5 minutes ago, downundermike said:

There are fine people on both sides. Fine people. The best people.

On 7/17/2021 at 4:11 PM, lynched1 said:

You're not even a challenge fat boy. Go sit down before you strain something.

 

15 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

It's amazing how often Dave has switched from saying CRT is a complex theory that's not taught in public schools to CRT is just teaching kids about black history. Remarkable, really. He does it like every two pages.  

 

 

1 minute ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

DCotP. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

19 minutes ago, Kz! said:

It's amazing how often Dave has switched from saying CRT is a complex theory that's not taught in public schools to CRT is just teaching kids about black history. Remarkable, really. He does it like every two pages.  

CRT is a theoretical framework as far as I can tell.  Meanwhile, K-12 education tends to be about covering topics.  But here’s the tricky part - most teachers with like a bachelor’s in education and a teacher’s certification haven’t even been exposed to the theoretical framework.  They’re just going through the material covering different topics.

I mean, most of this stuff is beyond my ability to explain to you, but if you were really interested I could give it a shot I guess.  Lol

 

Just now, Dave Moss said:

CRT is a theoretical framework as far as I can tell.  Meanwhile, K-12 education tends to be about covering topics.  But here’s the tricky part - most teachers with like a bachelor’s in education and a teacher’s certification haven’t even been exposed to the theoretical framework.  They’re just going through the material covering different topics.

I mean, most of this stuff is beyond my ability to explain to you, but if you were really interested I could give it a shot I guess.  Lol

 

Yes, please do. Spare no detail. 

22 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

CRT is a theoretical framework as far as I can tell.  Meanwhile, K-12 education tends to be about covering topics.  But here’s the tricky part - most teachers with like a bachelor’s in education and a teacher’s certification haven’t even been exposed to the theoretical framework.  They’re just going through the material covering different topics.

I mean, most of this stuff is beyond my ability to explain to you, but if you were really interested I could give it a shot I guess.  Lol

 

You've been played dude.  Someone figured out that they could drum up a lot of energy by connecting the the term "CRT" to the ridiculous woke/furtherleft stuff going on in many schools today.  It was a simple way to wrap one simple phrase around that phenomena and give people a rallying cry.  It doesn't matter if the use of the phrase is actually technically correct or not.  Kind of like the phrase "defund the police".  Just marketing, for most people anyway.

10 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Yes, please do. Spare no detail. 

CRT is a theoretical framework laid in out a variety of academic works (none of which I've read).  Students don't study this in grade school.  But my understanding is that it incorporates different theories and thoughts about racism and race relations in America.  

Some of this is rather obvious stuff like "race is a social construct."  An example you could use from American history is the one drop rule.  If a person had one drop of African blood (or more specifically if they had any black ancestors) they were considered black and a slave.  Is a person who is 1/64th black really black?  Well, in America they were (are?)

But here's the thing.  K-12 teachers don't go around telling their students "race is a social construct."  Why?  Because that doesn't make any sense to elementary school age students.  

At some point I guess you may get some crossover where CRT topics creep into secondary education, but, I really don't see it.  If anything I think teachers in America downplay some of the worst aspects of race relations in part because they're kind of appalling and in part because it's kind of depressing.

Anyway...

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You've been played dude.  Someone figured out that they could drum up a lot of energy by connecting the the term "CRT" to the ridiculous woke/furtherleft stuff going on in many schools today.  It was a simple way to wrap one simple phrase around that phenomena and give people a rallying cry.  It doesn't matter if the use of the phrase is actually technically correct or not.  Kind of like the phrase "defund the police".  Just marketing, for most people anyway.

Oh, I know.  It's kind of annoying because although it's a misnomer, I see folks on both sides claiming everything is CRT.  One side is claiming this is very bad and the other side is claiming this is very good.  LOL

5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Oh, I know.  It's kind of annoying because although it's a misnomer, I see folks on both sides claiming everything is CRT.  One side is claiming this is very bad and the other side is claiming this is very good.  LOL

The dude that typically gets credit for driving the use of the term admitted it as such and basically said "yeah, and it's working" plus "I took the left's own tactics and use it against them".  Classic and as old as the sea (or hills or whatever it is).

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

You've been played dude.  Someone figured out that they could drum up a lot of energy by connecting the the term "CRT" to the ridiculous woke/furtherleft stuff going on in many schools today.  It was a simple way to wrap one simple phrase around that phenomena and give people a rallying cry.  It doesn't matter if the use of the phrase is actually technically correct or not.  Kind of like the phrase "defund the police".  Just marketing, for most people anyway.

The problem with this explanation is that the "woke” material being taught is a direct result of "the theoretical framework” that activists embraced. You’re acting like there is no direct connection when, in fact, there is. Academic thought can and often does result in real world impact. People actually buy into theories and proselytize them. Their manifestation may not meet the rigid academic definition for the theory, but this objection is the same idiocy as people who say real communism has never been tried before.

Calling it CRT is accurate in the same way calling the Soviet Union a communist nation was accurate. Morons who think they’re smart might try to split hairs about Marx and anarchy and whatever other technicality might absolve their pet intellectual framework of the disaster it caused, but it’s all bullsh** deliberate obfuscation from zealots. 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

The problem with this explanation is that the "woke” material being taught is a direct result of "the theoretical framework” that activists embraced. You’re acting like there is no direct connection when, in fact, there is. Academic thought can and often does result in real world impact. People actually buy into theories and proselytize them. Their manifestation may not meet the rigid academic definition for the theory, but this objection is the same idiocy as people who say real communism has never been tried before.

Calling it CRT is accurate in the same way calling the Soviet Union a communist nation was accurate. Morons who think they’re smart might try to split hairs about Marx and anarchy and whatever other technicality might absolve their pet intellectual framework of the disaster it caused, but it’s all bullsh** deliberate obfuscation from zealots. 

To be sure, the reason "real" communism hasn't been tried is because it's completely incompatible with human nature and will never work at scale without forcing people to buy into its BS at gunpoint.

That said, comparing CRT to the academic definition of communism vs Soviet or China is very flawed.

CRT is a pretty legitimate area of study around historical laws, regulations, and social norms that were specifically designed to keep black Americans "in their place," and tracking the through line of those policies to today and examining their impact. 

And you could argue that even studying the above is inevitably going to result in some individuals overreaching and going off the deep end, but that's in no way a legitimate reason to sweep it under the rug or whitewash it. 

It's disingenuous to claim that right-wing media co-opting and redefining radical activism as "CRT" is somehow  a legitimate "direct connection". It's just not.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

The problem with this explanation is that the "woke” material being taught is a direct result of "the theoretical framework” that activists embraced. You’re acting like there is no direct connection when, in fact, there is. Academic thought can and often does result in real world impact. People actually buy into theories and proselytize them. Their manifestation may not meet the rigid academic definition for the theory, but this objection is the same idiocy as people who say real communism has never been tried before.

Calling it CRT is accurate in the same way calling the Soviet Union a communist nation was accurate. Morons who think they’re smart might try to split hairs about Marx and anarchy and whatever other technicality might absolve their pet intellectual framework of the disaster it caused, but it’s all bullsh** deliberate obfuscation from zealots. 

Marx’ whole theory was based on the premise that the most industrialized countries would try communism first (i.e. Britain and France)

FWIW

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Marx’ whole theory was based on the premise that the most industrialized countries would try communism first (i.e. Britain and France)

FWIW

I thought his theory was that capitalism would punish workers so much they'd rise up and install socialism as a stop on the way to communism?

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I thought his theory was that capitalism would punish workers so much they'd rise up and install socialism as a stop on the way to communism?

Yeah, my point was that Marx didn’t get much right though. 
 

35 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

To be sure, the reason "real" communism hasn't been tried is because it's completely incompatible with human nature and will never work at scale without forcing people to buy into its BS at gunpoint.

That said, comparing CRT to the academic definition of communism vs Soviet or China is very flawed.

CRT is a pretty legitimate area of study around historical laws, regulations, and social norms that were specifically designed to keep black Americans "in their place," and tracking the through line of those policies to today and examining their impact. 

And you could argue that even studying the above is inevitably going to result in some individuals overreaching and going off the deep end, but that's in no way a legitimate reason to sweep it under the rug or whitewash it. 

It's disingenuous to claim that right-wing media co-opting and redefining radical activism as "CRT" is somehow  a legitimate "direct connection". It's just not.

Debatable at best.

36 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Marx’ whole theory was based on the premise that the most industrialized countries would try communism first (i.e. Britain and France)

FWIW

Not his whole theory, but a part of it, yes.

 

 

Meanwhile, in Texas . . .they are not trying to whitewash history.

Nope. Totally no need for history taught in schools to include anything about the people who lived here, or MLK, or anything that makes GOP turdflakes uncomfortable.

11 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

I thought Derrick Bell was the "founder."  Make up your minds.

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Marx’ whole theory was based on the premise that the most industrialized countries would try communism first (i.e. Britain and France)

Which is why it's so ironic that the most elaborate communist schemes took place in pre-industrial, agrarian societies like China and Russia. They had it totally backwards.

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah, my point was that Marx didn’t get much right though. 
 

No, he didn't.

The way I look at it, societies - regardless of how they're constructed - pretty much always end up in a place where there's some elite class that controls a substantial amount of wealth and often political power. And they will always use the power at their disposal to attempt to maintain the power structures that have advantaged them. And part of that is making sure that they're protecting as much of their own as they can without the proletariat getting all uppity and trying to rise above their station. Damn peasants. 

Capitalism, American style anyway, allows for more creative destruction than most other mixed economies in the world. So while there is still a significant amount of intergenerational wealth from say the gilded age, there is also for each generation a significant amount of "nouveau riche" wealthy types who in some measure upend the existing power structures and social order with their personal style and interests. This sort of thing is less frequent in, say, Europe, the romanticized utopia of the underachieving, overeducated, privileged upper middle-class types who have decided that whatever failures they've endured are not their fault, but rather the product of a rigged system!

(sorry, in a soapbox mood)

Regarding Marx, he was not a creative enough thinker (or more likely was a consummate motivated reasoner) to see that capitalism would - through economies of scale - end up being able to lift the standard of living for even his favored plebeian class even while enriching themselves to levels unimaginable. The peasants were happy to have a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot, while the "evil capitalists" counted their millions. 

I think that this is probably the most stable balance that human societies can come to, frankly. Yeah, us commoners have to deal with the fact that some ultra-rich types are rocketing themselves to space while I sit in traffic in my sedan. But most are living well above subsistence levels, and there's paths for most to comfortable lifestyles if not wealth. And at least in America, some of those ultra rich were 30 years ago packing books people ordered from his online store into boxes and taking them to the post office himself (Bezos), or 40 years ago creating future mega-corps (Apple, Microsoft) out of their garages. So while few achieve it, there is still a tangible path to incredible success that America affords those with the right mix of talent, tenacity, and luck.