Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Bomb#20]

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.

What's with you and all this "believe" stuff? Does my or the legislator's belief determine whether or not CRT was part of Florida School Curriculum? What in the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about your argument. You said the laws were "Lying to everyone". Well, a lie is a claim the speaker doesn't believe. If the legislators believe what they said then it isn't a lie, which means your argument had a hole in it.

I'm a computer programmer. That means I spend much of my life debugging software that doesn't work right. The way to debug software is to look at the output and look at the code and walk through it one step at a time trying to spot loose threads -- anything that looks out of place. When you find a loose thread you pull on it to see what it's connected to, and then you pull on that, and then you pull on the next thing, until either you find out the original loose thread doesn't matter, or you find out the whole fabric comes apart and you see why the software didn't work. A brain is just a soggy computer, and people's reasons for believing things are data that guides the machine through a series of state changes -- i.e., they're software. What's with me and all this "believe" stuff is I'm trying to debug the reasons that led you to your conclusions, so I'm pulling on whatever loose threads I see in your posts. When you said "Lying to everyone", that looked like a loose thread, so I pulled it.

Since I asked if you had evidence the legislators believed CRT wasn't part of the curriculum and you didn't offer any and you're trying to shut down the inquiry as irrelevant, I'm guessing you were speaking figuratively when you said the laws were "lying" -- that was merely your artistic way of saying they were telling everyone something that isn't true. Is that correct? It sounds like you are in effect stipulating that the legislators may well sincerely believe schoolchildren are being taught CRT.

So if that's what the "lying" thread turned out to be connected to, that takes us to the next question. You seem very sure that CRT isn't in the schools. You haven't been zoomed into every class in Florida schools, whereas parents who have been zoomed in keep popping up saying their kids were getting CRT, but their eyewitness testimony doesn't shake your confidence that you know better. So you must have some strong evidence to make you that confident. And I can guess what that evidence probably is. Please tell me if your evidence is something different, but I'm guessing the way you know CRT isn't in K through 12 is because CRT is college-level material. Is that what you're basing your certainty on? If so, well, that's a pretty darn good reason.

So if you think CRT can't be in grade-school because it's too advanced a subject, but you grant that the legislators may well sincerely believe schoolchildren are being taught CRT, pulling on that thread takes us to another question. Why is the evidence that's so convincing to you so unconvincing to them? It's not like nobody bothered to tell them CRT is a college subject.

I'm open to any theory on that point you have evidence for; but as the saying goes, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. The obvious hypothesis that most easily explains how two people can reach such different conclusions from the same evidence is that they simply disagree about what "CRT" means. The Republicans and the Democrats are using the term in two different senses.

So that means as we continue to follow the threads in the fabric of reasoning, we need to check each occurrence of "CRT" to see whether that use of the term stands for what Republicans mean by CRT or what Democrats mean by CRT. For instance,

"The same whitey this anti-CRT law is meant to appease."​

That appears to mean "The same whitey this anti-what Republicans mean by 'CRT' law is meant to appease."

"CRT was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever."​

That appears to mean "What Democrats mean by 'CRT' was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever."

"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."​

That conclusion appears to be derived from reasoning that relies on using the term "CRT" in different senses at different stages. I.e., your "precrime" contention is based on an equivocation fallacy.

There is no evidence that CRT was being taught in any Florida school, so not until you or anyone can present evidence that it was will I state otherwise.

Knock yourself out. Hey man, I didn't claim CRT is in the schools. I came into this thread to point out the OP was making a propagandistic trumped-up accusation against his political opponents, and people shouldn't do that. That is entirely consistent with the possibility that his political opponents are wrong.

Do you believe CRT was a part of Florida School Curriculum?

What are you asking? Do you want to know whether I believe what Democrats mean by 'CRT' was a part of Florida School Curriculum? No, I don't. Or do you want to know whether I believe what Republicans mean by 'CRT' was a part of Florida School Curriculum? I wouldn't know -- what evidence I've seen isn't definitive one way or the other. Or do you want to know whether I believe the Platonic Form of what 'CRT' Truly Is was a part of Florida School Curriculum? No, I don't believe in Platonic Forms. I observe that two speech communities use the same word in two different senses; but that sort of thing happens all the time and it doesn't automatically mean one community is using it right and the other is using it wrong, any more than it's wrong for some people to speak Vietnamese instead of English.

The law is "revising requirements for required instruction on the history of African Americans." You read that right. It's only revising how African American History is taught. This same theme leaks into their attempts to address fair treatment in the private sector as well to make European Americans feel better. Here are examples.
...
What particular race statistically out performs others in holding the position to oppress? Again, this is more language with the purpose to make European Americans people feel better.

You now appear to be switching from anti-CRT hysteria to whether HB7 is sound public policy. A worthy subject, but one I don't currently have bandwidth to get into.

 

[Ford]

Wow. There is so much absurdity to unpack here.

Let's start with this gem:

Hey man, I didn't claim CRT is in the schools.

And yet you are clearly in favor of Florida banning it from schools, even though it is - by your own admission - not being taught. Or do you?

Do you want to know whether I believe what Democrats mean by 'CRT' was a part of Florida School Curriculum? No, I don't. Or do you want to know whether I believe what Republicans mean by 'CRT' was a part of Florida School Curriculum? I wouldn't know -- what evidence I've seen isn't definitive one way or the other.

The "computer" in your head is quite soggy, indeed.

It isn't about what Democrats "mean" or Republicans "mean." Critical Race Theory is very well defined. The argument isn't that it's not being taught simply because it is "college level material" (as you put it), but that the topic - as described extensively in textbooks, scholarly articles, lectures, popular articles, and other classroom materials - is not being taught in K-12 schools. At all. This is not "the Democrats mean," but "the schools who are being accused of teaching it have made their curricula available for scrutiny by officials and have been very up front about the fact that it is not being taught in schools."

This is not a case of "Karen who yelled at the school board believes it is being taught, the liberals say it isn't, and both arguments are equally valid." You seem to be saying that since Karen "believes" it is being taught, the school board - which has already said they're not - should act upon her concerns. And since legislators "believe" something which is obviously incorrect, they are not only not lying, but any legislation they write to ban something which isn't happening is done in good faith and should be taken seriously.

That makes no sense.

Now, I'll grant you that "Karen who yelled at the school board" is misinformed, but are these legislators you speak of misinformed? Or are they lying? Since we're talking about Florida, let's talk about Ron "Like Trump But Smarter" DeSantis. In the Florida gubernatorial debate, DeSantis said it's wrong to teach students that the US "was built on stolen land," because it isn't true. For the most part, it IS true. And while the Governor is a lot of things, he is neither stupid nor uneducated. In fact he's very well educated, and very likely knows that large swaths of the land which is now the United States was indeed swiped from the people who were living here. His entire state, for example. I'd bet money that he's lying.

So if you think CRT can't be in grade-school because it's too advanced a subject, but you grant that the legislators may well sincerely believe schoolchildren are being taught CRT, pulling on that thread takes us to another question. Why is the evidence that's so convincing to you so unconvincing to them? It's not like nobody bothered to tell them CRT is a college subject.

I can't speak for Gospel, but I think CRT is absent from grade school not because it is "too advanced a subject," but because (again) as a clearly defined thing, it is pretty easy to corroborate a school board's assertion that the material is not being taught. I also don't think Quantum Field Theory is being taught in grade school. Not because it's too advanced (though it probably is), but rather that the actual theory is...you know...not being taught.

As for that last bit I put in bold face? They have been told. Repeatedly. By school boards. Administrators. Teachers. In these "Karen yells at school board meeting about CRT" cases, the schools have patiently explained to parents, legislators, and anyone willing to listen that they are not in fact teaching Critical Race Theory. The same thing is happening with the accusations that students are being given litter boxes because they identify as animals. The story comes out. The school says "that's not happening," but the story has already got legs in the right wing media, so exasperated administrators have to keep debunking it over and over again.

And here's where that word "disingenuous" comes back into play. CRT is not in schools. You are - in your own words - not claiming that it is in schools. Yet you appear to be saying that even though it isn't, there is no "anti-CRT hysteria" at all. Karen is justified in yelling at the school board. Ron is justified in letting her believe CRT is being taught in her kids school. Everything is on equal footing, and nobody - except the Democrats, of course - is in the wrong.

 

[Gospel]

I'm talking about your argument. You said the laws were "Lying to everyone". Well, a lie is a claim the speaker doesn't believe. If the legislators believe what they said then it isn't a lie, which means your argument had a hole in it.

Presuming you know how laws are made you must know how bills are made as well. Usually, a bill is written in response to a demand for legislation. Usually that demand is driven by an event or series of events that actually occurred. To prove this I'll ask you (other than HB7) name a bill that has been made law that was not proceeded by events that actually occurred? Being that this is how bills are made you'd think Americans (in this case European Americans who believe CRT was being taught in schools) would consider HB7 a response to something that happened.

What are you asking?

Do you believe CRT was a part of Florida School Curriculum?

Actual CRT (if you know what it is).

Please tell me if your evidence is something different, but I'm guessing the way you know CRT isn't in K through 12 is because CRT is college-level material. Is that what you're basing your certainty on? If so, well, that's a pretty darn good reason.

There are 73 superintendents. Not a single one responded to my mass Email request for them to confirm cases of a teacher being reprimanded for teaching CRT before and after HB7 (as of today I'm still waiting). I guess all 73 superintendents are trying to hide something. You're more than welcome to make a public records request yourself, they can be found here. Maybe you can find a case that makes European American dreams come true.

You now appear to be switching from anti-CRT hysteria to whether HB7 is sound public policy.

Sure I am.


Can you please stop trying to separate CRT from HB7 now? It's not what my governor DeSantis intended.

 

[Jarhyn]

The way to debug software is to look at the output and look at the code and walk through it one step at a time trying to spot loose threads

Haha, only if you hate yourself.

The easiest way to debug code is to not do that, and just ask yourself "what was it trying to do when it crashed", and try again with some extra output thrown in, and logic out where the first error is happening.

More often I catch bugs not by debugging but just by asking questions, and looking at the behavior of the software without the debugger.

Does it go wrong when you click the button twice, slow? No. Does it happen when you click the button twice fast? Yes.

Congratulations, you found an issue with your thread model and task collision with a side of data pouncing.

There are fairly few major mistakes types people step in, between misuse of resource protection primitives, non-use of resource protection primitives, or through a synchronous process where one needs a detached thread.

Occasionally it's a memory life cycle issue, it again comes down to just going through and checking each life cycle, as if you should ever not proofread those at least in the neighborhood of buggy code when you have data pouncing going on.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From another perspective, I think there's an issue with a guy doing a job of trying to debug software everyday in his cubicle with his boss giving him the code, saying "debug this." ....but he doesn't actually know he's not even using a computer and looking at code. It's instead his boss's spouse's grocery list. People keep telling him that it's actually a grocery list and he keeps responding, "if it's a grocery list, how come it doesn't say the word 'groceries' on it?!" And then "Prove to me two dozen eggs are wrong. You can't do it, can you?" Meanwhile, people tell him "There are two dozen eggs in the list because the boss likes omelets." And then he goes back to "What the hell are you talking about? Stop taking me out of context!"

 

[Elixir]

It isn't about what Democrats "mean" or Republicans "mean." Critical Race Theory is very well defined.

I think that’s the nut of it; it is the denial of that fact that Republicans (and apparently B20) hang their collective hat. Right wingers have created their own meaning for the acronym and tried to pin it on Dems, using a “presumptive close” to establish that CRT is rampant in public schools, under their beds, in their closets etc.
I’m pretty sure B is doing his best to stay out of that definitional tar pit, but is obviously failing in that effort.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes. In politics, CRT is the kidnapper in a van waiting to steal your child. In legislation to protect our children, CRT became anything that might make white students feel uncomfortable, and restricting teaching on uncomfortable parts of American history regarding race, bigotry, and slavery.

 

[Gospel]

Wow. There is so much absurdity to unpack here.

Thus my reluctances to waste time addressing every pointless argument/accusation. It takes overthinking to a whole new novel level. For example this sequence of thought:

So if you think CRT can't be in grade-school because it's too advanced a subject, but you grant that the legislators may well sincerely believe schoolchildren are being taught CRT, pulling on that thread takes us to another question. Why is the evidence that's so convincing to you so unconvincing to them? It's not like nobody bothered to tell them CRT is a college subject.

I'm open to any theory on that point you have evidence for; but as the saying goes, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. The obvious hypothesis that most easily explains how two people can reach such different conclusions from the same evidence is that they simply disagree about what "CRT" means. The Republicans and the Democrats are using the term in two different senses.

So that means as we continue to follow the threads in the fabric of reasoning, we need to check each occurrence of "CRT" to see whether that use of the term stands for what Republicans mean by CRT or what Democrats mean by CRT. For instance,

"The same whitey this anti-CRT law is meant to appease."
That appears to mean "The same whitey this anti-what Republicans mean by 'CRT' law is meant to appease."

"CRT was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever."
That appears to mean "What Democrats mean by 'CRT' was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever."

"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."
That conclusion appears to be derived from reasoning that relies on using the term "CRT" in different senses at different stages. I.e., your "precrime" contention is based on an equivocation fallacy.

It takes a highly active imagination to find anything that warrants this wall of suppositional account of what I've said. Is it against the rules to point this out? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no evidence that CRT was being taught in any Florida school, so not until you or anyone can present evidence that it was will I state otherwise.

Knock yourself out. Hey man, I didn't claim CRT is in the schools. I came into this thread to point out the OP was making a propagandistic trumped-up accusation against his political opponents, and people shouldn't do that. That is entirely consistent with the possibility that his political opponents are wrong.

Actually you've demonstrated the OP's point.

The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the
newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory."
We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex
the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular
with Americans.

Christopher Rufo, anti-"CRT" activist says this himself!

The obvious hypothesis that most easily explains how two people can reach such different conclusions from the same evidence is that they simply disagree about what "CRT" means. The Republicans and the Democrats are using the term in two different senses.

Seeing that CRT has a very specific meaning in the Law School level where it is taught and you noted the Republicans are using a different definition for CRT, you are AGREEING with the assertion that the term has been "decodified" and "recodified".

The whole thing is hysteria, because the claims even the recodified definition says "CRT" means, isn't happening either. That people are scared about CRT and want it stopped being taught... that is hysteria.

 

[Oleg]

Seeing that CRT has a very specific meaning in the Law School level where it is taught and you noted the Republicans are using a different definition for CRT, you are AGREEING with the assertion that the term has been "decodified" and "recodified".

Whatever you want to call it, race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seeing that CRT has a very specific meaning in the Law School level where it is taught and you noted the Republicans are using a different definition for CRT, you are AGREEING with the assertion that the term has been "decodified" and "recodified".

Whatever you want to call it, race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools.

And you shouldn't beat your wife... and children.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Seeing that CRT has a very specific meaning in the Law School level where it is taught and you noted the Republicans are using a different definition for CRT, you are AGREEING with the assertion that the term has been "decodified" and "recodified".

Whatever you want to call it, race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools.

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic? Certainly there have been individual instances of teachers doing activities that are likely inappropriate but I would think the best approach to dealing with those are on a case by case basis rather than a law that could impact all classrooms. Is there something specific that is being taught en masse that you can point us to?

 

[Gospel]

Seeing that CRT has a very specific meaning in the Law School level where it is taught and you noted the Republicans are using a different definition for CRT, you are AGREEING with the assertion that the term has been "decodified" and "recodified".

Whatever you want to call it, race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools.

I agree. Good thing it never was but you seem to believe that it was. Care to share why?

 

[Elixir]

race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools.

I agree. Good thing it never was but you seem to believe that it was. Care to share why?

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic?

Of course not. "race essentialism" is yet another poison pill term trying to gain traction with the manipulable right wing, nothing more.
It's not like Oleg believes it - it's just one of those non-existent things that make great fearmongering tools, like grade-school CRT.

 

[ZiprHead]

Seeing that CRT has a very specific meaning in the Law School level where it is taught and you noted the Republicans are using a different definition for CRT, you are AGREEING with the assertion that the term has been "decodified" and "recodified".

Whatever you want to call it, race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools.

I agree. Good thing it never was but you seem to believe that it was. Care to share why?

Cuz Tucker Carlson told his so. Tucker knows all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm a computer programmer. That means I spend much of my life debugging software that doesn't work right. The way to debug software is to look at the output and look at the code and walk through it one step at a time trying to spot loose threads -- anything that looks out of place. When you find a loose thread you pull on it to see what it's connected to, and then you pull on that, and then you pull on the next thing, until either you find out the original loose thread doesn't matter, or you find out the whole fabric comes apart and you see why the software didn't work. A brain is just a soggy computer, and people's reasons for believing things are data that guides the machine through a series of state changes -- i.e., they're software. What's with me and all this "believe" stuff is I'm trying to debug the reasons that led you to your conclusions, so I'm pulling on whatever loose threads I see in your posts. When you said "Lying to everyone", that looked like a loose thread, so I pulled it.

Since I asked if you had evidence the legislators believed CRT wasn't part of the curriculum and you didn't offer any and you're trying to shut down the inquiry as irrelevant, I'm guessing you were speaking figuratively when you said the laws were "lying" -- that was merely your artistic way of saying they were telling everyone something that isn't true. Is that correct? It sounds like you are in effect stipulating that the legislators may well sincerely believe schoolchildren are being taught CRT.

So that means as we continue to follow the threads in the fabric of reasoning, we need to check each occurrence of "CRT" to see whether that use of the term stands for what Republicans mean by CRT or what Democrats mean by CRT. For instance,

"The same whitey this anti-CRT law is meant to appease."​

That appears to mean "The same whitey this anti-what Republicans mean by 'CRT' law is meant to appease."

"CRT was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever."​

That appears to mean "What Democrats mean by 'CRT' was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever."

"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."​

That conclusion appears to be derived from reasoning that relies on using the term "CRT" in different senses at different stages. I.e., your "precrime" contention is based on an equivocation fallacy.

I think you're being led astray with your debugging comparison. The problem isn't bugs, the problem is malware.

We are looking at it and rather than seeing a meaningless law we are seeing malware purporting to be meaningless. It's working as designed, not working as labeled.

 

[Gospel]

I'm talking about your argument. You said the laws were "Lying to everyone". Well, a lie is a claim the speaker doesn't believe. If the legislators believe what they said then it isn't a lie, which means your argument had a hole in it.

FYI - The word lie has more than one definition. I was going for the creating a false impression one.

 

[Bomb#20]

Show your work.

I think you just did show his work.
You could have simply stated that you favored education about consent if you did so favor.

What I am taking into consideration, and what you are not but should, is that Jarhyn is an enthusiastic practitioner of the Humpty-Dumpty theory of language. I'm not going to participate in the fiction that he is speaking English. He keeps using phrases like "education about consent in society" without explaining what they mean or what the bejesus what he has in mind has to do with consent. His posts in general appear to imply that your right to your nose ends at your betters' fists and that anybody who doesn't consent to having his nose punched by his betters is illegitimately interfering with their fists without their consent and is therefore evidently in need of "education about consent in society".

Do you favor education about consent?

If you're asking whether I favor telling teenage boys that "No means No", yes, of course I do. If you mean "education about consent" as it is interpreted in Jarhynese or some other weird private language rather than in its plain English sense, sorry, you'll need to explain what what you mean by the phrase.

 

[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?

How dare you! I am not quote-mining you. That is a reckless accusation.

Of course you were quote-mining me. You quoted one sentence out of my post, leaving out the other sentences that made clear what my purpose in saying it was, and you responded with a bunch of random factoids that had squat to do with my discussion with Gospel and everything to do with the made-up words Ford had put in my mouth. Posters here keep making believe that when I said ' "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7 ', that proves I was implying "HB7 isn't about CRT". That is a phenomenally illogical thing to infer, what with the antecedent being demonstrably true and the conclusion being ridiculous.

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?

Conservative propagandists are not defining CRT as it is actually defined, but instead including as features {x, y, z, ...} as part of the definition and then legislating on at least some of those elements. You already know this because it was in the post you responded to, in this thread, and in other threads you participated in.

Me: Why did you drive all the way from Oregon to New York instead of flying?

You: A car is a machine for moving people from place to place. You already know this.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Perhaps casting a wide net allows their howling constituents more freedom to go after even more “heretical” teachings, Really, this isn’t hard once you leave your echo chamber.

That's an explanation of why they had a whole list of prohibitions; it's not an explanation of why CRT didn't make the list. If they wanted to cast a wide net, well, "X, Y, Z and CRT" is a wider net than "X, Y, and Z". Really, this isn’t hard once you leave your illogic chamber.