CRT clubs in schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Think of it in terms of the school yard:

- if a BIPOC child is beaten up by a group of whites, that would be a racist hate-crime.

- if, however, a white child is beaten on the basis of his skin color by a group of BIPOC boys, it would merely constitute prejudice, at most. Moreover, restorative justice would require decreased, or no punishment for the BIPOC boys, since they have been deprived of institutional power by systemic racism.

It is no wonder so many of you oppose CRT; you clearly do not understand these basic truths.

Troll. But, I did lol. Well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

But in some states (Cal for example) white is no longer the dominant group.

In terms of numbers or power?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of it in terms of the school yard:

- if a BIPOC child is beaten up by a group of whites, that would be a racist hate-crime.

- if, however, a white child is beaten on the basis of his skin color by a group of BIPOC boys, it would merely constitute prejudice, at most. Moreover, restorative justice would require decreased, or no punishment for the BIPOC boys, since they have been deprived of institutional power by systemic racism.

It is no wonder so many of you oppose CRT; you clearly do not understand these basic truths.

Troll. But, I did lol. Well done.

I agree it is trolling, but nicely done, because it’s totally reasonable to assume some on the left are holding those views, which most people would reject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

But in some states (Cal for example) white is no longer the dominant group.

In terms of numbers or power?

Cis-gender white males still hold all the power;

Eg Gavin Newsome, SF’s DA Chesa, etc.

[Anonymous]

This thread seems to have largely come down to is semantics... some people want to define racism as basically anything race-based and tend to focus on specific examples involving individuals in different scenarios, others think the term has an inherent distinction based on power structure and systems, and they tend to focus a bit more on macro outcomes and aggregate impacts for entire large groups in society.

The argument for the former seems more accessible and intuitive as "common sense" to the average layperson (especially-but-not-exclusively the average white layperson), while the latter is a bit more academic and nuanced (nothing wrong with that, some people see "academic" as a negative term but I certainly don't mean it that way... if anything I'm personally more predisposed to be skeptical of anything that people claim is "common sense").

The other big issue I see is that some folks seem to carry the false assumption that addressing the former is sufficient to resolve the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread seems to have largely come down to is semantics... some people want to define racism as basically anything race-based and tend to focus on specific examples involving individuals in different scenarios, others think the term has an inherent distinction based on power structure and systems, and they tend to focus a bit more on macro outcomes and aggregate impacts for entire large groups in society.

The argument for the former seems more accessible and intuitive as "common sense" to the average layperson (especially-but-not-exclusively the average white layperson), while the latter is a bit more academic and nuanced (nothing wrong with that, some people see "academic" as a negative term but I certainly don't mean it that way... if anything I'm personally more predisposed to be skeptical of anything that people claim is "common sense").

The other big issue I see is that some folks seem to carry the false assumption that addressing the former is sufficient to resolve the latter.

Or it’s all self interested BS. If in order to “understand” CRT, you need to take a class, then it’s worthless. People that are skeptical if common sense need to get a real job, in a business that has customers by selling services and products.

[Anonymous]

CRT in a nutshell

Some minorities don’t do as well as whites. It must be (systemic) racism. We need to change policies to favor those minorities.

…
…
…

Profit.

[Anonymous]

Learn STEM and other employable skills. Your kid doing CRT clubs would be able to add zero value to an employer.

Waste your time on CRT clubs... Be a drain on the public, asking for handouts and getting stoned.

OP kids are going down the second path. It is your choice people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CRT in a nutshell

Some minorities don’t do as well as whites. It must be (systemic) racism. We need to change policies to favor those minorities.

…
…
…

Profit.

Yes, it’s all a scheme to make money.

Another demonstration that GOP accusations are really confessions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT in a nutshell

Some minorities don’t do as well as whites. It must be (systemic) racism. We need to change policies to favor those minorities.

…
…
…

Profit.

Yes, it’s all a scheme to make money.

Another demonstration that GOP accusations are really confessions.

Plenty in the DEI consulting cottage industry are doing equity audits to make money, often costing hundreds of thousands, and often from public institutions. So, yes, sometimes (often) it is a scheme to make money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

What? A person treating another person negatively because of that person's race is racism. Full stop. What do you think it means?

Um, no, that actually is not "racism" as the term is used for policy-making. It requires a power imbalance or else it's just plain prejudice and shitty behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so hyper-individualistic in this country that we cannot even begin to process how the “example from half century ago” could have ramifications on the life of your white child and her black best friend. The inability to build family wealth using the most common wealth building strategies for middle class and working white families over the last 50+ years that colored people were deliberately excluded from is exactly the privilege being discussed. Insurmountable? No. Reason for the white child to feel guilt? Heck no. Relevant to every black family? No. Helping understand why there are systemic issues that need to be tackled? Yes. And all Americans should be a part of that solution regardless of their race.

I think a lot of people can agree with what you just wrote.

What a lot of people are taking issue with is the rise of Kendi style antiracism that seeks to guilt people into subordinating all other concerns for issues of race. The whole everything is either racist or antiracist framing is such a blunt way of activating people. While I understand Kendi sort of approaches this from a philosophical level, many people have taken his worldview as justification to label almost anything and everything racist. It just tramples over everything and makes a mockery of intersectionality.

I remember not that long ago a mother of a disabled child who was complaining she couldn't be heard. Some progressive poster shamed her basically for not making race her top priority. I understand it's a "privilege" for that mother to not have to think about race. On the other hand, does that progressive poster understand the disabled child could be dealing with issues that might be more debilitating than the color of their skin?

I agree that systemic racism is real, but there's a segment of progressives that need to tone it down and gain some perspective. People have legitimate reasons to have other priorities, and labeling large swaths of people as racists is a quick way to make them turn on you.

When you expound on the evils of "kendi" like this, it just weakens your argument because it is clear from what you've written that you actually have never read Kendi or heard him speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

What? A person treating another person negatively because of that person's race is racism. Full stop. What do you think it means?

Um, no, that actually is not "racism" as the term is used for policy-making. It requires a power imbalance or else it's just plain prejudice and shitty behavior.

Of course only the initiated understand racism as used in policy making, therefore let’s put them in charge of policy making. Can the self interest be any more obvious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so hyper-individualistic in this country that we cannot even begin to process how the “example from half century ago” could have ramifications on the life of your white child and her black best friend. The inability to build family wealth using the most common wealth building strategies for middle class and working white families over the last 50+ years that colored people were deliberately excluded from is exactly the privilege being discussed. Insurmountable? No. Reason for the white child to feel guilt? Heck no. Relevant to every black family? No. Helping understand why there are systemic issues that need to be tackled? Yes. And all Americans should be a part of that solution regardless of their race.

I think a lot of people can agree with what you just wrote.

What a lot of people are taking issue with is the rise of Kendi style antiracism that seeks to guilt people into subordinating all other concerns for issues of race. The whole everything is either racist or antiracist framing is such a blunt way of activating people. While I understand Kendi sort of approaches this from a philosophical level, many people have taken his worldview as justification to label almost anything and everything racist. It just tramples over everything and makes a mockery of intersectionality.

I remember not that long ago a mother of a disabled child who was complaining she couldn't be heard. Some progressive poster shamed her basically for not making race her top priority. I understand it's a "privilege" for that mother to not have to think about race. On the other hand, does that progressive poster understand the disabled child could be dealing with issues that might be more debilitating than the color of their skin?

I agree that systemic racism is real, but there's a segment of progressives that need to tone it down and gain some perspective. People have legitimate reasons to have other priorities, and labeling large swaths of people as racists is a quick way to make them turn on you.

When you expound on the evils of "kendi" like this, it just weakens your argument because it is clear from what you've written that you actually have never read Kendi or heard him speak.

Ah, so any critical argument is proof one doesn’t really understand Kendi’s antiracism. Got it. Only people that agree completely with Kendi should be allowed to “expound” on it. Presumably you self identified as belonging to the group that truly understands Kendi and should be listened to. Self serving much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT in a nutshell

Some minorities don’t do as well as whites. It must be (systemic) racism. We need to change policies to favor those minorities.

…
…
…

Profit.

Yes, it’s all a scheme to make money.

Another demonstration that GOP accusations are really confessions.

Plenty in the DEI consulting cottage industry are doing equity audits to make money, often costing hundreds of thousands, and often from public institutions. So, yes, sometimes (often) it is a scheme to make money.

“Confessions from the right.”