CRT clubs in schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DD wants to start a club at school to discuss CRT. She has faculty sponsors lined up. I think this is a great idea and wonder if there are any National groups that might underwrite a campaign to do this in many schools?

Teens are extremely interested in CRT after all the fuss over the summer. And now with efforts to ban it, it just piques their interest more

Your DD wants to start a club on graduate level discourse?
Seriously, race and law?

And I’m blackity black for the next three days. Then just black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD wants to start a club at school to discuss CRT. She has faculty sponsors lined up. I think this is a great idea and wonder if there are any National groups that might underwrite a campaign to do this in many schools?

Teens are extremely interested in CRT after all the fuss over the summer. And now with efforts to ban it, it just piques their interest more

Your DD wants to start a club on graduate level discourse?
Seriously, race and law?

And I’m blackity black for the next three days. Then just black.

Perhaps they'll discuss how CRT has filtered down into schools under a new brand, anti-racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Or you could, I don't know, spend 5 seconds googling the word "racism" if you're unclear what it means.

Every person knows what racism is. It follows from the golden rule, do to others what you would have them do to you. It is part of out tradition of equality under the rule of law etc.

The CRT proponents are dishonest because they use this universally accepted foundation to push for preferential treatment for *some* minorities they deem in need of help from the state. The equality principle of the golden rule is replaced with equity, typically just to cover a selfish interest in profiting from the good intent or guilt tripping of others. Look no further than the murky finances of BLM, to get a glimpse of splurging on lavish mansions under the guise of fighting racism. At least the public is waking up to this ruse.

That ... is not what CRT is.

Maybe you shouldn't participate in this conversation anymore since you obviously don't understand what's being discussed.

The racist Kendi (who IS taught in MCPS) says that racial discrimination [against whites] in laws and policies is necessary. This is classic CRT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Or you could, I don't know, spend 5 seconds googling the word "racism" if you're unclear what it means.

Every person knows what racism is. It follows from the golden rule, do to others what you would have them do to you. It is part of out tradition of equality under the rule of law etc.

The CRT proponents are dishonest because they use this universally accepted foundation to push for preferential treatment for *some* minorities they deem in need of help from the state. The equality principle of the golden rule is replaced with equity, typically just to cover a selfish interest in profiting from the good intent or guilt tripping of others. Look no further than the murky finances of BLM, to get a glimpse of splurging on lavish mansions under the guise of fighting racism. At least the public is waking up to this ruse.

That ... is not what CRT is.

Maybe you shouldn't participate in this conversation anymore since you obviously don't understand what's being discussed.

This is so typical for CRT proponents. First they say only their lived experience matters, if you’re black talking about racism your opinion is gospel. If you’re white, you should shut up. At the same time black people are “exhausted” explaining their plight over and over again, but deserve some societal benefits from the rest like affirmative action, reparations etc. It is so self serving it’s ridiculous. Even more so when the claim is made by solidly middle class people that cry adversity while sipping their latte. Any counter argument is discounted because either it is racist or one didn’t truly understand the point in question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT = Equity Theater

Maybe to your simpleton brain.

Watch this:

Yes, let’s inform our policy from a comedy show that’s not even funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Or you could, I don't know, spend 5 seconds googling the word "racism" if you're unclear what it means.

Every person knows what racism is. It follows from the golden rule, do to others what you would have them do to you. It is part of out tradition of equality under the rule of law etc.

The CRT proponents are dishonest because they use this universally accepted foundation to push for preferential treatment for *some* minorities they deem in need of help from the state. The equality principle of the golden rule is replaced with equity, typically just to cover a selfish interest in profiting from the good intent or guilt tripping of others. Look no further than the murky finances of BLM, to get a glimpse of splurging on lavish mansions under the guise of fighting racism. At least the public is waking up to this ruse.

That ... is not what CRT is.

Maybe you shouldn't participate in this conversation anymore since you obviously don't understand what's being discussed.

The racist Kendi (who IS taught in MCPS) says that racial discrimination [against whites] in laws and policies is necessary. This is classic CRT.

Not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT = Equity Theater

Maybe to your simpleton brain.

Watch this:

Yes, let’s inform our policy from a comedy show that’s not even funny.

No let’s listen to a guy with the accent that comes top of mind when we think of colonies and colonizers! You can’t even make this stuff up!
If he’s serious about his “anti racism” he should shut up and go back across the pond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Or you could, I don't know, spend 5 seconds googling the word "racism" if you're unclear what it means.

Every person knows what racism is. It follows from the golden rule, do to others what you would have them do to you. It is part of out tradition of equality under the rule of law etc.

The CRT proponents are dishonest because they use this universally accepted foundation to push for preferential treatment for *some* minorities they deem in need of help from the state. The equality principle of the golden rule is replaced with equity, typically just to cover a selfish interest in profiting from the good intent or guilt tripping of others. Look no further than the murky finances of BLM, to get a glimpse of splurging on lavish mansions under the guise of fighting racism. At least the public is waking up to this ruse.

That ... is not what CRT is.

Maybe you shouldn't participate in this conversation anymore since you obviously don't understand what's being discussed.

This is so typical for CRT proponents. First they say only their lived experience matters, if you’re black talking about racism your opinion is gospel. If you’re white, you should shut up. At the same time black people are “exhausted” explaining their plight over and over again, but deserve some societal benefits from the rest like affirmative action, reparations etc. It is so self serving it’s ridiculous. Even more so when the claim is made by solidly middle class people that cry adversity while sipping their latte. Any counter argument is discounted because either it is racist or one didn’t truly understand the point in question.

Agree only certain voices are deemed valid. This feels so antithetical to the way I was raised. Everything becomes an echo chamber of the minority viewpoints; meanwhile the rest grow exhausted.

[Anonymous]

I just saw a black college professor and New York Times contributor explaining how Ukrainian refugees are beneficiaries of white privilege. (All while enjoying the protection of the military might of the United States, I might add.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just saw a black college professor and New York Times contributor explaining how Ukrainian refugees are beneficiaries of white privilege. (All while enjoying the protection of the military might of the United States, I might add.)

Which is hilarious when you consider Hitler considered the Slavs (i.e. Ukranians) as dirty less-thans, just like the Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw a black college professor and New York Times contributor explaining how Ukrainian refugees are beneficiaries of white privilege. (All while enjoying the protection of the military might of the United States, I might add.)

Which is hilarious when you consider Hitler considered the Slavs (i.e. Ukranians) as dirty less-thans, just like the Jews.

NPR does it too:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083423348/europe-welcomes-ukrainian-refugees-but-others-less-so

Apparently if you really try hard to find racism it shows up everywhere. No other possible explanations accepted, white supremacy is the answer to everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Or you could, I don't know, spend 5 seconds googling the word "racism" if you're unclear what it means.

Every person knows what racism is. It follows from the golden rule, do to others what you would have them do to you. It is part of out tradition of equality under the rule of law etc.

The CRT proponents are dishonest because they use this universally accepted foundation to push for preferential treatment for *some* minorities they deem in need of help from the state. The equality principle of the golden rule is replaced with equity, typically just to cover a selfish interest in profiting from the good intent or guilt tripping of others. Look no further than the murky finances of BLM, to get a glimpse of splurging on lavish mansions under the guise of fighting racism. At least the public is waking up to this ruse.

That ... is not what CRT is.

Maybe you shouldn't participate in this conversation anymore since you obviously don't understand what's being discussed.

The racist Kendi (who IS taught in MCPS) says that racial discrimination [against whites] in laws and policies is necessary. This is classic CRT.

Not true.

Of course it's true.