Happy Juneteenth one and all!

[none]

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?

The one you live in.

 

[Trausti]

Which state?

The one you live in.

It doesn’t. That’s why conflating the teaching of history with the neoracist CRT is so phony.

 

[none]

Which state?

The one you live in.

It doesn’t. That’s why conflating the teaching of history with the neoracist CRT is so phony.

You don't live in a police state?

 

[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.

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.

That you think that Don2 is "independent" confirmation. Hoo boy I usually like to start my day with a drink of water but high fantasy works, too.

 

[none]

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.

That you think that Don2 is "independent" confirmation. Hoo boy I usually like to start my day with a drink of water but high fantasy works, too.

Which fantasy?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Oh, I see. laughing dog was objecting to my using Juneteenth as a springboard. He wasn't accusing me of weaponising a false narrative and implying I thought it was okay for the 'right' to do so.

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 laughing dog's response is a straw man. I wrote:

But I do not think the left should weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard.

It's quite possible that I find using Juneteenth as a springboard for political comment distasteful. Some people sometimes object to the political exploitation of a current (especially tragic) event. But, you cannot infer that I object from my post. You can't infer that because I did not say I objected to using Juneteenth as a springboard in isolation or that the left was wrong to do so. What I objected to was "weaponis(ing) a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard".

If the left had weaponised Juneteenth to spread a true story (instead of a false narrative) about the laws, I am quite sure I'd not have entered the thread in the first place.

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

laughing dog has always been welcome to explain how his comment isn't hypocritical. He didn't. He simply accused me of being too thick to recognise the difference between the two comments in question.

 

[Metaphor]

That you think that Don2 is "independent" confirmation. Hoo boy I usually like to start my day with a drink of water but high fantasy works, too.

Which fantasy?

That Don2 is "independent" confirmation that what laughing dog said in post #92 was not a straw man.

When I was in year 7, my best friend suggested we ask his father for 'independent' confirmation of some statement he had made that I was skeptical of. I had to point out to him that that was not a neutral third party.

 

[none]

Oh, I see. laughing dog was objecting to my using Juneteenth as a springboard. He wasn't accusing me of weaponising a false narrative and implying I thought it was okay for the 'right' to do so.



Of course laughing dog's response is a straw man. I wrote:

But I do not think the left should weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard.

It's quite possible that I find using Juneteenth as a springboard for political comment distasteful. Some people sometimes object to the political exploitation of a current (especially tragic) event. But, you cannot infer that I object from my post. You can't infer that because I did not say I objected to using Juneteenth as a springboard in isolation or that the left was wrong to do so. What I objected to was "weaponis(ing) a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard".

If the left had weaponised Juneteenth to spread a true story (instead of a false narrative) about the laws, I am quite sure I'd not have entered the thread in the first place.

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

laughing dog has always been welcome to explain how his comment isn't hypocritical. He didn't. He simply accused me of being too thick to recognise the difference between the two comments in question.

Oh that fantasy. Or fantasy?

 

[Mumbles]

Which state?

The one you live in.

It doesn’t. That’s why conflating the teaching of history with the neoracist CRT is so phony.

"teaching of history with the neoracist CRT" is the position your side in the debate has taken, by conflating it with, among other things, the 1619 project, "controversial" topics, and so forth.

By the way, here's an article on a similar right-wing freakout back in the 60s that you likely won't read, but is true nonetheless.

 

[Trausti]

It doesn’t. That’s why conflating the teaching of history with the neoracist CRT is so phony.

"teaching of history with the neoracist CRT" is the position your side in the debate has taken, by conflating it with, among other things, the 1619 project, "controversial" topics, and so forth.

By the way, here's an article on a similar right-wing freakout back in the 60s that you likely won't read, but is true nonetheless.

Who does it offend you that students shouldn’t be taught that on race is superior to another? Why do you think forcing children to notice and emphasize racial differences and define themselves as oppressor or oppressed is a good idea? Seriously. Da fuq?

 

[Trausti]

Yes, Virginia – there is Critical Race Theory in our schools

 

[none]

It doesn’t. That’s why conflating the teaching of history with the neoracist CRT is so phony.

"teaching of history with the neoracist CRT" is the position your side in the debate has taken, by conflating it with, among other things, the 1619 project, "controversial" topics, and so forth.

By the way, here's an article on a similar right-wing freakout back in the 60s that you likely won't read, but is true nonetheless.

Who does it offend you that students shouldn’t be taught that on race is superior to another? Why do you think forcing children to notice and emphasize racial differences and define themselves as oppressor or oppressed is a good idea? Seriously. Da fuq?

That's not critical race theory as discussed by every legal scholar who has engaged in understanding the model it represents to solve legal issues established in the legal framework it was presented in.

 

[Trausti]

Who does it offend you that students shouldn’t be taught that on race is superior to another? Why do you think forcing children to notice and emphasize racial differences and define themselves as oppressor or oppressed is a good idea? Seriously. Da fuq?

That's not critical race theory as discussed by every legal solar who has engaged in understanding the model it represents to solve legal issues established in the legal framework it was presented in.

Oh, FFS. If this is so, why all the gnawing teeth when states prohibit teaching that students should judge each other by skin color? Why be opposed to that?

Mom who survived Maoist China's purge slams Critical Race Theory

This is indeed the American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution,' Van Fleet declared, referring to the Mao Zedong-led purge that left between 500,000 and 20 million people dead from 1966 to 1976.

'Critical Race Theory has its roots in cultural Marxism. It should have no place in our school.'

'The Communist regime used the same critical theory to divide people. The only difference is they used class instead of race,' she stated, adding that CRT was 'neo-racist'.

 

[Patooka]

Who does it offend you that students shouldn’t be taught that on race is superior to another? Why do you think forcing children to notice and emphasize racial differences and define themselves as oppressor or oppressed is a good idea? Seriously. Da fuq?

That's not critical race theory as discussed by every legal scholar who has engaged in understanding the model it represents to solve legal issues established in the legal framework it was presented in.

That's because you're using the phrase properly. Right wingers using "critical race theory" has fuck all to do with critical race theory. It's their new buzzword to identify who is in their tribe like "SJW" or "woke" or "cancel culture" or calling anyone who isn't in the Tea Party, "socialist" or how "liberal" was the worst thing you could be during the Bush Administration.

Ironically, you could call it a form of virtue signalling. Guaranteed this time next year, they'll be using a different buzzword to show who is on the right team.

 

[none]

Oh, FFS. If this is so, why all the gnawing teeth when states prohibit teaching that students should judge each other by skin color? Why be opposed to that?

Mom who survived Maoist China's purge slams Critical Race Theory

This is indeed the American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution,' Van Fleet declared, referring to the Mao Zedong-led purge that left between 500,000 and 20 million people dead from 1966 to 1976.

'Critical Race Theory has its roots in cultural Marxism. It should have no place in our school.'

'The Communist regime used the same critical theory to divide people. The only difference is they used class instead of race,' she stated, adding that CRT was 'neo-racist'.

Who is Van Fleet?

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, I see. laughing dog was objecting to my using Juneteenth as a springboard. He wasn't accusing me of weaponising a false narrative and implying I thought it was okay for the 'right' to do so.



Of course laughing dog's response is a straw man. I wrote:

But I do not think the left should weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard.

It's quite possible that I find using Juneteenth as a springboard for political comment distasteful. Some people sometimes object to the political exploitation of a current (especially tragic) event. But, you cannot infer that I object from my post. You can't infer that because I did not say I objected to using Juneteenth as a springboard in isolation or that the left was wrong to do so. What I objected to was "weaponis(ing) a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard".

If the left had weaponised Juneteenth to spread a true story (instead of a false narrative) about the laws, I am quite sure I'd not have entered the thread in the first place.

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

laughing dog has always been welcome to explain how his comment isn't hypocritical. He didn't. He simply accused me of being too thick to recognise the difference between the two comments in question.

Non. I did not accuse you of anything - I asked a simple question that had no implication behind it because the right is weaponising the fear of introducing alternative interpretations and views of US history that conflict with the traditional WASP version. That is particularly true in Texas - something someone familiar with the US might know.

But once again, you pulled an interpretation out of your ass. And then you double down with false claims about me accusing you of "being too thick".

 

[ZiprHead]

Oh, FFS. If this is so, why all the gnawing teeth when states prohibit teaching that students should judge each other by skin color? Why be opposed to that?

Mom who survived Maoist China's purge slams Critical Race Theory

This is indeed the American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution,' Van Fleet declared, referring to the Mao Zedong-led purge that left between 500,000 and 20 million people dead from 1966 to 1976.

'Critical Race Theory has its roots in cultural Marxism. It should have no place in our school.'

'The Communist regime used the same critical theory to divide people. The only difference is they used class instead of race,' she stated, adding that CRT was 'neo-racist'.

Some idiot says something somewhere and that makes her an expert on CRT?

 

[Metaphor]

Non. I did not accuse you of anything - I asked a simple question that had no implication behind it

Quoting my post to ask the question, as if the answer to the question was implied by the contents of my post is the accusation. But I'll answer your question again: no, it is not okay for the right to use Juneteenth as a springboard to spread false narratives about a law they disagree with.

 

[laughing dog]

Non. I did not accuse you of anything - I asked a simple question that had no implication behind it

Quoting my post to ask the question, as if the answer to the question was implied by the contents of my post is the accusation.

Nope.

But I'll answer your question again: no, it is not okay for the right to use Juneteenth as a springboard to spread false narratives about a law they disagree with.

Lol- that dies mot answer my question, but I realize it is the best you can do.

 

[Metaphor]

Nope.

But I'll answer your question again: no, it is not okay for the right to use Juneteenth as a springboard to spread false narratives about a law they disagree with.

Lol- that dies mot answer my question, but I realize it is the best you can do.

For the people playing at home, I said:

I reserve judgment on the over all desirability of the laws. But I do not think the left should weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard.

laughing dog said:

But is okay for "the right" to do so?

laughing dog here has asked if it is okay for "the right" (in contrast to the left, from the context) to "do so" (which would refer to what I was disapproving the left of doing) - that is "weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard."

I said:

no, it is not okay for the right to use Juneteenth as a springboard to spread false narratives about a law they disagree with.

And laughing dog said

that dies [sic] mot [sic] answer my question

I implore laughing dog to clarify the question he thought he was asking me.