Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Bomb#20]

I care because Republican law makers are making laws that are effecting everyone to prevent something that didn't happen to anyone.

How are their laws affecting everyone? Are they prohibiting CRT, and if so are the courts mistaking something else for CRT? Or are they prohibiting something other than CRT?

Are you asking to become educated about the effects of these laws or are you implicitly suggesting they have no effect? If it is the latter, why on earth do you care about anyone complaining about nothing?

When you didn't understand something you read, you asked for clarification, instead of just assuming it meant whatever you wanted it to mean. If only everyone else here who misunderstood were so wise.

The answer to your question is "Neither." I was asking in an attempt to elicit an answer to the precise question I asked; it works better if people don't respond by making believe I said something different and addressing that instead of answering the question.

I did not suggest the laws have no effect; I exhibited the two obvious possible mechanisms by which they could have an effect and invited Gospel to pick one. (Of course he's free to propose some third mechanism I didn't exhibit.) I did not do this to become educated about the effects of these laws; I did it in order to become educated about Gospel's thinking on the topic. Where the conversation goes next depends on which one he picks, if either.

Which is to say, I am asking because I am cross-examining a witness; it works better if there's a judge who listens to the question and the answer and then directs the witness to answer the question asked instead of digressing onto some other topic; but we make do with the forum we have.

How are their laws affecting everyone? Really? Murder is real right? It's why there is a law against it. Rape is real right? Thus the laws against it. CRT is/was being taught in Florida public schools (or any school in the country)? No? Doesn't matter, there is a law against it so it must have been real.

I'm not even going to get into the dangers of creating laws for imagined crimes because we'd end up talking about whitey's history. The same whitey this anti-CRT law is meant to appease.

I'm sorry to have been insufficiently clear. I was not challenging your assertion that the laws affect everyone. I was asking you to tell me what you think the mechanism is by which these laws affect everyone in spite of being allegedly laws against a thing that allegedly no one does. Is it because

(a) they prohibit teaching CRT and the courts mistake something else for CRT, or is it because
(b) they prohibit teaching something other than CRT, or is it because
(c) of some other mechanism.

Pick one. If you pick (c), please explain the mechanism.

 

[Bomb#20]

I better not see Bomb Hashtag 30

It's not a hashtag; it's a "number" symbol, from back before hashtags were a thing. Bomb Number Twenty was an AI character in an ancient SciFi movie, a spoof of HAL from "2001".

talk bout some old "don't blame me for what people did in the past" all while being ok with similar rubbish being done now.

Well, if you ever see me do something you disapprove of, feel free to raise the issue then. This isn't "Minority Report"; we aren't debating pre-crime.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm waiting for evidence of CRT being a part of the public school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade before I start ... whether its Marxist or not. That's just me.

Then why do you care about CRT at all? Why aren't you equally waiting for evidence of CRT being a part of the public school curriculum before you start posting in a CRT thread? What makes its potential Marxistness different from anything else about it?

I care because Republican law makers are making laws that are effecting everyone to prevent something that didn't happen to anyone.

“Never let the lack of a problem get in the way of a good solution” they must be saying.

 

[Bomb#20]

How are their laws affecting everyone? Are they prohibiting CRT, and if so are the courts mistaking something else for CRT? Or are they prohibiting something other than CRT?

They claim they are prohibiting CRT, but they write laws vague enough that it's clear that it's really about prohibiting teaching the unpleasant bits of history.

If you have a problem with vagueness, how about explaining the problem a little less vaguely? Who are "They", and which laws are you talking about, and which clauses prohibit vague categories of actions? Your charges are easy to make and hard to evaluate when you don't get into specifics. Last year we did a deep dive on the Tennessee law and most of the allegations being made against it didn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Gospel]

I better not see Bomb Hashtag 30

It's not a hashtag; it's a "number" symbol, from back before hashtags were a thing. Bomb Number Twenty was an AI character in an ancient SciFi movie, a spoof of HAL from "2001".

talk bout some old "don't blame me for what people did in the past" all while being ok with similar rubbish being done now.

Well, if you ever see me do something you disapprove of, feel free to raise the issue then. This isn't "Minority Report"; we aren't debating pre-crime.

Yes we are.

 

[Bomb#20]

This isn't "Minority Report"; we aren't debating pre-crime.

Yes we are.

This isn't an argument; it's just contradiction.

 

[Jarhyn]

This isn't "Minority Report"; we aren't debating pre-crime.

Yes we are.

This isn't an argument; it's just contradiction.

No, Gospel is right. We are debating the GOP's tendency (afaik) to pass laws to ostensibly prevent things nobody has done. That's as about as adjacent to "pre-crime" as it gets.

Personally I am for passing laws against behaviors in general enough language that it captures things we know aren't currently crimes but will be, similar to the protections towards nondiscrimination on account of "sex", not against crimes nobody does and nobody will ever do, but against something bad that people do more than anyone seems to realize.

The salient difference between the left and right in this regard seems to be that the left openly wants to make general and yet highly functional laws that prevent actual problems of unilateral imposition of belief that do come up, and the right wants to make laws in bad faith to hurt people they dislike... So they can unilaterally impose their beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't "Minority Report"; we aren't debating pre-crime.

Yes we are.

This isn't an argument; it's just contradiction.

As noted above, CRT isn’t taught in grade schools, so campaigning on it being taught in grade school, passing legislation preventing teaching of it in grade school, and signing legislation to do as such is very much solving a problem that doesn’t exist, but rather is an absolute lie by the GOP.

 

[Gospel]

This isn't "Minority Report"; we aren't debating pre-crime.

Yes we are.

This isn't an argument; it's just contradiction.

I think the word you were looking for was irony. CRT was not a part of any Florida (private or public) school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Ever. Existing laws were in place to protect white people from discrimination. 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.

 

[Elixir]

My dude, can we agree that segregating students by race and treating children based on their skin color is wrong?

DUDE, can we agree that has absolutely nothing to do with CRT?
Or are you unfamiliar with what CRT is?
I’m suspecting intentional conflation.

 

[Gospel]

I care because Republican law makers are making laws that are effecting everyone to prevent something that didn't happen to anyone.

How are their laws affecting everyone? Are they prohibiting CRT, and if so are the courts mistaking something else for CRT? Or are they prohibiting something other than CRT?

Are you asking to become educated about the effects of these laws or are you implicitly suggesting they have no effect? If it is the latter, why on earth do you care about anyone complaining about nothing?

When you didn't understand something you read, you asked for clarification, instead of just assuming it meant whatever you wanted it to mean. If only everyone else here who misunderstood were so wise.

The answer to your question is "Neither." I was asking in an attempt to elicit an answer to the precise question I asked; it works better if people don't respond by making believe I said something different and addressing that instead of answering the question.

I did not suggest the laws have no effect; I exhibited the two obvious possible mechanisms by which they could have an effect and invited Gospel to pick one. (Of course he's free to propose some third mechanism I didn't exhibit.) I did not do this to become educated about the effects of these laws; I did it in order to become educated about Gospel's thinking on the topic. Where the conversation goes next depends on which one he picks, if either.

Which is to say, I am asking because I am cross-examining a witness; it works better if there's a judge who listens to the question and the answer and then directs the witness to answer the question asked instead of digressing onto some other topic; but we make do with the forum we have.

How are their laws affecting everyone? Really? Murder is real right? It's why there is a law against it. Rape is real right? Thus the laws against it. CRT is/was being taught in Florida public schools (or any school in the country)? No? Doesn't matter, there is a law against it so it must have been real.

I'm not even going to get into the dangers of creating laws for imagined crimes because we'd end up talking about whitey's history. The same whitey this anti-CRT law is meant to appease.

I'm sorry to have been insufficiently clear. I was not challenging your assertion that the laws affect everyone. I was asking you to tell me what you think the mechanism is by which these laws affect everyone in spite of being allegedly laws against a thing that allegedly no one does. Is it because

(a) they prohibit teaching CRT and the courts mistake something else for CRT, or is it because
(b) they prohibit teaching something other than CRT, or is it because
(c) of some other mechanism.

Pick one. If you pick (c), please explain the mechanism.

The answer is all of the below.

(a) Have you stopped beating your wife?
(b) Have you stopped beating your wife?
(c) Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Worldtraveller]

I better not see Bomb Hashtag 30 talk bout some old "don't blame me for what people did in the past" all while being ok with similar rubbish being done now.

My guess would be "they're not OK with it" but when asked "so what did you do as a result of your not-ok-ness," the answer has always been *crickets*.

Of course the common tactic of the right is to design a law, position, or argument that will simultaneously accomplish a really fucked up goal, while being able to claim it's ostensibly to redress some imaginary thing that sounds scary, and is similar enough to a real problem for idiots to confuse the two.

Well, you can't go wrong over estimating the gullibility of the rightwing flock.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

How are their laws affecting everyone? Are they prohibiting CRT, and if so are the courts mistaking something else for CRT? Or are they prohibiting something other than CRT?

They claim they are prohibiting CRT, but they write laws vague enough that it's clear that it's really about prohibiting teaching the unpleasant bits of history.

See my post #1. The Christopher Rufo quote. Rufo was the clown that started this hysteria. He has an agenda. You nailed it.

 

[Gospel]

Whitey had a ton of laws in place to prevent something that didn't happen and wasn't going to happen. Which was black people rising up and enslaving whitey. Those laws against slaves share the same premise as this protection for whitey's feelings and fears of brown people's free speech when we say "you ought to feel guilty for what your ancestors did, being that you're a beneficiary and all". It's not like we aren't all beneficiaries. Gosh. I feel guilty of not making the best out of this freedom many of my people did not fucking have.

Disclaimer: I mean whitey in a poking fun at the demographic that supports these sorts of laws. Not In a I hate white people way. In fact I don't plan to use that slur much longer.

 

[Worldtraveller]

To be fair, snowflakes are white.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whitey had a ton of laws in place to prevent something that didn't happen and wasn't going to happen. Which was black people rising up and enslaving whitey. Those laws against slaves share the same premise as this protection for whitey's feelings and fears of brown people's free speech when we say "you ought to feel guilty for what your ancestors did, being that you're a beneficiary and all". It's not like we aren't all beneficiaries. Gosh. I feel guilty of not making the best out of this freedom many of my people did not fucking have.

When we keep looking back at history, and US history is rife with issues on segregation, bigotry, and whatnot... what is coming out these days is that things were actually worse... and on top of that, in many cases quite intentional. Blacks were kept from being able to pass on a legacy, from the late 19th century into the 1970s. Blacks were isolated and removed from local culture. Public places of leisure became private. Neighborhoods were restricted access.

And we are still having troubles in trying to wipe out the unintended inertial racism out of the system, something some people don't even want to recognize exists.

 

[ZiprHead]

Whitey had a ton of laws in place to prevent something that didn't happen and wasn't going to happen. Which was black people rising up and enslaving whitey. Those laws against slaves share the same premise as this protection for whitey's feelings and fears of brown people's free speech when we say "you ought to feel guilty for what your ancestors did, being that you're a beneficiary and all". It's not like we aren't all beneficiaries. Gosh. I feel guilty of not making the best out of this freedom many of my people did not fucking have.

When we keep looking back at history, and US history is rife with issues on segregation, bigotry, and whatnot... what is coming out these days is that things were actually worse... and on top of that, in many cases quite intentional. Blacks were kept from being able to pass on a legacy, from the late 19th century into the 1970s. Blacks were isolated and removed from local culture. Public places of leisure became private. Neighborhoods were restricted access.

And we are still having troubles in trying to wipe out the unintended inertial racism out of the system, something some people don't even want to recognize exists.

Trump just had a rally by a little town that still has Sundown Laws on the books. The warning siren still goes off every evening warning blacks, hispanics, and native Americans it's time to leave.

 

[Elixir]

Disclaimer: I mean whitey in a poking fun at the demographic that supports these sorts of laws. Not In a I hate white people way. In fact I don't plan to use that slur much longer.

Let me know when you’re done with it - I might have some uses…

In a completely unrelated matter, our new white puppy’s nickname is “Cracker”.

 

[Gospel]

Whitey had a ton of laws in place to prevent something that didn't happen and wasn't going to happen. Which was black people rising up and enslaving whitey. Those laws against slaves share the same premise as this protection for whitey's feelings and fears of brown people's free speech when we say "you ought to feel guilty for what your ancestors did, being that you're a beneficiary and all". It's not like we aren't all beneficiaries. Gosh. I feel guilty of not making the best out of this freedom many of my people did not fucking have.

When we keep looking back at history, and US history is rife with issues on segregation, bigotry, and whatnot... what is coming out these days is that things were actually worse... and on top of that, in many cases quite intentional. Blacks were kept from being able to pass on a legacy, from the late 19th century into the 1970s. Blacks were isolated and removed from local culture. Public places of leisure became private. Neighborhoods were restricted access.

And we are still having troubles in trying to wipe out the unintended inertial racism out of the system, something some people don't even want to recognize exists.

Trump just had a rally by a little town that still has Sundown Laws on the books. The warning siren still goes off every evening warning blacks, hispanics, and native Americans it's time to leave.

Hopefully they didn't waste the tone alarm, all reasonable personnel knows to hit the exit when Trump arrives.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whitey had a ton of laws in place to prevent something that didn't happen and wasn't going to happen. Which was black people rising up and enslaving whitey. Those laws against slaves share the same premise as this protection for whitey's feelings and fears of brown people's free speech when we say "you ought to feel guilty for what your ancestors did, being that you're a beneficiary and all". It's not like we aren't all beneficiaries. Gosh. I feel guilty of not making the best out of this freedom many of my people did not fucking have.

When we keep looking back at history, and US history is rife with issues on segregation, bigotry, and whatnot... what is coming out these days is that things were actually worse... and on top of that, in many cases quite intentional. Blacks were kept from being able to pass on a legacy, from the late 19th century into the 1970s. Blacks were isolated and removed from local culture. Public places of leisure became private. Neighborhoods were restricted access.

And we are still having troubles in trying to wipe out the unintended inertial racism out of the system, something some people don't even want to recognize exists.

Trump just had a rally by a little town that still has Sundown Laws on the books. The warning siren still goes off every evening warning blacks, hispanics, and native Americans it's time to leave.

Hopefully they didn't waste the tone alarm, all reasonable personnel knows to hit the exit when Trump arrives.

@ZiprHead link?