Place to put my Nonsense Thread.
- Thread starter lurkeraspect84
- Start date
I’ll get my rosary out, and I expect another hug on Monday, god dammit.
CRT posits that the power structure in the legal system is designed to benefit whites, while also disenfranchising minorities, especially black people. So, where does that leave people that are mixed? Half-beneficiaries and half-oppressed?
Did some searching, and I actually found my answer. Evidently there's a new study, clearly an offshoot of CRT, named Critical Mixed Race Studies lol. Check out the some of the statements released by the governing board members:
Anti-Blackness and white supremacy must be destroyed. As mixed race/multiracial individuals, we must recognize our longstanding role in perpetuating anti-Blackness, including colorism within our various communities. Our racial and colonial miseducation must end now. By being critical and standing in our truth that one can identify with their multiple ancestries, yet also stand firm in their commitment to Black Lives Matter and against anti-Blackness, we can work towards ending white supremacy and systemic racism within the US and around the world.
We acknowledge that the history of mixed race/multiracial identity has been inherently tied to white supremacy and anti-Blackness. That our mixed identities are politicized and manipulated in ways to benefit whites and create further divisions between our communities of color. That those of us with white heritage and light skin have a legacy of exploiting white privilege. That we ALL have internalized racism and have been complicit in anti-Blackness.
Holy crap. Just when I thought this theory couldn't get any whackier. Looks like @Kevin Bryan was right. If you ain't all black, you're an oppressor. Can't believe this bush league theory has gone mainstream. It's a political activist movement more than anything. You'd be hard pressed to find a conservative critical race theorist. Would love to see it.
Tell you what Brooky, if you can find me one registered Republican that is a CRT Scholar, I'll attend the next BLM rally/protest that is within an hour of me.
So then why is it(CRT) needed? And be careful answering this. Because, ummmm well, its probably gonna answer your question, of....: How does this chamge things between white/black classmates.
It’s needed because it enhances their education.
It doesn’t pit white people against black people, so I don’t know why it would cause friction between white and black classmates.
Last edited:
Kind of like what Iamstupid said, taking about facts isn't a big deal. It's history, however, some teachers/ppl are taking it to the extremes and it's putting a bad light on it. "What's said here, stays here" for example. It creates dissonance if you will.
- Yes, probably partially a beneficiary and partially oppressed. Makes the most sense.
- idk what the governing body of CMRT (?) is or if the words they say mean anything to anybody.
- I doubt there is one. Republicans tend to be Conservatives and Conservatives tend to sweep race issues under the rug or ignore them whenever possible.
Teaching opinions is a slippery slope no one wants with children. MSM is having a hard time telling the difference between fact and opinion. The way they're portraying CRT is basically saying teachers are as well.
Stick to the facts would go a long way.
Stick to the facts would go a long way.
It stinks even having to talk about this. So many snowflakes out there that want their opinion to be the only right one.
Kind of like what Iamstupid said, taking about facts isn't a big deal. It's history, however, some teachers/ppl are taking it to the extremes and it's putting a bad light on it. "What's said here, stays here" for example. It creates dissonance if you will.
The rare extremist educators will no doubt eventually be exposed. I don’t think using exceptions to the rule (rule: most educators are pretty fair and level-headed individuals) is a great argument against evolving curriculums. I get that they paint CRT in a negative light. I’m advocating for normal CRT, not militant bastardizations of it.
“What is said here stays here” could as easily be an educator’s attempt to facilitate dialogue as it could be her attempt to hide her teachings. Some take it to mean she thinks she’s indoctrinating her pupils and doesn’t want them to tell their parents what she’s doing. Others take it as she wants students to be able to share their thoughts freely without fear of other students sharing what they said on social media or in the cafeteria or wherever.
Kind of like what Iamstupid said, taking about facts isn't a big deal. It's history, however, some teachers/ppl are taking it to the extremes and it's putting a bad light on it. "What's said here, stays here" for example. It creates dissonance if you will.
I just noticed the picture in your post. What’s funny about it is I see CRT as an unpleasant truth, more or less. Whereas others see it as a comforting lie.
it's only natural to fight change. I completely understand both sides mindsets........
I almost feel like if the media took a month off, or ppl took a month off media/social media, 77.5% of our issues would be ....stuggling with the word here. Not solved, not forgotten, ....I guess it's time for bed.
I almost feel like if the media took a month off, or ppl took a month off media/social media, 77.5% of our issues would be ....stuggling with the word here. Not solved, not forgotten, ....I guess it's time for bed.
CRT can easily be taught without opinion bias. But one would have to accept that CRT itself isn’t biased.
This is CRT, imo:
1) a law was enacted
2) evidence is presented that the law may have unfairly targeted minorities, perhaps not explicitly. Think Jim Crow laws just more subtle.
3) students are then tasked with analyzing the impact of the law.
4) if the teacher wants to get funky with it, she has the students perform debates on various laws like this and whether they were unjust to minorities, why, how, what the solution should be.
Simple stuff
Dialog is key. Not ranting, raving, name calling, etc.. but actual debate.
I guess opinions presented as facts is a pet peeve. It should stay past Page Six, past the comics.
The internet is a double edged sword. It has contributed more to the evolution of human society than just about any other invention ever. At the same time, it facilitated the rapid spread of misleading and polarizing information that we see today.
For me personally, researching and participating in debates was the best way to learn a topic where applicable (no debates in math).
You brought up earlier/maybe yesterday about how video is edited to fit an agenda.
It's so crazy that's a go to move with both sides.
It's so crazy that's a go to move with both sides.
It is crazy that they were caught meddling in an election and ultimately nobody cared/nothing happened.
It’s because they already have their narrative picked out and are always thinking about how to mold news to fit it. Editing out the question asked and replacing it with a paraphrased, exaggerated question is on the first page of ‘How to Spread False Narratives: for Dummies’
We saw that with the CNN guy on tape.
That was disgusting and I'd say the same for any news outlet who did the same. Which apparently they're all doing.
Similar threads
