Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Gospel]

Are you under the impression that "lie" is a word that means "say something Gospel doesn't believe"?

No. This means I don't have to answer your other bullshit question right?

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey guys, thanks for making me go look up the word -- learn something new every day!

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

"SYNONYMS FOR disingenuous​

naive​

obtuse​

..."​

[/sarcasm]

I'm just curious how you found this. Nobody mentioned "disingenuous," did they?

When I Google "site:thesaurus.com naive obtuse" the top hits are

53 Synonyms & Antonyms for NAIVE - Thesaurus.com
28 Synonyms & Antonyms for DUMB - Thesaurus.com
50 Synonyms & Antonyms for OBLIVIOUS - Thesaurus.com
13 Synonyms & Antonyms for BRAINLESS - Thesaurus.com
synonyms for unknowledgeable - Thesaurus.com
75 Synonyms & Antonyms for SAVVY - Thesaurus.com
49 Synonyms & Antonyms for DENSE - Thesaurus.com
53 Synonyms & Antonyms for IGNORANT - Thesaurus.com
33 Synonyms & Antonyms for GULLIBLE - Thesaurus.com
70 Synonyms & Antonyms for SHREWD - Thesaurus.com

Ford did WAY back in pointing out that the bomb of the 20 hashtags or whatever was making a disingenuous argument, the disingenuousness being either in the sale of this bill as banning CRT or in the failure of the bill to actually ban "CRT".

The disingenuousness is designed, of course, to hide that the bill was never about CRT but about banning comprehensive discussions conservatives don't like about consent in society.

 

[laughing dog]

When you accuse somebody of dishonesty, finding that to justify your claim you need to put words in his mouth should be a red flag to you that your brain has malfunctioned. Your behavior is an object lesson in the Dunning–Kruger effect.

He wasn't accusing you of dishonesty. Just noting that you are arguing the hopelessly naïve (at best) side of this, while Oleg has gone full CRT.

I think you meant “obtuse”, but naive is shorter.

Hey guys, thanks for making me go look up the word -- learn something new every day!

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

"SYNONYMS FOR disingenuous
naive
obtuse
..."​

[/sarcasm]

Using feigned obtuseness to defend against an observation of obtuseness backfires.

To be clear for the obtuse, that is not sarcasm but an observation.

 

[Elixir]

Using feigned obtuseness to defend against an observation of obtuseness backfires.

Wow. I’m up to at least fours ways to read that sentence, and not done yet.

 

[Jarhyn]

Using feigned obtuseness to defend against an observation of obtuseness backfires.

Wow. I’m up to at least fours ways to read that sentence, and not done yet.

Oh God I can't unsee it I hate you both.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hey guys, thanks for making me go look up the word -- learn something new every day!

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

"SYNONYMS FOR disingenuous​

naive​

obtuse​

..."​

[/sarcasm]

I'm just curious how you found this. Nobody mentioned "disingenuous," did they?

Yes, Ford answered one of my posts with "Oh look! A disingenuous argument!". That's what started this whole spat.

https://iidb.org/threads/anti-crt-hysteria.26627/page-2#post-1052254

When I Google "site:thesaurus.com naive obtuse" the top hits are ...

Bingo. As you observed, "disingenuous" doesn't make the cut. So when JH and LD rushed to Ford's defense, arguing he was only calling me naive or obtuse, they were being ridiculous. So I pointed out they were being ridiculous.

Ford did WAY back

Where "WAY back" means "two days earlier". Some of us still have to work for a living.

in pointing out that the bomb of the 20 hashtags or whatever was making a disingenuous argument, the disingenuousness being either in the sale of this bill as banning CRT or in the failure of the bill to actually ban "CRT".

That. Exactly how some purported impropriety on the part of the legislators in writing and/or selling their bill was supposed to make my argument disingenuous, Ford didn't bother to explain, but I guess that's between him and his religion.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you under the impression that "lie" is a word that means "say something Gospel doesn't believe"?

No. This means I don't have to answer your other ... question right?

No, the fact that it's a free country means you don't have to answer my other question. But since you know "lie" is not a word that means "say something Gospel doesn't believe", it follows that you ought to recognize that your earlier answer to my earlier question can't be right.

What do you think the mechanism is by which the laws you're talking about affect everyone?

Lying to everyone by confirming their fears of something that does not exist.

How do the laws lie to everyone? Do you mean the thing they confirm everyone's fears of is a thing the legislators who enacted the laws believe not to exist?

I think you should seek help. I said how in the post you replied to....

No, you didn't say how the laws lie to everyone. You only said how the laws tell everyone something you don't believe. You didn't say how that's a lie -- you didn't say how the laws tell everyone something the laws' authors don't believe.

We all get that you believe CRT was not a part of any Florida school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade, but your belief isn't the issue. Do you have evidence that the Florida legislators believed CRT was not a part of any Florida school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade?

That's another question you don't have to answer, if you're content to live in an echo chamber.

 

[Ford]

Hey guys, thanks for making me go look up the word -- learn something new every day!

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

"SYNONYMS FOR disingenuous​

naive​

obtuse​

..."​

[/sarcasm]

I'm just curious how you found this. Nobody mentioned "disingenuous," did they?

Yes, Ford answered one of my posts with "Oh look! A disingenuous argument!". That's what started this whole spat.

https://iidb.org/threads/anti-crt-hysteria.26627/page-2#post-1052254

When I Google "site:thesaurus.com naive obtuse" the top hits are ...

Bingo. As you observed, "disingenuous" doesn't make the cut. So when JH and LD rushed to Ford's defense, arguing he was only calling me naive or obtuse, they were being ridiculous. So I pointed out they were being ridiculous.

Ford did WAY back

Where "WAY back" means "two days earlier". Some of us still have to work for a living.

in pointing out that the bomb of the 20 hashtags or whatever was making a disingenuous argument, the disingenuousness being either in the sale of this bill as banning CRT or in the failure of the bill to actually ban "CRT".

That. Exactly how some purported impropriety on the part of the legislators in writing and/or selling their bill was supposed to make my argument disingenuous, Ford didn't bother to explain, but I guess that's between him and his religion.

I explained it. You even linked it. My explanation stands.

The topic at hand is "anti-CRT hysteria." This is accurate. It is bullshit. CRT being foisted on unsuspecting elementary school students is as real as school districts being compelled to set out litter boxes so that kids who identify as animals can take a shit in the middle of math class. That's also bullshit. Or the "don't say gay" bills that are alleged to "protect" kids from hearing such explicit sexual content as using the word "partner" to identify the...partner...of the 3rd grade teacher.

OMG will someone think of the children. That's sarcasm.

I used 3rd grade teacher as an example for a reason. My 3rd grade teacher was a wonderful man the kids called "Mr. V" because most 8 year olds in our small town couldn't pronounce his real last name. Mr. V was funny, animated, outrageous, and a man who cared about every one of the kids in his class. He so embraced his Mr. V personality that he had his last name legally changed to "Vee." Years later when I was an adult, I went out to dinner with my mom, Mr. V, and his partner.

Yes, Mr. V was a gay man. He couldn't be openly gay back when he was my teacher in a small town in 1975. It wasn't until over a decade later that he could comfortably come out to folks like myself and my mom. While it was not codified into law (like Ron DeSantis and now Republicans generally want to do), he lived under a de facto "don't say gay" environment. Had he lived his truth back then, he'd have been run out of town, or at the very least pushed back into the closet and lost his job.

And that's the fucked up thing. It's been almost 50 years since I had Mr. V as a teacher, and a whole lot of right wingers want to go right back to those days where an elementary school teacher is too terrified to put a picture of their same sex partner on their desk for fear of reprisals.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

But you already know from your participation in other threads that various screaming about CRT is being used as a tool by propagandists and such methods include redefining it and promoting legislation that includes the text in this legislation. So you know the legislation is highly associated to CRT. Given you know this association exists, the existence of the phrase Critical Race Theory not only need not be in the bill at all, we all already know, including you, that "CRT" as it is redefined is there by association.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But you already know from your participation in other threads that various screaming about CRT is being used as a tool by propagandists and such methods include redefining it and promoting legislation that includes the text in this legislation. So you know the legislation is highly associated to CRT. Given you know this association exists, the existence of the phrase Critical Race Theory not only need not be in the bill at all, we all already know, including you, that that's what it is about.

Isn't that the point? CRT makes for a convenient boogeyman as long as its actual definition is vague and malleable... the powers-that-be can claim just about anything they don't like that's even remotely connected to race as "CRT," have it banned, and have the "guilty" parties punished.

 

[Jarhyn]

But you already know from your participation in other threads that various screaming about CRT is being used as a tool by propagandists and such methods include redefining it and promoting legislation that includes the text in this legislation. So you know the legislation is highly associated to CRT. Given you know this association exists, the existence of the phrase Critical Race Theory not only need not be in the bill at all, we all already know, including you, that that's what it is about.

Isn't that the point? CRT makes for a convenient boogeyman as long as its actual definition is vague and malleable... the powers-that-be can claim just about anything they don't like that's even remotely connected to race as "CRT," have it banned, and have the "guilty" parties punished.

And since gender and sexuality are in there too, it really appears to be a hidden dagger poised yet again to be stabbed towards consent based education.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And since gender and sexuality are in there too, it really appears to be a hidden dagger poised yet again to be stabbed towards consent based education.

Which again, is precisely the point. I'm a teacher, so you know I'm "grooming" the kids... for what, the censors don't know, but they know it's bad and must be banned...

 

[Elixir]

How long does it take for the fascist party to wear out a placeholder for “evil Democrats”? Do they have variable shelf lives, or do they need to be renewed and replaced on a predicable schedule?
Will CRT last longer than “politically correct” due to its ease of use (being an acronym and all)?
The common feature of RW boogeymen is their gossamer, ineffable nature that defies positive definition or identification, rendering them impervious to attack or denial. The only requirement is that they scare the shit out of RW weenie snowflakes, compelling them to vote in lockstep for the fascist warriors who promise to save them from the (non-existent) threat.
This country is increasingly predominated by the Stoopids who fall for this crap, which is why I am quite certain that our government will soon bear no meaningful distinction from that of Russia, China or NK.

 

[Jarhyn]

And since gender and sexuality are in there too, it really appears to be a hidden dagger poised yet again to be stabbed towards consent based education.

Which again, is precisely the point. I'm a teacher, so you know I'm "grooming" the kids... for what, the censors don't know, but they know it's bad and must be banned...

You are 'grooming' them to be capable of saying and hearing 'no' and engaging in empathy.

That's what they want banned because when people can see these things, they see and refuse the efforts of others to take power over them.

This stands in direct opposition to the goals of people who wish to hoard power for personal gain at the expense of others.

 

[Bomb#20]

That. Exactly how some purported impropriety on the part of the legislators in writing and/or selling their bill was supposed to make my argument disingenuous, Ford didn't bother to explain, but I guess that's between him and his religion.

I explained it. You even linked it. My explanation non-explanation stands.

FIFY.

The topic at hand is <wall of text about what other people said and did>

The reason you keep going on and on about other people and not talking about what I wrote unless it's to put words in my mouth is that you have no substantive reason to think I made a disingenuous argument. You assigned me to an enemy tribe and you're laying your issues with that tribe at my door.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

But you already know from your participation in other threads that various screaming about CRT is being used as a tool by propagandists and such methods include redefining it and promoting legislation that includes the text in this legislation. So you know the legislation is highly associated to CRT. Given you know this association exists, the existence of the phrase Critical Race Theory not only need not be in the bill at all, we all already know, including you, that "CRT" as it is redefined is there by association.

What's your point? What the bejesus does any of that have to do with my attempt to cross-examine Gospel that you and so many others here decided to quote-mine out of context?

If Gospel's theory about the Florida legislators' purposes were correct, then why the devil wouldn't the legislators have explicitly included teaching CRT on their list of prohibitions?

 

[Bomb#20]

But you already know from your participation in other threads that various screaming about CRT is being used as a tool by propagandists and such methods include redefining it and promoting legislation that includes the text in this legislation. So you know the legislation is highly associated to CRT. Given you know this association exists, the existence of the phrase Critical Race Theory not only need not be in the bill at all, we all already know, including you, that that's what it is about.

Isn't that the point? CRT makes for a convenient boogeyman as long as its actual definition is vague and malleable... the powers-that-be can claim just about anything they don't like that's even remotely connected to race as "CRT," have it banned, and have the "guilty" parties punished.

If that were the point, then why in the name of ever-loving Cthulhu would the powers-that-be leave "No teaching CRT" out of their law? Why would they instead only prohibit teaching the not-nearly-so-vague specific opinions they listed? As CRT's actual definition is vague and malleable, a law against teaching "CRT" would have given them a free hand. But how the heck does a law against teaching "An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin" give them a free hand to punish anything they don't like that's even remotely connected to race?

 

[Bomb#20]

the disingenuousness being either in the sale of this bill as banning CRT or in the failure of the bill to actually ban "CRT".

When you infer that the legislators were disingenuous merely from the difference between how they sold the bill and what the bill actually bans, you appear to be relying on the unstated premise that the term "CRT" means the same thing to the legislators as what the term "CRT" means to you.

The disingenuousness is designed, of course, to hide that the bill was never about CRT but about banning comprehensive discussions conservatives don't like about consent in society.

If the legislators' true goal were to ban comprehensive discussions conservatives don't like, then what do you think the legislators' motivation was for including a clause reading:

"(b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts."?​

Wouldn't a bill that left that clause out have been more effective at banning comprehensive discussions conservatives don't like?

 

[Jarhyn]

When you infer that the legislators were disingenuous merely from the difference between how they sold the bill and what the bill actually bans, you appear to be relying on the unstated premise that the term "CRT" means the same thing to the legislators as what the term "CRT" means to you

No, I'm saying no matter what CRT is, it is disingenuous to claim that the bill does not ban whatever the legislators claim it is if you claim they are not disingenuous.

 

[Ford]

If Gospel's theory about the Florida legislators' purposes were correct, then why the devil wouldn't the legislators have explicitly included teaching CRT on their list of prohibitions?

This is you being disingenuous again. You know full well that the intent of the legislation is to ban not only CRT (which, again, is not being taught), but anything and any material which might even be loosely associated with teaching that the US has a long history of institutional racism. It is deliberately worded broadly so they can give folks like you an easy talking point of "but it doesn't say Critical Race Theory!") and claim innocence while pushing the whitewashing of history.

The entire history of the European "discovery" of the Americas is one of slaughter of the natives, chattel slavery to extract resources/work the lands they "discovered," and here in the US once the country was dragged through a civil war and slavery finally ended, there was a widespread and deeply entrenched racism that led to a century of institutionalized discrimination. Yet the right wing wants to keep as much of this out of school history class as possible.

DeSantis (and others pushing these laws) want kiddos taught that the pilgrims and the natives had a nice dinner and got along swell, the west was uninhabited before white people showed up, the Civil War was about "states rights" (this is already taught in Southern schools) and not slavery, and racism ended with noted Republican Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech and the election of Barack "we totally didn't emphasize his middle name to paint him as a foreigner" Obama.

"Yes, everything is fine now. Nothing to see here. Now don't you worry, kids. That show your parents made you watch about the Chinese Exclusion Acts is just liberal propaganda funded by George Soros! Here...have a red hat."

You're being disingenuous because you know this is the game, but are clutching your pearls and saying "oh lordy, I'm just pointing out that the bill doesn't say these words! How dare you impugn my motives!" Do us all a favor and drop the act.