Well,well, Florida got it right...

[Atticus Finch]

6 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Read the column linked above from McWhorter for more on the linguistic tricks being employed.

I'll get to it I'm sure.

But failure, again, in explaining what CRT is.

I can't reiterate enough how poor the opposition to CRT has been.

Just embarrassing.

[badrouter]

13 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I'll get to it I'm sure.

But failure, again, in explaining what CRT is.

I can't reiterate enough how poor the opposition to CRT has been.

Just embarrassing.

His piece hits at the heart of your angle on this.

[badrouter]

And, at last check, there’s 162 comments below the article. All 162 comments were made by people who pay to subscribe to the blog.

[Atticus Finch]

1 hour ago, badrouter said:

His piece hits at the heart of your angle on this.

I know.

But he participates in it too.

[badrouter]

Excellent read: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 hour ago, badrouter said:

Excellent read: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

Garbage…. pure definition of White Fragility.

Was fairly in it and understanding the viewpoint then it got to Faux News and Fucker KKKarlson and in the mental dustbin this shit goes…..

 Hahaha.

bgw

[badrouter]

26 minutes ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Garbage…. pure definition of White Fragility.

Was fairly in it and understanding the viewpoint then it got to Faux News and Fucker KKKarlson and in the mental dustbin this shit goes…..

 Hahaha.

bgw

being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, or taking phone calls from Mark Meadows etc doesn't actually serve to discredit any of his work. The work itself would have to be examined and discredited. None of the attempts to do this have impressed.

[badrouter]

This broad topic-which goes far beyond how certain individuals choose to define this thing referred to as "CRT"- is tied into the greatest existential threat to the country since the late 19th century. There is an ideology being pushed which posits:

1) Every single institution and custom in this country is systemically, and irreparably, racist

2) Due to #1 above, every single institution and custom of the country must be abolished, and abolished from within.

The  movement pushing the ideology has ascended to the forefront of the political mainstream. Merely disagreeing with them is submitted as evidence of a reprehensible reprobate who should be summarily dismissed, career ruined. The movement borrows from the Black Panther Party and Mao's Cultural Revolution. It distinguishes itself from BPP and Mao's regime because it seeks instead to be decentralized and non-hierarchical. It maintains both an anonymous, underground network as well as the aforementioned above ground component which has assumed dominance of the most of the largest media corporations. It is further empowered by a society full of useful idiots who think they're merely opposing racism in lending their support.

Ultimately, the kinds of bans on teaching of certain concepts in schools or government agencies are absolutely trivial in comparison of the broader fight ensuing. Most of the Republican party HAS NO IDEA just how deep this all is. Even if the Republican party gains the White House, all of Congress and bans any/all of these ideas, the train has left the station so to speak. The ideas that lead to massive revolution have gained significant traction to the point of being mainstream. There may not be any way to fight this destruction without inflicting other forms of harm on citizens.

[Atticus Finch]

12 hours ago, badrouter said:

being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, or taking phone calls from Mark Meadows etc doesn't actually serve to discredit any of his work. The work itself would have to be examined and discredited. None of the attempts to do this have impressed.

But being interviewed by Tucker Carlson will not, in any way, even approach a critical examination of his work.

He's there to push Tucker's agenda.

Which is incidentally the entire point of the field of anti-CRTish "work."

[Atticus Finch]

11 hours ago, badrouter said:

This broad topic-which goes far beyond how certain individuals choose to define this thing referred to as "CRT"- is tied into the greatest existential threat to the country since the late 19th century. There is an ideology being pushed which posits:

1) Every single institution and custom in this country is systemically, and irreparably, racist

2) Due to #1 above, every single institution and custom of the country must be abolished, and abolished from within.

The  movement pushing the ideology has ascended to the forefront of the political mainstream. Merely disagreeing with them is submitted as evidence of a reprehensible reprobate who should be summarily dismissed, career ruined. The movement borrows from the Black Panther Party and Mao's Cultural Revolution. It distinguishes itself from BPP and Mao's regime because it seeks instead to be decentralized and non-hierarchical. It maintains both an anonymous, underground network as well as the aforementioned above ground component which has assumed dominance of the most of the largest media corporations. It is further empowered by a society full of useful idiots who think they're merely opposing racism in lending their support.

Ultimately, the kinds of bans on teaching of certain concepts in schools or government agencies are absolutely trivial in comparison of the broader fight ensuing. Most of the Republican party HAS NO IDEA just how deep this all is. Even if the Republican party gains the White House, all of Congress and bans any/all of these ideas, the train has left the station so to speak. The ideas that lead to massive revolution have gained significant traction to the point of being mainstream. There may not be any way to fight this destruction without inflicting other forms of harm on citizens.

You are seriously deluded.

What seems to be beyond repair is your critical thinking capabilities.

[Troll]

3 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I'm seriously deluded.

What seems to be beyond repair is my thinking capabilities.

Great Post 👍

good way to start your day 👌

💩

[badrouter]

4 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

But being interviewed by Tucker Carlson will not, in any way, even approach a critical examination of his work.

He's there to push Tucker's agenda.

Which is incidentally the entire point of the field of anti-CRTish "work."

Agree with the first two takes. But they do not serve as refutations of said work. 
The third assertion is wrong. There are people with prominent roles in the “anti-CRTish” work who have contractual arrangements for books they’ve written on the topic expressly prohibiting them from appearing on right wing media. You can find these folks occasionally on hard left outlets such as the New York Times and NPR. 

[badrouter]

Opponents of “CRTish” stuff explain why they do NOT support bans: Counterweight piece

[badrouter]

“Counterweight exists to help people, including teachers, parents and children who are having authoritarian Critical Social Justice (CSJ) ideas imposed on them to resist. This leads some people to think we might support bans on teaching CRT in schools. Do we?

The simple answer to this question is “No.” We are a liberal humanist organisation that upholds freedom of belief, freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity. We consistently oppose people trying to ban ideas they don’t like and we do so for two reasons. Firstly, because freedom of conscience is an essential individual liberty and secondly because prohibition makes defeating the bad ideas much more difficult. There isn’t a simple answer because this isn’t a simple question and the public conversation around this issue is a mess. This mess is largely caused by people confusing and conflating two sets of distinctions that really cannot be confused or conflated if one wants to approach the issue from a liberal perspective. These two things are:

1) The difference between teaching aboutideas and indoctrinating in ideas.

When we teach children about more than one set of ideas, including ideas that conflict with one another, we prepare them to be able to engage in the adult world where they will encounter many ideas, having already learned something of them as well as having been encouraged to evaluate and compare ideas and make arguments for and against them. When we indoctrinate children in one set of ideas, we put them at a disadvantage for engaging with the adult world of ideas and make them less able to comprehend or cope with ideas that differ from their own or make arguments about them.

2) The difference between disallowing coerced affirmation of ideas and banning expression.

When we prevent children from being forced to affirm any ideas, we allow them freedom of belief and encourage them to make up their own minds about whether the ideas are good or not. When we ban certain ideas from being taught to children in schools, they are denied the opportunity to think about them and evaluate them until they are forced to cope with diverse viewpoints in the adult world.

Teaching about ideas and disallowing coerced affirmation of ideas are thoroughly liberal and encourage informed critical thinking and tolerance of viewpoint diversity. Indoctrinating in ideas and banning expression of ideas is profoundly illiberal and discourages informed critical thinking and promotes intolerance of viewpoint diversity. This is very basic liberalism, in principle. In practice, things can become messy as individuals can claim to be upholding the liberal stance while actually enforcing the illiberal one, either deliberately, using a “motte and bailey” move, or due to a genuine misunderstanding of liberalism which is regrettably common.

The difficulty of threading this needle is exacerbated by the confused rhetoric around this issue which seems to be coming from everywhere. It comes from both Democrat and GOP policy makers themselves, mainstream media and political pundits from the left, right and centre, academics within the field of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and members of the general public engaged in the culture wars.”

[badrouter]

This is as balanced a discussion as you can find: FIRE

[badrouter]

Another excellent column: Most of the bills are poorly written

[badrouter]

A judge with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals penned an op-Ed on Critical Race Theory in the New York Times in 1997:

“Imagine, if you will, that space aliens land in the United States and offer ''untold treasure'' in exchange for surrendering all black citizens to them. What does white America do? It votes to accept the deal by overwhelming margins. So says the law professor Derrick Bell, who poses the question in an allegorical tale he calls ''The Space Traders.''

There is opposition, however. Jews condemn the trade as genocidal and organize the Anne Frank Committee to try to stop it. Empathy from another group that has suffered oppression? Not according to Bell. Instead, Jews worry that ''in the absence of blacks, Jews could become the scapegoats.''

Such parables pass for legal scholarship these days. Or rather, for a certain form of legal scholarship that Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry, both law professors at the University of Minnesota, identify as ''radical multiculturalism,'' an amalgam of legal ideas including critical race theory, radical feminism and ''gaylegal'' theory. ''Beyond All Reason'' is the anguished cry of two traditional liberals who have been mugged, not by reality but by their radical colleagues in the ivory tower.

According to Farber and Sherry, the radical multiculturalists in the law schools have taken an ax to the foundations of traditional academic dialogue -- things like objectivity, truth, merit, fairness and polite discourse. For the radical legal thinkers, all these are tools that straight white males use to oppress those who are not. According to the critical race theorist Richard Delgado, merit standards are ''like white people's affirmative action . . . a way of keeping their own deficiencies neatly hidden while assuring only people like them get in.'' The feminist Catharine MacKinnon puts it more deftly: current standards reflect ''what white men value about themselves.''

Farber and Sherry patiently -- sometimes too patiently -- demonstrate how radical multiculturalism ultimately destroys the very values its proponents seek (or should seek) to promote. If truth does not exist, if merit is merely an expression of power, if there is no objective reality, then meaningful discourse is impossible and the hope of a just and equal society is a hoax. How, for example, can one respond to Prof. Patricia Williams's assertion that it doesn't matter whether Tawana Brawley was telling the truth or lying when she claimed she was kidnapped, raped, tortured and smeared with dog feces by white men? Either way, Williams says, Brawley was ''the victim of some unspeakable crime.''

The radical multiculturalists' views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding. Consider the ''Space Traders'' story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960's. Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is Bell's insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust -- as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned -- and rightly so.

While the radical multiculturalists still make up only a minority in the law schools, they are loud and militant. They wage open warfare over appointments and tenure, the selection of deans, the scope of affirmative action and the imposition of speech codes. They brand those who oppose them as sexist, racist or worse. Farber and Sherry relate the experience of Randall Kennedy, a black Harvard law professor who wrote an article critical of radical legal scholarship. When efforts to dissuade him from publishing it failed, he was denounced for selling out his race.

Can all this be shrugged off as schoolyard fun and games? Hardly. What students are taught during their time at law school profoundly affects the way they will do their jobs. When I was a law student a quarter of a century ago, we were taught that cases usually turned not on what the law is, not on what the Constitution says, but on the predilections of the judge making the decision. That view was on the fringe then but is now widely held. In Washington, particularly, everyone believes it: liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, those in the White House and those on Capitol Hill. Consequently, the name of the game in judicial appointments is picking judges who will enshrine the right policy into the Constitution while blocking those with the wrong views.

Today's relentless attack on objective reality can similarly transform the legal profession. Lawyers have always had a hard time reconciling their responsibilities to their clients with their duty of candor to the court; after all, both sides are not equally served by the truth. But at least there has always been a shared assumption that such a thing as truth exists. Law students are now being taught -- at least by some of their professors -- that truth does not exist or, in any event, does not matter. What does matter is whose side you're on. There are strong indications that this message is being carried from the classroom into the courtroom in cases like the O. J. Simpson criminal trial. It may be only a matter of time before lawyers learn to tell juries quite routinely that they must choose not between guilt and innocence, truth and lies, lawfulness and unlawfulness, but between the defendant and the state.

Farber and Sherry are not alone in worrying about this. Traditional liberals in law schools all over the country are shaking their heads, wondering what hit them. Whereas 10 years ago one might have had a fruitful discussion with faculty members and students about justice, equality, freedom, responsibility and merit, such Enlightenment concepts are now considered a bit quaint and a bit dated -- like stale granola. While traditional liberals still dominate the law schools in terms of numbers, they are mostly a cowardly lot, unwilling to risk their peaceful careers to tell the alarming truth to the world outside. In writing this book, Farber and Sherry have taken a personal risk. If those of us outside the academy fail to take heed, we will not be able to say we were not warned.“

 

Link

[badrouter]

Beyond All Reason text

[badrouter]

The last two texts referenced above were written in 1997. Chris Rufo was 12 years old in 1997. I’m going to go out on a limb and assert that he, in fact, had nothing to do with the writing of those essays.

[Cat_Scratch]

3 hours ago, badrouter said:

How, for example, can one respond to Prof. Patricia Williams's assertion that it doesn't matter whether Tawana Brawley was telling the truth or lying when she claimed she was kidnapped, raped, tortured and smeared with dog feces by white men? Either way, Williams says, Brawley was ''the victim of some unspeakable crime.''

 

Well, Just crazy. Either she was or she was not. Was not = no crime.

[badrouter]

This is what you call insanity. Or, more charitably, complete bullshit.

 

[badrouter]

Distinctly, overtly anti-Science:

 

[badrouter]

Richard Delgado explains that the CRT movement is explicitly opposed to liberalism and democracy. (If you seek the abolition of liberalism, democracy, the Constitution and capitalism, you seek the abolition of the United States of America.)
 

 

[badrouter]

@Atticus Finch, do you feel it is appropriate for students in K-12 to be taught that Science is just a "male approach to knowledge" and thus should be rejected? Do you think it is appropriate for students in K-12 to be taught that "racism and enlightenment are the same thing"? Should students be taught/told that "if you are black or Mexican, you should flee Enlightenment-based democracies like mad, assuming you have any choice"? 

Are those appropriate ideas-presented as indisputable fact, of course- to be presented to children? Or, would "absolutely batshit crazy and profoundly dangerous" perhaps be a better characterization of the idea of presenting those ideas to children? Because, they're all the ideas of Richard Delgado, who's one of the founders and leaders of what's often called "Critical Race Theory".

[Troll]

On 7/1/2021 at 4:57 PM, Cat_Scratch said:

Well, Just crazy. Either she was or she was not. Was not = no crime.

Some Universities act like hedge funds

supporting stupidity indoctrination camps...

(for the sake of political purpose)

usually just depends

on where they make their real money.

 

Just saying.