The Overdue Critical Race Theory Thread

Nope.

Grass roots… Ha. Most of the complaining about it are from people who know nothing more about it than what they’ve heard on right wing sites.

1 Like

The reason people are getting sued it could be argued is those implementing the curriculum don’t know how to do so without breaking the law.

1 Like

It seems. It seems. If you really don’t understand, why don’t you ask? What do you mean by CRT in the first place? That is a blanket term used by right wing media to cover any discussion on race and diversity. I am defending the right for teachers to have discussions about race or diversity without fear of reprisal because someone somehow felt guilty as a result.

Perhaps you would not understand this not being an American, but “pushing the wrong message which just so happens to be illegal” is a very dangerous statement. That defies the first amendment, and in the case of Tennessee and other states, the legal challenges are mounting.

Stop it with the right wing nonsense, people liked Coca Cola more when they were not telling people of a particular skin color to be less of something they had no control over.

No one is complaining about lessons on diversity, segregating students by color and labeling them oppressors and oppressed is a violation of their human rights and is illegal under discrimination laws.

Some might claim some individuals or institutions or companies are wrongly implementing the message. In the business world we call that a failed product launch, not properly tested and launched with flaws.

Biden administration is full steam ahead on it though, so, if people don’t like what they are selling, don’t blame the buyer.

2 Likes

Sure about that?

Last week, The New York Post published an exclusive article, by investigative reporter Dana Kennedy, about 3 groups of anonymous concerned parents who “plan to troll elite NYC schools with anti-woke billboards.” The Post named one of the groups as “Prep School Accountability” and linked to their website. Prep School Accountability, or PSA, wants to be seen as a grassroots effort of concerned parents, but appears to be anything but. Rather than being actual grassroots, organized bottom up, it appears to be astroturfing, the term for fake grassroots organizations that are actually built out by experienced political operatives and made to look authentic.

A quick google of the name “Charlyce Bozzello” leads us to a person who has worked at conservative think tanks and for conservative state representatives. It also leads to her long history of publishing articles in her role as Communications Director for the Center for Union Facts. The Center for Union Facts is a known right wing anti-union organization run by a man dubbed Dr. Evil, Rick Berman. Rick Berman is a DC lobbyist who has fought against Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Human Society and a slew of other organizations at the behest of moneyed interests via his lobbying group Berman and Co. In fact, John Oliver has covered him

Using the website Tweetbeaver’s follower tool, I was able to download a list of followers of the PSA group and sort them by creation date. I found the top 2 dates, 2/5/2021 and 5/8/2021, each had 6 accounts created on those dates. For an account with ~600 followers to have two large sets of followers with the same creation date is an unlikely anomaly.

All 12 users appear to be located in either India or Pakistan. The idea that they all decided to oppose the teaching of Critical Race Theory in NYC’s elite private academies seems unlikely

https://z3dster.medium.com/astroturfing-dr-evil-and-n-y-c-s-elite-schools-2c2803b41a3e

Definitely not nonsense. Anyone that claims this is grassroots is clearly misinformed.

John Oliver’s explanation of astroturfing:

The right may as you be saying be using the issue to bludgeon the left, wouldn’t surprise me.

However, it’s the left that decided to move the goal posts on what people considered white supremacy, it used to be fringe extremists everyone hated and were scarce, lucky if they could round up a couple of hundred for some Nazi or KKK type event.

Now any country which is predominately white is apparently a white supremacist society and anyone white is a white supremacist by nature of their skin color. :sweat_smile: This was the left’s idea, it’s the worst bit of messaging I’ve ever seen. :joy: :joy:

I’ve seen Harris and Biden try to walk this messaging back a little, but what a disaster. :man_facepalming: Maybe someone on the left should tell them that everyday pushing the idea they are hunting down white supremacy, which actual white supremacy is next to non existent, doesn’t resonate with the electorate.

They are in fact using fraud to push their message as I’ve demonstrated repeatedly. Using false evidence, in the case of Idaho, no evidence in other states, and falsely presenting this as a grass movement when it’s being funded by conservative lobbyists and think tanks.

The Right is very good at simplifying a message with Goebbels-like precision, repeating a lie over and over until it’s real. Everything is now CRT to you. The fact you think that is the “Left’s” message just proves how effective their propaganda is. So much so that both you and Bigus Dickus have asked why the Left is defending it, and I’ve had to repeatedly state people are defending the right to have discussions on race and diversity without fear of reprisal.

How about I present what I think was the lefts messaging, Trayvon Martin was the first case of pushing a particular narrative, all the media did it, we know know how dishonest and manipulative they can be.

My opinion is the left wanted to push CRT and the likes before Trayvon Martin was news and were told they would need to create a 60’s like civil rights movement to make it happen, which the media obliged them with for about a decade with case after case, Mike Brown , Freddy Grey in fact every year about 10 unarmed black people are killed by the police (more white people are killed, but thats beside the point) they could run a non stop campaign on police violence against unarmed black people, and they just about did that.

Until society broke which was George Floyd, I don’t blame society for breaking, they were under non stop “Goebbels-like precision” campaigning from the media. You actually need the media to run a “Goebbels-like precision” campaign, the left has that, not the right.

So here we are, society is better prepped to accept something like CRT after agitating race relations for about a decade.

1 Like

Goebbels-like percision indicates deliberate coordination which is obvious in the Right wing CRT movement through it’s main spokesperson Christopher Rufo whose is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Not to mention PSA and the Center for Union Facts which I have linked to an investigative article uncovering these sources above.

The Right Wing has their own media apparatus and it’s disingenuous of you to consistently blame the “media” in lock step with the Left while ignoring that the Right is actually much better at this. Apart from usual suspects like Fox, Newsmax, the right wing dominates podcasts, and AM talk radio and Facebook is still where many conservatives first see and spread conspiracy theories.

That is the key piece you are missing - the advent of social media. George Floyd, Freddie Grey, Philando Castile, these all went viral on social media. Nobody had to create a message they could watch it in real time. That is the difference between the 1960s and now. It’s much harder to cover things up. If that’s the “Left messaging” it’s a hell of lot less coordinated than you make it out to be.

It’s not even close, the right couldn’t hold a candle to the left when it comes to pushing this kind of false narrative messaging, the evidence of that comes out every day.

What was the last one, the Lafayette park false claims, before that the theory the WuHan virus might have been engineered, Google, YouTube Twitter and Facebook all helped with that last one and banned anyone from suggesting such a thing, I can list a whole string of things you are not allowed to talk about and it’s growing and looking back can put together a very impressive list of media false narratives, you are not stupid, you know this.

I actually give them credit for being very smart, the general population less so. But looking at the right vs left fighting is like watching a boxing match where everyone has agreed to fight by the Queensbury rules and the left keeps kicking the right in the balls and when the right complains the ref, the ref kicks them in the balls too and god help the right if they deliver a low blow themselves as they will have hell to pay for it.

If things seemed similar to what was happening in the 60’s and people kept making comparisons to the civil rights movement of the 60’s that was not a coincidence, that was by design. Unlike the 60’s and the equality that MLK was pushing for and dreamed of this movement is pushing for ideals that do the complete opposite of what his dream was, discrimination all the time based innate characteristics no one has any control over.

A society would do better on focusing on how to bring people together rather than driving people apart with differences everyday working people would rather not dwell on 24/7 as they are things we have no control over.

Yes.

2 Likes

You’re one of the baddies, then.

1 Like

The Big Lie, Deep State, MSM, QAnon, Pizzagate, Epstein, Clintons are murders, Birtherism, Sandy Hook False Flag… you’re supposed conspiracy theories pale in comparison to the Right Wing media. These theories are mainstream and the main drivers of politics in the GOP.
The Wuhan lab leak theory has been around since the beginning. If a coordinated left wing movement was trying to cover it up, they did a poor job! Especially considering the current president is the one leading the investigation. You can do better than that!

As racial protests engulfed the nation after George Floyd’s death, users shared the most-viral right-wing social media content more than 10 times as often as the most popular liberal posts, frequently associating the Black Lives Matter movement with violence and accusing Democrats like Joe Biden of supporting riots.

People also shared conservatives’ most-read claims of rampant voter fraud roughly twice as often as they did liberals’ or traditional media outlets’ discussions of the issue, the analysis found. The conservatives’ tactics included spinning mainstream media coverage on voting irregularities into elaborate conspiracy theories, sometimes echoed by Trump, that Democratic lawmakers are trying to steal November’s election.

No doubt. Probably one of worst of them.

2 Likes

You are just not dealing with reality as observed over and over. The right don’t have the ability to push “Goebbels-like precision” campaigning, they might want to, but it’s weak sauce by comparison. The Tara Reade story is an example, the right would have loved to push the story but the majority of media just ignored it for weeks, when they did cover it, it was for about 5 minutes as a non story.

Christine Ford however, that got all the MSM buzzing with creepy porn lawyer on every cable network for weeks and months with more and more sordid and outrageous claims. The right can’t do that.

When a story comes along like Hunter’s laptop, the left have the ability to just ban the story off all social media, the right don’t have that power. The right would like to downplay the 6th of January but tough titty to the right they don’t have the ability to do that and we have 6 months straight of insurrection stories some of which (death by fire extinguisher) were blatantly false, the media is by the vast majority left leaning and they can create a circle jerk quite unlike anything the right can conjure.

I beg to differ.

The poll from the R Street Institute, a free markets group, found that 67 percent of Republicans view the past election as invalid, compared to 23 percent who believe it was valid.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/540508-majority-of-republicans-say-2020-election-was-invalid-poll

Despite no evidence, Republicans still believe the election was a fraud. I think even you’ve been known to post right wing sources claiming fraud.

The difference you are missing is that the Right Wing media may be unable to convince anyone else, but they’re very good at convincing their own. Do you think the CCP cares if anyone outside China believes covid-19 actually started in America? That’d be nice but their main goal is getting their own people to believe it. And they’re very good at it. Do you think Goebbels cared more about the rest of the world supporting moves to create a racially pure society or the German people? The answer is obvious. The reason election fraud, Birtherism, CRT are campaign-able issues in Republican politics is because they are very good at it. Sure they won’t win over any liberals but that’s not the point.

1 Like

Probably better for the alleged fraud thread, but I saw a Rassumsen poll having the figure more like 73% Republican and 30% Democrat think the election was won by fraud i.e. the numbers are increasing rather than decreasing. Despite the entire MSM (including Fox) pushing the narrative “most secure election of all time and Biden won” as well as that being a banable offense on social media to suggest Biden won by cheating. Go figure.

Anyway as we drift off, we can debate these other issues elsewhere.

This is an example of CRT being pushed into the school system, it is more of the evidence that you said doesn’t exist. Now you are moving the goalpost to compelled speech, which isn’t the topic of the thread (a thread, by the way, that I still doubt you have read, but which includes compelled speech as well).

Your post isn’t a good faith argument, it is hysteria.

You have failed to present any clips, also. So?

Which is disingenuous or ignorant, or both.

That’s nice, but most of us aren’t Americans and we have been on this thread for months. You should read it, you might even learn something.

If he could, so could you. But you didn’t. So?

Also, just because a poster posts doesn’t mean their opinion is valid.

You have also yet to read the thread. These things are related.

This doesn’t make CRT less racist, or a good idea to promote in society generally or schools specifically.

You seem obsessed with Fox News. You could start a thread for that.

You still haven’t read the thread.

I’m maybe 2.5/5

Not on this thread, though.

We’ve covered this in the thread more than once, including with you. You should read the thread before you trot out arguments that have been discredited. Otherwise, people will accuse you of arguing in bad faith…

:nauseated_face:

Congratulations, you have discredited a single article in the NYP. It doesn’t mean CRT is a good thing to promote in society or push on children.

I think @tempogain’s video of that woman talking to a school board discredits your position here nicely.

You have demonstrated nothing.

Like saying there is no evidence that CRT exists, and what even is CRT anyways?

You need to read the thread, some of us are against CRT for precisely this reason; because it doesn’t allow for dissenting discussion.

Your hatred of the right wing media belongs on another thread.

All things that do not belong in this discussion. If you’re not going to read the thread, at least try to post on-topic.

Doesn’t mean that CRT is a good thing for society, or should be pushed on school children. Still. How many times must this be explained to you. Would you like a picture?

yes, thank you.

3 Likes

It’s a long list, I see plenty in that article to be concerned about, seems like something the government should indeed be as well to ensure the quality of education.

Sorry are you saying this is true? It’s a wild exaggeration and certainly shouldn’t be being taught as fact. That’s worth making sure of as well.

When students have to complete courses including speech requirements to receive grades, and adults have to complete training involving speech at risk of endangering their livelihood, it’s a compelled speech issue.

New Hampshire has updated their bill with some quite a few changes from the original text. It seems a lot more streamlined and maybe a good model. Gov. Sununu is saying he will sign this version, so it seems likely to pass there (a purple state I guess you would call it)? It’s an amendment to the state human rights legislation at this point.

Summary

Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education
354-A:29 Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education.
I. The general court hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any New Hampshire inhabitants because of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are a matter of state concern, that discrimination based on these characteristics not only threatens the rights and proper privileges of New Hampshire inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state and threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the state and its inhabitants.
II. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prohibit racial, sexual, religious, or other workplace sensitivity training based on the inherent humanity and equality of all persons and the ideal that all persons are entitled to be treated with equality, dignity, and respect.
III. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to limit the academic freedom of faculty members of the university system of New Hampshire and the community college system of New Hampshire to conduct research, publish, lecture, or teach in the academic setting.
Definitions. In this subdivision:
I. “Government program” means any activity undertaken by a public employer, both as an employer and in performance of its government function.
II. “Public employee” means any person working on a full-time or part-time basis for the state, or any subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities.
III. “Public employer” includes the state or any subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities.
Prohibition on Public Employers. No public employer, either directly or through the use of an outside contractor, shall teach, advocate, instruct, or train any employee, student, service recipient, contractor, staff member, inmate, or any other individual or group, any one or more of the following:
I. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, are inherently superior or inferior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
II. That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
III. That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or
IV. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others equally and/or without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
354-A:32 Prohibition on the Content of Government Programs and Speech. No government program shall teach, advocate, or advance any one or more of the following:
I. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are inherently superior or inferior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
II. That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
III. That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or
IV. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others equally and/or without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
Protection for Public Employees. No public employee shall be subject to any adverse employment action, warning, or discipline of any kind for refusing to participate in any training, program, or other activity at which a public employer or government program advocates, trains, teaches, instructs, or compels participants to express belief in, or support for, any one or more of the following:
I. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are inherently superior or inferior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
II. That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
III. That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or
IV. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others equally and/or without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
354-A:34 Remedies. Any person aggrieved by an act made unlawful under this subdivision may pursue all of the remedies available under RSA 354-A, RSA 491, RSA 275-E, or RSA 98-E, or any other applicable common law or statutory cause of action.
298 New Section; Prohibition on Teaching Discrimination. Amend RSA 193 by inserting after section 39 the following new section: 193:40 Prohibition on Teaching Discrimination. I. No pupil in any public school in this state shall be taught, instructed, inculcated or compelled to express belief in, or support for, any one or more of the following:
(a) That one’s age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin is inherently superior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
(b) That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(c) That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or
(d) That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
II. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the historical existence of ideas and subjects identified in this section.
III. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this section, including the attorney general, may initiate a civil action against a school or school district in superior court for legal or equitable relief, or with the New Hampshire commission for human rights as provided in RSA 354- A:34.
IV. Violation of this section by an educator shall be considered a violation of the educator code of conduct that justifies disciplinary sanction by the state board of education.
V. For the purposes of this section, “educator” means a professional employee of any school district whose position requires certification by the state board pursuant to RSA 189:39. Administrators, specialists, and teachers are included within the definition of this term.
Severability. If any provision of sections 297-298, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of such sections, and their application to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

No we’ve generally seen parents of children in the school system complaining about it. This is all over the local news in many areas. It really seems to be a knee-jerk obsession to attribute things people don’t like to “right wing sites” though, I’ll say that.

Yes, it’s interesting that in the material from Gemini Corp they specifically state that they will go beyond diversity and inclusion. People also seem almost manically bent on attributing opposition to CRT to a fear of diversity etc., but it’s not true and doesn’t hold water.

Yep.

Yes.

2 Likes