Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Jimmy Higgins]

Article on Sundown Counties and Trump's election (2016). Another article from 2020. Not really certain on getting a source regarding him doing rallies in sundown towns. I hadn't even heard the term up till now. *sigh*

 

[ZiprHead]

@ZiprHead link?

Sorry. I don't have a link. It was a TV news story I saw after Trump's last (iirc) rally.

 

[laughing dog]

I better not see Bomb Hashtag 30

It's not a hashtag; it's a "number" symbol, from back before hashtags were a thing. Bomb Number Twenty was an AI character in an ancient SciFi movie, a spoof of HAL from "2001".

talk bout some old "don't blame me for what people did in the past" all while being ok with similar rubbish being done now.

Well, if you ever see me do something you disapprove of, feel free to raise the issue then. This isn't "Minority Report"; we aren't debating pre-crime.

Yes we are.

Exactly. Laws that define actions that as illegal or not permissible are laws against pre-crime. That ought to be obvious to anyone who is even half awake.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Article on Sundown Counties and Trump's election (2016). Another article from 2020. Not really certain on getting a source regarding him doing rallies in sundown towns. I hadn't even heard the term up till now. *sigh*

Likewise. I was aware there used to be places where blacks were supposed to leave before sundown, but I never realized they were as big as a county.

 

[Bomb#20]

But that is not the case.

Isn't it? Can you explain in what way "You mistake the symptom for the disease - racism is the reason, ALEC is the vector." is substantively different rhetoric from "Oh noes CRT is tantamount to Marxism", apart from the circumstance that one has a target you approve of and the other does not?

Frankly, it does not matter what inspired anti-CRT. If "love of evidence" inspired anti-CRT as it stands does that make anti-CRT more acceptable than if _____ism(you fill in the blank)? The whole "Oh noes anti-CRT is tantamount to racism" is mindless leftwing hysteria to avoid the actual content of CRT.

Tell you what - provide some evidence that the anti-CRT has some and you have a point.

Been there, done that -- we all beat this topic to death a year ago in the "What, exactly, is CRT?" thread. (Besides which, you haven't provided evidence that the CRT crowd has some "love of justice".)

First. I made no claim about what inspired CRT. None.

And I made no claim about what inspired Anti-CRT. We're both speaking in hypotheticals.

Second, you missed my point that it doesn't matter what inspired CRT - it is the content of CRT that is important, not the inspiration.

What planet are you on? Of course I didn't miss your point -- I obviously had to have grasped your point in order to have observed that you were applying that point asymmetrically. You are correct that it doesn't matter what inspired CRT -- it is the content of CRT that is important, not the inspiration. But you should have likewise figured out that it doesn't matter what inspired Anti-CRT -- it is the content of Anti-CRT that is important, not the inspiration -- and thereby realized "racism is the reason" was every bit as mindlessly hysterical a thing to say as the "Oh noes CRT is tantamount to Marxism" you condemned as mindless hysteria.

(And before somebody cuts in here with the predictable but wrong rejoinder, I expect I need to point out that it should be painfully obvious by now that the reason I presented evidence of CRT's Marxist inspiration was not to spread "Oh noes" hysteria, but to correct the record, which is something that needed to be done because the OP had trumped-up a false and inflammatory accusation against his political opponents, and that is a rhetorical tactic ideological partisans ought not to be allowed to get away with.)

And, while I understand you feel that you have "been there, done that", understand that I think you have not.

Opinions are like that other thing everybody has one of. But if you wish to pursue "it is the content of CRT that is important" here in this "Hysteria" thread, understand that no two people agree on what CRT is. So it's useless to debate its merits in the abstract with nothing to go on but the name; we need a specific statement of CRT's contentions to debate. That's what we had in last year's thread: one of the posters gave a detailed explanation of what he took CRT to be. When I said "been there, done that", I was referring to my having presented evidence that the theory as that poster described it was wrong. Every other CRT supporter is of course free to give some different explanation of what theory she means when she advocates CRT; and all the various versions of the ideology will need to be refuted/justified retail, not wholesale.

So if you wish to pursue "it is the content of CRT that is important" here in this thread, feel free to explain CRT as you understand it, and then we can evaluate the evidence for and against it.

Their "guilt by association with Marxists" is not evidence.

Your "guilt by association with racists" is not evidence. See how it works?

I didn't make such a claim.

No? Then what the bejesus was your point when you wrote "You mistake the symptom for the disease - racism is the reason, ALEC is the vector."?

But I am glad that you now understand that "guilt by association with Marxists" is not evidence because in post #13 it appears you did not.

If it appears that way to you then that's poor reading comprehension on your part -- nowhere in that post did I indicate there's anything wrong with Marxists or association with them. CRT's association with Marxists may not be evidence of CRT's guilt -- and I didn't offer it as such -- but it's certainly evidence of the OP's guilt.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm sorry to have been insufficiently clear. I was not challenging your assertion that the laws affect everyone. I was asking you to tell me what you think the mechanism is by which these laws affect everyone in spite of being allegedly laws against a thing that allegedly no one does. Is it because

(a) they prohibit teaching CRT and the courts mistake something else for CRT, or is it because
(b) they prohibit teaching something other than CRT, or is it because
(c) of some other mechanism.

Pick one. If you pick (c), please explain the mechanism.

The answer is all of the below.

(a) Have you stopped beating your wife?
(b) Have you stopped beating your wife?
(c) Have you stopped beating your wife?

I.e., you're unwilling to be cross-examined. You won't tell me what you think the means are by which the laws you're referring to have the effects you assert they have. Maybe that's because you aren't sure enough you're right to be willing to let your claims be tested; or maybe you're just ornery. Whatever. Let's try this a different way...

Then why do you care about CRT at all? Why aren't you equally waiting for evidence of CRT being a part of the public school curriculum before you start posting in a CRT thread? What makes its potential Marxistness different from anything else about it?

I care because Republican law makers are making laws that are effecting everyone to prevent something that didn't happen to anyone.

Which specific laws are you referring to?

CRT is/was being taught in Florida public schools (or any school in the country)? No? Doesn't matter, there is a law against it so it must have been real.

I'm not even going to get into the dangers of creating laws for imagined crimes because we'd end up talking about whitey's history. The same whitey this anti-CRT law is meant to appease.

What law is there against teaching CRT that you are calling "this anti-CRT law"? Do you mean Florida HB7, the so-called "Stop Woke" law?

I think the word you were looking for was irony. CRT was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever. Existing laws were in place to protect white people from discrimination. The only purpose this addition to Florida Law is to tell a bunch of punk ass white people not to worry about that thing that isn't happening because the precrime police is on the job.

What evidence do you have that that's the only purpose? What evidence do you have that that's even one of its purposes?

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

 

[Ford]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

We've been over this with the "don't say gay" law. No, it is not called the "don't say gay" law, yet that is the clear intent behind the law.

The game is the same. Politician rails against thing (CRT, for example) at every opportunity. Says on cable news, in campaign rallies, and in ads that "we must stop the teaching of CRT to our elementary school kids." Claims to be proposing legislation to "stop this Critical Race Theory stuff from poisoning our schools." Pro (politician) PACs run ads saying "(politician) will stop the radical left from teaching your children Critical Race Theory!"

Then when legislation is proposed, passed, and signed with the clear intent of doing this, they turn around and say "what? This isn't about CRT! It doesn't say CRT or Critical Race Theory anywhere in the bill! How dare you!"

Lather, rinse, repeat. The "well those words don't appear anywhere in the text of (insert law here)" is bullshit as old as the hills. It's like the opposite of "the phrase Separation of Church and State appears nowhere in the Constitution, therefore no such thing exists in our laws" argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm sorry to have been insufficiently clear. I was not challenging your assertion that the laws affect everyone. I was asking you to tell me what you think the mechanism is by which these laws affect everyone in spite of being allegedly laws against a thing that allegedly no one does. Is it because

(a) they prohibit teaching CRT and the courts mistake something else for CRT, or is it because
(b) they prohibit teaching something other than CRT, or is it because
(c) of some other mechanism.

Pick one. If you pick (c), please explain the mechanism.

The answer is all of the below.

(a) Have you stopped beating your wife?
(b) Have you stopped beating your wife?
(c) Have you stopped beating your wife?

I.e., you're unwilling to be cross-examined. You won't tell me what you think the means are by which the laws you're referring to have the effects you assert they have. Maybe that's because you aren't sure enough you're right to be willing to let your claims be tested; or maybe you're just ornery. Whatever. Let's try this a different way...

Then why do you care about CRT at all? Why aren't you equally waiting for evidence of CRT being a part of the public school curriculum before you start posting in a CRT thread? What makes its potential Marxistness different from anything else about it?

I care because Republican law makers are making laws that are effecting everyone to prevent something that didn't happen to anyone.

Which specific laws are you referring to?

CRT is/was being taught in Florida public schools (or any school in the country)? No? Doesn't matter, there is a law against it so it must have been real.

I'm not even going to get into the dangers of creating laws for imagined crimes because we'd end up talking about whitey's history. The same whitey this anti-CRT law is meant to appease.

What law is there against teaching CRT that you are calling "this anti-CRT law"? Do you mean Florida HB7, the so-called "Stop Woke" law?

I think the word you were looking for was irony. CRT was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever. Existing laws were in place to protect white people from discrimination. The only purpose this addition to Florida Law is to tell a bunch of punk ass white people not to worry about that thing that isn't happening because the precrime police is on the job.

What evidence do you have that that's the only purpose? What evidence do you have that that's even one of its purposes?

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Jebus! With liberals like you, who needs alt-right fascists?

 

[laughing dog]

But that is not the case.

Isn't it? Can you explain in what way "You mistake the symptom for the disease - racism is the reason, ALEC is the vector." is substantively different rhetoric from "Oh noes CRT is tantamount to Marxism", apart from the circumstance that one has a target you approve of and the other does not?

Yes I can explain it. I

Second, you missed my point that it doesn't matter what inspired CRT - it is the content of CRT that is important, not the inspiration.

What planet are you on? Of course I didn't miss your point -- I obviously had to have grasped your point in order to have observed that you were applying that point asymmetrically. You are correct that it doesn't matter what inspired CRT -- it is the content of CRT that is important, not the inspiration. But you should have likewise figured out that it doesn't matter what inspired Anti-CRT -- it is the content of Anti-CRT that is important, not the inspiration -- and thereby realized "racism is the reason" was every bit as mindlessly hysterical a thing to say as the "Oh noes CRT is tantamount to Marxism" you condemned as mindless hysteria.

Racism does play into how one's views content.

(And before somebody cuts in here with the predictable but wrong rejoinder, I expect I need to point out that it should be painfully obvious by now that the reason I presented evidence of CRT's Marxist inspiration was not to spread "Oh noes" hysteria, but to correct the record, which is something that needed to be done because the OP had trumped-up a false and inflammatory accusation against his political opponents, and that is a rhetorical tactic ideological partisans ought not to be allowed to get away with.)

Except you are not "correcting the record", you are repeating your tribal chant. Being inspired by a Marxist is not the same as being inspired by Marxism. Marxism is analysis by class not race. Taking the idea of looking as how classes use their status and power in society might have inspired CRT theorists to use the idea of race in the same way.

And, while I understand you feel that you have "been there, done that", understand that I think you have not.

Opinions are like that other thing everybody has one of. But if you wish to pursue "it is the content of CRT that is important" here in this "Hysteria" thread, understand that no two people agree on what CRT is. So it's useless to debate its merits in the abstract with nothing to go on but the name; we need a specific statement of CRT's contentions to debate. That's what we had in last year's thread: one of the posters gave a detailed explanation of what he took CRT to be. When I said "been there, done that", I was referring to my having presented evidence that the theory as that poster described it was wrong. Every other CRT supporter is of course free to give some different explanation of what theory she means when she advocates CRT; and all the various versions of the ideology will need to be refuted/justified retail, not wholesale.

So if you wish to pursue "it is the content of CRT that is important" here in this thread, feel free to explain CRT as you understand it, and then we can evaluate the evidence for and against it.

I do not wish to pursue. You brought this up, not me. But I have been there and done that - you failed in showing that version of CRT was wrong.

Their "guilt by association with Marxists" is not evidence.

Your "guilt by association with racists" is not evidence. See how it works?

I didn't make such a claim.

No? Then what the bejesus was your point when you wrote "You mistake the symptom for the disease - racism is the reason, ALEC is the vector."?

I meant what I said. I am sorry you are appear of incapable of understanding it.

But I am glad that you now understand that "guilt by association with Marxists" is not evidence because in post #13 it appears you did not.

If it appears that way to you then that's poor reading comprehension on your part -- nowhere in that post did I indicate there's anything wrong with Marxists or association with them. CRT's association with Marxists may not be evidence of CRT's guilt -- and I didn't offer it as such -- but it's certainly evidence of the OP's guilt.

Sure Jan. Even a cursory reading of the OP's "Based on BS, claims CRT is based on Marxism and Post Modernism, it has become one big extreme right dirty trick? reveals your bonehead error.

".

 

[Bomb#20]

Jebus! With liberals like you, who needs alt-right fascists?

 

[Bomb#20]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

That is libel. You do not have a reason to believe that. You have trumped up a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. You and the four people who "Liked" your post should all be ashamed of yourselves. Learn to conduct yourselves better, and learn to think better.

 

[Gospel]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

That is libel. You do not have a reason to believe that. You have trumped up a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. You and the four people who "Liked" your post should all be ashamed of yourselves. Learn to conduct yourselves better, and learn to think better.

Sorry if you were serious but this has to be one of the most hilarious posts I've ever seen from you. Hats off to you.

 

[laughing dog]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

That is libel. You do not have a reason to believe that.

That is a libelous statement. You may believe someone has no good or valid reason to have such a belief. Frankly, the level of obtuseness or cognitive dissonance in your argument was pretty unbelievable.

You have trumped up a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. You and the four people who "Liked" your post should all be ashamed of yourselves. Learn to conduct yourselves better, and learn to think better.

Why not lead by example for a change, Mr. Manners?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jebus! With liberals like you, who needs alt-right fascists?

Dude, if you are going to give them the keys to the kingdom and defend their actions, what the fuck do you expect from us? Your argument is effective the CRT version of the "George W. Bush never said 'Hussein caused 9/11'."

GOP politicians are railing on CRT. The Virginia Governor made it a centerpiece issue when he ran!

This shit is happening all across the country.

June 2021

Since January 2021, 42 states have introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism, according to an Education Week analysis. Seventeen states have imposed these bans and restrictions either through legislation or other avenues.

March 2022

A total of 16 states so far have signed into law bills restricting education on race in classrooms or state agencies.

There are currently 19 states that are considering bills or policies that restrict race education in schools or state agencies.

You read through the OH legislation and, boy... it is shocking that the GOP didn't pass these bills in the 1960s. Passed 60 years later... reads like an racist anti-racist bill. This is the text of most concern, it speaks to what is forbidden in class with 1-7 really being the same thing repeated over and over again:

(7) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;

That guilt bullshit again.

(10) The advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States;

(11) With respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.

What the fuck does this even mean?!

And here is the real one.

(C) If a student completes a course that includes any of the concepts described in divisions (A)(1) to (11) of this section, that course shall not count towards the requirements for high school graduation specified in section 3313.603 of the Revised Code.

Yes, 1-6 are things that should be disallowed in any and every classroom in Ohio, but of course, it wasn't happening in any systemic nature to begin with, if it were happening in isolated classrooms at all. Issue 7 is such a meaningless and amorphous standard. 9 to 11? They are suggesting credit no be allowed... which means not graduating! But no pressure on the teachers.

 

[Oleg]

You read through the OH legislation and, boy... it is shocking that the GOP didn't pass these bills in the 1960s. Passed 60 years later... reads like an racist anti-racist bill. This is the text of most concern, it speaks to what is forbidden in class with 1-7 really being the same thing repeated over and over again:

(7) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;

That guilt bullshit again.

Hang on. Are you saying that children should be taught to feel guilt and anguish because of their race or sex?

 

[Ford]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

That is libel. You do not have a reason to believe that. You have trumped up a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. You and the four people who "Liked" your post should all be ashamed of yourselves. Learn to conduct yourselves better, and learn to think better.

I explained my reasoning very clearly. You're just butt hurt that someone called you out on your "but the law doesn't say those exact words" bullshit.

The entire right wing is behind the bullshit platform of banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory in elementary schools. They rail about it on angry cable news shows, scream about it at school board meetings, use it as a talking point in debates, and fill their speeches with "OMG CRT" talk on the regular.

Denying this is simple dishonesty. The GOP is trying to codify a whitewashed version of history where the slave trade was just a bargain labor program, the wiping out of indigenous people was "exploration" of "uninhabited" lands, we welcomed Asians with open arms and totally didn't fuck them over, and that racism ended with a single speech by noted Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Oleg]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

That is libel. You do not have a reason to believe that. You have trumped up a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. You and the four people who "Liked" your post should all be ashamed of yourselves. Learn to conduct yourselves better, and learn to think better.

I explained my reasoning very clearly. You're just butt hurt that someone called you out on your "but the law doesn't say those exact words" bullshit.

The entire right wing is behind the bullshit platform of banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory in elementary schools. They rail about it on angry cable news shows, scream about it at school board meetings, use it as a talking point in debates, and fill their speeches with "OMG CRT" talk on the regular.

Denying this is simple dishonesty. The GOP is trying to codify a whitewashed version of history where the slave trade was just a bargain labor program, the wiping out of indigenous people was "exploration" of "uninhabited" lands, we welcomed Asians with open arms and totally didn't fuck them over, and that racism ended with a single speech by noted Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It so silly this attempted gaslighting on CRT. CRT, as its creators freely admit, is looking at everything, everything, through a racial lense. That has no place in the public classroom.

 

[laughing dog]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

That is libel. You do not have a reason to believe that. You have trumped up a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. You and the four people who "Liked" your post should all be ashamed of yourselves. Learn to conduct yourselves better, and learn to think better.

I explained my reasoning very clearly. You're just butt hurt that someone called you out on your "but the law doesn't say those exact words" bullshit.

The entire right wing is behind the bullshit platform of banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory in elementary schools. They rail about it on angry cable news shows, scream about it at school board meetings, use it as a talking point in debates, and fill their speeches with "OMG CRT" talk on the regular.

Denying this is simple dishonesty. The GOP is trying to codify a whitewashed version of history where the slave trade was just a bargain labor program, the wiping out of indigenous people was "exploration" of "uninhabited" lands, we welcomed Asians with open arms and totally didn't fuck them over, and that racism ended with a single speech by noted Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It so silly this attempted gaslighting on CRT. CRT, as its creators freely admit, is looking at everything, everything, through a racial lense. That has no place in the public classroom.

Why would looking through a racial lens have no place in any classroom? That would prohibit discussions of racism for example.

 

[Oleg]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

That is libel. You do not have a reason to believe that. You have trumped up a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. You and the four people who "Liked" your post should all be ashamed of yourselves. Learn to conduct yourselves better, and learn to think better.

I explained my reasoning very clearly. You're just butt hurt that someone called you out on your "but the law doesn't say those exact words" bullshit.

The entire right wing is behind the bullshit platform of banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory in elementary schools. They rail about it on angry cable news shows, scream about it at school board meetings, use it as a talking point in debates, and fill their speeches with "OMG CRT" talk on the regular.

Denying this is simple dishonesty. The GOP is trying to codify a whitewashed version of history where the slave trade was just a bargain labor program, the wiping out of indigenous people was "exploration" of "uninhabited" lands, we welcomed Asians with open arms and totally didn't fuck them over, and that racism ended with a single speech by noted Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It so silly this attempted gaslighting on CRT. CRT, as its creators freely admit, is looking at everything, everything, through a racial lense. That has no place in the public classroom.

Why would looking through a racial lens have no place in any classroom? That would prohibit discussions of racism for example.

No it wouldn't. But at least you acknowledge what CRT is. When all you have is a hammer . . .

 

[laughing dog]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

Oh look! A disingenuous argument!

That is libel. You do not have a reason to believe that. You have trumped up a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. You and the four people who "Liked" your post should all be ashamed of yourselves. Learn to conduct yourselves better, and learn to think better.

I explained my reasoning very clearly. You're just butt hurt that someone called you out on your "but the law doesn't say those exact words" bullshit.

The entire right wing is behind the bullshit platform of banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory in elementary schools. They rail about it on angry cable news shows, scream about it at school board meetings, use it as a talking point in debates, and fill their speeches with "OMG CRT" talk on the regular.

Denying this is simple dishonesty. The GOP is trying to codify a whitewashed version of history where the slave trade was just a bargain labor program, the wiping out of indigenous people was "exploration" of "uninhabited" lands, we welcomed Asians with open arms and totally didn't fuck them over, and that racism ended with a single speech by noted Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It so silly this attempted gaslighting on CRT. CRT, as its creators freely admit, is looking at everything, everything, through a racial lense. That has no place in the public classroom.

Why would looking through a racial lens have no place in any classroom? That would prohibit discussions of racism for example.

No it wouldn't. But at least you acknowledge what CRT is. When all you have is a hammer . . .

I acknowledged nothing. I simply pointed out that your conclusion (regardless of its premise) was utterly untrue.