Why CRT Hysteria?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think I found a more likely and slightly more conspiratorial cause of CRT hysteria. Common Core advocates.

Desperate to get people (often right-wingers too) to stop whining about how Common Core is the worst thing to ever happen to school, they created this fake rage over CRT and moved the ragers to a new topic. It appears that it has worked. So I'll just plant that seed and let you decide for yourself if Common Core advocates created CRT-OCD.

 

[Elixir]

But that's the thing! The republicans want to keep this problem going. They want to deny the problem exists at all, on my estimation so they can keep from being displaced by a society that moves away from their insistence that pleasure yachts are more important than, say, feeding hungry people.

Surely such people exist, but I don't believe they're the elected Republicans. Almost all of those would sell their Grandmother to keep their cush jobs. It's the hungry people who vote for them who are the real problem. They don't HAVE pleasure yachts to protect. They're lucky if they have a land yacht and a pontoon boat. But the people they have elected...

Thanks largely to Trump's success at lying about whatever facts he doesn't like and making shit up out of whole cloth, Republican elected officials have learned to wield the previously undiscovered power of flat out, unabashed lying to their constituents. Now it's their only recourse; they're addicted.

In the wake of the Trump administration, the truth about almost everything is a threat to Republican power. They are desperate to control what is and is not "true" to a point beyond Orwell's darkest vision. It's a matter of survival. If they can't keep the rabble angry and dumb, the rabble won't buy that it's the lib' socialists and blacks' fault that they're hungry, and next thing you know those Republicans could lose their jobs. CRT is just today's Oceania.

 

[Swammerdami]

Vox has an article about systemic racism in Tik-Tok's algorithms:

Tyler was expressing his frustration with TikTok about a discovery he made while editing his bio in the app’s Creator Marketplace, which connects popular account holders with brands who pay them to promote products or services. Tyler noticed that when he typed phrases about Black content in his Marketplace creator bio, such as “Black Lives Matter” or “Black success,” the app flagged his content as “inappropriate.” But when he typed in phrases like “white supremacy” or “white success,” he received no such warning.

 

[Jarhyn]

Vox has an article about systemic racism in Tik-Tok's algorithms:

Tyler was expressing his frustration with TikTok about a discovery he made while editing his bio in the app’s Creator Marketplace, which connects popular account holders with brands who pay them to promote products or services. Tyler noticed that when he typed phrases about Black content in his Marketplace creator bio, such as “Black Lives Matter” or “Black success,” the app flagged his content as “inappropriate.” But when he typed in phrases like “white supremacy” or “white success,” he received no such warning.

I find racism (and most deleterious prejudice) happens as much in what people fail to look at and address as much as it is in what they actively suppress. They see "black lives matter" and say "no politics" and then they just never even notice the white supremacists or recognize it for what it is, as pernicious politics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Vox has an article about systemic racism in Tik-Tok's algorithms:

Tyler was expressing his frustration with TikTok about a discovery he made while editing his bio in the app’s Creator Marketplace, which connects popular account holders with brands who pay them to promote products or services. Tyler noticed that when he typed phrases about Black content in his Marketplace creator bio, such as “Black Lives Matter” or “Black success,” the app flagged his content as “inappropriate.” But when he typed in phrases like “white supremacy” or “white success,” he received no such warning.

That doesn't mean there's a problem.

Suppose a brand doesn't want to be associated with controversial positions. They're much more likely to name something widespread like BLM than something narrow like white supremacy.

 

[Swammerdami]

Vox has an article about systemic racism in Tik-Tok's algorithms:

Tyler was expressing his frustration with TikTok about a discovery he made while editing his bio in the app’s Creator Marketplace, which connects popular account holders with brands who pay them to promote products or services. Tyler noticed that when he typed phrases about Black content in his Marketplace creator bio, such as “Black Lives Matter” or “Black success,” the app flagged his content as “inappropriate.” But when he typed in phrases like “white supremacy” or “white success,” he received no such warning.

That doesn't mean there's a problem.

Suppose a brand doesn't want to be associated with controversial positions. They're much more likely to name something widespread like BLM than something narrow like white supremacy.

My strong impression is that it was Tik-Tok's app, independent of any specific sponsors, that flagged the "inappropriate" phrases. Am I wrong?

 

[Swammerdami]

Unequal treatment of voters is a specific example of systemic racism in the U.S.A. Is this an appropriate topic for this thread?

Two white (Republican) voters were found guilty of deliberately casting ballots for dead parents. Each got off with little more than a slap on the wrist. (One served 3 days in jail.) These are in addition to two other examples of such deliberate fraud in another recent thread. Again: Convictions, slaps on the wrist.

But a black woman was honestly confused about whether she could vote, filled out a provisional ballot on the advice of poll workers, and has been sentenced to five years in prison. And ...

Hervis Rogers works two jobs but managed to get to his polling place in Houston just before the 7 pm closing in order to vote in the Democratic primary; he finally left after 1:30 am. (Being a largely black neighborhood, the state legislature had ensured that the precinct was under-equipped.) Being the last man to vote that day in Texas, he became a news story and eventually came to the attention of the State Atty General Paxton. Rogers had been out of prison for almost 16 years when he voted, but his 16-year parole hadn't quite expired on the day of election.

Did Mr. Rogers waste over six hours of his time in a deliberate effort to defraud the election process of one (1) vote? Rachel Maddow cannot ask him because he is now locked up in lieu of $100,000 bail. Rogers lives in Harris County and voted in Harris County but "because they could" charges were filed in Montgomery County — the whitest county (for jury pool) of the Counties where charges could have been filed.

It took 16 months for Paxton to charge Rogers; he finally did it just before Paxton was scheduled to introduce Donald Trump at yesterday's Dallas rally promoting election lies. Ms. Maddow points out that Paxton himself is indicted for felony security frauds; is also under investigation by the FBI for bribe-taking; and the Texas Bar is reviewing whether he should be disbarred for lies about the 2020 election.

[YOUTUBE]oc1zPR5M65c[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Metaphor]

Tennessee House Bill SB 0623, for example, bans any teaching that could lead an individual to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.” In addition to this vague proscription, it restricts teaching that leads to “division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people.”

The Tennessee House Bill says (emphasis mine):

(a) An LEA or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts: (1) One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; 6 SB 623 (2) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously; (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex; (4) An individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex; (5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex; (7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex; (8) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist; (9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government; (10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; (11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex; (12) The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups; (13) All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or (14) Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The NY Times appears to be openly lying about the bill. Nowhere does the bill ban teaching based on what it makes students feel. Nowhere. It bans the teaching of certain concepts, and one of those concepts is that somebody should "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex". The bill bans the teaching of some concepts. It does not ban content based on how students feel about it.The NY times is lying about the bill.

Mary said to her students "white people should feel guilty for their whiteness". (A)
Mary said to her students "between the 17th and 19th century, some white people in America enslaved black people". (B)

(B) could lead to an individual feeling distress about their race. (B) is not banned by the Tennessee House Bill. (A) does promote a forbidden concept and would be banned, whether it made anyone in the class feel guilty or not.

Did the NY Times get any legal advice on this opinion piece? I can't read the full article from the link.

 

[Trausti]

The Tennessee House Bill says (emphasis mine):

(a) An LEA or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts: (1) One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; 6 SB 623 (2) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously; (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex; (4) An individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex; (5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex; (7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex; (8) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist; (9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government; (10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; (11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex; (12) The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups; (13) All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or (14) Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The NY Times appears to be openly lying about the bill. Nowhere does the bill ban teaching based on what it makes students feel. Nowhere. It bans the teaching of certain concepts, and one of those concepts is that somebody should "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex". The bill bans the teaching of some concepts. It does not ban content based on how students feel about it.The NY times is lying about the bill.

Mary said to her students "white people should feel guilty for their whiteness". (A)
Mary said to her students "between the 17th and 19th century, some white people in America enslaved black people". (B)

(B) could lead to an individual feeling distress about their race. (B) is not banned by the Tennessee House Bill. (A) does promote a forbidden concept and would be banned, whether it made anyone in the class feel guilty or not.

Did the NY Times get any legal advice on this opinion piece? I can't read the full article from the link.

Would be interesting if someone here would defend that teaching a student to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex” is okay.

 

[Swammerdami]

Or is 23andMe perpetuating a fraud on the public?

I think that they are.

My mother-in-law's grandmother was full blooded Cherokee. But 23 didn't find any Native genetics in my brother-in-law.
I understand that he hasn't a lot of Native blood. But, none?
Nah.

You can see the Native blood in her descendants. She had documents. 23and Me is a scam, at least sometimes.
Tom

You have the common sense expectation that different population groups would have different genomic presentations? So one the base assumptions of CRT is *gasp* wrong?

Wrong again! (Or do you have a cite that this is a base assumption of CRT?)

 

[Gospel]

The Tennessee House Bill says (emphasis mine):

(a) An LEA or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts: (1) One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; 6 SB 623 (2) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously; (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex; (4) An individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex; (5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex; (7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex; (8) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist; (9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government; (10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; (11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex; (12) The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups; (13) All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or (14) Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The NY Times appears to be openly lying about the bill. Nowhere does the bill ban teaching based on what it makes students feel. Nowhere. It bans the teaching of certain concepts, and one of those concepts is that somebody should "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex". The bill bans the teaching of some concepts. It does not ban content based on how students feel about it.The NY times is lying about the bill.

Mary said to her students "white people should feel guilty for their whiteness". (A)
Mary said to her students "between the 17th and 19th century, some white people in America enslaved black people". (B)

(B) could lead to an individual feeling distress about their race. (B) is not banned by the Tennessee House Bill. (A) does promote a forbidden concept and would be banned, whether it made anyone in the class feel guilty or not.

Did the NY Times get any legal advice on this opinion piece? I can't read the full article from the link.

Would be interesting if someone here would defend that teaching a student to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex” is okay.

That's indefensible IMO. I've felt discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress after witnessing someone being treated poorly solely because of the individual's race &/or sex.

 

[Elixir]

You have the common sense expectation that different population groups would have different genomic presentations? So one the base assumptions of CRT is *gasp* wrong?

Wrong again! (Or do you have a cite that this is a base assumption of CRT?)

Depends on what "CRT" stands for. It is a base assumption of Criticism of Racism by Trausti.

Again, the CRT craze exists only because The Big Lie got a bad name on January 6th 2021. Had it not been for that, MEF (Massive Election Fraud) would still be the FOX/OAN headline instead of CRT.
What the right wing extremists criticize in either case, doesn't actually exist. No kids are being taught CRT, and there was no massive election fraud. This too shall pass and another fearmongering charade will take its place... as soon as the right wing "brain trust" can come up with something. If their creativity is not equal to the task, MEF will be revived as the memory and bad taste of The Insurrection is written out of right wing history, and fades from right wing memory.

 

[Politesse]

The Tennessee House Bill says (emphasis mine):

(a) An LEA or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts: (1) One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; 6 SB 623 (2) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously; (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex; (4) An individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex; (5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex; (7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex; (8) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist; (9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government; (10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; (11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex; (12) The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups; (13) All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or (14) Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The NY Times appears to be openly lying about the bill. Nowhere does the bill ban teaching based on what it makes students feel. Nowhere. It bans the teaching of certain concepts, and one of those concepts is that somebody should "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex". The bill bans the teaching of some concepts. It does not ban content based on how students feel about it.The NY times is lying about the bill.

Mary said to her students "white people should feel guilty for their whiteness". (A)
Mary said to her students "between the 17th and 19th century, some white people in America enslaved black people". (B)

(B) could lead to an individual feeling distress about their race. (B) is not banned by the Tennessee House Bill. (A) does promote a forbidden concept and would be banned, whether it made anyone in the class feel guilty or not.

Did the NY Times get any legal advice on this opinion piece? I can't read the full article from the link.

Would be interesting if someone here would defend that teaching a student to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex” is okay.

Why would anyone do that? It's an idiotic strawman.