CRT clubs in schools

[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.

+1

Ignorant buffoons shrieking about things they choose not to understand.

[Anonymous]

I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

[phone]

I am a liberal left wing supporter. But hearing about CRT nonsense turned me off.

If you disagree with CRT, it just means you are either

1. A racist

or

2. Have no idea what CRT is about

CRT cannot and should not be up for discussion as per these morons!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

[phone]

I am a liberal left wing supporter. But hearing about CRT nonsense turned me off.

If you disagree with CRT, it just means you are either

1. A racist

or

2. Have no idea what CRT is about

CRT cannot and should not be up for discussion as per these morons!

“I am a liberal left wing supporter”.

Sounds totally believable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

Interestingly enough, the anti”CRT” posts have been coming from an ill-intentional POV, RWNJs, and people not truly understanding “the CRT”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

Anti-racism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

Interestingly enough, the anti”CRT” posts have been coming from an ill-intentional POV, RWNJs, and people not truly understanding “the CRT”.

You are just proving further how shallow you are. Why is it not believable to you that these counter arguments come from an honest and well intentioned point of view?

Good job making fun of a non-native English speaker for putting an article in front of CRT. What a sleaze bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) Don't need to take a class. 2) Even if you did, do you think all things that one needs to take a class to understand are worthless, or is this a special exception?

People that are skeptical if common sense need to get a real job, in a business that has customers by selling services and products.

No. Employment has nothing to do with this. I happen to work for a business that sells services to customers, and while we do ok and have been operating for many years, nevertheless our ability to stay in business relies almost exclusively on our ability to keep those customers happy and returning. We screw that up and we're all going to be looking for work in short order. What does that have to do with this conversation?

What one considers "common sense" is usually very dependent on the experiences of that individual, and typically when it comes to political discussions is used as a shorthand to remain willfully ignorant of complexity and nuance around a topic or to learn and absorb new information that might run contrary to their ingrained predispositions.

Heck, even Einstein characterized common sense as nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen.

And here's a good exploration of some of the issues of an appeal to "common sense": https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

Anti-racism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

That sounds a whole lot like some quote from the Soviet Union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

Anti-racism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

That sounds a whole lot like some quote from the Soviet Union.

Probably. It crops up with ideologies in general. You create these hermetically sealed systems of thought that are, by their own terms, impervious to criticism or correction from the outside. With communism, it was probably a mix of claiming that any problems were capitalist propaganda and/or because people weren't practicing "true" communism. With antiracism, white critics are clearly to be disregarded. And non-white critics have clearly "internalized racism," so they can also be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

Anti-racism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

That sounds a whole lot like some quote from the Soviet Union.

So I lived in the USSR, and no, it doesn't. Not at all. The Soviet Union was super racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am noticing an interesting pattern here. Any argument against CRT, is automatically considered as coming from an ill intentioned point of view, right wing conspiracy theory nut job, not truly understanding the CRT, etc.

Ok, so what would you like your fellow citizens do? Defer to your superior knowledge and lived experience as a self appointed anti racist guru?

Anti-racism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

That sounds a whole lot like some quote from the Soviet Union.

So I lived in the USSR, and no, it doesn't. Not at all. The Soviet Union was super racist.

I don't think PP was talking about the "antiracism" part of the comment so much as the "X cannot fail, it can only be failed" part of the comment. In other words, "communism cannot fail..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) Don't need to take a class. 2) Even if you did, do you think all things that one needs to take a class to understand are worthless, or is this a special exception?

People that are skeptical if common sense need to get a real job, in a business that has customers by selling services and products.

No. Employment has nothing to do with this. I happen to work for a business that sells services to customers, and while we do ok and have been operating for many years, nevertheless our ability to stay in business relies almost exclusively on our ability to keep those customers happy and returning. We screw that up and we're all going to be looking for work in short order. What does that have to do with this conversation?

What one considers "common sense" is usually very dependent on the experiences of that individual, and typically when it comes to political discussions is used as a shorthand to remain willfully ignorant of complexity and nuance around a topic or to learn and absorb new information that might run contrary to their ingrained predispositions.

Heck, even Einstein characterized common sense as nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen.

And here's a good exploration of some of the issues of an appeal to "common sense": https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense

You contradict yourself. On one hand you say classes aren’t needed, on the other there seem to be large swaths if the general population, in particular republican sympathizers making about half of voters, that don’t understand what CRT really is.

Nothing wrong to take classes to understand and learn about a field of knowledge in more detail. We do that all the time with math, science, languages etc. in all these cases one learns about an objective truth, math is what it is, physics can be verified etc. The problem with CRT is that it is teaching a mode of understanding truth, or what they call a lens through which to see society. It builds upon concepts like whiteness, intersectionality, group privilege etc. that to the uninitiated seem odd and far out there, not to mention in direct conflict with the social foundations of individual rights and responsibility, equality etc.

To base policy on CRT is not only controversial (how would such a policy look like, affirmative action on steroids?), but also impractical, a political suicide and in my view also immoral.

Employment has a lot to do with it. CRT originates in ivory tower Marxist grievance studies academic circles, that simply create their own scholarship, and provide little benefit to society. They are generally rejected by the public, and rightfully so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Ignorant buffoons shrieking about things they choose not to understand.

This man doesn't sound like an ignorant buffoon to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMAYJUMpStY&ab_channel=ColemanHughes

[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.

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

Webster's collegiate dictionary, tenth edition copyright 1995 (sitting on my shelf) defines racism as:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

This definition has fallen out of fashion, as the current definition is more like prejudice plus power