Iâve spent years undergoing self-examination in order to eliminate any tendency to view other human beings through the distorting lens of race and now Critical Race Theory is telling me to put race goggles on.
1 Like
liberals have defended it as a âlensâ for understanding vague buzzwords such as âsystemic racismâ and âracial equity.â
No liberal I know has defended CRT. Progressives do, but they are not liberals by any definition.
3 Likes
Apostrophes appear to be an issue with Daily Mail sub-editors.
EDIT: Ooh, theyâve spotted it.
Classical liberalism and the way most people use the word to describe anyone who is not conservative/republican are completely different things. Most people are referring to the latter not the former so we donât need to rehash this every time someone uses the word liberal.
Secondly, what do you mean by defending Critical Race Theory? Are you referring to the theory out of Critical Legal studies or Rufoâs made up catch-all term to describe diversity programs, equity or teachings or race in schools? One idea there is a plethora of academic literature and the other is just good branding.
3rd graders are not studying torts and contract laws and the legacy of the anti-bellum South through to Jim Crowe. So my guess you are using the catch all term to describe woke things you donât like.
1 Like
You didnât quote the quote I responded to which makes your âSecondly, what do you mean by defending Critical Race Theory?â comment confusing.
I know what a genuine liberal is.
Iâve debunked this
The complete curriculum and workbooks are available free from this website.
1 Like
You didnât answer the question.
You implied some people are defending CRT whatever category you would like to put them in. So what exactly are they defending? The existence of systemic racism in our legal structures as a consequence of laws from the anti-bellum south, to Jim Crowe through today? Or are they defending something âwokeâ going on in a diversity program or schools?
The argument being presented by Rufo and conservative media is very different than what CRT actually is and I know third graders are not studying legal theory. So the clarification of what you think people are defending would be helpful for my own insight.
1 Like
Seriously, progressives on this site should read the links on this. Tell me this isnât some insane shit.
I didnât imply. I stated.
liberals have defended it as a âlensâ for understanding vague buzzwords such as âsystemic racismâ and âracial equity.â
Thatâs what I originally replied to. You removed it.
How can CRT lead to anything but self rule by the different races? Democracy puts minorities at the mercy of the majority.
Youâre still being evasive. Itâs not like I intentionally removed something to make a point. I just quoted you because I wanted to understand what people are defending in your mind. Are you saying systemic racism is vague and difficult to define and therefore indefensible?
Iâm just trying to get to the root of what you think progressives are defending. Youâve used that label on me before, and the point Iâve made is teachers should have the freedom to discuss race without fear of reprisal. These new laws do not allow for that. So if not that, then what are progressives defending?
1 Like
@Malasang88, youâre still being evasive, he couldnât be more clear:
1 Like
You unintentionally removed the initial quote I responded to? Iâll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is a bit of a stretch.
I was replying to a comment about liberals supporting CRT. I donât believe that any true liberal would (definition of liberal allowing).
What do I think progressives are defending? Racism.
Not sure if racist. This is a page I found from Queztal consulting, two of the contributors to that maths are racist shitbag. I think I traced the consulting firm to a Hong Kong based consultancy group.
https://www.unitedwaygreaternashville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RTS_VidCon_Session_1.Dismantling_School_to_Prison_Nexus_Webinar.pdf
Yes I knew what you were responding to and didnât see the need to re-quote a quote. We can address the arguments without assuming someone is trying to do something nefarious to make a point. I see too much of that nonsense in this thread.
Youâre still not responding what exactly they are supporting. And by they, I mean liberals used in common parlance, i.e. not conservative. Are they supporting the idea of systemic racism which you feel is too vague? Or are they supporting diversity and equity programs which you feel have gone too far?
Iâm giving you the opportunity to clarify since I donât really understand what you think people are defending when Iâve posted numerous articles of teachers fearing for their jobs, educators school boards under threats of violence. Clearly people are defending the right to even teach about racism in the classroom. The right to explain to children what is âblack lives matterâ and why do adults care about it, what is the legacy of slavery. The right to do all of this without being threatened or harassed.
Iâm not going to assume you have an ulterior motive as you did. I just donât understand why you canât acknowledge that is whatâs happening when the evidence is there. That is something worthy of defending.
1 Like
You know, I think this morning has changed my mind on this.
3 Likes
Itâs a good thing to not judge individuals by race. Itâs limiting your understanding of others and their experiences if you ignore that not all others do the same, and a lot of people have to deal with that.
2 Likes