Happy Juneteenth one and all!

[laughing dog]

So you feel it's okay for schools to teach that one race is inherently superior to another? Not shocked. Really.

Didn’t say it. Not shocked at yet another one of your stupid straw men.

laughing dog is too busy doling out stupid straw men to be on the receiving end, apparently
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...h-one-and-all!&p=913754&viewfull=1#post913754

Truly ironic.

 

[Bomb#20]

We are talking about Texas, right? The state that tried to get Thomas Jefferson out of the classroom? Please excuse me for not taking their concern at face value.

We are talking about you, right? The guy who gets his news of the world from the Colbert Report*? Please excuse me for not taking your concern at face value.

(* Which is to say, no, Texas did not try to get Thomas Jefferson out of the classroom.)

Where are these mobs of woke liberals feeding so many lies to children in school the state had to amend laws to deal with it?

CRT is not a product of "woke liberals", whatever the heck those might be. It's a product of Marxists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

 

[Metaphor]

Why? The legislation does not forbid conversation based on the perceived or expressed discomfort of students. It forbids the championing of certain concepts by officials in certain teaching contexts.

Given the many examples of white people’s hypersensitivity in discussions of race,it wouldn’t take much for an administrator to use prohibited standard 6 or 7 to step in and do something.

An administrator could have done that anyway.

 

[Metaphor]

laughing dog is too busy doling out stupid straw men to be on the receiving end, apparently
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...h-one-and-all!&p=913754&viewfull=1#post913754

Truly ironic.

Yes. It is "ironic" (that is, hypocritical) of you to bang on about someone else's straw man moments after you made one yourself.

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog is too busy doling out stupid straw men to be on the receiving end, apparently
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...h-one-and-all!&p=913754&viewfull=1#post913754

Truly ironic.

Yes. It is "ironic" (that is, hypocritical) of you to bang on about someone else's straw man moments after you made one yourself.

Didn’t happen.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Today, we celebrate Juneteenth, which marks and celebrates the end of slavery in the United States. But we're still confronting the truth about our history and the injustices we still face — including deadly police violence and voter suppression. There's still work to do. (vid link)" / Twitter

This is, I think, prtty consistent with the Republican base, whether it's trying to fight against teaching basic history around racism and the role of racism in US history. There's a direct through line from that to denying Juneteenth, the day that is widely recognized and celebrated as the symbolic day to represent the end of slavery in the United States.

There's a direct through line between that denial of our history, and wanting to understand the full scope of our history, and celebrating the end, a major end of injustice, in the United States. I think it's a shame. But there's also plenty of wonderful allies that helped us pass this vote today, despite that. And so I'm very thankful to all of our colleagues, including the white men in the Republican caucus that said, okay, fine, we'll vote for this on this one, too.

But I think it just goes to show the importance of teaching our history, warts and all, because it helps us appreciate the justice and freedoms that we have today.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. It is "ironic" (that is, hypocritical) of you to bang on about someone else's straw man moments after you made one yourself.

Didn’t happen.

Yes, it did.

trausti posed a question to you, to which you responded "didn't say it" and called the question an 'idiotic straw man'.

In post #92, you posed a rhetorical question to me, implying something that I did not say.

The evidence is there for everyone to see, laughing dog.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes. It is "ironic" (that is, hypocritical) of you to bang on about someone else's straw man moments after you made one yourself.

Didn’t happen.

Yes, it did.

trausti posed a question to you, to which you responded "didn't say it" and called the question an 'idiotic straw man'.

In post #92, you posed a rhetorical question to me, implying something that I did not say.

The evidence is there for everyone to see, laughing dog.

I read it. You are misinterpreting it.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, it did.

trausti posed a question to you, to which you responded "didn't say it" and called the question an 'idiotic straw man'.

In post #92, you posed a rhetorical question to me, implying something that I did not say.

The evidence is there for everyone to see, laughing dog.

I read it. You are misinterpreting it.

Oh yes. How, specifically?

 

[Mumbles]

Yes, we went over that, and why it's such a badly written piece of legislation. Nothing to do with CRT, regardless.

You asked for a quote of the legislation that is about the teaching of "inferior races". If that is what you wanted, I quoted it for you. If that isn't what you wanted, then your request was unclear.

And it ends at the exact same discussion, which is the point I was making. This has nothing to do with "CRT", it's the same attempt to stifle basic history/social studies.

 

[Mumbles]

We are talking about Texas, right? The state that tried to get Thomas Jefferson out of the classroom? Please excuse me for not taking their concern at face value.

We are talking about you, right? The guy who gets his news of the world from the Colbert Report*? Please excuse me for not taking your concern at face value.

(* Which is to say, no, Texas did not try to get Thomas Jefferson out of the classroom.)

Where are these mobs of woke liberals feeding so many lies to children in school the state had to amend laws to deal with it?

CRT is not a product of "woke liberals", whatever the heck those might be. It's a product of Marxists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

Well, the "useful" point, as far as CRT goes, is that it was a product of black legal scholars as a continuation of the Civil Rights movement, by demonstrating that "colorblind" equality was more ore less worthless, and a serious consideration of race is merited and likely required.

...by the way, very few people in the Civil Rights movement ever told people to "not see color" or be "colorblind", and nobody major did, that's just some arrogant Morgan Freeman Lil' Wayne nonsense. MLK's out of context quote was a hopeful, ideal future where people were *judged* by their character, as opposed to his present, where, he was extremely clear, the government owed black people a lot of investment, police needed drastic reform, and so forth, before this could come to be.

Investments have not been made. Police are still violently racist. We're not even *close* to the day anyone gets to "not see color"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are talking about Texas, right? The state that tried to get Thomas Jefferson out of the classroom? Please excuse me for not taking their concern at face value.

We are talking about you, right? The guy who gets his news of the world from the Colbert Report*? Please excuse me for not taking your concern at face value.

(* Which is to say, no, Texas did not try to get Thomas Jefferson out of the classroom.)

But here's what the board did: Early in the day, member Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, successfully moved to remove Thomas Jefferson from a list of philosophers in the World History standards, and added religious thinkers including John Calvin and Thomas Acquinas, and Sir William Blackstone, an influential English judge who wrote a lasting treatise on common law. Dunbar’s amendment also cut a reference to the Enlightenment, an 18th century movement emphasizing science and reason over religion and tradition.

I overstated the claim for brevity, my bad, it was sloppy. link

Where are these mobs of woke liberals feeding so many lies to children in school the state had to amend laws to deal with it?

CRT is not a product of "woke liberals", whatever the heck those might be. It's a product of Marxists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

Not the boogie-man!

 

[laughing dog]

Yes. It is "ironic" (that is, hypocritical) of you to bang on about someone else's straw man moments after you made one yourself.

Didn’t happen.

Yes, it did.

trausti posed a question to you, to which you responded "didn't say it" and called the question an 'idiotic straw man'.

In post #92, you posed a rhetorical question to me, implying something that I did not say.

The evidence is there for everyone to see, laughing dog.

Yes, you are correct. The evidence is there to see that once again you misread between the lines. And there is independent confirmation of that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, it did.

trausti posed a question to you, to which you responded "didn't say it" and called the question an 'idiotic straw man'.

In post #92, you posed a rhetorical question to me, implying something that I did not say.

The evidence is there for everyone to see, laughing dog.

I read it. You are misinterpreting it.

Oh yes. How, specifically?

Well, I think how it happened is that even though you call yourself Metaphor, you are actually pretty literalist and concrete. So if an interpretation involves more than one step, levels of references or abstractions, you may fail to see it. In this specific case, you failed to notice the reference to what is going on in the thread because you have to go one level back to what you wrote, i.e. the right is using Juneteenth as a springboard in this thread, including you. But the other contextual clue you missed is that "the right" had quotes around it and so it wasn't a reference to the exact opposite of what you wrote...but to you and your comrades. By definition, your own involvement and initiation of that springboard makes it impossible to be a strawman.

Of course, I could also be wrong in some way I have not realized, too. Let's ask laughing dog.

 

[ZiprHead]

[TWEET]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Critical Race Theory is why I’m waiting for the dentist right now</p>— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) <a href="https://twitter.com/CharlesPPierce/status/1407073768636399621?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 21, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/TWEET]

Some replies...

Critical race theory is why I still owe Columbia House $47 for a Journey album.

Critical Race Theory put the tribbles in the quadrotriticale

Critical Race Theory is why UV rays are causing my car's paint to fade.

 

[Mumbles]

Not the boogie-man!

You may remember this same logic from "BLM is Marxist!" (it's not really, the vast majority of people involved are still concerned with police brutality) and "BLM is a terrorist group!" (still 0 people killed, and no planned or executed terrorist attacks, in mid-2021). Basically, the same hysterical white supremacist backlash we saw after reconstruction ("Negro Domination"), the civil Rights era ("Race mixing is communism!") and at the start of the Obama Era ("Kenyan Anti-colonialist!") Wild-eyed nonsense that only serves as an excuse to continue white supremacism in society - which, in this case, is strong evidence that Critical Race Theorists were entirely right all along.

 

[Bomb#20]

I overstated the claim for brevity, my bad, it was sloppy.

When every pressure group under the sun is demanding that the curriculum be grown to include its favorite overlooked person, there are basically two choices: either you cut somebody who's already referenced forty-seven times back to forty-six, or else you just grow and grow the number of topics covered and present each of them with less and less depth, until history is just a list of bullet points. I can't fault anybody for taking Jefferson out of a section on philosophy: he's basically warmed-over Locke. Putting in Blackstone seems like a good idea to me. Calvin and Aquinas, not so much -- that's what really puts the board's bias on display.

Where are these mobs of woke liberals feeding so many lies to children in school the state had to amend laws to deal with it?

CRT is not a product of "woke liberals", whatever the heck those might be. It's a product of Marxists.

Not the boogie-man!

Hey man, I'm just correcting the record. Whatever the people pushing CRT may be, liberals they are not.

 

[Bomb#20]

...

Juneteenth is a federal holiday commemorating the emancipation of enslaved African Americans. ... Explain to me how this bill prevents the teaching of the fact listed above.

...
Gotta protect the little right-wing snowflakes. That's the important part.

CRT is not a product of "woke liberals", whatever the heck those might be. It's a product of Marxists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

Well, the "useful" point, as far as CRT goes, is that it was a product of black legal scholars as a continuation of the Civil Rights movement, by demonstrating that "colorblind" equality was more ore less worthless, and a serious consideration of race is merited and likely required.

...by the way, very few people in the Civil Rights movement ever told people to "not see color" or be "colorblind", and nobody major did, that's just some arrogant Morgan Freeman Lil' Wayne nonsense. MLK's out of context quote was a hopeful, ideal future where people were *judged* by their character, as opposed to his present, where, he was extremely clear, the government owed black people a lot of investment, police needed drastic reform, and so forth, before this could come to be.

Investments have not been made. Police are still violently racist. We're not even *close* to the day anyone gets to "not see color"

That's a very insightful comment; and it brings us full-circle.

On its face, your post is a total non-sequitur -- you just spontaneously segued from states declining to teach that white people are automatically racist way over to MLK's dream speech. But none of this debate is taking place in a vacuum. It's taking place in the context of a wider debate over reparations and affirmative action. Rightists object to CRT not because having the government lie to their children about white people being racist will hurt their childrens' feelings, but because it will indoctrinate their children to support punishing current white people for being white. Leftists equate opposition to CRT with outlawing teaching about Juneteenth -- with covering up slavery -- not because it takes CRT to tell the truth about slavery, but because telling the truth about slavery isn't enough to prove that current white people deserve to be punished for it. This is the hill both sides are ready to die on: one side screaming "You're guilty", the other side screaming "No we aren't."

Of course, that's a ridiculous way to approach the issue. It doesn't actually take white collective guilt and white people deserving punishment and all white people being racist in order for "colorblind" equality to be more or less worthless, and for a serious consideration of race to be merited and likely required, and for investments to be needed, and for police to be reformed, and for not seeing color and judging people by the content of their character to be a dream for the future rather than a reality for today. We could just go ahead and have that conversation on its own merits without getting hung up on whether a living white guy getting harmed to help compensate a black guy for what some dead white guy did to him deserves it. That appears to have been MLK's take on the matter -- in all that he said about the government needing to help black people I never heard anything that sounded punitive.

But taking that approach comes with a psychological cost. It's utilitarian -- some are sacrificed for the sake of the greatest good of the greatest number. When you stand for affirmative action and reparations on that basis, you're creating a new generation of victims; you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. You can't do that and come out of it with clean hands. And that is the point of CRT and all the rest of the ideological baggage that's grown up in the modern affirmative action/reparations movement. If you can come up with a theory that explains why the people hurt by affirmative action or reparations deserve it, then you don't need to feel bad about it, because you didn't really rob Peter to pay Paul. All you did was make Peter pay the debt he already had to Paul. So in your own mind you come out of the mess with your hands as clean as a whistle.

Gotta protect the little left-wing snowflakes. That's the important part.

 

[none]

CRT is not a product of "woke liberals", whatever the heck those might be. It's a product of Marxists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

Well, the "useful" point, as far as CRT goes, is that it was a product of black legal scholars as a continuation of the Civil Rights movement, by demonstrating that "colorblind" equality was more ore less worthless, and a serious consideration of race is merited and likely required.

...by the way, very few people in the Civil Rights movement ever told people to "not see color" or be "colorblind", and nobody major did, that's just some arrogant Morgan Freeman Lil' Wayne nonsense. MLK's out of context quote was a hopeful, ideal future where people were *judged* by their character, as opposed to his present, where, he was extremely clear, the government owed black people a lot of investment, police needed drastic reform, and so forth, before this could come to be.

Investments have not been made. Police are still violently racist. We're not even *close* to the day anyone gets to "not see color"

That's a very insightful comment; and it brings us full-circle.

On its face, your post is a total non-sequitur -- you just spontaneously segued from states declining to teach that white people are automatically racist way over to MLK's dream speech. But none of this debate is taking place in a vacuum. It's taking place in the context of a wider debate over reparations and affirmative action. Rightists object to CRT not because having the government lie to their children about white people being racist will hurt their childrens' feelings, but because it will indoctrinate their children to support punishing current white people for being white. Leftists equate opposition to CRT with outlawing teaching about Juneteenth -- with covering up slavery -- not because it takes CRT to tell the truth about slavery, but because telling the truth about slavery isn't enough to prove that current white people deserve to be punished for it. This is the hill both sides are ready to die on: one side screaming "You're guilty", the other side screaming "No we aren't."

Of course, that's a ridiculous way to approach the issue. It doesn't actually take white collective guilt and white people deserving punishment and all white people being racist in order for "colorblind" equality to be more or less worthless, and for a serious consideration of race to be merited and likely required, and for investments to be needed, and for police to be reformed, and for not seeing color and judging people by the content of their character to be a dream for the future rather than a reality for today. We could just go ahead and have that conversation on its own merits without getting hung up on whether a living white guy getting harmed to help compensate a black guy for what some dead white guy did to him deserves it. That appears to have been MLK's take on the matter -- in all that he said about the government needing to help black people I never heard anything that sounded punitive.

But taking that approach comes with a psychological cost. It's utilitarian -- some are sacrificed for the sake of the greatest good of the greatest number. When you stand for affirmative action and reparations on that basis, you're creating a new generation of victims; you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. You can't do that and come out of it with clean hands. And that is the point of CRT and all the rest of the ideological baggage that's grown up in the modern affirmative action/reparations movement. If you can come up with a theory that explains why the people hurt by affirmative action or reparations deserve it, then you don't need to feel bad about it, because you didn't really rob Peter to pay Paul. All you did was make Peter pay the debt he already had to Paul. So in your own mind you come out of the mess with your hands as clean as a whistle.

Gotta protect the little left-wing snowflakes. That's the important part.

Um, the state declining to teach juneteenth?

 

[Trausti]

That's a very insightful comment; and it brings us full-circle.

On its face, your post is a total non-sequitur -- you just spontaneously segued from states declining to teach that white people are automatically racist way over to MLK's dream speech. But none of this debate is taking place in a vacuum. It's taking place in the context of a wider debate over reparations and affirmative action. Rightists object to CRT not because having the government lie to their children about white people being racist will hurt their childrens' feelings, but because it will indoctrinate their children to support punishing current white people for being white. Leftists equate opposition to CRT with outlawing teaching about Juneteenth -- with covering up slavery -- not because it takes CRT to tell the truth about slavery, but because telling the truth about slavery isn't enough to prove that current white people deserve to be punished for it. This is the hill both sides are ready to die on: one side screaming "You're guilty", the other side screaming "No we aren't."

Of course, that's a ridiculous way to approach the issue. It doesn't actually take white collective guilt and white people deserving punishment and all white people being racist in order for "colorblind" equality to be more or less worthless, and for a serious consideration of race to be merited and likely required, and for investments to be needed, and for police to be reformed, and for not seeing color and judging people by the content of their character to be a dream for the future rather than a reality for today. We could just go ahead and have that conversation on its own merits without getting hung up on whether a living white guy getting harmed to help compensate a black guy for what some dead white guy did to him deserves it. That appears to have been MLK's take on the matter -- in all that he said about the government needing to help black people I never heard anything that sounded punitive.

But taking that approach comes with a psychological cost. It's utilitarian -- some are sacrificed for the sake of the greatest good of the greatest number. When you stand for affirmative action and reparations on that basis, you're creating a new generation of victims; you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. You can't do that and come out of it with clean hands. And that is the point of CRT and all the rest of the ideological baggage that's grown up in the modern affirmative action/reparations movement. If you can come up with a theory that explains why the people hurt by affirmative action or reparations deserve it, then you don't need to feel bad about it, because you didn't really rob Peter to pay Paul. All you did was make Peter pay the debt he already had to Paul. So in your own mind you come out of the mess with your hands as clean as a whistle.

Gotta protect the little left-wing snowflakes. That's the important part.

Um, the state declining to teach juneteenth?

Which state?