I for one am jealous of the tenaciousness, I wish I had that much grit
If I had that much grit, my molars would be ground to dust by now.
the latter, then the former
Can I get yâall to write my book back cover bio if I ever get around to it one day? I like the sound of that!
Sure, but I want my cut of the royalties.
1 Like
If the same list had been produced from a progressive perspective I think youâd be supporting it.
In terms of free speech it is a bit blurry, as freedom of speech and expression often ends up when people complicate matters. Yes, it is a partial ban on free speech in certain situations. Would I ban CRT being taught in schools? Yes. Would I ban it being preached to government workers? No, but I would allow them to disagree with it.
Can I be honest there? I canât be honest hereâŚ
My understanding was it was just taxpayer dollars not spent on these things in that state (like $60K for a Robin DiAngelo talk at your university). Did I miss something there?
1 Like
I donât believe a progressive would try to ban a branch of academic thought.
This is where the background of the guy sponsoring it and his intent come in, IMO.
That is censorship, and for all anyone knows in this room there could be CRT scholars criticizing the far left.
I donât think it ever is. If we want to get really cynical, this is a way for white guys that donât want to be told what to do to avoid sensitivity training and things like that.
Mark Ammon sponsored this bill. Do a little digging into his record and past, if you donât mind. Youâll see why Iâm wary of his intentions esp with the fuzziness of the language. Imagine how a far right judge would interpret that. This bill reads like a way to muzzle talk of inequities and defund universities.
The intention of this legislation, almost in its entirely. The backgrounds of those proposing it and their source of financial backing. And the intention of CRT as an academic discipline. Besides that, nothing.
Your interpretation of the intention is not necessarily the intention. Also has nothing to do with complaints about CRT as have been articulated in this thread by myself and others.
This is ad hominem again, not that Iâm defending those people it is just an empty argument (who are some other handy scapegoats, Soros perhaps?)
irrelevant; I have made my views on CRT as an academic discipline clear to you previously, but it is still irrelevant; and anyways, intentions are again subjective and not homogenous
Canadian residential schools had good intentions, it doesnât excuse their mistakes
Perfect, thatâs what I figured.
Thereâs a difference between scapegoating Soros versus Koch Brothers funding fraud scholars in UNIs to the tune of millions. And youâve been presented with evidence this is the case, but choose to disregard it.
Remember how theyâd fund bunk science when they wanted to prove Climate change wasnât real?
Again, specifics would make this credible or remotely interesting. Iâd ask you to name the programs you have gripes with etc but good luck. Can you name a Canadian CRT scholar whos work you dislike yet? Any particular programs? You come around to finding those names yet?
Iâll keep it general as that is how normal conversations work. I canât see any ban on academic thought. What is taught to young learners is always censored, to the extent that a curriculum and syllabi are created. I think itâs fair for white guys to avoid doing sensitivity training if they are not allowed to disagree with anything they are told to do.
2 Likes
Who knows about this stuff and has popcorn?
1 Like
that took me one minute, didnât have to look it up, just sayingâŚ
And again Iâd suggest that this is a RW reading of the intentions of CRT.
Isnât Forumosa and half of these politics threads just a RW leaning CRT discussion? Its pretty much a bunch of people criticizing theories about race isnât it?
Iâm pretty sure if you scroll up I have referenced Freire positively in this very thread #criticalcredibility
edit: nope, it was over here
I am not RW, which isnât particularly relevant unless you are looking for it.
Is there anything wrong with criticising theories about race? This thread is doing just that. Iâm sure you know of some racial theories that need criticism.
I wasnât implying you are, but that you are importing a RW definition of CRT that is not accurate in describing it IMO.
Right! We agree. And CRT as a discipline is just doing what we are doing here in Forumosa. So the idea of banning this as a study or a practice in academic or professional settings seems counterproductive. The idea is a dialogue on race that eliminates racism, right?