Chilling Orwellianism at NYU

[GGT]

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

Bingo! All this new "outrage" over Critical Race Theory is a red herring. It's meant to distract from Republican legislatures enacting fascist laws -- like bans on teaching accurate history, including all the ugly discrimination that is factual.

And it lets Republicans like Pence say Equal Rights is *really* just about marginalizing and persecuting Christians and Conservatives (because they're the real victims here). Buzz words to stoke fears of the White Grievance crowd, which apparently makes up a large chunk of the GOP.

[GGT]

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?

Yeah, your "missing something". K-12 public schools do NOT teach CRT since it's not part of their curriculum.

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?

Dude, you're trying to make this all about Free Speech, when it's really about being fully informed and well-educated via public schools that use state and/or federal funds (tax dollars). I don't mind Religious/Parochial or Home Schoolers using the sports or busing funds enjoyed by public schools....but that doesn't mean Religious Theory like Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught *in K-12* public schools.

Last time I checked, SCOTUS agreed.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

What makes explaining the durability of post-colonial power structures as evolved despite various efforts to change them valueable? Gee, I can't think of a single reason. What makes it a BAD thing to learn? Because you seem to be completely forgetting something in your drive to label this is CRT "not being included"

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.

It IS cancel culture because this is not a case of CRT merely not being included. This is a case of it being banned or forbidden. By state legislatures and similar authorities. It CAN'T be included, even if it fits, makes sense, or is outright integral. Once again, your conservativism is triumphing over your libertarianism.

You misunderstand. When it comes to speech, and claims it is being outlawed,

It IS being outlawed. If a state (like Idaho or Florida) passes a law forbidding it from being taught, then it has been outlawed. That is the definition of outlawing something. And Pence's comments are made IN THAT CONTEXT. He is referring to outlawing the material.

[GGT]

Conservatism Trumping Libertarianism, yeehaw!

[Ominous Gamer]

[Enoch the Red]

What makes explaining the durability of post-colonial power structures as evolved despite various efforts to change them valueable? Gee, I can't think of a single reason. What makes it a BAD thing to learn? Because you seem to be completely forgetting something in your drive to label this is CRT "not being included"

Because it is a single factorial analysis whose tenets state that the organization that would be doing the teaching, (the US Military) is inherently and irredeemably racist. Not just racist, but indeed it is white supremacist, and that the remedy is to challenge, remove and overhaul its systems of power. Additionally it teaches the centrality of race intersectionality. For a military organization that is defined by a power structure and hierarchy, which requires obedience, values tradition, expects integration, cooperation, and unit cohesion, this is a poison pill. So I ask again, what about teaching CRT would make our troops better at protecting this nation? If it is being taught and taken seriously I can definitely see obvious ways it could hurt them, in fact I struggle to see how it couldn't.

I also don't imagine our adversaries are engaging in this same intensive self-destructive navel admiration.

It IS cancel culture because this is not a case of CRT merely not being included. This is a case of it being banned or forbidden. By state legislatures and similar authorities. It CAN'T be included, even if it fits, makes sense, or is outright integral. Once again, your conservativism is triumphing over your libertarianism.

It IS being outlawed. If a state (like Idaho or Florida) passes a law forbidding it from being taught, then it has been outlawed. That is the definition of outlawing something. And Pence's comments are made IN THAT CONTEXT. He is referring to outlawing the material.

I am hearing two different arguments on this front. The first is that CRT is not being taught anywhere, (Loki and GGT) so essentially CRT is already forbidden defacto. In which case this is red meat to the base, and while contemptible, not terribly surprising. However that also means that it makes no difference in the lives of students or teachers.

The second seems to be more of an appeal to the primacy of free speech, and the horrors of the state outlawing subject matter. This is clearly wrong-headed, ideas should not be banned. However, there are any number of things that can't be taught in Florida schools, up to and including Holocaust denial. The rule in question:

(b) Instruction on the required topics must be factual and objective, and may not suppress or distort significant historical events, such as the Holocaust, and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Are you similarly upset that there is a rule that outlaws and forbids the teaching of Holocaust denial using state dollars? If this was truly a principled free speech issue, instead of a free speech cudgel, that should be equally problematic - and newsworthy - after all, the government is banning, outlawing, and forbidding speech!

Except it isn't. One can still buy Mein Kampf in Florida. One can still get a Nazi tattoo, a Swastika flag, and march in the street playing whatever the terrible skinhead music of today is. One can burn the flag of Israel and yell from a bull horn that the Holocaust never happened, and death to all Jews for good measure. They just can't do it and receive funding from the state for doing so.

[Loki]

"You can practice whichever religion you want, but unless you practice the correct one, you can't get money from the state." Solid libertarian position.

[Enoch the Red]

"You can practice whichever religion you want, but unless you practice the correct one, you can't get money from the state." Solid libertarian position.

Better libertarian position - the state shouldn't be in the business of handing out money.

[Loki]

But if it is, it should certainly only give it to its supporters.

[Enoch the Red]

But if it is, it should certainly only give it to its supporters.

Yes, I confess, were I to live in Florida - the fact that my tax dollars are not being funneled to Holocaust deniers, being paid by the state to teach that the Holocaust didn't happen - would not keep me up at night.

[Loki]

Yes, because that's definitely something experts want taught.

[Enoch the Red]

Yes, because that's definitely something experts want taught.

So there are experts clamoring for teaching CRT in K-12? I thought nobody was teaching it anywhere.

Look, if you want this to be a free speech issue, then argue it as a free speech issue. If you want it to be an issue on the merits, make it an issue on the merits. Show some consistency.

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't think Holocaust denial should be outlawed, no. But I think it goes to your general dishonesty and unwillingness to engage on CRT that you're trying to deflect on issues like the Florida law to clear window-dressing like that.

[Enoch the Red]

I don't think Holocaust denial should be outlawed, no. But I think it goes to your general dishonesty and unwillingness to engage on CRT that you're trying to deflect on issues like the Florida law to clear window-dressing like that.

Do you believe it should be taught in school? Should a K-12 teacher be allowed to teach a class in critical Holocaust studies and receive your tax dollars to do so?

Please, engage with me on CRT. What about it makes a valuable framework that should be taught to school children, our military, and federal agencies. Be specific.

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't think Holocaust denial should be outlawed, no. But I think it goes to your general dishonesty and unwillingness to engage on CRT that you're trying to deflect on issues like the Florida law to clear window-dressing like that.

He is avoiding the conversation in the same bullshit ways Ben Shapiro does, logical fallacies.

Twitter Link

[Enoch the Red]

He is avoiding the conversation in the same bullshit ways Ben Shapiro does, logical fallacies.

Twitter Link

Logical fallacies like The Straw Kippah?

[LittleFuzzy]

Do you believe it should be taught in school? Should a K-12 teacher be allowed to teach a class in critical Holocaust studies and receive your tax dollars to do so?

Should be? No. Can be? Yeah, probably. And they already are via home-schooling with government aid and that doesn't really bug me, no.

Please, engage with me on CRT. What about it makes a valuable framework that should be taught to school children, our military, and federal agencies. Be specific.

First of all? Because at its fundamental base it's true and accurate and our entire system of education (also your entire political and ideological framework, for the record) works hard to be blind to those truths about how environment shapes us as an aggregate population and our environment is one filled with soft barriers along racial lines. Are they the only barriers? No. Are they insurmountable? No. But it amounts to a systemic racist bias Now maybe time and real dedication to colorblindness can remove those barriers and bias. But the timescale involved would be hundreds of years and taking a look around the world today and at the history of innumerable areas, the idea that time actually WOULD result in such change absent radical action or destruction starts to look kinda like a blind faith cargo cult.

I would remind you that education is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. Just because you don't want society to be changed to remove racial bias (and the idea that all such bias can be removed is fantasy) doesn't provide the least bit of justification for refusing to recognize the reality or setting up more barriers to keep others from learning about the reality.

[Lewkowski]

While this is slightly hyperbolic to be funny, it really does feel like some of the "wokest' proponents of CRT fit the bill of this comedy sketch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg

At a higher level there's nothing wrong with teaching kids about racism, there is a huge problem with race essentialism or in teaching kids that people of different races must be treated differently based on their race. And I hope everyone understands the anti-CRT bills don't prevent the teaching of historical racism and events during the civil rights era.

[Loki]

You're conflating a million different issues to come up with a monster strawman that doesn't exist in nature.

[Enoch the Red]

Should be? No. Can be? Yeah, probably. And they already are via home-schooling with government aid and that doesn't really bug me, no.

I am very happy for your principled stand for free speech. It may exceed my own.

First of all? Because at its fundamental base it's true and accurate and our entire system of education (also your entire political and ideological framework, for the record) works hard to be blind to those truths about how environment shapes us as an aggregate population and our environment is one filled with soft barriers along racial lines. Are they the only barriers? No. Are they insurmountable? No. But it amounts to a systemic racist bias Now maybe time and real dedication to colorblindness can remove those barriers and bias. But the timescale involved would be hundreds of years and taking a look around the world today and at the history of innumerable areas, the idea that time actually WOULD result in such change absent radical action or destruction starts to look kinda like a blind faith cargo cult.

Perhaps you can be more descriptive about what you believe the fundamental base of CRT is, and what makes it true. Again, specifics please. Maybe then you can explain what policies you believe should be implemented to address these changes. What would Fuzzy do to address the very real issue of racial bias?

I am also struggling to understand your point regarding the progress that has already clearly been made. Hundreds of years ago slavery was widely practiced and accepted. Black Americans were legally considered to be 3/5ths of a person. Boats crossed the Atlantic with human beings stuffed in their holds and stacked like cord wood. A hundred years ago race riots where scores of people were killed and families would pack picnics for lynchings were relatively common. Sixty years ago anti-miscegenation laws were on the books and being enforced and there were no black justices on the Supreme Court. Thirty years ago there had never been an African American serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking official in the military, and fifteen years ago there had never been a black president. If you asked a slave in the 1790's if he thought that one day there might be a black president, what do you think their response would be? It is almost within my living memory that there were people who were proud to be racist. Today it is among the worst things you can be accused of. The pace of progress, admittedly often too slow, is hardly measured in hundreds of years, it is better measured in years or decades, and to be blind to it is to ignore the incredible changes that have been made in our country, socially, culturally, and institutionally. It is, to use your wording, to blind yourself to historical truths, and ignore how progress, even incremental progress, can and is being made on timescales far smaller than you seem to believe. To argue that bias exists is true and trite. To say that the foundations of this country must be removed, its institutions torn down, and the baby thrown out with the bath water, to remove the rot of racism is deranged. Racial animus is a terrible thing and should be excised wherever it is found. Racism is not a cancer requiring poison to treat.

I would remind you that education is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. Just because you don't want society to be changed to remove racial bias (and the idea that all such bias can be removed is fantasy) doesn't provide the least bit of justification for refusing to recognize the reality or setting up more barriers to keep others from learning about the reality.

Second point, beyond the bad faith assertion that I do not want society to remove racial bias, I am left with the conclusion that you believe the only way that society can be changed to remove racial bias is through CRT. Maybe you would care to flesh that out a little. Why is CRT the only way to drive societal change to remove racial bias, and what are the policy prescriptions it has offered to do so?

[Loki]

Speaking of attacking strawman. Have you considered actually reading CRT instead of parroting right-wing talking points? Incidentally, nothing you said takes away from the basic premise that institutions were designed expressly to benefit whites.

[Enoch the Red]

Speaking of attacking strawman. Have you considered actually reading CRT instead of parroting right-wing talking points? Incidentally, nothing you said takes away from the basic premise that institutions were designed expressly to benefit whites.

Explain how affirmative action is designed to expressly benefit whites.

Or better yet - which institutions and what designs?

[Loki]

Explain how affirmative action is designed to expressly benefit whites.

Or better yet - which institutions and what design?

The Senate benefitted slave-owning states back then and states with few minorities today. Juries allow whites (esp. police) to be acquitted of crimes against minorities. The courts consistently give harsher penalties to African Americans. School funding models favor white children. Housing prices benefit white sellers. At-will employment allows any employer with half a brain to fire people for racist reasons. Cops were expressly created in numerous places to deal with African Americans. Their biases against African Americans are too many to name. That's just off the top of my head. But good job in coming up with one exception which was and still widely opposed by conservatives and libertarians.

[Enoch the Red]

The Senate benefitted slave-owning states back then and states with few minorities today.

Great? How does that expressly benefit whites?

Juries allow whites (esp. police) to be acquitted of crimes against minorities.

Juries aren't institutions, juries are people. Juries can be comprised of any race. They famously convicted Derrick Chauvin and acquitted OJ Simpson. To say that trial by jury expressly benefits whites is pretty ridiculous. An all black jury in Detroit is expressly looking to benefit whites?

The courts consistently give harsher penalties to African Americans.

I would need to see the data on this, but it seems plausible, and something that can handled in a race-blind way if the problem is as widespread and pernicious as you seem to believe.

School funding models favor white children.

School funding models favor the wealthy. White kids in rural Appalachia aren't getting half the education that a rich black kid in Massachusetts is getting. But I agree, public education is pretty awful.

Housing prices benefit white sellers.

What does this even mean? The price of a house is racist?

At-will employment allows any employer with half a brain to fire people for racist reasons.

Your argument is that this racist employer, who had already hired an employee, which suddenly and without warning turned out to be black, can now fire them? This certainly seems like an employer with half a brain.

Maybe it was that this employer didn't realize at the time he was hiring a kike or a polack or a wop.

What is it that you teach again?

Cops were expressly created in numerous places to deal with African Americans. Their biases against African Americans are too many to name.

The military was created expressly to deal with the British army. The anti-British sentiments that exist in it today are too many to name.

That's just off the top of my head. But good job in coming up with one exception which was and still widely opposed by conservatives and libertarians.

Well they were pretty terrible examples, so I wouldn't go hurting your arm patting yourself on the back.

The point should be clear. Institutions can, and have adopted policies that are aimed at addressing racism, even to the detriment of the majority race. I don't have to agree with the specific policy to recognize that an institution which does so is not so deeply rooted in racism and white supremacy to change. Clearly there are bad policies. There may even be racist policies. The great thing about policies is they can change. The great experiment that is our country, that is liberalism, which has given opportunity, prosperity, and liberty to so many is what is unique, historically speaking, not our struggle with racism.

[Steely Glint]

LOL, yeah, good luck getting a libertarian to acknowledge that generational and systematic inequalities exist.

[Aimless]

I will get back to this thread when I have time but I must confess some of that was among the dumbest most parodical arguments I've read on this forum in a while. Something about the GOP messaging on race really seems to put brain-worms into dudes' heads.

[Enoch the Red]

LOL, yeah, good luck getting a libertarian to acknowledge that generational and systematic inequalities exist.

I readily admit that they do. I just don't believe additional racism, making race central to identity, and the focus of society, is the solution.

I will get back to this thread when I have time but I must confess some of that was among the dumbest most parodical arguments I've read on this forum in a while. Something about the GOP messaging on race really seems to put brain-worms into dudes' heads.

I look forward to it. I respect your thoughts and opinions and I am eager to hear your views.

[LittleFuzzy]

I am very happy for your principled stand for free speech. It may exceed my own.



Perhaps you can be more descriptive about what you believe the fundamental base of CRT is, and what makes it true. Again, specifics please. Maybe then you can explain what policies you believe should be implemented to address these changes. What would Fuzzy do to address the very real issue of racial bias?

I am also struggling to understand your point regarding the progress that has already clearly been made. Hundreds of years ago slavery was widely practiced and accepted. Black Americans were legally considered to be 3/5ths of a person. Boats crossed the Atlantic with human beings stuffed in their holds and stacked like cord wood. A hundred years ago race riots where scores of people were killed and families would pack picnics for lynchings were relatively common. Sixty years ago anti-miscegenation laws were on the books and being enforced and there were no black justices on the Supreme Court. Thirty years ago there had never been an African American serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking official in the military, and fifteen years ago there had never been a black president. If you asked a slave in the 1790's if he thought that one day there might be a black president, what do you think their response would be? It is almost within my living memory that there were people who were proud to be racist. Today it is among the worst things you can be accused of. The pace of progress, admittedly often too slow, is hardly measured in hundreds of years, it is better measured in years or decades, and to be blind to it is to ignore the incredible changes that have been made in our country, socially, culturally, and institutionally. It is, to use your wording, to blind yourself to historical truths, and ignore how progress, even incremental progress, can and is being made on timescales far smaller than you seem to believe. To argue that bias exists is true and trite. To say that the foundations of this country must be removed, its institutions torn down, and the baby thrown out with the bath water, to remove the rot of racism is deranged. Racial animus is a terrible thing and should be excised wherever it is found. Racism is not a cancer requiring poison to treat.



Second point, beyond the bad faith assertion that I do not want society to remove racial bias, I am left with the conclusion that you believe the only way that society can be changed to remove racial bias is through CRT. Maybe you would care to flesh that out a little. Why is CRT the only way to drive societal change to remove racial bias, and what are the policy prescriptions it has offered to do so?

Teaching and learning CRT has absolutely nothing to do with policy-making or any attempts to change society. It merely presents a framework for understanding the origin of issues and barriers. As I said, education is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. Educated people might want to change things, and CRT might help understand why various things might not be terribly effective or functional on a meaningful time-frame, but it doesn't tell you how to effect change in society, it tells you what kind of things would need to BE changed if identified issues are to be ameliorated.

And Enoch, your listing of a bunch of individuals is exactly why I harped on your entire social and political ideology being deliberately blind to the core topic of CRT, the identification and root-cause analysis of systemic racial bias, because you flat out refuse to acknowledge that there is or can be such bias if you can identify individuals who have succeeded in the face of such bias. If something isn't a hard barrier that flat out stops EVERYONE it doesn't exist to you. You're convinced that if some handful of disadvantaged people (who may or may not have countervailing advantages in other areas) can still see ultimate success DESPITE the bias then it doesn't actually exist or at least has no tangible effect. Which is just ludicrous.

[Hazir]

LOL, yeah, good luck getting a libertarian to acknowledge that generational and systematic inequalities exist.

I'm like; is this level of ignorance for real?

[Loki]

And that's the moderate Republican position.