Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:22.5 years for chauvin

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:22.5 years for chauvin

He'll be out again with plenty of time to exact his revenge.

Fuck this guy.

tragabigzanda wrote:He’ll fall in the shower

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

that should be titled "What I get wrong about CRT" as what he is describing is social science, not CRT. His "1+1=2 is true" example is perfect illustration of this misunderstanding. (I will admit it's significantly better than your baseline posts on the topic)

Saying things like "to my knowledge it's not being taught to 4th graders" is both correct and incorrect. It's correct in that the conceptual framework behind CRT is not being taught. IOW, there is no evidence the theory itself is being taught. It's incorrect in that the application of that framework is being forced onto unrelated subjects. "This is not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory." The distinction is crucial. Here's an example from Glendale, California:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ogxk0w ... 6Bl3s/view

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I'd be terrified to learn what "comprehensive education on race" really means.

Are the flagellant whips supplied or do the students have to purchase them on their own?

Look I’m not any more interested in a white-shame education than you are. But I’m all for an education that identifies critical points of economic or power disparities, and shows how those disparities can be addressed.

BurtReynolds wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I'd be terrified to learn what "comprehensive education on race" really means.

Are the flagellant whips supplied or do the students have to purchase them on their own?

Look I’m not any more interested in a white-shame education than you are. But I’m all for an education that identifies critical points of economic or power disparities, and shows how those disparities can be addressed.

The problem is that CRT hides those points of power disparities rather than expose them, which is why the fixation on race has been wholeheartedly embraced by the elites and institutions of power.

I'd be in favor of teaching kids the tools to analyze these problems themselves, but have no faith that these people are the ones to do that. Their goal is to instill the conclusions they want as dogma to be mindlessly followed. The state has no incentive to teach kids to be better able to recognize where power lies or to think for themselves.

BurtReynolds wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I'd be terrified to learn what "comprehensive education on race" really means.

Are the flagellant whips supplied or do the students have to purchase them on their own?

Look I’m not any more interested in a white-shame education than you are. But I’m all for an education that identifies critical points of economic or power disparities, and shows how those disparities can be addressed.

The problem is that CRT hides those points of power disparities rather than expose them, which is why the fixation on race has been wholeheartedly embraced by the elites and institutions of power.

I'd be in favor of teaching kids the tools to analyze these problems themselves, but have no faith that these people are the ones to do that. Their goal is to instill the conclusions they want as dogma to be mindlessly followed. The state has no incentive to teach kids to be better able to recognize where power lies or to think for themselves.

tragabigzanda wrote:Yeah I don’t know enough about CRT and what the proposed curriculum looks like to really have an opinion. Sounds to me like one of those terms (like cancel culture or green new deal) that is loosely defined and mostly being used as a political football?

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Yeah I don’t know enough about CRT and what the proposed curriculum looks like to really have an opinion. Sounds to me like one of those terms (like cancel culture or green new deal) that is loosely defined and mostly being used as a political football?

This is my take, too.

A few months ago I interviewed Charles Mills, a philosopher whose most famous book, The Racial Contract, published in 1997, offers an alternative reading (you could call it a critical race theorists’ reading) of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant—the Enlightenment thinkers who, anticipating liberal democracy, all argued (to put it crudely) that a legitimate government must have the consent of the governed....
Mills told me that not all of his colleagues understand him. “They say, ‘Why are you trying to keep this tradition alive? We should jettison this whole way of doing political philosophy and basically start anew.’” But he disagrees. “There is a dynamism inside liberalism that they miss,” he told me. The huge advantage of liberal democracy over other political systems is that its leadership constantly adjusts and changes, shifting to absorb new people and ideas. Liberal democracies don’t try, as Soviet Marxism once did, to make everybody agree about everything, all the time.

Dscans wrote:I also liked Annie Applebaum's column: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ws/619308/

Liberal democracies don’t try, as Soviet Marxism once did, to make everybody agree about everything, all the time.