Liberals are
out
of
control
Twitter Link
Liberals are
out
of
control
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
these jackasses are so comically fascist:
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think I must be missing something, but public schools, the military, and government agencies that engage in some level of pedagogy obviously will have some kind of curriculum. Is your assertion that this curriculum must contain certain speech? That it must contain all speech? That it should remain up to the individual teachers to decide what is taught? If defining the scope of the curriculum is wrong, then isn't that essentially taking a stand against the concept of a curriculum?Originally Posted by Aimless
I am genuinely curious about this line of argument. If CRT is not included as a component of the military's training for nuclear propulsion systems is that a violation of speech? Does this logic stand if we replace CRT with some other instruction? If someone was advocating for example that eugenics, creationism, that the civil war was a war of Northern aggression, or white supremacy be taught in public schools, the military, and government agencies - and Harris then went out to demand that those organizations reject it being included in the curriculum, would that still be an out of control attack on free speech?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-23-2021 at 04:34 PM.
Or maybe those organizations and relevant experts are in the best position to know what specific theories they should or shouldn't be teaching. But hey, I hear centralization is a key libertarian principle.
Hope is the denial of reality
And when relevant experts disagree? This of course is ignoring that we have civilian control of the military, not decision making decided solely by relevant experts, but I certainly doubt there is universal agreement, or even widespread agreement among military experts that teaching CRT will improve morale, unit cohesion, and military effectiveness. Again, do you think it would be good to teach that the Civil War was a war of Northern aggression to cadets in the military? And if you opposed that being included in the curriculum, would it be true that you are somehow attacking free speech?
If there's consensus that it's a good idea to teach it, it should be taught. If there's consensus it's a bad idea to teach it, it shouldn't be taught. If there is no consensus, it should be up to the discretion of each organization or teacher.
*consensus doesn't mean every single person agrees
**in the case of CRT, I doubt there's a consensus in either direction
Hope is the denial of reality
So defining a curriculum is not an infringement of free speech, correct?
Having partisan political officials determine which theories (rather than what content) is taught is a violation of academic freedom.
Hope is the denial of reality
So having partisan political officials determine that CRT should be taught is a violation of academic freedom?
Which state requires it?
Hope is the denial of reality
Does the state have to require it for partisan political officials to determine that it should be taught?
Who else would set the curriculums? I've yet to hear of any place that mandates it. Perhaps because it's a complex theory generally not covered before high-level undergrad courses...
Hope is the denial of reality
The CDE has approved the teaching of an ethnic studies curriculum that is pretty well rooted in CRT, (and would have been more so had not the original curriculum generated so many objections and controversy that it needed multiple revisions) and given schools wide latitude in how that curriculum is decided, but given a model curriculum to adopt. So, if the local school board decides to teach CRT because of partisan political officials, is that a violation of academic freedom?
Regardless, the question can be approached theoretically. Would having partisan political officials determine that CRT should be taught be a violation of academic freedom?
No, the school board is teaching ethnic studies. Just like it could offer music or art, which would entail using approaches dominant in those subjects. CRT is an important approach within that field.
So what you're saying is local officials are given the autonomy to cover or not cover certain controversial subjects. And those subjects are entirely within the mainstream of the field in question. Horrifying.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm pressing you on the point that you yourself made. You said that decisions made by partisan political figures, (which school board members certainly could be considered) on what is taught is a violation of academic freedom. However, what I actually think you believe is that decisions made on what to teach by partisan political figures that you disagree with are violations of academic freedom. These decisions are being made every day.
I made my position clear. Unless a theory I discredited within its field, there should be an option to teach it. I would be concerned about CRT being used in math. You're just using the potential for wrongdoing on a local level to excuse actual wrongdoing at the state level.
Hope is the denial of reality
So on what level in military tactics, training, and education does CRT have credit?
Gonna post this perspective now and sort through the accounts of the absolutely batshit mob action against "critical race theory" a day or so ago
Twitter Link
When he's right, he's right.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Specific applications in military studies and training? Educaiton in nation-building, interfactional relations and diplomacy, and peacekeeping, including domestic crisis-related national guard deployments. Off the top of my head. If you don't understand the dynamics between people and peoples you're interacting with, you're effectively making your mission success or failure a matter of chance.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Critical Race Theory is just the latest of the string of the buzz words* the right picks basically at random from the leftist lexicon or other source, and wants you to get mad about to distract you from the thing you actually should get mad about, which is the fact that they exist solely to fuck you over.
Yes, you.
This, of course, is something that is actually Orwellian. As in, this is something George Orwell wrote about in his famous book Nineteen Eighty Four, unlike whatever the fuck it was the OP was on about.
* BLM, wokeness, cancelling, SJWs, trigger warnings, political correctness, sharia law, the gay agenda, the trans agenda, liberals, communists, etc etc
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
And you believe critical race theory is the proper framework to inform military education and decision making in nation-building, inter-factional relations, diplomacy, and peace keeping?
How so?
Why the US Navy wants sailors to read ‘How To Be An Antiracist’
"I believe that we can trust them to read books like that and draw reasonable conclusions."
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy...an-antiracist/
Approximately 1 in 5 sailors reported racial discrimination on their assigned aircraft carrier in 2019, according to internal Navy surveys obtained by the Associated Press.
Nearly a third reported hearing racial slurs, comments, and jokes aboard these ships, which function as floating cities with crews of roughly 5,000 people.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I think it is a potentially accurate one and even if and where it gets things wrong it can probably provide a useful perspective to more fully inform any approaches one may make in accomplishing those missions. Furthermore, I think there are a number of places in the world where our troops get deployed where it or related material will be part of the lexicon of at least some of the parties they work with (or against) which again makes understanding it mission-relevant. Just like reading Mao.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I would love to see specifics in how it is a potentially accurate framework that will help our military accomplish their objectives.
There are any number of things that may or may not aide in our understanding of an area, a conflict, or the individuals involved. I'm interested in specifically why you think CRT is that tool, beyond vague assertions that it would broaden perspectives and fully inform approaches. That can be true of literally anything.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-24-2021 at 04:55 PM.
"the proper framework"?
"the"?
"proper"?
There is no one singular "proper framework" for understanding complex issues relevant to any of the areas you list. CRT is one of many approaches that may be of value, in providing novel and useful perspectives on the challenges students might encounter. See eg. Milley's comments above re. his firm belief in the value of becoming acquainted with different ways of looking at the world and the people in it. Ofc, CRT isn't taught as widely as the people swept up in this latest [im]moral panic believe.
The screenshot of the two tweets—and their juxtaposition—illustrates several different points. The most obvious point concerns the irony or naked hypocrisy of Pence decrying "cancel culture" while also openly and enthusiastically endorsing a much more aggressive state-imposed implementation of cancel culture currently unfolding all over the country. A second—somewhat less obvious but no less important—point is that his characterization—and his audience's perception—of the world is delusional, or, in the vernacular, batshit insane, in this respect.
The objection you raise is not compelling, for one primary reason: unlike you, I recognize that how we ought to relate to claims and narratives—or, indeed, facts—is very much a function of the merits of those things—for example wrt their truth value, their practical value, their ethical benefits and harms, etc; things that are meaningfully different should be treated differently. Consequently, I do not agree that the weaponization of conservatives' delusions about CRT is less objectionable than or similarly objectionable to VP Harris publicly opposing the teaching of eugenics in schools, the military, and govt. agencies; that eugenics is fallacious, morally repugnant, and outright dangerous is more or less a settled matter. Moreover, I disagree with your argument re. curricula. There is no reason why curricula must be politically determined; in most situations, curricula should be defined by subject-matter experts—not by politicians primarily concerned with enhancing their power at the expense of both students' education and their safety. It is telling that most of the conservative rage at the teaching of "CRT" is, in reality, just a delusional fear-driven anger at kids being taught mainstream history.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I've actually looked through my college's course catalog. There are at most half a dozen classes where CRT might even come up. All of them are within majors where students should expect to learn this kind of material. None of the classes are required for gen ed. purposes.
Hope is the denial of reality
It's in the walls Loki, like asbestos.
You best step carefully, they're coming after white dudes now:
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Fair enough, I worded it poorly. Why is makes it "a" proper framework to do so? There are any number of different competing frameworks that could potentially provide value, some I assume far more so to the military than CRT. I am interested in what makes this one valuable.
If your idea of what comprises cancel culture is not including something in an educational curriculum then literally millions of philosophies, ideologies, concepts, notions, frameworks, and theories are being canceled. Cancel culture as a criticism does not apply to abstract ideas, it applies to people. You can't cancel CRT, any more than you could cancel any other thought pattern.The screenshot of the two tweets—and their juxtaposition—illustrates several different points. The most obvious point concerns the irony or naked hypocrisy of Pence decrying "cancel culture" while also openly and enthusiastically endorsing a much more aggressive state-imposed implementation of cancel culture currently unfolding all over the country. A second—somewhat less obvious but no less important—point is that his characterization—and his audience's perception—of the world is delusional, or, in the vernacular, batshit insane, in this respect.
You misunderstand. When it comes to speech, and claims it is being outlawed, I believe it is vitally important to divorce the truth, practical value, ethical benefit, and harms from the equation whenever possible. If Pence's call for not including CRT as part of the pedagogy of governmental institutions is an impingement on speech then perhaps so is any other decision to include or not include subject matter, up to and including those examples I provided. This is and should be a separate argument for the specific perceived value of the specific speech in question.The objection you raise is not compelling, for one primary reason: unlike you, I recognize that how we ought to relate to claims and narratives—or, indeed, facts—is very much a function of the merits of those things—for example wrt their truth value, their practical value, their ethical benefits and harms, etc; things that are meaningfully different should be treated differently. Consequently, I do not agree that the weaponization of conservatives' delusions about CRT is less objectionable than or similarly objectionable to VP Harris publicly opposing the teaching of eugenics in schools, the military, and govt. agencies; that eugenics is fallacious, morally repugnant, and outright dangerous is more or less a settled matter. Moreover, I disagree with your argument re. curricula. There is no reason why curricula must be politically determined; in most situations, curricula should be defined by subject-matter experts—not by politicians primarily concerned with enhancing their power at the expense of both students' education and their safety. It is telling that most of the conservative rage at the teaching of "CRT" is, in reality, just a delusional fear-driven anger at kids being taught mainstream history.
If your argument is that CRT is a perfectly valid and useful analytical framework, then a debate can be had based on the merits, and the merits of CRT can be assessed differently by reasonable people. However, that does not mean that any analytical framework with possible utility can and should be included in a curriculum. The fact that there are conservatives who are opposed to CRT to being included as training to federal agencies, the military and public schools should be no more shocking than the fact that there are liberals who support it. Opposing that then is not a question of violating free speech, it is a question of perceived value, utility, and harm. If CRT is considered harmful, the fact that it's detractors don't want it to be foisted upon individuals in the federal government, school children across the country, and the men and women of our military, is little different from another theory that is harmful, (see the Civil War as a war of Northern aggression) being foisted on those populations, and would no doubt see wide-spread opposition. You may feel as though CRT has truth, practical value, and ethical benefits. That opinion is clearly not shared by everyone.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-24-2021 at 06:07 PM.
CRT is taught because experts in certain fields believe it should be taught. You've yet to cite an example of liberal politicians requiring this specific theory be taught.
If I were a professor in Florida right now, I would not be able to teach this theory in my class. In which state would I be required to teach it?
Hope is the denial of reality
Yet, I don't believe that as a society we should be under the illusion that talking with fascists or similar will result in anything else than what happened first time round.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote