Anti-CRT Hysteria

[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.

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.

You have not demonstrated this supposed conflict, and it doesn't matter in any case, as the fundamental definition of CRT is not some arcane mystery but a truth easily looked up in any relevant resource.

 

[Politesse]

???

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.

I would like to clarify that my comments were not intended as personally aimed at you.

Though, coming from your above-elucidated extremely individualist worldview, I see how being seen as participating in a class of like-minded people might be upsetting to you.

 

[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*

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.

Not a big fan of this, because ultimately, there is a ton more interaction, between the child, teen, young adult, and there parents and doctors.

The alt-right whores want to make people think there is an exclamation and then it is fait accompli. When it couldn't be possibly further from that in any way or form. I mean, just the damn cost of it all for starters!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Because you don't use a battleship to go bird hunting.

 

[Gospel]

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

What does it mean to you?

 

[Bomb#20]

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

What does it mean to you?

It's the mirror image of what right-wing propagandist Christopher Rufo did. The goal of CRT appears to be to have the public read something nonleftist in the newspaper and immediately think "racism". The advocates of CRT and their willing dupes in the progressive movement have decodified the term "racism" and recodified it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with left-wingers. I.e. they're using the boogie man of racism to destroy the subjection of their social engineering proposals to critical thought.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Racism, systematic racism in America is very, very real. If you haven't understood that sad fact by now, you have not been paying attention.

 

[laughing dog]

Racism, systematic racism in America is very, very real. If you haven't understood that sad fact by now, you have not been paying attention.

You don't understand. The imagined doom of imaginid Marxist-inspired theories used by "leftists" to dupe the public is a much larger threat to the US way of life than racism in America (systematic or not).

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Yes, of course. Why are you challenging me to name a bill that has been made law that was not proceeded by events that actually occurred? I'm not the one who says HB7 wasn't a reaction to events -- that was you. "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." As you point out, that's not why bills are normally written, so your explanation of the purpose of the bill is farfetched. In the words of the master, to prove this I'll ask you to name a bill other than HB7 that has been made law that was not preceded by events that actually occurred.

You're proposing the "Man bites dog" theory of the purpose of the law. The "Dog bites man" theory is that its purpose is to prevent events the legislators and the punk ass white people think are actually happening, namely, advocacy of the specific opinions the legislators listed in the law. You appear to have concluded that such events aren't happening because the legislators call those opinions "CRT" and you have good reason to think CRT isn't being taught. But that's an equivocation fallacy -- you aren't taking into account that the legislators think those sorts of events are exactly what CRT is all about. Just because the laws weren't preceded by events you would call "CRT" isn't reason to think they weren't preceded by events the legislators call "CRT". When they say "CRT" they're in effect speaking some other dialect of English in which the word "CRT" means something idiosyncratic. You might as well claim whichever British law makes it illegal to drive with a dead whore in your boot is a precrime law because nobody ever hid a whole dead whore in a boot, what with boots being the size of a foot.

What are you asking?

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

Actual CRT (if you know what it is).

Ah, so that would be the Platonic Form of what 'CRT' Truly Is. Like I said, I don't believe in Platonic Forms.

If you intended me to interpret "Actual CRT" according to my own impression of what CRT is all about, then yes, it seems entirely likely to me that some Florida teachers have told children something unpopular with the left was "racism" even though it doesn't satisfy a common-usage definition. This is a near certainty purely based on the demographics of teachers and leftists. But then, my own impression of what CRT is all about will have no effect on public policy, so you and I may be the only two people in the world who care what I think CRT is.

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.

That seems like an ineffective strategy for finding out if any teachers told their classes, for example, that colorblind policies are racist. A superintendent is very likely not to know if a teacher told his class that; plus which, a superintendent is very likely to think "colorblind policies are racist" isn't CRT.

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.

That's the same equivocation mistake again. Your governor DeSantis is a Republican. He did not intend to separate HB7 from what Republicans mean by "CRT". Republicans and Democrats mean different things by "CRT". I have been trying to separate HB7 from what Democrats mean by "CRT". Your governor DeSantis had no intention of associating HB7 with what Democrats mean by "CRT". I'd bet dollars to donuts your governor DeSantis doesn't give a rat's ass what Democrats mean by "CRT".

 

[Bomb#20]

Racism, systematic racism in America is very, very real. If you haven't understood that sad fact by now, you have not been paying attention.

Who here said it isn't? There are obvious examples. But that in no way implies that every bloody thing a CRT advocate labels "systematic racism", or "systemic racism", or "structural racism", is in fact racism of any kind. CRT fans have labeled the common practice of loan officers requiring bigger down payments on properties in areas where property values aren't expected to appreciate "systemic racism". Normal people don't call that "racism". They call it "Duh!".

 

[Bomb#20]

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic? Certainly there have been individual instances ... Is there something specific that is being taught en masse that you can point us to?

... 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? ...

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

Your Honor, the witness is unresponsive.

 

[Swammerdami]

... CRT fans have labeled the common practice of loan officers requiring bigger down payments on properties in areas where property values aren't expected to appreciate "systemic racism". Normal people don't call that "racism". They call it "Duh!".

Unavailability of large mortgages will depress prices, leading to a vicious cycle. That is "systemic." If property values aren't "expected" to appreciate because of occupants' race, that is — never mind who, if anyone, is to "blame" — a form of "racism."

Duh, yourself!

 

[Bomb#20]

... CRT fans have labeled the common practice of loan officers requiring bigger down payments on properties in areas where property values aren't expected to appreciate "systemic racism". Normal people don't call that "racism". They call it "Duh!".

Unavailability of large mortgages will depress prices, leading to a vicious cycle. That is "systemic." If property values aren't "expected" to appreciate because of occupants' race, that is — never mind who, if anyone, is to "blame" — a form of "racism."

Duh, yourself!

My "Duh!" was perhaps too flippant, sorry. A loan is a type of time travel: it's a way to let your prosperous future self reach backwards in time and give a helping hand to your struggling past self. A bank is in the business of selling time-machine services to customers who can afford to pay for them. I said normal people call it "Duh!" because it seemed overly pedantic to say normal people call it "A bank isn't a charity; it's in business to make a profit."

As far as your argument goes, it's sort of like "Chendra is a small elephant. Elephants are animals. Therefore Chendra is a small animal." That's not really how concept composition works. Yes, unavailability of large mortgages will depress prices, leading to a vicious cycle. But that's not "systemic", as if "systemic" were some kind of free-radical that binds to whatever is in the vicinity. That's "systemic classism" -- it's a feature of economics that's a problem for poor people of all races. If property values aren't expected to appreciate because of occupants' race, that's the racist loan officer acting on his individual racial prejudice, and CRT peddlers fall all over themselves to explain that individual acts of discrimination are not what they're talking about. Systemic classism plus Fred Banker's racism does not equal systemic racism.

 

[Swammerdami]

... "Chendra is a small elephant. Elephants are animals. Therefore Chendra is a small animal." That's not really how concept composition works. Yes, unavailability of large mortgages will depress prices, leading to a vicious cycle. But that's not "systemic", as if "systemic" were some kind of free-radical that binds to whatever is in the vicinity. That's "systemic classism" -- it's a feature of economics that's a problem for poor people of all races. If property values aren't expected to appreciate because of occupants' race, that's the racist loan officer acting on his individual racial prejudice, and CRT peddlers fall all over themselves to explain that individual acts of discrimination are not what they're talking about. Systemic classism plus Fred Banker's racism does not equal systemic racism.

Wrong in at least two ways. Fred is NOT "racist" to think property values in black neighborhoods will not appreciate BECAUSE the neighborhood is black: instead he is responding to FACT. (Do you need a cite that all else equal, homes in black neighborhoods have lower market value and appreciate more slowly?)

One cannot blame Fred: He has an obligation to maximize his bank's profits. One cannot blame George Homebuyer for not bidding more for a black's house than the market value. And presumably we don't blame George's wife Karen who prefers white neighbors. No specific individual nor individual bigotry is to blame; it is the SYSTEM which has evolved to punish black homeowners. That is why it is called SYSTEMIC racism.

Capisce?

 

[Ford]

Racism, systematic racism in America is very, very real. If you haven't understood that sad fact by now, you have not been paying attention.

Who here said it isn't? There are obvious examples. But that in no way implies that every bloody thing a CRT advocate labels "systematic racism", or "systemic racism", or "structural racism", is in fact racism of any kind. CRT fans have labeled the common practice of loan officers requiring bigger down payments on properties in areas where property values aren't expected to appreciate "systemic racism". Normal people don't call that "racism". They call it "Duh!".

Wow. TIL that Redlining was not even racist, let alone systemic. It was purely about property values in those neighborhoods and not the least bit about race!

The next thing I'll learn from reading your posts is that the reason black people are pulled over more often by police is that they statistically have more broken tail lights. It's totally not about race!

 

[Shadowy Man]

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic? Certainly there have been individual instances ... Is there something specific that is being taught en masse that you can point us to?

... 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? ...

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

Your Honor, the witness is unresponsive.

I agree. That’s why I asked the question again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... CRT fans have labeled the common practice of loan officers requiring bigger down payments on properties in areas where property values aren't expected to appreciate "systemic racism". Normal people don't call that "racism". They call it "Duh!".

Unavailability of large mortgages will depress prices, leading to a vicious cycle. That is "systemic." If property values aren't "expected" to appreciate because of occupants' race, that is — never mind who, if anyone, is to "blame" — a form of "racism."

Duh, yourself!

It has nothing to do with the occupant's race, but rather how the neighborhood is faring. Neighborhoods people don't want to live in have little appreciation and thus are riskier to loan to.

As with so much of the "racism" this is actually a socioeconomic thing, not racism. Just because it disproportionately hits blacks doesn't make it racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong in at least two ways. Fred is NOT "racist" to think property values in black neighborhoods will not appreciate BECAUSE the neighborhood is black: instead he is responding to FACT. (Do you need a cite that all else equal, homes in black neighborhoods have lower market value and appreciate more slowly?)

One cannot blame Fred: He has an obligation to maximize his bank's profits. One cannot blame George Homebuyer for not bidding more for a black's house than the market value. And presumably we don't blame George's wife Karen who prefers white neighbors. No specific individual nor individual bigotry is to blame; it is the SYSTEM which has evolved to punish black homeowners. That is why it is called SYSTEMIC racism.

Capisce?

You are making the assumption the problem is black neighbors.

At one point 3 of our 4 immediate neighbors were black, property values were going up rapidly at the time. Nobody had a problem with them being black.

Locally the areas where bankers don't like low-down mortgages have a high correspondence with the areas where I would not be comfortable walking at night. What little I have seen of the areas are bars on most every house--a clear sign of an unsafe neighborhood.

 

[ZiprHead]

... CRT fans have labeled the common practice of loan officers requiring bigger down payments on properties in areas where property values aren't expected to appreciate "systemic racism". Normal people don't call that "racism". They call it "Duh!".

Unavailability of large mortgages will depress prices, leading to a vicious cycle. That is "systemic." If property values aren't "expected" to appreciate because of occupants' race, that is — never mind who, if anyone, is to "blame" — a form of "racism."

Duh, yourself!

It has nothing to do with the occupant's race, but rather how the neighborhood is faring. Neighborhoods people don't want to live in have little appreciation and thus are riskier to loan to.

As with so much of the "racism" this is actually a socioeconomic thing, not racism. Just because it disproportionately hits blacks doesn't make it racism.

You keep saying this yet you never provide evidence for it.

 

[Jarhyn]

... CRT fans have labeled the common practice of loan officers requiring bigger down payments on properties in areas where property values aren't expected to appreciate "systemic racism". Normal people don't call that "racism". They call it "Duh!".

Unavailability of large mortgages will depress prices, leading to a vicious cycle. That is "systemic." If property values aren't "expected" to appreciate because of occupants' race, that is — never mind who, if anyone, is to "blame" — a form of "racism."

Duh, yourself!

It has nothing to do with the occupant's race, but rather how the neighborhood is faring. Neighborhoods people don't want to live in have little appreciation and thus are riskier to loan to.

As with so much of the "racism" this is actually a socioeconomic thing, not racism. Just because it disproportionately hits blacks doesn't make it racism.

No, the fact that it was designed to disproportionately hit blacks, and keep hitting them no matter how hard they clawed against it, and to be disguised under innocuous seeming language, that's what makes it racism.