quicksparks
New member
Well, you're kind of holding out on us now, like your opinions are to be sought after. I called you out on your opinion, but I'm not going to beg you for it.
-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
Anti-Asian Hate Crimes
- Thread starter lefty
- Start date
- Status
Well, you're kind of holding out on us now, like your opinions are to be sought after. I called you out on your opinion, but I'm not going to beg you for it.
TylerW
Well-known member
If you're going to call my opinions bullshit at least have the integrity to stand on it and make your declarations clear.
Don't take potshots and run out on them.
Karbon
Hyper hoñorary
You're pivoting.
What aspect of studying racial justice and identifying systemic problems do you have issues with? The civil right movement didn't just come out of thin air. How else do we make progress as a society if we don't apply a magnifying glass to the fabric of our culture? Isn't the goal to make a more perfect Union?
You're basically using the same arguments people against the civil rights were using. "Things are fine, this is fine, I'm not too bothered about how the system treats me (or others) why bother". If you can't see that idk what to tell you
And your last comment about minors and non citizens not being able to vote doesn't even makes sense in the context of this convo. We're talking about racial justice. These are different topics all together. No one here is arguing they should be able to vote. You're just regurgitating Reactionary slippery slope talking points.
Also what do you mean by woke? Here it's just sounds like some nebulous term you're applying to whatever strawman you want to attack.
Last edited:
quicksparks
New member
Not slavery by a long shot, of course. My question should have been, “what’s legal in America today that needs to be outlawed because it’s screwing up American citizens’ equal opportunity?”
The sanctuary city/state thing is interesting. It’s still federally illegal to be living and working here without authorization. But the cities/states that have declared themselves sanctuaries only have the ability to not cooperate with federal law enforcement. Theoretically the feds can still come around and enforce the law by arresting and deporting illegals, but without the support of local law enforcement, it’s impractical in all but the highest priority deportation cases.
It’s an interesting reminder of the power of local action and the power of the people vs “the government.” Something Karbon can appreciate, I’m presume. To be consistent, though, supporters of these sanctuary city/state examples should not cry foul when the same strategy is used to virtually nullify federal gun laws at the local level.
quicksparks
New member
It’s interesting, indeed. I’m surprised it hasn’t already been brought up here, but you chose an interesting source. RT is a Russian propaganda machine, according to the MSM in this country (I think they only call that out when it’s convenient for them). Assuming the quotes and source materials in the article aren’t fabricated by the Russians, I don’t see why it deserves the title of propaganda. Maybe they’re taking something that’s only sort of true and misrepresenting and amplifying it. It’s totally possible. But that’s what the MSM here does every day, and a significant portion of the population accepts it as unbiased news.
Karbon
Hyper hoñorary
Really? Russia Times?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/?amp=1
Again, the examples of posted in the twitter link by the CACA are instances of where corporate training entities has misapplied critical race theory.
It just looks like you Google searched "CRT bad" and pulled an OP Ed. The author's assessment is not even a correct understanding of what academics studying critical race theory assert.
This is a strawman. This is not the consensus of what academics who study CRT.
Last edited:
TylerW
Well-known member
Try, try and imagine that your most valuable possession being appraised at half its value just because your skin is the wrong color.
https://www.indystar.com/story/mone...8wt_HPTRqVjJgqgk4VCwcqfY53uB6kIu6CkvtvYwoF2PU
https://www.indystar.com/story/mone...8wt_HPTRqVjJgqgk4VCwcqfY53uB6kIu6CkvtvYwoF2PU
quicksparks
New member
Re your first paragraph: When you’re chasing smaller and smaller improvements, as we are in our American society today, you take less and less risk. I think we’re at that point where we should be taking baby steps, and only after really careful consideration. What we’ve seen over the past year+ is angry mobs causing chaos and destruction in the streets demanding that mountains be moved immediately with no clear goal in sight. I associate that with “racial justice” and that’s why I think it’s a loose cannon that I can’t get behind. If I had any faith that it could be carried out rationally then I would think differently.
Re your second paragraph, I think it’s a false comparison. You’re positing that no matter how good things are now, they always need to be “better.” You make them better by changing them, but you’re completely leaving out risk. Every change has risk. It might result in something worse. So people generally accept that you leave well enough alone. I posit that we have a good thing going here in this country right now, let’s not screw it up by changing things. Let the status quo simmer, the outcomes for everybody will stabilize and improve. The corrollary to that is there’s a risk with not changing things right now, and outcomes will deteriorate and diffract. So, I think the former is more likely, and you think the latter is more likely.
Re third paragraph: It was more directly addressed to you than the thread in general, in case you meant that it’s absurd that some people aren’t allowed to vote. You can disregard it if you wish.
Re fourth paragraph: Woke is whatever the hell it is Donald Glover sang about in Red Bone. You’re right, it’s nebulous, and I acknowledge that using the term the way I do makes it into a boogeyman, so, negative points for me.
quicksparks
New member
You brought this exact example up in another thread... months ago. Maybe a link to it to see the discussion about it there?
quicksparks
New member
To be fair, most of the stuff you and Tyler post looks like you just google “white man bad” and regurgitate what you find there.
Last edited:
Karbon
Hyper hoñorary
Don't know what to tell you. I never asserted white man bad. If anything I've bolstered the idea that we all have inherent biases due to culture. Race being one of them.
What I've said could be said/applied about any society with racial majority and minority group.
Last edited:
quicksparks
New member
Culture and race are two different things. One is a choice and the other is not.
TylerW
Well-known member
This example happened a few days ago.
Last edited:
Karbon
Hyper hoñorary
What are the risks?
You're assertion is vague. Plus clarify.
What are we risking to better improve the material conditions of people? To eliminate racial bias? To examine how racial bias affects society?
Again this is the same arguments made against civil rights. History has not agreed with your assessment.
Things got wild in recent times BECAUSE baby steps weren't working. this has been the Hallmark of history.
The acedemic study of critical race theory IS the evidence based, reasonable and rational non violent discourse. This IS the "careful consideration" you speak if. Since the time of the civil rights movement it always initially fell on deaf ears UNTIL shit got wild. Reiterating, CRT brought to light the practice of redlining (one old example). And in contemporary examples how implicit bias affects sentencing. Should we let the broken system continue? Or make policy to fix it.
Last edited:
Karbon
Hyper hoñorary
Yes but they affect each other. In the US there is clear evidence that race affects material conditions which affects culture.
Clarifying my statement:
These biases affects the beliefs which inform our decisions.
Anyway the fuss about CRT is BS moral panic drummed in by Reactionaries. Don't take it from me but, maybe a Princeton Phd
[Youtube]E2KL8oHxW8A[/YouTube]
Last edited:
quicksparks
New member
I'll address your request for clarification about baby steps and risk. OK, so baby steps are what's been happening and it hasn't been enough? What else is new? It does not behoove this nation to pivot on its axis every time a new president comes into power or a new movement hits the streets. Our system of government is built for gridlock on purpose, to mitigate risk. It's childish to throw a hissy fit because things aren't going your way fast enough for your fancy.
Re risk: You're talking about government programs (so really, redistribution of wealth) and new education curricula. From everything I've heard about CRT, it seems like the intent is to decide which wealth redistribution is best. So when you're talking about taxing people more, or moving tax dollars from one program to another, and also molding our youths' minds, you bet your ask there is risk that we start heading down the wrong path. I fear the path towards socialism but yes, I understand, a lot of you don't. It is what it is.
Now onto the video.
First off, these people in the video you linked are convinced that white supremacy is the root cause of all their problems (see the 7:50 mark). So, yeah. I think I'm going to disagree with them.
You say tom-AH-to, I say tom-AY-to. You listen to her and hear nothing but affirmation that CRT is just dandy and I listen to her and hear her affirm that CRT is what I think it is, which is not a good thing.
She starts with the civil rights movement and basically says what happened after that wasn't good enough. Affirmative action, other "targeted programs to address racial inequality," and liberal colorblindness all wasn't good enough. More is needed, according to her, you, and other people who support CRT in search of "racial justice."
You pointed out a shortcoming, that redlining was happening, and CRT discovered it. OK...seems like the system works as-is, and has been working for decades. Why is there all of the sudden a big push to change it even more? Like for instance, starting to teach CRT in schools.
You call it "moral panic drummed in by reactionaries," and in the video you posted, they lament that some states want to not allow CRT to be taught in schools. The man basically says (paraphrasing), "Where are these schools teaching CRT? I've never seen it. This (banning CRT being taught in schools) seems like a solution in search of a problem." The woman, paraphrasing, says, "This is a right wing approach...they make up a problem and create a moral panic around an issue that doesn't exist...in order to distract from their own failed policies." (I see why you like her)
Haha, well that's the thing, people react to the communicated intent. There is an intent to start teaching CRT in schools, and there is a reaction to that intent. How can they (and you) say this is just "drumming up moral panic to a problem that doesn't exist?"
I can use their same logic to say we don't need CRT to be taught in schools because it's a solution in search of a problem. Their quest to teach everyone that white supremacy is alive and well, and at the root of all their problems, is a typical left wing tactic to drum up moral panic to a problem that doesn't exist and distract from their own failed policies.
quicksparks
New member
TylerW
Well-known member
Still a different story. Which is fine because it reinforces two different points:
Racial discrimination is common and systemic, despite some folks refusing to see it.
nakedape
Well-known member
Critical Race Theory is not a subject that is taught. Based on your statement "culture is a choice" and generally dismissive tone you have some learning to do. Great points by others in this thread.
I will say as a HS teacher that some lens shifts on literature and history SUBJECTS have fallen flat with diverse student demographics because they already get it. They are painfully aware of persistent systemic and institutional racism and are willing and able to articulate the hows and whys. "We already know this stuff Mr. Ape, we have the internet..." And we assume they are just farting around 24/7, not so.
It may seem like people change their identity and culture willy-nilly when you see issues through the distorted lens of modern filtered media. Brown people have had to be "more white" forever to gain standing and credibility within the dominant culture, at the expense of their valuable connections to their own heritage and history. CRT simply calls for appropriate recognition of those cultural pieces and their inherent value for teaching and learning history, of people and places and events.
The basis on which criticism of CRT rests is mostly unconscious bias and fear of losing the touchstones of the dominant culture. For a few, it's naked bigotry. As I tell the frothing at the mouth parents in our meetings, there's a host of great private schools to chose from if you want to dictate content. And Texas.
tzrider
Write Only User
What are you reading or hearing that makes you think this? CRT isn't a set of policies or recommendations. It's an analysis of societal structures that have led to racial inequality. Do you oppose doing the analysis?
Let's set aside wealth redistribution or socialism, as these are not CRT. Some groups may propose policies along those lines as a way to offset inequality, but those policies are not CRT.
As far as I can tell, to oppose CRT is to oppose knowing the origins of and ongoing influences on racial inequality in the US.
- Status