Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Politesse]

I'm a bit confused as to why you included an image in your post that contradicts what you are saying. Are you alleging that Duckworth is lying when she argues that racism must be tackled as an institutionalized social reality?

I'm a bit confused as to why you think either image in my post contradicts what I'm saying. The images are there as evidence that the people pushing the power/oppression worldview on school children are sometimes the same people advocating bringing CRT into grade school, which might account for Don's observation of conservatives conflating the two.

The lying I'm alleging is in reference to any teachers who use the chart I reproduced in post #389 that Duckworth drew to imply to children that they can tell whether they have power or are oppressed by locating their demographics on her artwork. I don't know how Duckworth teaches her own pupils, so whether Duckworth herself is one of the liars, or that's only her more koolaid-infused followers, I couldn't say.

I'm looking at this other chart of yours, and it doesn't say anything about inherent racial differences, either. Your genes cannot connote privilege or marginalization on you by themselves, those are social phenomena and can only be explained or even described as such. Indeed, plenty of the factors on that graph have no "inherent" element whatsoever, unless you're claiming that babies pop out of the womb with a fluent language and a college degree. That you are looking at a twelve point diagram and seemingly only seeing "race" says more about you than Duckworth. Surely her point is that privilege is complex and intersectional, not a simple matter of black and white? Or why bring up eleven other common spectra of discrimination? Are the others just for decoration, or what?

In a science class especially, I see no harm in having an objective discussion of social privilege and marginalization. The data are what they are; all those factors do, in fact, demonstrably lead to marginalization in American society. Race is not even the most significant of these in terms of effect size, obesity and language learning have enormous impacts on employment, housing, etc. But the effect of perceived race is likewise demonstrable. A scientist of all people cannot afford to ignore observed outcomes in the real world because they feel emotionally uncomfortable about what those data reveal. Go to gym class if you want people to defer to your personal emotions, a science classroom needs to be made of sterner stuff. In science, empirical observation guides inquiry, not the other way around.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm a bit confused as to why you included an image in your post that contradicts what you are saying. Are you alleging that Duckworth is lying when she argues that racism must be tackled as an institutionalized social reality?

I'm a bit confused as to why you think either image in my post contradicts what I'm saying. The images are there as evidence that the people pushing the power/oppression worldview on school children are sometimes the same people advocating bringing CRT into grade school, which might account for Don's observation of conservatives conflating the two.

The lying I'm alleging is in reference to any teachers who use the chart I reproduced in post #389 that Duckworth drew to imply to children that they can tell whether they have power or are oppressed by locating their demographics on her artwork. I don't know how Duckworth teaches her own pupils, so whether Duckworth herself is one of the liars, or that's only her more koolaid-infused followers, I couldn't say.

I'm looking at this other chart of yours, and it doesn't say anything about inherent racial differences, either. Your genes cannot connote privilege or marginalization on you by themselves, those are social phenomena and can only be explained or even described as such. Indeed, plenty of the factors on that graph have no "inherent" element whatsoever, unless you're claiming that babies pop out of the womb with a fluent language and a college degree. That you are looking at a twelve point diagram and seemingly only seeing "race" says more about you than Duckworth. Surely her point is that privilege is complex and intersectional, not a simple matter of black and white? Or why bring up eleven other common spectra of discrimination? Are the others just for decoration, or what?

In a science class especially, I see no harm in having an objective discussion of social privilege and marginalization. The data are what they are; all those factors do, in fact, demonstrably lead to marginalization in American society. Race is not even the most significant of these in terms of effect size, obesity and language learning have enormous impacts on employment, housing, etc. But the effect of perceived race is likewise demonstrable. A scientist of all people cannot afford to ignore observed outcomes in the real world because they feel emotionally uncomfortable about what those data reveal. Go to gym class if you want people to defer to your personal emotions, a science classroom needs to be made of sterner stuff. In science, empirical observation guides inquiry, not the other way around.

I think the video I had posted a few posts ago is instructive. "If you're in the outer edge of the circle, you're more marginalized, you're more likely to be left behind..." (about 0:13-0:18 seconds in). "If you are closer to the center of power, you are more likely to be prioritized, you are more likely to be heard, you are more likely to get opportunities, ..." (about 0:20-0:30 seconds in). In other words, power and privilege are both continua and involve probabilities.

"Have you noticed how when you are in different rooms, your power shifts? Think about when you go to a family reunion, right, ... now, you're the kid in the room. It doesn't matter how much power you got at home. You are mama's baby all over again. And you can go to another room and be on the outer circle..." (about 0:54-1:10). In that example, she is describing exceptions and how things are varying extrinsically with context.

Contrast these features with how critics describe it.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm a bit confused as to why you think either image in my post contradicts what I'm saying. The images are there as evidence that the people pushing the power/oppression worldview on school children are sometimes the same people advocating bringing CRT into grade school, which might account for Don's observation of conservatives conflating the two.

I'm a bit confused as to why you think those images are people advocating teaching CRT to children. Nothing in either of those mentions anything about teaching the tenets to children.

If you are talking about the images posted in #397, whilst I don't know if they were meant for children, the design brief appears to have been

"appeal to a tween in the early 1990s. I want colours, I want comic sans ms, I want colours, I want pop! Imagine Nickelodeon vomiting on Rugrats, and throwing it down the stairs".

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm a bit confused as to why you think either image in my post contradicts what I'm saying. The images are there as evidence that the people pushing the power/oppression worldview on school children are sometimes the same people advocating bringing CRT into grade school, which might account for Don's observation of conservatives conflating the two.

I'm a bit confused as to why you think those images are people advocating teaching CRT to children. Nothing in either of those mentions anything about teaching the tenets to children.

If you are talking about the images posted in #397, whilst I don't know if they were meant for children, the design brief appears to have been

"appeal to a tween in the early 1990s. I want colours, I want comic sans ms, I want colours, I want pop! Imagine Nickelodeon vomiting on Rugrats, and throwing it down the stairs".

Were the people quoted in those images the image designers? Are you mind reading as you so often do?

 

[Metaphor]

I'm a bit confused as to why you think either image in my post contradicts what I'm saying. The images are there as evidence that the people pushing the power/oppression worldview on school children are sometimes the same people advocating bringing CRT into grade school, which might account for Don's observation of conservatives conflating the two.

I'm a bit confused as to why you think those images are people advocating teaching CRT to children. Nothing in either of those mentions anything about teaching the tenets to children.

If you are talking about the images posted in #397, whilst I don't know if they were meant for children, the design brief appears to have been

"appeal to a tween in the early 1990s. I want colours, I want comic sans ms, I want colours, I want pop! Imagine Nickelodeon vomiting on Rugrats, and throwing it down the stairs".

Were the people quoted in those images the image designers?

I doubt it? It seems like it would have been designed by a graphic artist, and the design brief appears to me to be 'appeal to young people'.

 

[Bomb#20]

The lying I'm alleging is in reference to any teachers who use the chart I reproduced in post #389 that Duckworth drew to imply to children that they can tell whether they have power or are oppressed by locating their demographics on her artwork. I don't know how Duckworth teaches her own pupils, so whether Duckworth herself is one of the liars, or that's only her more koolaid-infused followers, I couldn't say.

I'm looking at this other chart of yours, and it doesn't say anything about inherent racial differences, either. Your genes cannot connote privilege or marginalization on you by themselves, those are social phenomena and can only be explained or even described as such. Indeed, plenty of the factors on that graph have no "inherent" element whatsoever, unless you're claiming that babies pop out of the womb with a fluent language and a college degree. That you are looking at a twelve point diagram and seemingly only seeing "race" says more about you than Duckworth. Surely her point is that privilege is complex and intersectional, not a simple matter of black and white? Or why bring up eleven other common spectra of discrimination? Are the others just for decoration, or what?

You say all that as though it has something to do with my posts. Where the devil am I supposed to have implied her chart said anything about inherent racial differences? And what on earth was that ", either." bit supposed to be a reference to? Politesse, what is with your hobbyhorsing about genes? Who besides you is claiming genetics is even relevant to the discussion? I am not looking at a twelve point diagram and seemingly only seeing "race". That is a figment of your imagination. Stop making up garbage about other posters.

In a science class especially, I see no harm in having an objective discussion of social privilege and marginalization.

What's called "science" class in public schools is conventionally understood to be for teaching the so-called "hard sciences": physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, and so forth. Sociology customarily goes in "social studies" classes.

I get that you believe that sociology qualifies as a real science and that claims about social privilege and marginalization are fact rather than interpretation. But if people want to use the power of the state to push that stuff on a captive audience it's incumbent on them to show their work. Define what you mean by "privilege"; explain how you propose to measure it quantitatively; and provide evidence that "privilege" is an accurate descriptive term for whatever you are measuring, and not an ideologically loaded prescriptive label applied for the purpose of manipulating the audience's emotional attitudes.

Go to gym class if you want people to defer to your personal emotions,

Have you ever even been in a gym class?

 

[Politesse]

Sociology customarily goes in "social studies" classes.

That is not an excuse to abandon the scientific method whenever the topic turns to social data.

As to forgetting what you've posted in the thread already, do your own homework.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm a bit confused as to why you think either image in my post contradicts what I'm saying. The images are there as evidence that the people pushing the power/oppression worldview on school children are sometimes the same people advocating bringing CRT into grade school, which might account for Don's observation of conservatives conflating the two.

I'm a bit confused as to why you think those images are people advocating teaching CRT to children. Nothing in either of those mentions anything about teaching the tenets to children.

If you are talking about the images posted in #397, whilst I don't know if they were meant for children, the design brief appears to have been

"appeal to a tween in the early 1990s. I want colours, I want comic sans ms, I want colours, I want pop! Imagine Nickelodeon vomiting on Rugrats, and throwing it down the stairs".

Were the people quoted in those images the image designers?

I doubt it? It seems like it would have been designed by a graphic artist, and the design brief appears to me to be 'appeal to young people'.

Since we don't know who made the designs, it may have been an anti-CRT activist who wants to claim CRT is being pushed onto children.

 

[Bomb#20]

Sociology customarily goes in "social studies" classes.

That is not an excuse to abandon the scientific method whenever the topic turns to social data.

To "abandon" the scientific method, those pushing the "privilege" narrative would need to have been using the scientific method at some point.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

As to forgetting what you've posted in the thread already, do your own homework.

If you could quote me saying anything that backs up your accusations, you would have.

 

[Bomb#20]

Since we don't know who made the designs, it may have been an anti-CRT activist who wants to claim CRT is being pushed onto children.

Sylvia Duckworth made them. (She's a Toronto schoolteacher and CRT fangirl.) Drawing graphics in that style is her thing; she calls it "Sketchnoting".

 

[ZiprHead]

Since we don't know who made the designs, it may have been an anti-CRT activist who wants to claim CRT is being pushed onto children.

Sylvia Duckworth made them. (She's a Toronto schoolteacher and CRT fangirl.) Drawing graphics in that style is her thing; she calls it "Sketchnoting".

Aah, thanks for the info. Wasn't familiar with her work.