT you provided... and at most a definitive example of a systemically racist law currently on the books.

Again, the FL case is a lot more complicated than that. And no, it's not a systemically racist law.

It seems another tactic from CRT proponents is to claim all criticism of their faith is racist.

So, you've provided a bunch of charts and definitions that go toward demonstrating that systemic racism is currently a thing.

Not really.

And you have not yet provided any justifiable rational that I've seen for discarding the methods of CRT.

Except that it's not based on facts, but narrative, and that they cannot prove their tenets are actually true. And even worse, their approach is applied hypocritically, since they will not hesitate to take facts and make them selectively fit their narrative as much as possible.

[PataOneil]

Just calling something crap is one of those non empirically based narratives that you claim to dislike. This is that double standard you are using cropping up again.

And no, I'm sorry but the charts you cited do not undermine the narrative of systemic racism... they support it. Asserting that anything but the obvious thing is at play in those charts is where you have to satisfy Occamd Razor. The data in those charts demonstrates the simplest conclusion simply by highlighting the discrepancies have a racial component. And no CRT actually doesn't try to explain these things by present day discrimination please refer to definition that you provided.

"the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals"

The Florida case is not the only one that has banned CRT... and saying something is more complicated without demonstrating why that matters is just throwing up another cloud of dust.

Yes really, as I've said you can have your own narrative on these things but you narrative has no bearing on the institutional narrative that define these issues. I really don't think you've actually understood the definitions you cited. You keep making these basic errors.

You have to actually support the assertions that CRT is hypocritically interpreting facts. You haven't.

You whole last post is simply lazily trying to assert your position while denying mine... without any empirically based reason for doing so.

I'm convinced at this point that you haven't taken the time or made the effort to truly understand CRT or it's methods. Your mind is closed on the issue and no information you receive will change it. Your intent seems to me to be to try and obscure the issues and cast doubt on CRT without providing any justifiable reason for doing so.

Double standard.

[wat0n]

Just calling something crap is one of those non empirically based narratives that you claim to dislike. This is that double standard you are using cropping up again.

Not that people who don't believe reality or objectivity exist would accept empirical evidence as an argument. But then, they are not willing to jump off a 99th floor just to prove reality is socially constructed and that the scientific method is useless

And no, I'm sorry but the charts you cited do not undermine the narrative of systemic racism... they support it. Asserting that anything but the obvious thing is at play in those charts is where you have to satisfy Occamd Razor. The data in those charts demonstrates the simplest conclusion simply by highlighting the discrepancies have a racial component. And no CRT actually doesn't try to explain these things by present day discrimination please refer to definition that you provided.

What they do not prove is that those differences are the result of present systemic discrimination, which is exactly what CRT claims.

"the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals"

Yes, and as good tenets they are assumptions they are not willing to hold up to scrutiny. But it's not a good thing, then, that for instance unconscious racism is a construct with scant empirical backing.

The Florida case is not the only one that has banned CRT... and saying something is more complicated without demonstrating why that matters is just throwing up another cloud of dust.

I already explained why: FL law mandates schools to teach the Civil Rights Movement in a factual manner. How can you do so without teaching about Jim Crow?

Yes really, as I've said you can have your own narrative on these things but you narrative has no bearing on the institutional narrative that define these issues. I really don't think you've actually understood the definitions you cited. You keep making these basic errors.

You have to actually support the assertions that CRT is hypocritically interpreting facts. You haven't.

You whole last post is simply lazily trying to assert your position while denying mine... without any empirically based reason for doing so.

I'm convinced at this point that you haven't taken the time or made the effort to truly understand CRT or it's methods. Your mind is closed on the issue and no information you receive will change it. Your intent seems to me to be to try and obscure the issues and cast doubt on CRT without providing any justifiable reason for doing so.

Double standard.

And you would be wrong here, I went as far as to cite how even CRT scholars acknowledge that, for example, CRT postulates are not compatible with the scientific method.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't know if it is. But if it was... Is that an example of CRT put into practice? Is that a distortion of what anti-racism is meant to be?

If it is grounded on fact, then I don't see what the problem would be.

You keep asking me to assume this lawsuit is factual and then make judgements about the people accused.

Is there any reason to assume this lawsuit is correct and factual?

You seem to be saying that if it is, then the silencing effect it is currently having on teachers is justified.

This also implies that if it is not factual, then the current silencing effect is not justified.

[wat0n]

You keep asking me to assume this lawsuit is factual and then make judgements about the people accused.

Is there any reason to assume this lawsuit is correct and factual?

You seem to be saying that if it is, then the silencing effect it is currently having on teachers is justified.

This also implies that if it is not factual, then the current silencing effect is not justified.

Correct, pretty much. If the plaintiff is factually correct then of course the lawsuit should go through.

I don't think the things she's alleging are legal.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

No, you did not address my point.

You are saying that if the facts are true, then the board is racist for being anti-racist. This is entirely speculation and not what I am discussing.

The real effect that is actually happening right now (i.e. not some speculation about improbable futures) is almost certainly a silencing effect when it comes to discussing things like systemic racism in the classroom.

It is this de facto censorship something that is being ignored and needs to be addressed.

If not, then conservatives can silence progressive voices not only through these censorship laws, and not only by denying them tenure, but also by using nuisance lawsuits to scare school boards and teachers.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

No, you did not address my point.

You are saying that if the facts are true, then the board is racist for being anti-racist. This is entirely speculation and not what I am discussing.

The real effect that is actually happening right now (i.e. not some speculation about improbable futures) is almost certainly a silencing effect when it comes to discussing things like systemic racism in the classroom.

It is this de facto censorship something that is being ignored and needs to be addressed.

If not, then conservatives can silence progressive voices not only through these censorship laws, and not only by denying them tenure, but also by using nuisance lawsuits to scare school boards and teachers.

So what you are saying, then, is that people who may be victims of racism should not sue their victimizers because they may be silencing them. Right? Or to be even more explicit: You believe a black parent should not sue a white supremacist teacher who tells their children they are inferior, because this amounts to censorship.

Am I getting this correctly?

[Drlee]

This thread is a magnificent example of the power of diversion. We have two supposedly leftish posters doing exactly what the oligarchs want them to do. It is a beauty to see.

[Pants-of-dog]

So what you are saying, then, is that people who may be victims of racism should not sue their victimizers because they may be silencing them. Right? Or to be even more explicit: You believe a black parent should not sue a white supremacist teacher who tells their children they are inferior, because this amounts to censorship.

Am I getting this correctly?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: in every aspect, I am always advocating for censorship, and taking away the rights of people and am an evil person.

You should ignore me from now on because I am so morally inept.

—————————-

This CRT manufactured controversy is entirely predictable.

The moment Mr. Floyd’s murderer was caught on camera, this was all goung to happen.

People were predictably horrified by the blatant murder of racism by this cop. This predictably caused a reaction where people and institutions tried to see how they could reduce racism and hopefully avoid more of this type of bloodshed.

And then conservatives predictably reacted to this movement towards equality by attacking the workshops and policy changes. And also predictably, some right wing pundit knew he could make money off this, so he found a bogeyman and talked about it on Fox.

And now we have Tucker Carlson telling people that if they criticise CRT, crazed ideologues are coming after them.

And this victim narrative justifies these three different ways of silencing progressive voices in institutions.

————————-

@Drlee

You never explained why curriculum decisions are not censorship.

If a school board says that you are not allowed to teach about, for example, evolution, and that it is explicitly forbidden to teach it as truth, would that be simply a curriculum decision, or would it be censorship?

[wat0n]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: in every aspect, I am always advocating for censorship, and taking away the rights of people and am an evil person.

You should ignore me from now on because I am so morally inept.

I take it you didn't mean that. But then why would a black teacher have every right to sue if she believed or claimed to believe her school was segregating students by race and this would be simply enforcing justice, but a white teacher who sued claiming exactly the same would be attempting to censor opposing views?

Inconsistency is actually worth exposing more and not less, if anything.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Again, I am obviously as morally debased as you claim and therefore should not burden you with my evil and immoral delusions.

——————————

Since we see that this manufactured reaction against CRT was a predictable reaction to the anti-racism initiatives in 5e wake of George Floyd’s murder, we can probably make some good guesses as to what will happen next.

The Republicans will keep beating this “CRT is oppressing white people by making them uncomfortable” drum until at least the midterms. Then they will see how successful it was as a way of getting Trumpists to vote without actually mentioning his name. It will probably work.

But considering the baseless nature of the argument, this will probably not make any other impact. The unions are already beginning to fight this and courts will almost certainly find the current bans to be censorship, unless the judge is a Republican.

But by then they will move onto another buzzword, now that they have gone through “PC”, “wokeness”, and now “CRT” and “anti-racism”.

[late]

"You could easily write a history of the modern right that’s about nothing but schools. The battles were initially about race, particularly segregation and busing. Out of those fights came the Christian right, born in reaction to the revocation of tax exemptions for segregated Christian schools. As the Christian right grew, political struggles over control of schools became more explicitly religious. There were campaigns against allowing gay people to work in schools and against teaching sex education and evolution.

Now the Christian right has more or less collapsed as anything but an identity category. There are still lots of religious fundamentalists, but not, post-Donald Trump, a movement confidently asserting itself as the repository of wholesome family values. Instead, with the drive to eradicate the teaching of “critical race theory,” race has moved back to the center of the public-school culture wars.

I put critical race theory in quotes because the right has transformed a term that originally referred to an academic school of thought into a catchall for resentments over diversity initiatives and changing history curriculums.

Republicans have groused about how hard Biden is to demonize. They need a more frightening, enraging villain to keep their people engaged. Critical race theory — presented as an attack on history, a program to indoctrinate children and a stealth form of Marxism — fits the bill."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/opin ... pe=Article

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Again, I am obviously as morally debased as you claim and therefore should not burden you with my evil and immoral delusions.

Guess you don't like when your inconsistency is pointed out. Let's rehash a few examples:

1) You claim to believe in science and facts, yet you disregard science and facts put some of your and CRT's tenets into question (such as the claim unconscious racism exists).

2) You cannot bring yourself to claim Tribal jurisdictions implement Jim Crow-like policies when they use grandfather clauses to deny black people the vote, as it happened with the Oklahoma Cherokee and the denial of citizenship to the freedmen.

3) You cannot bring yourself to admit a lawsuit by a black teacher claiming exactly the same Stacy Deemar is alleging regarding things like racial segregation within schools is not censorship but simply an appeal to enforce anti-discrimination law, and apply this standard regardless of the plaintiff's race. It should be noted that if Stacy Deemar is wrong, then the lawsuit will fail and she'll have to deal with the consequences just as a black teacher would in this scenario - and no, pointing this out does not mean I believe Stacy Deemar is right, that's up to the courts to decide, but it does mean merely exercising your right to sue is not censorship.

Inconsistency is something one should at least try to acknowledge so it can be corrected

[Pants-of-dog]

Since no one has denied that conservatives are using these three tactics to silence progressive voices in the classroom, I will assume that everyone agrees.

There is a school board in Virginia that is becoming the focus of all of this.

Some key facts:

1. CRT has never been taught there.
2. The district was (one of the?) last schools to desegregate and has had lasting effects because of this.
3. The district was found to be discriminatory against BIPOC students.
4. There are no black people on the school board, and only two people of colour.
5. The reaction against the supposed “CRT indoctrination” was actually a reaction to the policy changes made in the wake of the discrimination.

(https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... red-498453)

This last point is important because we see how this manufactured controversy is being used to attack measures that were put in place to oppose known acts of discrimination.

So it seems that addressing actual episodes of discrimination can also be seen as an attack on white people and should be fought against.

[late]

"With all his histrionics and theatrics, Trump brought the dark side of American politics to the fore: the alienated, the distrustful, voters willing to sacrifice democracy for a return to white hegemony. The segregationist segment of the electorate has been a permanent fixture of American politics, shifting between the two major parties.

Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins, makes the case via Twitter that Trump has “served as a lightning rod for lots of regular people who hold white Christian supremacist beliefs.” The solidification of their control over the Republican Party “makes it seem like a partisan issue. But this faction has been around longer than our current partisan divide.” In fact, “they are not loyal to a party — they are loyal to white Christian domination.”

In their July 3 paper, “Partisan Schadenfreude and the Demand for Candidate Cruelty,” Steven W. Webster, Adam N. Glynn and Matthew P. Motta, political scientists at Indiana University, Emory and Oklahoma State, explore “the prevalence of partisan schadenfreude — that is, taking ‘joy in the suffering’ of partisan others.”

But at the same time Trump has mobilized and consolidated a cohort that now exercises control over the Republican Party, a renegade segment of the electorate, perhaps as large as one third of all voters, who disdain democratic principles, welcome authoritarian techniques to crush racial and cultural liberalism, seek to wrest away the election machinery and suffer the mass delusion that Trump won last November.

Regardless of whether Trump runs again, he has left an enormous footprint — a black mark — on American politics, which will stain elections for years to come."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/opinion/trump-gop.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[Drlee]

@Pants-of-dog If a school board says that you are not allowed to teach about, for example, evolution, and that it is explicitly forbidden to teach it as truth, would that be simply a curriculum decision, or would it be censorship?

Bad example. You do love your hot button issues, don't you. But.

No it would not be censorship. Now if a government banned the teaching of evolution entirely it would be censorship.

School boards do not decide what can be discussed. They decide what is appropriate to be taught to children. I don't understand why this distinction evades you. Is the fact that kindergarten teachers are forbidden to teach sex education strike you as censorship? Of course not. Are there classes in pornography in some colleges? Yes. Is it censorship to ban it in High School? Of course not.

As long as we both realize that CRT is a theory and not necessarily settled fact.

And no, I will not, yet again, point out what parts of it are true and what parts of it are not. That is not my argument. My argument is that it may very well be harmful to some children to have this taught in school. Particularly in light of who might be teaching it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Bad example. You do love your hot button issues, don't you. But.

No it would not be censorship. Now if a government banned the teaching of evolution entirely it would be censorship.

School boards do not decide what can be discussed. They decide what is appropriate to be taught to children.

I see.

You are making several different errors here.

1, You seem to be saying that there is a qualitative difference between a government banning the teaching of evolution entirely and a school board saying you are not allowed to teach evolution. Since the school board is the government in this case, they are exactly the same.

2. School boards do decide what can and cannot be discussed. The other CRT thread in which you are participating is about exactly that.

And now we wil move on t9 the third and most important error:

I don't understand why this distinction evades you. Is the fact that kindergarten teachers are forbidden to teach sex education strike you as censorship? Of course not. Are there classes in pornography in some colleges? Yes. Is it censorship to ban it in High School? Of course not.

Here you are making a false equivalence fallacy where you are arguing that banning discussion on systemic racism is as justified as banning pornography.

Now, I can sit here and explain to you exactly why it is a bad idea to show pornography to children. Unless you can provide a similar argument as to why exposing children to discussions on systemic racism. then this is a false equivalence.

As long as we both realize that CRT is a theory and not necessarily settled fact.

If this is a justification for not teaching it in K-12 classes, the same could be said for Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection.

And no, I will not, yet again, point out what parts of it are true and what parts of it are not. That is not my argument. My argument is that it may very well be harmful to some children to have this taught in school. Particularly in light of who might be teaching it.

This is an irrelevant argument since CRT is not taught in schools, nor do these bans affect CRT classes at all.

Instead they are bans on discussing systemic racism in the classroom. So, unless you can show that discussion on systemic racism is somehow not true, your support for CRT bans ends up being support for censoring discussions about systemic racism.

[Drlee]

I am through with you POD. You are incapable of debating with any honesty. Here is the proof:

This is an irrelevant argument since CRT is not taught in schools, nor do these bans affect CRT classes at all.

Intellectually dishonest.

Bye.

[wat0n]

Clearly not all states ban teaching CRT in schools either, so @Pants-of-dog is quite evidently wrong. An obvious example would be CA's ethnic studies curriculum