Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Swammerdami]

Jon Stewart discusses CRT.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The law likely doesn’t say CRT in it because they know that CRT isn’t actually taught in lower schools. And because the courts work in provable facts and you can’t just lie in courts they know they would lose any challenges. By making the language vague they give themselves flexibility in court to make whatever argument they want and hope for a sympathetic judge.

 

[Ford]

The law likely doesn’t say CRT in it because they know that CRT isn’t actually taught in lower schools.

This is stock in trade for the right wing.

It's like the "widespread election fraud" thing. The leadership of the GOP know full well there was no widespread election fraud. The right wing mainstream media knows it as well. Some of the election denier candidates in this upcoming contest are "true believers," but most know it's bullshit, too.

Yet they also know that it gets the villagers riled up. So they don't come right out and admit what they know. That would be political suicide. They hem and haw about "election integrity," or say (in the case of Tucker Carlsonovich) "I'm just asking questions," or pull the "it doesn't say 'don't say gay,' therefore it's not anti-LGBTQ at all" bullshit.

I can almost guarantee that there was a meeting or a Zoom call or an email chain in every state that's proposing anti-CRT legislation where some intrepid staffer asked "what do we do when they point out there's no actual CRT being taught in schools?" The more experienced among them will say something akin to "oh you sweet summer child" and explain that it's not about truth, or facts, or accuracy. It's about manipulation, money, votes, and power.

And fear. Fear sells. Fear motivates. To hear DeSantis and others like him tell it, elementary schools are - or will be if "the left" has any say - terrifying places where unsuspecting children go from a morning dance routine from a drag queen, to a reading of the 1619 Project, to a bathroom break where pedophiles molest kids in the stalls, and the day finishes with a sport ball contest where boys dressed as girls easily defeat their daughters in the game and nobody is allowed to pray afterwards.

Would it be better if the team made up of boys dressed as girls prayed to Jesus to thank him for their victory? I dunno. Anyway...

YOUR CHILDREN ARE AT RISK!!!

All these things need to be fought super-duper hard so that schools can finally be safe again. The metal detectors, reinforced doors, armed cops patrolling the halls, armed teachers, bulletproof backpacks and active shooter drills at Robert E. Lee Elementary? Well that's just normal kid's stuff!

 

[Gospel]

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? 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.

We all get that you believe CRT was not a part of any Florida school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade, but your belief isn't the issue.

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

Do you have evidence that the Florida legislators believed CRT was not a part of any Florida school curriculum from Kindergarten to 12th grade?

Again, 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? You seem upset about the fact this bill was written to address a nonexistent issue. What a waste of energy, I hope you're on solar.

Let's get to some white meat of this issue:

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.

Subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:

"Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin."

What this language does is it makes European Americans feel better, because they are the only ones that can (if schools and private business were instructed/attempting to do so) be made to feel morally inferior in regards to African American history.

An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.

The only folks this makes feel better are folks who are against diversity, equity & inclusion. There is no evidence that employees were/are receiving adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity or inclusion. I'd wager that minorities are less likely to complain about the concepts of diversity, equity & inclusion so I'll have to add this to my make European Americans feel better list.

An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.

Hmm, I wonder which race can be (not should - get your European American feelings together) compelled to feel personally responsible, guilt, anguish and other forms of phycological distress because of actions committed in the past by other members of the same race? This law is made to make European Americans people feel better.

Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

What corporation, public or private school's modus operandi is compelling folks to believe that the virtues mentioned above were created by members of a particular race to oppress another? 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.

 

[Bomb#20]

When you infer that the legislators were disingenuous merely from the difference between how they sold the bill and what the bill actually bans, you appear to be relying on the unstated premise that the term "CRT" means the same thing to the legislators as what the term "CRT" means to you

No, I'm saying no matter what CRT is, it is disingenuous to claim that the bill does not ban whatever the legislators claim it is if you claim they are not disingenuous.

What the heck are you on about? Your argument appeared to contain a reasoning error so I pointed it out. Who the bejesus claims the bill does not ban what the legislators claim CRT is, and where the hell did you see me make any claim one way or the other about whether the legislators are disingenuous?

 

[Jarhyn]

What the heck are you on about

What Ford was saying: you can either claim that since the bill doesn't mention CRT it doesn't ban CRT, and so the legislature was disingenuous, so it's disingenuous to defend their presentation of the bill, OR you can accept that the legislature thought they were banning CRT and that regardless of the language, this is what they think they are banning, and thus accept that "the bill bans CRT".

You went down the fork of "the bill doesn't say therefore the bill doesn't contain...", So the reasonable conclusion is "therefore the legislature is being dishonest about the bill".

You did not go down that end of that fork. Instead you reached a conclusion not warranted by the facts of this case.

This implies disingenuousness, the lack of desire to follow the evidence to its own conclusion and rather replace it with your own, evidence be damned.

Of course we all know that the bill was not designed to ban CRT at all, it was designed to ban education about consent in society.

 

[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?

This is you being disingenuous again.

I wonder if LD and JH still think you're not accusing me of dishonesty. Your opinion of me is one you acquired by being too incompetent to recognize your own incompetence. Go crawl back under your rock.

You know full well that the intent of the legislation is to ban not only CRT (which, again, is not being taught), but anything and any material which might even be loosely associated with teaching that the US has a long history of institutional racism.

Ooh, look who acquired ESP.[/sarcasm] For your information, this is a forum for infidels. I am an infidel. I am not a member of your religion. I sincerely do not accept the tenets of your religion, even though that's evidently as hard for you to wrap your mind around as it is for a lot of Christians to grok that there are people who really truly don't believe in their God. You are being exactly as obnoxious as a Christian who insists I know there's a God and I'm just mad at Him, and you are doing it for exactly the same reason: because deluding yourself that the other guy secretly agrees with you and is just being a dick about admitting it relieves you of the burden of applying critical thought to your own opinion.

For your information, no, I don't know that the intent of the legislation is to ban anything and any material which might even be loosely associated with teaching that the US has a long history of institutional racism. I have seen no evidence that your contention is correct, and upthread I already pointed out a clause in the law that the legislators would have had no incentive to include if their intention were what you say it is. This isn't the first time you've fabricated a position and imputed it to me. Stop doing that. You are behaving unethically. If you are unable to conduct yourself ethically, go away.

It is deliberately worded broadly so they can give folks like you an easy talking point of "but it doesn't say Critical Race Theory!") and claim innocence while pushing the whitewashing of history.

Stop strawmanning me. And stop thinking in terms of "folks like you", as though all the people in your outgroup were interchangeable parts. You quite evidently have no understanding whatsoever of why I pointed out to Gospel that it doesn't say Critical Race Theory. And at no point have I pushed the whitewashing of history -- that is a figment of your imagination. You want to play the semiliterate and blast imprecations at your caricature of the generic enemy you hate, please yourself, but leave me out of it.

<more complaints about other people snipped>

You're being disingenuous

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

because you know this is the game, but are clutching your pearls and saying "oh lordy, I'm just pointing out that the bill doesn't say these words! How dare you impugn my motives!" Do us all a favor and drop the act.

I know how you dare impugn my motives: you dare impugn my motives because it's less effort than thinking and you have no moral compunctions about libel.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

This is you being disingenuous again.

I wonder if LD and JH still think you're not accusing me of dishonesty.

No need to wonder. Logically, I can understand why the first instance was not an accusation of dishonesty. I find the level of persistent obtuseness in your arguments in this thread to be so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable. So, I certainly can understand why someone would look for another explanation.

I do think your repetition of the irrelevant "why isn't CRT explicitly mentioned" as an indication of your inability to escape whatever echo chamber in which you are trapped.

BTW, I must observe for someone who dislikes having people impugn motives onto you, you certainly have no problem impugning motives of others.

 

[Bomb#20]

What the heck are you on about

What Ford was saying:

If you are endorsing what Ford was saying then your moral faculty is broken. And since you saw fit to snip them out, here are my questions to you again:

Who the bejesus claims the bill does not ban what the legislators claim CRT is, and where the hell did you see me make any claim one way or the other about whether the legislators are disingenuous?​

you can either claim that since the bill doesn't mention CRT it doesn't ban CRT, and so the legislature was disingenuous, so it's disingenuous to defend their presentation of the bill,

Why the heck would anyone claim that? That's three non-sequiturs in a row.

OR you can accept that the legislature thought they were banning CRT and that regardless of the language, this is what they think they are banning, and thus accept that "the bill bans CRT".

And that's a false dilemma fallacy followed by a non sequitur. There are obviously other options besides the ones you offer me; and it obviously does not follow from "the legislature thought they were banning CRT and that regardless of the language, this is what they think they are banning" that one must accept that "the bill bans CRT". The legislature might have been mistaken about what CRT is. Duh!

You went down the fork of "the bill doesn't say therefore the bill doesn't contain...",

Is "Jarhyn" a sockpuppet of Ford?[/sarcasm] You went down the fork of Ford, so now I have to ask you the same question I asked him.

Jarhyn, when you wrote that sentence, did you sincerely believe it was true? Did you compose those words first, and afterwards add the quotation marks and the "You went down the fork of", and somehow, in the few seconds in between, forget that you'd just composed those words? Or did you write "You went down the fork of" first, and then write a quotation mark, and then compose the words you intended to attribute to me, and then write a closing quotation mark?

So the reasonable conclusion is "therefore the legislature is being dishonest about the bill".

Let's consider that further after you redo your argument without the obvious inference errors and still get to that conclusion.

You did not go down that end of that fork. Instead you reached a conclusion not warranted by the facts of this case.

What conclusion are you saying I reached? The one you put in my mouth? The conclusion I reached was that there was an error in Gospel's argument. Then you and some other kibitzers apparently all drew some other conclusions, imputed them to me, and started abusing me for having reasoned like yourselves.

This implies disingenuousness, the lack of desire to follow the evidence to its own conclusion and rather replace it with your own, evidence be damned.

When you're considering accusing other people of dishonesty, you and Ford really need to start taking into account the fact that you two aren't good enough at logic to justify believing your own deductions.

Of course we all know that the bill was not designed to ban CRT at all, it was designed to ban education about consent in society.

"For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.…"​

Stop thinking like a Christian fundamentalist.

 

[Jarhyn]

All I can, say bomb, is that it is clear that you do, in fact, wish to ban education about consent in society. You seem to liken it to a religion, this depth of understanding of consent.

Whose moral faculty is broken then to wish to keep people ignorant and unthinking on such subjects as consent?

The point is to understand what actually lives at the heart of this concept that humans have identified as "evil".

Consent cannot be given suitably when one does not fully understand the nature of it and the models by which society operates with respect to it.

If you argue against the power of consent, then you argue against others respecting your own desire to not consent.

This in fact justifies response, to the extent that it minimizes your lack of consent while allowing the goal of response.

 

[Bomb#20]

I find the level of persistent obtuseness in your arguments in this thread to be so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable.

What obtuseness? I can see how it might look like I keep obtusely overestimating other participants' ability to follow an argument containing more than one reasoning step, but keep in mind I didn't ask any of you to butt into my conversation with Gospel. I was arguing with him, not with the rest of you, because of all the leftists in the discussion, he comes off as the most intelligent and the least religious.

I do think your repetition of the irrelevant "why isn't CRT explicitly mentioned"

Have you bloody well considered the possibility that your opinion that it's irrelevant might have been derived from your preoccupation with the debate you talk like you think I was having with you, and your lack of interest in the debate I was actually having with Gospel?

as an indication of your inability to escape whatever echo chamber in which you are trapped.

Yes, yes, we all know you're the world champ at I'm-rubber-you're-glue. The only echo chamber I'm in is the progressive echo chamber IIDB seems to be deteriorating into. It's not as though there's anywhere I could find an echo chamber of people who think like me -- I'm apparently a majority of one.

The progressives denounce bans on government schools preaching progressivism as censorship, but want to ban them from preaching Christianity. The Christians denounce bans on government schools preaching Christianity as censorship, but want to ban them from preaching progressivism. If you know where there's an echo chamber of people who denounce double standards and want to ban government schools from preaching any religion, feel free to point it out.

BTW, I must observe for someone who dislikes having people impugn motives onto you, you certainly have no problem impugning motives of others.

"Hey Ken, want to see my impression of Gandhi?"[/Buffy]

 

[Gospel]

Anyone ever been inside a restaurant with carpeted floors that haven't been cleaned in 10 years? If so, you know what the brain cells of ignorant European Americans vying to justify laws that benefit them over others smell like.

 

[Bomb#20]

All I can, say bomb, is that it is clear that you do, in fact, wish

Ah, so you're another ESPer like Ford.[/sarcasm]

to ban education about consent in society.

Show your work.

You seem to liken it to a religion,

Progressivism is a religion. If you equate progressivism to "education about consent in society", you're thinking like a Christian who says "God is Love" and deduces that any rejection of God is equivalent to rejection of love.

this depth of understanding of consent.

And we should believe you're an authority on whose understanding of consent is deepest, why? Because you're in favor of putting a tax on intact vas deferenses?[/sarcasm]

Feel free to explain why depth of understanding of consent cannot be communicated unless a government teacher endorses, for example, "An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin", to a government-supplied captive audience.

Whose moral faculty is broken then to wish to keep people ignorant and unthinking on such subjects as consent?

Stop strawmanning.

Consent cannot be given suitably when one does not fully understand the nature of it and the models by which society operates with respect to it.

If that's true then nobody can have consented to anything ever. You are speaking your own private Humpty-Dumpty language.

 

[Elixir]

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.

Do you favor education about consent?

 

[IIDB Staff]

Please quit the repeated claims of what each other is thinking!

 

[Jarhyn]

I have made a few fairly succinct observations:

That the push of the bill is to ban comprehensive education about consent;

That some wish to see education in consent banned;

That seeking to ban education in consent is immoral, and is a directly evil goal.



As has been observed, society has had very little consent involved in it for a very long time.

There are plenty of folks out there who can agree on what is and isn't consent, even so. There are whole communities built around solutions to disambiguation of consent.

Its not an unknown quantity. It's not something I came up with myself and it's not even that hard to teach.

Most of it can be learned from watching Bluey.

 

[Ford]

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?

This is you being disingenuous again.

I wonder if LD and JH still think you're not accusing me of dishonesty.

No need to wonder. Logically, I can understand why the first instance was not an accusation of dishonesty. I find the level of persistent obtuseness in your arguments in this thread to be so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable. So, I certainly can understand why someone would look for another explanation.

I do think your repetition of the irrelevant "why isn't CRT explicitly mentioned" as an indication of your inability to escape whatever echo chamber in which you are trapped.

Indeed.

 

[laughing dog]

I find the level of persistent obtuseness in your arguments in this thread to be so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable.

What obtuseness? I can see how it might look like I keep obtusely overestimating other participants' ability to follow an argument containing more than one reasoning step, but keep in mind I didn't ask any of you to butt into my conversation with Gospel.

This is a public forum. It is pretty "obtuse" for anyone to complain about others "butting" into a public conversation. No one needs your permission to response to a public comment. Really, your response is pretty effing ridiculous.

I was arguing with him, not with the rest of you, because of all the leftists in the discussion, he comes off as the most intelligent and the least religious.

Coming from someone stuck in his own religious echo-chamber, I have to take that seriously.

I do think your repetition of the irrelevant "why isn't CRT explicitly mentioned"

Have you bloody well considered the possibility that your opinion that it's irrelevant might have been derived from your preoccupation with the debate you talk like you think I was having with you, and your lack of interest in the debate I was actually having with Gospel?

It is irrelevant to the debate you would be having with anyone on the subject. Many posters have posted numerous reasonable and rational possible explanations for its absence which, for some reason, you appear unable or unwilling to accept.

as an indication of your inability to escape whatever echo chamber in which you are trapped.

Yes, yes, we all know you're the world champ at I'm-rubber-you're-glue. The only echo chamber I'm in is the progressive echo chamber IIDB seems to be deteriorating into.

Thanks for impugning my motive. I used the term "echo chamber"((a term you use, so I presume you know what it means) to foster effective communication, because you seem to have real trouble grasping a number of simple concepts in this thread. BTW, you do not seem to understand how to use your childish "I'm rubber-you're-glue" retort. In order for that to applicable, I would have to deny being in an echo chamber - which I have not denied.

I also find your new obsession with "progressive" rather amusing. There is nothing inherently with thinking or wanting a legislature to minimize its meddling in areas in which it has little or no expertise.

It's not as though there's anywhere I could find an echo chamber of people who think like me -- I'm apparently a majority of one.

Sure Jan, whatever makes you feel better.

The progressives denounce bans on government schools preaching progressivism as censorship, but want to ban them from preaching Christianity. The Christians denounce bans on government schools preaching Christianity as censorship, but want to ban them from preaching progressivism. If you know where there's an echo chamber of people who denounce double standards and want to ban government schools from preaching any religion, feel free to point it out.

What you seem unable to grasp that education is ultimately about preaching some ism. The debates over what which ism is permissible under the Constitution and which ism(s) ought to be taught that are permissible under the Constitution. Anyone who want to ban gov't schools from preaching any religion is either extremely naive/obtuse or is guilty of the same double standard they decry.