CRT clubs in schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a troll post? It sure seems like it.

OP here. No, it’s not. It’s quite possible though that DD has a part of her who is doing this to troll certain adults.

.

It’s a troll post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of limiting the focus on CRT, maybe couch it as a Sociology club. This way they could address a broad scope of social topics including but not limited to race, religion and economic status, etc

Ah, but you would still have the problem about whether a diversity of thought would be allowed.

Why does a club have to allow diversity of thought?

I’m just wondering how a school group could prevent “diversity of thought.” What, are they going to muzzle certain folks? If people want to say something they can say it. Of course, other folks get to respond….

Depends on the response. If the response goes to the substance of the initial statement, there's no muzzling at all -- just differences of opinion. If the response takes the form of a personal attack or some kind of attempt at intimidation, then it looks like muzzling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of limiting the focus on CRT, maybe couch it as a Sociology club. This way they could address a broad scope of social topics including but not limited to race, religion and economic status, etc

Ah, but you would still have the problem about whether a diversity of thought would be allowed.

Why does a club have to allow diversity of thought?

I’m just wondering how a school group could prevent “diversity of thought.” What, are they going to muzzle certain folks? If people want to say something they can say it. Of course, other folks get to respond….

Depends on the response. If the response goes to the substance of the initial statement, there's no muzzling at all -- just differences of opinion. If the response takes the form of a personal attack or some kind of attempt at intimidation, then it looks like muzzling.

Of course, some folks are so fragile that they would experience any substantive response as a personal attack. Some folks just don’t want to made to feel “bad” about having certain views. But if I believe something, ain’t no one shaming me out of it…and I’m far from wokie-dokie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of limiting the focus on CRT, maybe couch it as a Sociology club. This way they could address a broad scope of social topics including but not limited to race, religion and economic status, etc

Ah, but you would still have the problem about whether a diversity of thought would be allowed.

Why does a club have to allow diversity of thought?

I’m just wondering how a school group could prevent “diversity of thought.” What, are they going to muzzle certain folks? If people want to say something they can say it. Of course, other folks get to respond….

Depends on the response. If the response goes to the substance of the initial statement, there's no muzzling at all -- just differences of opinion. If the response takes the form of a personal attack or some kind of attempt at intimidation, then it looks like muzzling.

Of course, some folks are so fragile that they would experience any substantive response as a personal attack. Some folks just don’t want to made to feel “bad” about having certain views. But if I believe something, ain’t no one shaming me out of it…and I’m far from wokie-dokie.

Haha. Snowflakes think being called a racist is a personal attack. Fragile white people. So delicate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of limiting the focus on CRT, maybe couch it as a Sociology club. This way they could address a broad scope of social topics including but not limited to race, religion and economic status, etc

Ah, but you would still have the problem about whether a diversity of thought would be allowed.

Why does a club have to allow diversity of thought?

I’m just wondering how a school group could prevent “diversity of thought.” What, are they going to muzzle certain folks? If people want to say something they can say it. Of course, other folks get to respond….

Depends on the response. If the response goes to the substance of the initial statement, there's no muzzling at all -- just differences of opinion. If the response takes the form of a personal attack or some kind of attempt at intimidation, then it looks like muzzling.

Of course, some folks are so fragile that they would experience any substantive response as a personal attack. Some folks just don’t want to made to feel “bad” about having certain views. But if I believe something, ain’t no one shaming me out of it…and I’m far from wokie-dokie.

Haha. Snowflakes think being called a racist is a personal attack. Fragile white people. So delicate.

As we’ve seen, for some folks any discussion of structural racism (or the degree thereof) is inherently problematic and they just don’t want to hear about whether or not anyone is questioning their racial motivations. No, the fragility alarm get triggered much further down the meter than personal accusations of racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of limiting the focus on CRT, maybe couch it as a Sociology club. This way they could address a broad scope of social topics including but not limited to race, religion and economic status, etc

Ah, but you would still have the problem about whether a diversity of thought would be allowed.

Why does a club have to allow diversity of thought?

I’m just wondering how a school group could prevent “diversity of thought.” What, are they going to muzzle certain folks? If people want to say something they can say it. Of course, other folks get to respond….

Depends on the response. If the response goes to the substance of the initial statement, there's no muzzling at all -- just differences of opinion. If the response takes the form of a personal attack or some kind of attempt at intimidation, then it looks like muzzling.

Of course, some folks are so fragile that they would experience any substantive response as a personal attack. Some folks just don’t want to made to feel “bad” about having certain views. But if I believe something, ain’t no one shaming me out of it…and I’m far from wokie-dokie.

Haha. Snowflakes think being called a racist is a personal attack. Fragile white people. So delicate.

Replace racist with whiner, and white with black. If that’s offensive to you then your original post is also offensive.

[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

People rejected CRT in VA. You should encourage DD to do something more important in life than hanging on to past

[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

People rejected CRT in VA. You should encourage DD to do something more important in life than hanging on to past

Not in NOVA. NOVA rejected Youngkin and his dumb a$$ lies about “CRT”.

Most of the MAGA losers are ROVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

People rejected CRT in VA. You should encourage DD to do something more important in life than hanging on to past

Not in NOVA. NOVA rejected Youngkin and his dumb a$$ lies about “CRT”.

Most of the MAGA losers are ROVA.

As parents our primary responsibility is to prepare the kids for future. Future is math and science/ No one cares about CRT and appeasement politics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

People rejected CRT in VA. You should encourage DD to do something more important in life than hanging on to past

Not in NOVA. NOVA rejected Youngkin and his dumb a$$ lies about “CRT”.

Most of the MAGA losers are ROVA.

As parents our primary responsibility is to prepare the kids for future. Future is math and science/ No one cares about CRT and appeasement politics

No one with >2 brain cells cares about CRT because it isn’t happening here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of limiting the focus on CRT, maybe couch it as a Sociology club. This way they could address a broad scope of social topics including but not limited to race, religion and economic status, etc

Ah, but you would still have the problem about whether a diversity of thought would be allowed.

Why does a club have to allow diversity of thought?

I’m just wondering how a school group could prevent “diversity of thought.” What, are they going to muzzle certain folks? If people want to say something they can say it. Of course, other folks get to respond….

Depends on the response. If the response goes to the substance of the initial statement, there's no muzzling at all -- just differences of opinion. If the response takes the form of a personal attack or some kind of attempt at intimidation, then it looks like muzzling.

Of course, some folks are so fragile that they would experience any substantive response as a personal attack. Some folks just don’t want to made to feel “bad” about having certain views. But if I believe something, ain’t no one shaming me out of it…and I’m far from wokie-dokie.

Haha. Snowflakes think being called a racist is a personal attack. Fragile white people. So delicate.

As we’ve seen, for some folks any discussion of structural racism (or the degree thereof) is inherently problematic and they just don’t want to hear about whether or not anyone is questioning their racial motivations. No, the fragility alarm get triggered much further down the meter than personal accusations of racism.

The messaging on the far left is so dumb. It's like "defund the police" which could have described the same thing with less backlash by talking about "reform the police." They could have dodged like 90% of the backlash by just talking about structural inequality caused by racism. But, by broadening "racism" to include "structural racism," now they sound like they're calling everyone who doesn't agree with them a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of limiting the focus on CRT, maybe couch it as a Sociology club. This way they could address a broad scope of social topics including but not limited to race, religion and economic status, etc

Ah, but you would still have the problem about whether a diversity of thought would be allowed.

Why does a club have to allow diversity of thought?

I’m just wondering how a school group could prevent “diversity of thought.” What, are they going to muzzle certain folks? If people want to say something they can say it. Of course, other folks get to respond….

Depends on the response. If the response goes to the substance of the initial statement, there's no muzzling at all -- just differences of opinion. If the response takes the form of a personal attack or some kind of attempt at intimidation, then it looks like muzzling.

Of course, some folks are so fragile that they would experience any substantive response as a personal attack. Some folks just don’t want to made to feel “bad” about having certain views. But if I believe something, ain’t no one shaming me out of it…and I’m far from wokie-dokie.

Haha. Snowflakes think being called a racist is a personal attack. Fragile white people. So delicate.

As we’ve seen, for some folks any discussion of structural racism (or the degree thereof) is inherently problematic and they just don’t want to hear about whether or not anyone is questioning their racial motivations. No, the fragility alarm get triggered much further down the meter than personal accusations of racism.

The messaging on the far left is so dumb. It's like "defund the police" which could have described the same thing with less backlash by talking about "reform the police." They could have dodged like 90% of the backlash by just talking about structural inequality caused by racism. But, by broadening "racism" to include "structural racism," now they sound like they're calling everyone who doesn't agree with them a racist.

THis is not the messaging on the left--there's a wide variety of groups with a lot of different perspectives--it's not some organized structure! And then the media takes up whatever gets the more "clicks."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The messaging on the far left is so dumb. It's like "defund the police" which could have described the same thing with less backlash by talking about "reform the police." They could have dodged like 90% of the backlash by just talking about structural inequality caused by racism. But, by broadening "racism" to include "structural racism," now they sound like they're calling everyone who doesn't agree with them a racist.

THis is not the messaging on the left--there's a wide variety of groups with a lot of different perspectives--it's not some organized structure! And then the media takes up whatever gets the more "clicks."

Fair point about the left not being organized. But, also too, "the media" is also a wide variety of groups with a lot of different perspectives, not some organized structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The messaging on the far left is so dumb. It's like "defund the police" which could have described the same thing with less backlash by talking about "reform the police." They could have dodged like 90% of the backlash by just talking about structural inequality caused by racism. But, by broadening "racism" to include "structural racism," now they sound like they're calling everyone who doesn't agree with them a racist.

THis is not the messaging on the left--there's a wide variety of groups with a lot of different perspectives--it's not some organized structure! And then the media takes up whatever gets the more "clicks."

Fair point about the left not being organized. But, also too, "the media" is also a wide variety of groups with a lot of different perspectives, not some organized structure.

Sure, but the media though is profit-driven so it will tend to report in a way that drums up attention. Sure different outlets have different niche audience/set of perspectives, but most need to make money so they tend to skew sensationalist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The messaging on the far left is so dumb. It's like "defund the police" which could have described the same thing with less backlash by talking about "reform the police." They could have dodged like 90% of the backlash by just talking about structural inequality caused by racism. But, by broadening "racism" to include "structural racism," now they sound like they're calling everyone who doesn't agree with them a racist.

THis is not the messaging on the left--there's a wide variety of groups with a lot of different perspectives--it's not some organized structure! And then the media takes up whatever gets the more "clicks."

Fair point about the left not being organized. But, also too, "the media" is also a wide variety of groups with a lot of different perspectives, not some organized structure.

One problem is that the "liberal" media lazily conflates the "left" and "left-wing twitter" with the Democrats writ large. So if some lefty folks say something it's imputed to dem officeholders who are them called to disavow it, which actually has the practical effect of associating them even more with whatever the crazy mantra of the day it. It's funny how the crazy sh*t that even sitting republican officeholders say is almost NEVER imputed to the party writ large. Oh no...that wouldn't be fair.