Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can I derail from the hear no evil, see no evil shit to child mutilation? I swear, it is on-topic with the "hysteria" part. Dennis Prager was going on about it today. CRT and the mutilation of children (transgender stuff).

They present it as the dumbest fucking level.

Boy (out of the blue): Mom, Dad, I think I'm a girl.
Parents (FORCED BY THE SYSTEM): We love you even more for that. Let's get part chopped off.
Boy: Oh goody!
*roll credits*

Literally that fucking stupid. This is all over talk radio now. Talk about hysteria. How many cases of this sort of thing are being treated by doctors (also known as professionals) in the country? Well, it is larger than cases of CRT in the middle school, but it isn't that high, and it isn't as simple as "I'm the opposite gender" from out of the blue.

And Prager fucking knows this. But he is an alt-right political whore these days. He went from being a right-wing political whore with intellectual leanings, to full blown alt-right political whore after Trump was elected. But this isn't hysteria. Right? Just like CRT... it all a terrible misunderstanding.

As if I'm an idiot and stupid enough to believe that lie.

 

[Bomb#20]

If you think it's very well defined, feel free to define it for us.

Google is your friend.

Telling me to consult Google is unresponsive. I asked you, not Google, because I wanted to know what you think it is. I already know what Google thinks it is.

Stripped of Republican re-definition for political convenience you'll learn that CRT is;

... many different things, since Google reports the opinions of many different non-Republicans.

an academic and legal framework that denotes that systemic racism is part of American society — from education and housing to employment and healthcare.

Okay, that's a usable definition. If that's what it means to you, we can proceed from that.

Further study might enlighten you to the fact that it's not taught in grade school, just as you implied without knowing the definition.... go figure.

Are you contending that no grade school teachers tell their students systemic racism is part of American society from education and housing to employment and healthcare? If you are, what's your evidence for that contention? If you aren't, what does CRT denote that is not taught in grade school?

In any event, my point was that different CRT advocates' definitions differ. For example, in the thread Politesse helpfully linked, he defined CRT as

The even more Cliff's Notes version:

• Race is a biological fiction, but a social reality
• The "realities" of race are the measurably different social and economic circumstances that affect people depending on how they are categorized by others
• These inequities aren't the sole work of individuals, so they cannot be addressed solely by educating individuals about race issues as seen by scientists
• Systematic racism both helped to create, and was eventually further created by, massive sociocultural institutions such as the legal, punitive, and labor systems of the colonial world
• Ending those systems requires a substantial reimagining of the social, political, and legal institutions that they left behind
• Also left behind are people, whose intergenerational situations vary widely but tend to reflect severe racial inequities
• Analyzing these disparities becomes complicated by the intersectional boundaries between race, gender, wealth, and other forms of social categorization that may greatly impact any one individual's life
• Meaningful solutions to systemic racism need to focus on the systemic before the individual, but take the variability of individual circumstances into account
• The narratives and categories we use to talk about racial issues are also products of this suspect past, and many may need to be altered or retired
• Greater diversity in the academic and legal professions is a necessary element of reform, as experiences of race differ widely and often in non-overlapping ways.

It should be readily apparent that some of Politesse's list does not follow from "systemic racism is part of American society — from education and housing to employment and healthcare". For instance, it's perfectly possible to accept that systemic racism is part of American society from education and housing to employment and healthcare, and think it's best solved by focusing on individuals. So you and Politesse evidently mean different things by "CRT".

And that's not even getting to the elephant in the room. What does the phrase "systemic racism" mean to you?

 

[Bomb#20]

I had a go at a slightly more comprehensive but still summarized definition, in our original thread on CRT. I have reproduced it below for Bomb #20's advisement, edification, or amusement:
...
Of course, that thread in and of itself demonstrates the bad faith nature of the "why can't someone just tell me in plain words what it is" and "what is your evidence though" rhetorical tropes, since nearly all the people participating in this thread also participated in that one.

What demonstrated bad faith were the numerous instances of you putting words in my mouth and trumping up false and malicious accusations.

 

[Politesse]

I had a go at a slightly more comprehensive but still summarized definition, in our original thread on CRT. I have reproduced it below for Bomb #20's advisement, edification, or amusement:
...
Of course, that thread in and of itself demonstrates the bad faith nature of the "why can't someone just tell me in plain words what it is" and "what is your evidence though" rhetorical tropes, since nearly all the people participating in this thread also participated in that one.

What demonstrated bad faith were the numerous instances of you putting words in my mouth and trumping up false and malicious accusations.

???

 

[Bomb#20]

???

Do you seriously want your rhetorical misdeeds listed?

 

[Politesse]

For instance, it's perfectly possible to accept that systemic racism is part of American society from education and housing to employment and healthcare, and think it's best solved by focusing on individuals

It is, but you've left CRT behind at that point. Words have meaning, and though CRT has an expansive meaning, it is always an examination of systemic, not individual, racial biases.

 

[Politesse]

???

Do you seriously want your rhetorical misdeeds listed?

Why would I want that? I have no idea what you're talking about, though.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Its principal ideas are that the social theory of racism implicit in the social planning and legal framework of anti-racism employed through the 1960s (ie., that racism is primarily an individual choice made by socially dysfunctional persons primarily due to scientific ignorance on their part) ...

... Most conservatives believe that a primary tenet of CRT is race essentialism, the idea that race is a biological reality inextricably connected to your personality and beliefs, and that individual Whites should therefore be held personally responsible for the existence of white supremacy, regardless of their views or actions. Whites, in short, cannot help but institute racism, as it is in their blood rather than their mind that the impulse to discriminate arises. ...

What a surprise to see a left-winger be utterly incompetent to understand and explain non-left-wing viewpoints. Of course the prevalent 1960s anti-racism framework didn't assume the problem was "scientific ignorance"; that's ridiculous. And of course when people like Oleg talk about "race essentialism" it isn't a claim of any sort about "it is in their blood".

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

While I'm sure there's room for reasonable people to disagree about how common such instances have been, it's not clear why you're making an issue of that. Why on earth should inappropriate activities have to be "systemic curricula" or "taught en masse" before the legislature takes action to prevent their recurrence? What's wrong with saying "Don't anybody do that again." after one person does what he ought not have done?

Moreover, when you propose dealing with those on a case by case basis, who is it you expect to do the dealing with the cases, on what basis are they to deal with them, and what's their incentive for dealing with them? The school administrators or the district superintendent or some such? Why would they "deal with" a teacher pushing race essentialism in the first place unless there's a rule against it? If they reprimand him anyway, how are they supposed to justify that if the teacher pushes back by pointing out there's no rule against it? And how is it going to get dealt with if the principle or the superintendent or the higher-ups in the education bureaucracy themselves are on board with pushing race essentialism? It looks to me like nothing at all is going to happen on a case by case basis until somebody who thinks race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools enacts a rule against it. So if "somebody who thinks race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools" doesn't describe anyone in a position of authority in the department of education, then for lack of anyone else stepping up to deal with individual instances of teachers doing activities that are likely inappropriate, the responsibility necessarily falls to the legislature.

 

[Bomb#20]

???

Do you seriously want your rhetorical misdeeds listed?

Why would I want that? I have no idea what you're talking about, though.

For starts, I'm talking about what I was replying to:

Of course, that thread in and of itself demonstrates the bad faith nature of the "why can't someone just tell me in plain words what it is" and "what is your evidence though" rhetorical tropes, since nearly all the people participating in this thread also participated in that one.

Since you're talking about "the people participating in this thread", and as far as I can see nobody in the thread besides your political allies asked for evidence or an explanation of CRT, except me, you are evidently referring to me. But I didn't say those words you put in my mouth, and while you no doubt will claim that's a paraphrase, you deleted the context and changed the wording in a way that utterly distorted my meaning. And the "also participated in that one" bit is clearly an insinuation that my questions were answered in that thread, which they were not. And your conclusion, "demonstrates the bad faith nature", is a trumped up false and malicious accusation.

For the other instances, see the thread you linked. You made false and groundless racism accusations at least four times, three of them against me.

 

[Bomb#20]

For instance, it's perfectly possible to accept that systemic racism is part of American society from education and housing to employment and healthcare, and think it's best solved by focusing on individuals

It is, but you've left CRT behind at that point. Words have meaning, and though CRT has an expansive meaning, it is always an examination of systemic, not individual, racial biases.

To be precise, it is, but you've left CRT as you define it behind at that point. But you have not left CRT as Elixir defines it behind at that point. Ergo, you and Elixir have conflicting definitions of "CRT". That CRT supporters' definitions of "CRT" conflict with one another was my point, and was why I invited him to define it in the first place. Elixir said it's a fact that "Critical Race Theory is very well defined." It does not appear to be a fact.

 

[Ford]

For instance, it's perfectly possible to accept that systemic racism is part of American society from education and housing to employment and healthcare, and think it's best solved by focusing on individuals

It is, but you've left CRT behind at that point. Words have meaning, and though CRT has an expansive meaning, it is always an examination of systemic, not individual, racial biases.

Ah, but you see, Bomb wants to pass the buck. A mealy-mouthed admission that there actually IS systemic racism in education, housing, employment and healthcare, but it does not need to be solved by addressing the system or even the racism! It's all on individuals.

Kind of like saying the solution to climate change isn't to address the fossil fuel industry pumping greenhouse gases into the air and polluting the world with toxic waste. No the real problem is that YOU threw that plastic bottle in the trash rather than putting it in the recycling bin. Don't fight a systemic problem by addressing the failings of the system, folks! And for goodness sake don't teach children that the system is broken!

 

[Shadowy Man]

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?

While I'm sure there's room for reasonable people to disagree about how common such instances have been, it's not clear why you're making an issue of that. Why on earth should inappropriate activities have to be "systemic curricula" or "taught en masse" before the legislature takes action to prevent their recurrence? What's wrong with saying "Don't anybody do that again." after one person does what he ought not have done?

Moreover, when you propose dealing with those on a case by case basis, who is it you expect to do the dealing with the cases, on what basis are they to deal with them, and what's their incentive for dealing with them? The school administrators or the district superintendent or some such? Why would they "deal with" a teacher pushing race essentialism in the first place unless there's a rule against it? If they reprimand him anyway, how are they supposed to justify that if the teacher pushes back by pointing out there's no rule against it? And how is it going to get dealt with if the principle or the superintendent or the higher-ups in the education bureaucracy themselves are on board with pushing race essentialism? It looks to me like nothing at all is going to happen on a case by case basis until somebody who thinks race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools enacts a rule against it. So if "somebody who thinks race essentialism should not be pushed in public schools" doesn't describe anyone in a position of authority in the department of education, then for lack of anyone else stepping up to deal with individual instances of teachers doing activities that are likely inappropriate, the responsibility necessarily falls to the legislature.

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

 

[Elixir]

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

It’s like the “problem” of election fraud.
“People are saying! Lots of people are saying it!”
In this post-truth environment, that’s all it takes to make it real.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

It is simply has to be a hypothetical and we are just protecting the children from what they shouldn't experience. That seems to be all that is needed. Just ignore the hysterical parents who are railing about a problem that doesn't actually exist. I wish I could live in a bubble like that.

...well, maybe not.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The real issue is how is CRT being defined by the GOP partisans. See post #1.
The quote from Rufo. GOP political dirty tricks. And see post #2. That Lee Arwater quote. CRT hysteria is meant to prevent reasonable discussion of America's systematic rcism problem. Or to fight the GOP's racist Jim Crow 2.0 policies sweeping this nation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The real issue is that minority of conservatives will believe whatever the heck is told to them on the AM Radio. The distinction between Q-Anon and what the alt-right peddles online and in the media is getting smaller and smaller. And it is driven by right-wing paranoia and racism.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Jerks like Fuckhead Carlson and ingraham spew crap on Faux Noise. Not to mention OANN, NewsMud, and other garbage right wing cable disinformation media.

 

[Elixir]

The religious category of woo can include or exclude whatever … but it’s the compulsory* attendance that really irks me.


* Yeah sure, one can argue that you are “allowed“ to decline to attend. But by declining, you become “Other”, and both subtle and not so subtle consequences ensue.

 

[Jarhyn]

Can I derail from the hear no evil, see no evil shit to child mutilation? I swear, it is on-topic with the "hysteria" part. Dennis Prager was going on about it today. CRT and the mutilation of children (transgender stuff).

They present it as the dumbest fucking level.

Boy (out of the blue): Mom, Dad, I think I'm a girl.
Parents (FORCED BY THE SYSTEM): We love you even more for that. Let's get part chopped off.
Boy: Oh goody!
*roll credits*

To wit, let's explore the non-strawman version:

Child (out of the blue): Mom, Dad, I think I'm a girl.
Parents: it's gonna be hard for that to work out the way you want it, and successes will be incomplete. You should accept everything you possibly can, and seek to change only that which is vital for your own happiness.

Present us with your argument; the next step in this path would be to have you talk to a shrink who will say much as I already have and do their best to ascertain with you what you accept and what may stand to be changed if you persist.

Child: *goes to a few months of therapy where the above is done*

Child: I still think I am a girl. I am informed of what may and may not be accomplished and what I am and am not going to have access to at this stage.

Parents: you have satisfied the requirements identified for blockers and social access, please do this until you are 16+ and authorized to make any further decisions; please continue to only change that which you absolutely must for your own happiness.

Teen girl (a few years later): I have learned so many things and wish to develop a feminine body without surgical intervention, may I undergo puberty with estrogen based factors?

Parents: you know the drill 6 more months of therapy...

Teen girl: *undergoes more therapy*

Teen Girl: I still want estrogen based puberty.

Parents: ok, take estrogen until you are satisfied with the results, but only puberty until you are 18, you shouldn't cut organs off, unless you absolutely must for your own happiness.

Young woman: I am 18 now, and I have decided I like this, and wish to have my genitals modified.

Parents: you know the drill though...

Young woman: ok, I would like my testicles removed. They contribute nothing but an ability to sperm things and that's not my jazz.

Parents: you are an adult make your own decisions, we will love you no matter what.