Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[josh]

Exxon-Mobil's CEO claims that their lobbyist misrepresented them and they, of course, would never behave in such a duplicitous fashion:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/07/01/keith-mccoy-exxonmobil-greenpeace-climate-mc-orig.cnn-business/video/playlists/around-the-world/

[josh]

Update on this ongoing story:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/us/engineering-firm-october-letter-champlain-towers/index.html

[bankshot1]

Re Critical Race Theory

Perhaps proponents of CRT could do a better job of explaining CRT, which I suspect is far more complex and nuanced than one of Josh's nifty graphics can capture, and in this case, probably distort.

Given your self-proclaimed ignorance, "probably distort" seems like a claim to knowledge that you shouldn't be making.

CRT has been explained here, Banks. And I think you are too generous about reactions to the notions of White Supremacy and its related labels, but I could be wrong.

Understand that this is a 40 year old theory, not something that just came up during the Trump years. It derived from careful scholarly study of our legal systems (yes, more than one) and social structures (ditto). And as with any social science/legal field, it has been continually poked and prodded by supporters and opponents over the year, leading to additions and changes. I bumped into a book, "The New Critical Race Theory," not long ago.

Short, direct definition of CRT, courtesy of the Britannica:

intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

The second sentence is an application of the first to American history, though there are many other ways and places in which it can be and has been applied.

Opposition to application of CRT can be found in objections to a key element of the 1619 project, Howard Zinn's work, and many other works --> the notion that America was racist from the start.

Once one denies that, ignores the simple legal truths built into that and the centuries of furtherance of such legal and societal structure, it becomes trivial to then maintain that there is no historical element that has any kind of ongoing role in the inequities that exist in society today. (Indeed, there are some here who deny there is any systemic racism in America at all.)

I hope this helps.

If you are interested in a deeper take on it, I suggest these resources:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

https://globalsocialtheory.org/topics/critical-race-theory/

Or, to go back before the current dust up, this book might not be a bad read for you:
https://archive.org/details/raceisraceisntcr0000unse

Thanls.

When I first heard the term, CRT, a few years ago, I googled and read enough to get a a sense of what it was to understand the framing of arguments. And I've read articles in the intervening years. So my ignorance is relative. I suspect I know more than most Americans, but far less than I need to know to come to a reasoned decision how I might see CRT fit into a child's education.

And "my probably distort" comment seemed appropriate with your editorial use of a 2-line graphic which probably distorted the comparison of white supremacy, which most people can understand, and CRT, which most do not.

Seriously do you think materially more than maybe 20-25% of Americans could give a reasonably accurate description of CRT?

And Josh your editorial cartoon was just an example of shaming and political sloganeering.

And I just called it out for what it was.

That you don't recognize it as such , well, is what it is.

[josh]

It is political sloganeering.

It's also true.

It's not shaming, in large measure because there is no expectation that anyone not already on board with it would feel one gram of shame upon seeing it.

But... I was talking about Boz's post vis-a-vis not shaming, not my own, because I believed (and believe) that it was to him that you directed the comment.

I wish those fighting against CRT would feel some degree of shame upon seeing that two line comment, but seriously, Banks, it is just not happening.

And no, it doesn't misrepresent CRT even a little. It doesn't even misrepresent white supremacy.

[josh]

https://www.wmur.com/article/nh-supreme-court-to-issue-ruling-in-sb-3-voter-registration-law-appeal-friday/36908393

NH's Supreme Court unanimously struck down a GOP-crafted bill that attempted to provide hurdles to late registrants in the voting process. (4-0 because the Chief Justice was the AG when the bill was passed and so recused himself.)

[Oilcanary]

The Right is not attacking CRT,  which is a theory studied at the college level,  but rather a Tuckeresque chimera that breathes flames of self-loathing and eats children.   

The fact that USA,  like most countries in the New World,  started out racist and oppressive and slavemongering,  and then perpetuated that through its institutions has been plain in the historical record long before academicians developed CRT. 

In this regard,  the 1619 project was simply encouraging history teacher to do their job:  teach history.   Much of what filters from academia,  from CRT,  into schools is so obvious as to be tautological.   For example,  this:

Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites   

That's a tautology.   

[bankshot1]

It is political sloganeering.

It's also true.

It's not shaming, in large measure because there is no expectation that anyone not already on board with it would feel one gram of shame upon seeing it.

But... I was talking about Boz's post vis-a-vis not shaming, not my own, because I believed (and believe) that it was to him that you directed the comment.

I wish those fighting against CRT would feel some degree of shame upon seeing that two line comment, but seriously, Banks, it is just not happening.

And no, it doesn't misrepresent CRT even a little. It doesn't even misrepresent white supremacy.

I'm heartened we agree that your cartoon was "political sloganeering"

However your blanket statement of "its true" is no more persuasive than Red's "LOL" or his killer, ""you obviously haven't read the article"

As posted, and still uncontested is most Americans probably can't define CRT, but have an idea of white supremacy, which we as a society have addressed and attacked in varying degrees for a very long time. And will continue to fight for a long time into the future.

So your blanket line about not fighting white supremacy is bullshit propaganda meant to shame.

And my point in my self-effacing post was this, Mr Educator


Perhaps proponents of CRT could do a better job of explaining CRT, which I suspect is far more complex and nuanced than one of Josh's nifty graphics can capture, and in this case, probably distort.

just a suggestion.

[facilitatorn]

On CRT:

1) it’s the most accurate way to teach history, especially American history.

2) it’s law school subject that may trickle down into prelaw majors, but not much further, possibly into some AP curriculum.

3) creationists don’t want their kids indoctrinated by the teaching of evolution. We teach it anyway and allow parents to find schools that will lie about evolution to their kids on their own dime.

4) the cat is out of the bag. There is a growing conversation about the structural racism in this country and how it’s holding society back and giving fuel to its worst elements while ripping the fabric of the country apart at the seams. That’s not going away.

5) Things the right wing fights only become more popular and self evident with time as the right wing steadily loses its grip on hearts and minds.

[josh]

I suspect I know more than most Americans, but far less than I need to know to come to a reasoned decision how I might see CRT fit into a child's education.

Can's comment lies at the crux of the issue.

CRT is about as controversial as evolution... that is to say, there are plenty of folks who object to it, but their reasons for it are not grounded in evidence.

I look forward to hearing what your opinion is after you've read more on the topic, Banks, whether from the definition and resources I have linked or some others - there is no shortage of them.

And I seriously doubt that CRT can be defined by as many as 20% of Americans. I did not post that image on my own FB page, but I sure as hell wouldn't post it on a general website or on poles around town!

I posted it here, where (despite occasional claims to the contrary) I am convinced that each of us is capable of learning, if not inclined to discover, its meaning if we were not already familiar with it.

Just as the vast bulk of Americans cannot define CRT, neither can they define miscegenation, "scientific racism," or even just "empirical."

[josh]

And my point in my self-effacing post was this, Mr Educator


Perhaps proponents of CRT could do a better job of explaining CRT, which I suspect is far more complex and nuanced than one of Josh's nifty graphics can capture, and in this case, probably distort.

just a suggestion.

So, I provided more of an explanation, Banks, for which you thanked me.

I certainly agree that the two line slogan is not nuanced. And "It's true" came with a ton more information than just that two word response, unlike "LOL" or "read the article." So, your comparison is wildly off base.

Are you denying that I provided a "more complex and nuanced" explanation of CRT?!

[bankshot1]

And my point in my self-effacing post was this, Mr Educator


Perhaps proponents of CRT could do a better job of explaining CRT, which I suspect is far more complex and nuanced than one of Josh's nifty graphics can capture, and in this case, probably distort.

just a suggestion.

So, I provided more of an explanation, Banks, for which you thanked me.

I certainly agree that the two line slogan is not nuanced. And "It's true" came with a ton more information than just that two word response, unlike "LOL" or "read the article." So, your comparison is wildly off base.

Are you denying that I provided a "more complex and nuanced" explanation of CRT?!

Josh I thanked you for links.

I was being polite.

And seeing that you seem to agree that not even 20% of Americans can define what CRT is, isn't my suggestion that proponents of CRT do a better job framing its importance, of more value than posting dubious woke propaganda?

WAKE THE FUCK-UP

Josh you provided propaganda here.

If you did not expect some blowback, particularly when your latest defense is an unsupported Red-lite, "its true", is wildly unrealistic.

[josh]

And my point in my self-effacing post was this, Mr Educator


Perhaps proponents of CRT could do a better job of explaining CRT, which I suspect is far more complex and nuanced than one of Josh's nifty graphics can capture, and in this case, probably distort.

just a suggestion.

So, I provided more of an explanation, Banks, for which you thanked me.

I certainly agree that the two line slogan is not nuanced. And "It's true" came with a ton more information than just that two word response, unlike "LOL" or "read the article." So, your comparison is wildly off base.

Are you denying that I provided a "more complex and nuanced" explanation of CRT?!

Josh I thanked you for links.

I was being polite.

And seeing that you seem to agree that not even 20% of Americans can define what CRT is, isn't my suggestion that proponents of CRT do a better job framing its importance, of more value than posting dubious woke propaganda?

WAKE THE FUCK-UP

Josh you provided propaganda here.

If you did not expect some blowback, particularly when your latest defense is an unsupported Red-lite, "its true", is wildly unrealistic.

"your latest defense" wasn't a defense. Nor was it my latest. No wonder you're confused. It was a bald-faced assertion, without explanation  that has between then and now been given more. And it was given more before that.

Again, are you arguing that I did not also provide a "more complex and nuanced" explanation?

Screw politeness, Banks. If you did not mean "thanks," then say what you wanted. I gave verbiage of my own and verbiage from a moderately authoritative source, along with both solid articles and a book I found helpful.

Evidently, you did not feel sincerely thankful, for all that my offerings were sincerely presented.

Do you have questions about the definition or about what I had to say? Do you wish me to have used more of my own words instead of leaning on others?!

What made your thanks mere politeness rather than actual appreciation?

[facilitatorn]

It’s sad when seemingly educated people take framing the importance of Critical Race Theory as dubious woke propaganda. It may be the best evidence that teaching how systemic and structural racism shape most aspects of our lives today especially in legal and institutional contexts must start much earlier and probably include brightly colored pictures and charts, catchy acronyms, and a theme song. Maybe some big eyed puppets as well. Otherwise people seem to lose the simple and straightforward central thread.

[bankshot1]

Josh

Thanks once again for your sincere efforts.

[facilitatorn]

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/7/2/2034535/-It-s-time-for-Democrats-to-completely-rethink-political-advertising