What, exactly, is CRT?

[Emily Lake]

Axioms are either self-evidently true or are effectively non-provable in the context of the mathematical proof. Outside of mathematics, axioms can be treated as assumptions provisionally accepted as true because there is no counter argument and no contradiction inherent in them.

Beliefs have no requirement to be self-evidently true, nor are they provisionary assumptions. They are tenets not axioms.

That said, many ideologies *treat* their tenets as *axiomatic*. They assume them to be true and present them as facts. But they are not actually axioms.

Are you kidding! LOL!

How long have you been here watching the littany of Christians "looking for challenge" pass through claiming that they believe their beliefs because of how those beliefs make them feel, because they are "self evident" or even because they are "self reinforcing"?

If someone basis their worldview off of it, and it rests on nothing, it is an axiom.knterestingly, some axioms are circular to the other axioms, and that circularity impugns the axiom that creates it and the whole system in which it is "necessary' as being, itself, one that necessarily involves fallacy.

This is why Occam's Razor was first proposed, a.ong other purely philosophical observations.

You think a system of reality that operates first and foremost with mathematical precision and perfection is not itself limited by those very rules of math?

Um... no. You're simply wrong. Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is.

 

[Jarhyn]

Axioms are either self-evidently true or are effectively non-provable in the context of the mathematical proof. Outside of mathematics, axioms can be treated as assumptions provisionally accepted as true because there is no counter argument and no contradiction inherent in them.

Beliefs have no requirement to be self-evidently true, nor are they provisionary assumptions. They are tenets not axioms.

That said, many ideologies *treat* their tenets as *axiomatic*. They assume them to be true and present them as facts. But they are not actually axioms.

Are you kidding! LOL!

How long have you been here watching the littany of Christians "looking for challenge" pass through claiming that they believe their beliefs because of how those beliefs make them feel, because they are "self evident" or even because they are "self reinforcing"?

If someone basis their worldview off of it, and it rests on nothing, it is an axiom.knterestingly, some axioms are circular to the other axioms, and that circularity impugns the axiom that creates it and the whole system in which it is "necessary' as being, itself, one that necessarily involves fallacy.

This is why Occam's Razor was first proposed, a.ong other purely philosophical observations.

You think a system of reality that operates first and foremost with mathematical precision and perfection is not itself limited by those very rules of math?

Um... no. You're simply wrong. Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is.

""You are wrong"

"[Provides no arguments]"

Something presented without evidence, dismissed without evidence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Um... no. You're simply wrong. Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is.

""You are wrong"

"[Provides no arguments]"

Something presented without evidence, dismissed without evidence.

I gave you definitions and meanings of the terms axiom and belief. I highlighted the key ways in which they differ. You responded by scoffing and making some strange claim to christians and then proceeded to dismiss what I said out of hand.

I've done what I could, I provided you the information. If you reject it for inside-your-head reasons, there's not much more I can do. Go look into it and learn the meanings of the terms, and the contexts in which they apply. Until then, you will simply remain wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

Um... no. You're simply wrong. Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is.

""You are wrong"

"[Provides no arguments]"

Something presented without evidence, dismissed without evidence.

I gave you definitions and meanings of the terms axiom and belief. I highlighted the key ways in which they differ. You responded by scoffing and making some strange claim to christians and then proceeded to dismiss what I said out of hand.

I've done what I could, I provided you the information. If you reject it for inside-your-head reasons, there's not much more I can do. Go look into it and learn the meanings of the terms, and the contexts in which they apply. Until then, you will simply remain wrong.

No, you said "Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is."

You did NOT: back up this with an actual definition (which would not support your argument), nor justify the meaning or worth of this definition against my usage, nor justify how my usage is inappropriate with that definition of did not give.

 

[Emily Lake]

I gave you definitions and meanings of the terms axiom and belief. I highlighted the key ways in which they differ. You responded by scoffing and making some strange claim to christians and then proceeded to dismiss what I said out of hand.

I've done what I could, I provided you the information. If you reject it for inside-your-head reasons, there's not much more I can do. Go look into it and learn the meanings of the terms, and the contexts in which they apply. Until then, you will simply remain wrong.

No, you said "Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is."

You did NOT: back up this with an actual definition (which would not support your argument), nor justify the meaning or worth of this definition against my usage, nor justify how my usage is inappropriate with that definition of did not give.

Neither did you! You just made up something that is not in keeping with the general usage of the terms and then claimed it as the "right" definition! You didn't provide any references for your redesigned language either, Humpty Dumpty!

I don't suppose I should be surprised though. You seem to frequently redefine common terms to mean new and exciting things that only you understand, and then you declare people who use those terms in the commonly accepted fashion to be wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

I gave you definitions and meanings of the terms axiom and belief. I highlighted the key ways in which they differ. You responded by scoffing and making some strange claim to christians and then proceeded to dismiss what I said out of hand.

I've done what I could, I provided you the information. If you reject it for inside-your-head reasons, there's not much more I can do. Go look into it and learn the meanings of the terms, and the contexts in which they apply. Until then, you will simply remain wrong.

No, you said "Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is."

You did NOT: back up this with an actual definition (which would not support your argument), nor justify the meaning or worth of this definition against my usage, nor justify how my usage is inappropriate with that definition of did not give.

Neither did you! You just made up something that is not in keeping with the general usage of the terms and then claimed it as the "right" definition! You didn't provide any references for your redesigned language either, Humpty Dumpty!

I don't suppose I should be surprised though. You seem to frequently redefine common terms to mean new and exciting things that only you understand, and then you declare people who use those terms in the commonly accepted fashion to be wrong.

Ok, than you should have no problem demonstrating from principle why "beliefs" are not fundamentally axiomatic in their operation.

 

[ZiprHead]

So when you said:



… that's not tarring the child with collective guilt? You have no idea of her background or ancestry. Just that she's Ethiopian and therefore guilty of slavery.

No, I didn't. The mother said that leaflets about bringing back slavery is a dig at her Ethiopian daughter. That's collectivism. I took the moms logic and showed how stupid it is

If you say so.

 

[SLD]

Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

The new draconian laws are really covered in another thread. Here is a link:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...islation-for-Classrooms-to-Stifle-Free-Speech

The whole CRT thing is really the Reich wing using hyperbole etc to fight against anti-racism but also make it seem like it's a massive communist conspiracy. The laws also go way too far and make fragile parents (who are the targets of conservative propaganda) think when their white children are alleged to feel guilty that laws are being broken. From the other thread, I'd recommend reading this post in particular to catch up:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...le-Free-Speech&p=940651&viewfull=1#post940651

 

[Elixir]

I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

Republicans... I was unaware of that as well, and also unaware there was massive fraud in the 2020 election, necessitating the passage of hundreds of laws intended to suppress the vote. But the GQP is making its living passing laws against shit that isn't being done, in the hope that they can scare people with the implication that those things are in fact being done.

Republican voters are so easy to scare, it's scary.

If it's not the Others taking their jobs and indoctrinating their chilluns, it's the homegrown socialist commies trying to take their bread money and give it to the lazy black guy selling crack on the streetcorner, or killing their dreams of becoming billionaires by taxing the rich.
Correspondence with any actual facts isn't needed, and may actually detract from the desired effect, since facts are rarely as stark as the fictitious pictures they so strenuously try to paint.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Time for Massachusetts to pass a law that no teacher shall accuse any political group of kidnapping teens and forcing them into pizzeria sex slavery.

 

[Politesse]

Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

It doesn't, of course. Indeed, I can't imagine any social scientist so much as using a phrase like "members of a race" the way this law does, semi-personified and monolithic. But none of this has ever been about the actual theory, which the legislators involved know very little about. What the proponents of these laws want is to stifle critical conversations about race, slavery, and the American Indian genocides by characterizing anyone who discusses white supremacist ideology and its effects as attacking white children for their skin color. This is why you have the dogwhistling about blame at the end, which makes it a judgment call about whether a child "feels blamed" for white supremacist actions in the past, rather than a question of what was actually in the curriculum to begin with.

This isn't an honest conversation we're having here. If liberal legislators had created a law that threatened jail time for anyone who advocates the superiority of one race over another, American conservatives would have been furious, screaming about liberal fascism and thought crimes and the first amendment and tyranny in the classrooms. But they're fine when their own side does it, because they know these laws will not be used to fight institutional racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

It does not mean that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

It does not mean that.

You can "teach" it, you just can't teach the reasons why it occurred.

 

[Metaphor]

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

It does not mean that.

You can "teach" it, you just can't teach the reasons why it occurred.

Not this again.

Banned: "The white race is superior to other races"

Not banned: "Some people think the white race is superior to other races".

 

[Emily Lake]

Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

How so? Teaching that discrimination exists is a far cry from teaching that one sex or race is superior to another.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

How so? Teaching that discrimination exists is a far cry from teaching that one sex or race is superior to another.

No one is teaching one sex or race is superior in public schools. Odd a law needed to be passed to stop something that isn't happening from happening.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

How so? Teaching that discrimination exists is a far cry from teaching that one sex or race is superior to another.

Emphasis added. This was discussed in the other thread, which is about the actual legislation.

You are rephrasing the law into things it doesn't say. It doesn't say teaching THAT one race is superior is illegal. The actual text amounts to inclusion of the concept in teaching is illegal. See the difference? Also, the topic of the legislation is in another thread, not this one.

From the other thread:

... it states "...make part of a course the following concepts...." which means INCLUDE, not TEACH as a truth.

 

[RVonse]

I came by this short video of Putin making this short speech about wokeness and it seemed appropriate for this thread. President Putin's own words about how he believes western PC culture and wokeness amounts to crimes against humanity. Appearing to be hyperbole....until you actually fit this in the context of Soviet history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHpt4gB0-Mw

"The advocates of so-called "social progress" believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say and go right ahead! The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all because Russia has been there already."

I agree with what Putin had to say. And I did not know this before, but the Bolshevik were a very "woke" movement during Lenins revolution. That's just not something I learned in my history class at grammer school. They say history does not always repeat itself but it does seem to rhyme. And this time it is looking to be the "woke" US instead of the "woke" USSR.