NEA approves a plan to promote critical race theory in all school districts

[Truth Detector]

I do? Such as?

How come on 1/6, you were shitposting on JPP instead of in DC "Stopping the steal"?

Did you think posting on an anonymous message board was you doing your part to save democracy?

Such as? See above you dumb cunt.

 

[LV426]

You rush to post the same thread trolling, lie filled bullshit over and over, so you're the one who is triggered here.

The best you can do on JPP is steal the work of other people, change a couple words, then take credit for it.

You do that on JPP because you're too chickenshit to do it anywhere else.

 

[LV426]

Where were you, Truth Detector?

How come on 1/6, you were here shitposting on JPP instead of stopping the steal that you had said occurred for three months?

How come you riled people up, but then didn't join them on 1/6?

 

[Truth Detector]

The best you can do on JPP is steal the work of other people, change a couple words, then take credit for it.

You do that on JPP because you're too chickenshit to do it anywhere else.

The best you can do is look like a lying, triggered, mentally challenged, thread trolling lunatic on steroids.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem is you have to have enough of a case to actually get to that point where you can drag it out to try to bleed the other side of it's cash. When you don't have facts on your side then you quickly lose, often in initial pleadings and then you get to pay the lawyers for the other side. When the teachers can simply point to the facts they want to teach and you have to resort to claiming that facts aren't really facts but instead you want to requires they should be teaching non-facts, you won't last long in court.

I note you haven't yet filed your case. I wonder why.

All you have to do is determine who legally sets curriculum in your school district or system. If unions don't do that and the unions are doing that, you have a case.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Just because you refuse to accept the premise of institutional and systemic racism doesn't mean I've failed to defend CRT, it means you've failed to confront it.

Because the idea of institutional and systemic racism requires certain conditions to be met and those aren't met in the US. CRT advocates see everything through a lens of race even when there is nothing racial present. They also apply their own prejudices and bias to that lens.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That America's institutions were founded by white supremacists who rigged the rules in order to give themselves generational advantage over minorities and immigrants, and that the path to correct those wrongs starts by acknowledging their existence.

That's what it is, and for some reason, that really gets under your skin.

I believe the reason it gets under your skin is because you convinced yourself that you achieved what you achieved in life through your hard work and effort, and didn't have institutional and systemic advantages over other people. But the reality that you are afraid to confront is that your achievements and accomplishments weren't truly earned because you had an institutional advantage, so that undermines your confidence in your own accomplishments because you can't pretend like you achieved them solely through your own individual "effort".

Basically, you don't want to admit that even though you got all these advantages in life, you still amounted to nothing in the end.

You need to work through that shit in therapy because I'm 100% confident that's the reason you're so angry, resentful, and emotional today.

You believe wrong. You are applying both the Historian's and Baconian fallacy to history to present a case that uses Presentism to argue for CRT. What your argument boils down to is, In the past America had institutional and systemic racism. Therefore it must have institutional and systemic racism today.

 

[AProudLefty]

You believe wrong. You are applying both the Historian's and Baconian fallacy to history to present a case that uses Presentism to argue for CRT. What your argument boils down to is, In the past America had institutional and systemic racism. Therefore it must have institutional and systemic racism today.

LOL.

 

[LV426]

Because the idea of institutional and systemic racism requires certain conditions to be met and those aren't met in the US.

What conditions?

And where are those conditions delineated?

This feels like you are trying to set goalposts that you'll eventually move.

CRT advocates see everything through a lens of race even when there is nothing racial present.

Race is always present.

A Black person cannot turn off the color of their skin, neither can a white person.

And we know that racism isn't inherent, it's taught. So if it's taught, that means it's institutionalized. Otherwise, you have to argue that people are born to be racist, which CRT does not say, despite you claiming it does without evidence.

They also apply their own prejudices and bias to that lens.

So right here you are admitting that prejudices and biases are applied, which means race IS present, contradicting what you said in literally the sentence before.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Where is that written in any CRT materials or essays or papers or columns or syllabi or anything...?

Just to be clear what you did here...you quoted this...which means you now have to cite it. Something tells me that you aren't going to be able to do that.

So what this amounts to is "take my word for it, this is really what CRT is". Why the fuck should I take your word for it?

This is you taking CRT to hyperbole in an effort to dismiss it so you don't have to acknowledge that systemic racism exists, and that you failed to properly take advantage of it.




Rules you've been unable to state or articulate using original text, even when you've been asked by multiple people to do that on multiple threads, and then you ran away from all those questions like a little bitch.

The best you could do was to plagiarize Op-Eds as a substitute for the critical thinking you should have done instead, but were either too lazy, disinterested, or obtuse to consider.




You've been unable to support this using actual text from anyt CRT materials.

The best you can do is steal Op-Eds from other people that don't even QUOTE CRT materials.

Like how you totally fucked up Pedagogy of the Oppressed, failing to show where it claims any of the things you claimed it did.

You had to stretch the definition and redraw the parameters in order to make an argument against education.

Let's be clear, you do not want kids to learn the racist history of this country because if they did, they'd look at you like you're a fucking idiot for not taking advantage of it.

Ad hominem and argument from trivial objections.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What conditions?

And where are those conditions delineated?

This feels like you are trying to set goalposts that you'll eventually move.




Race is always present.

A Black person cannot turn off the color of their skin, neither can a white person.

And we know that racism isn't inherent, it's taught. So if it's taught, that means it's institutionalized. Otherwise, you have to argue that people are born to be racist, which CRT does not say, despite you claiming it does without evidence.




So right here you are admitting that prejudices and biases are applied, which means race IS present, contradicting what you said in literally the sentence before.

Ad Hominem and argument from trivial objections.

 

[AProudLefty]

Cannot believe that people are pushing the myth that CRT is being pushed in K-12 public schools.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Cannot believe that people are pushing the myth that CRT is being pushed in K-12 public schools.

I can believe that the Left wants to push the myth that CRT and other radical Leftist nonsense like Critical Pedagogy aren't being used in America's K-12 schools.

 

[AProudLefty]

I can believe that the Left wants to push the myth that CRT and other radical Leftist nonsense like Critical Pedagogy aren't being used in America's K-12 schools.

Used as a framework? Sure if the educators want to in high schools.

 

[Micawber]

We need to inculcate our children with Critical Sex Theory. A dbl whammy of torture for the right.
All our institutions are imbued, mired in and tainted with a male bias, and it all needs massive remediation,
by fiat. And all sex is rape. Take that!

 

[Nordberg]

Toss out the label CRT and admit that what we want to teach is our real history, We have done bad things across the globe and to our own people at home. The right wants to pretend that did not happen. You have to know where you came from before you can move on. We have some terrible people who have to be kept from getting power. I read about the scrubbing of American history long ago. It was a Koch plan. It started back when they were running the John Birch society. The wealthy have lots of time. They live fabulous and powerful lives while they plan the plutocracy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

All you have to do is determine who legally sets curriculum in your school district or system. If unions don't do that and the unions are doing that, you have a case.

Go for it. What are you waiting for? A cookie?

 

[LV426]

You believe wrong. You are applying both the Historian's and Baconian fallacy to history to present a case that uses Presentism to argue for CRT.

OK, so then you must believe that racism is genetic, because the only other way to become racist is to be taught racism...and if something is taught, then that means it's institutionalized.

So do you believe that people are born racist, or do you believe that they learn racism?

 

[LV426]

What your argument boils down to is, In the past America had institutional and systemic racism. Therefore it must have institutional and systemic racism today.

OK...I'm glad you went here because it leads nicely into this (From Reddit):

Imagine a guy who hates disabled people builds a hotel, so he bans all disabled people, and builds it in such a way as to specifically make access difficult for them. Years later he sells the hotel to a new owner who has no problem with disabled people. So you have a hotel where the owner has no problem with the disabled, and neither do any of the staff...however due to the actions of the previous owner, the hotel is still built in such a way that it doesn't accommodate them (no disabled parking, no ramps, no extra considerations, etc.). So although the people currently running it are not actively discriminating, they are operating a system designed to discriminate, and need to fix it even if they aren't to blame for it.

It's the same with racism. The discriminatory practices of the past (Slave patrols) still have ramifications today (police brutality), and even if we aren't to blame for them, it is our responsibility to recognize them and fix them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

OK...I'm glad you went here because it leads nicely into this (From Reddit):

Imagine a guy who hates disabled people builds a hotel, so he bans all disabled people, and builds it in such a way as to specifically make access difficult for them. Years later he sells the hotel to a new owner who has no problem with disabled people. So you have a hotel where the owner has no problem with the disabled, and neither do any of the staff...however due to the actions of the previous owner, the hotel is still built in such a way that it doesn't accommodate them (no disabled parking, no ramps, no extra considerations, etc.). So although the people currently running it are not actively discriminating, they are operating a system designed to discriminate, and need to fix it even if they aren't to blame for it.

It's the same with racism. The discriminatory practices of the past (Slave patrols) still have ramifications today (police brutality), and even if we aren't to blame for them, it is our responsibility to recognize them and fix them.

Bad example. The new owner should have known what he was buying. In choosing to do so, he should have known that repairs and upgrades would be necessary to make the hotel accessible to disabled people. If he did not know that, then he didn't do due diligence before buying and didn't do the known upgrades after buying.
So, the current owner(s) are in the position they are in through incompetence, not past discrimination.

It's the same with racism. In the past there were practices that discriminated. Those practices have been outlawed or otherwise made socially unacceptable. If they still exist, they too can be dealt with as they come up, just like those that already have been.
The wrong way to go about it is what CRT and like "theories" do. They look for every possible angle of discrimination whether it exists or not. They even make up scenarios of potential discrimination where none exists and include those. They then seek remedies that will eliminate each and every one of these. The result isn't a better society but rather one that is burdened with oppressive, complex, and often unnecessary, laws and rules that make things worse.
Worse yet, there comes afterwards a cottage industry that makes their living seeking out any and all failures to meet those rules, often due to nothing more than accidental ignorance of some point of detail in them.

Phoenix attorney disbarred for filing ADA lawsuits with ‘no basis in fact’

https://ktar.com/story/2578360/phoe...or-filing-ada-lawsuits-with-no-basis-in-fact/

That is one more egregious example of using the Americans with Disabilities Act to extort money from businesses.
The scam went like this. Peter Strojnik, a liar... err, lawyer... would hire shills to use for having a basis to file a lawsuit. He'd then go around to smaller businesses that couldn't afford a large lawsuit and find violations of the ADA like say parking slots for disabled customers weren't properly marked--something like too faded paint or the sign being at the wrong height, etc. This then became the basis for a lawsuit against the company. Even when they fixed the problem immediately he'd demand thousands in lawyer fees for his filing. Others would settle rather than go to court. The guy filed 1700+ lawsuits before being smacked down and disbarred. He made nearly $2 million off those lawsuits.

This then becomes a new form of discrimination against those that are often blameless but unaware of the now complex legal rules emplaced to try and fix a problem that could have been handled much more simply.

I know enough about the ADA that building to its regulations can be a nightmare of complexity and economic burden. It is also easy to find ADA violations in almost any building, particularly government ones that don't undergo regular inspection by outside agencies. None of that is intentional discrimination, and it certainly isn't best handled by heavy handed bludgeoning of persons with good intentions but little or no knowledge of the complex rules they fall under.