ADVERTISEMENT

Daily Show on Critical Race Theory

At least he isn't willing to cave to the Woke crowd and cancel culture.

Ostensibly, he's a comedian. As such, like most all comedians, he thinks cancel culture is stupid. Say what you want and let the free market of ideas and public opinion do their thing.

You may go down like Kramer or you might end up like Louis CK or Aziz Ansari who get to mock themselves for laughs.
 
Ostensibly, he's a comedian. As such, like most all comedians, he thinks cancel culture is stupid. Say what you want and let the free market of ideas and public opinion do their thing.

You may go down like Kramer or you might end up like Louis CK or Aziz Ansari who get to mock themselves for laughs.
I was on season 2 of Louis ck’s show when they got him. Sucks I was enjoying it.
 
I was on season 2 of Louis ck’s show when they got him. Sucks I was enjoying it.
The youtubez has some clip from a recent special. Search "Sincerely Louis CK". I wouldn't say he's into atonement for his transgressions necessarily but he's still funny. Probably says more about me than him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
The youtubez has some clip from a recent special. Search "Sincerely Louis CK". I wouldn't say he's into atonement for his transgressions necessarily but he's still funny. Probably says more about me than him.
hit sitcom was fantastic. again i was bummed. what did he do? wasn't he interfering with himself on set or some such insane thing?
 
hit sitcom was fantastic. again i was bummed. what did he do? wasn't he interfering with himself on set or some such insane thing?
Wellllllll.....in front of others who he likely didn't get consent from. So there's that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Wellllllll.....in front of others who he likely didn't get consent from. So there's that.
OT from Louis CK, who I generally like. But back to the thread topic...

Here's an interesting interview that in my opinion draws some pretty compelling scenarios between opposition to CRT (which is not designed to be taught K-12) opposition to the 1619 project (which is not the same as CRT) and support for "election integrity bills (voter suppression bills, IMHO) which seem to be the triumvirate connecting all the dots...

I think the fact that they start out the discussion of WHAT is taught by showing a history of GA textbook that was actually USED in classrooms for decades and contrast that with opposition to CRT which has NEVER been taught in Elementary schools in GA is beyond telling.

First off what was taught FOR decades is far more disturbing or dangerous than anything that could be conceivably taught in the year-old 1619 project. I don't see how anyone who is honestly not racist can disagree with that as what was actually taught basically attempted to downplay and even justify slavery. And this is GA, the state where following record #s of POC and mail-in voters participating in record #s , couldn't wait for Legislators of the Party who LOST rushing to enact a bill designed to assuage the "suspicions" of the people who support them (their fellow losers)...

I don't mean "loser" in a pejorative sense, just in terms of WHO most people in GA voted for. I mean is anyone going to try and claim that ANYONE in GA who voted for Biden, Ossoff and Warnock was dissatisfied with the "voter integrity" already in place or felt the need for this bill the GOP UNILATERALLY forced on them?

So basically the Legislators and voters/supporters of the PARTY that lost all 3 Federal elections up for grabs (the Losers) are somehow allowed to make the rules and restrict GA voting elements that the winners enthusiastically (based on turnout) actually supported in 2020. Is it just a coincidence that this same PARTY is at the forefront of attacking both CRT and the 1619 project, both of which have never been taught in GA schools and are also basically a reaction to the need to try and balance what WAS actually taught in schools for decades?

You might argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and that's a fair argument to make up to a point,imho. Don't personally agree, but I can see it as worthy of discussion...

But some of what I would characterize as racist textbooks were used in GA in parts of this Century. So by making the claim that (in your opinion) as yet untaught concepts (CRT and 1619 project for example ) are worse (pendulum swung too far) you're basically saying that they are worse than 70 yrs of race-based lies taught to millions of Georgians.

And the same Legislature (party) that seemingly had no issue with what history textbooks used in 2006 were saying, has a HUGE problem with what the 1619 Project "says". Are people not bothered by the hypocrisy inherent in the GOP's duality of trying to label 1619 as "racist" when in fact they basically endorsed the use of materials that are racist? My guess is some are, some aren't...

Here's a 2013 dissertation that examines racism in widely used GA history textbooks.
I'm sure I could find discussions involving SC, Texas, and others as well, but I'll stick to GA since that is the Specific connection that the video explores...

 
How does Lee Atwater fit in to CRT? He gave a famous interview, you can find it, explaining his southern strategy. He was a Republican operative. The main quote is longer, but here is a part of it:

... So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.…

So in 1981, Atwater is clearly suggesting the use of economics to disadvantage Blacks. Read the whole quote to put it in perspective, I cannot quote it because of frequent use of a certain word.

So if we totally dismiss CRT, was one of the very successful GOP operatives just full of it? And if Atwater was right then CRT was accurate to 1981, when did it's accuracy die?
 
OT from Louis CK, who I generally like. But back to the thread topic...

Here's an interesting interview that in my opinion draws some pretty compelling scenarios between opposition to CRT (which is not designed to be taught K-12) opposition to the 1619 project (which is not the same as CRT) and support for "election integrity bills (voter suppression bills, IMHO) which seem to be the triumvirate connecting all the dots...

I think the fact that they start out the discussion of WHAT is taught by showing a history of GA textbook that was actually USED in classrooms for decades and contrast that with opposition to CRT which has NEVER been taught in Elementary schools in GA is beyond telling.

First off what was taught FOR decades is far more disturbing or dangerous than anything that could be conceivably taught in the year-old 1619 project. I don't see how anyone who is honestly not racist can disagree with that as what was actually taught basically attempted to downplay and even justify slavery. And this is GA, the state where following record #s of POC and mail-in voters participating in record #s , couldn't wait for Legislators of the Party who LOST rushing to enact a bill designed to assuage the "suspicions" of the people who support them (their fellow losers)...

I don't mean "loser" in a pejorative sense, just in terms of WHO most people in GA voted for. I mean is anyone going to try and claim that ANYONE in GA who voted for Biden, Ossoff and Warnock was dissatisfied with the "voter integrity" already in place or felt the need for this bill the GOP UNILATERALLY forced on them?

So basically the Legislators and voters/supporters of the PARTY that lost all 3 Federal elections up for grabs (the Losers) are somehow allowed to make the rules and restrict GA voting elements that the winners enthusiastically (based on turnout) actually supported in 2020. Is it just a coincidence that this same PARTY is at the forefront of attacking both CRT and the 1619 project, both of which have never been taught in GA schools and are also basically a reaction to the need to try and balance what WAS actually taught in schools for decades?

You might argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and that's a fair argument to make up to a point,imho. Don't personally agree, but I can see it as worthy of discussion...

But some of what I would characterize as racist textbooks were used in GA in parts of this Century. So by making the claim that (in your opinion) as yet untaught concepts (CRT and 1619 project for example ) are worse (pendulum swung too far) you're basically saying that they are worse than 70 yrs of race-based lies taught to millions of Georgians.

And the same Legislature (party) that seemingly had no issue with what history textbooks used in 2006 were saying, has a HUGE problem with what the 1619 Project "says". Are people not bothered by the hypocrisy inherent in the GOP's duality of trying to label 1619 as "racist" when in fact they basically endorsed the use of materials that are racist? My guess is some are, some aren't...

Here's a 2013 dissertation that examines racism in widely used GA history textbooks.
I'm sure I could find discussions involving SC, Texas, and others as well, but I'll stick to GA since that is the Specific connection that the video explores...

Christ you’d have to pay me a fortune to watch those two racists have a discussion. You’re an easily dismissed idiot if you think Joy Reid and Hannah-Jones have something interesting to say. And you dare point out MTG.

That being said, any attempt to downplay slavery is abominable and mustn’t be allowed. Though I highly doubt this is happening to the point where these two grifters are claiming.
 
I was on season 2 of Louis ck’s show when they got him. Sucks I was enjoying it.

McM you are aware, and he admitted to, what he did? I was incredibly disappointed as I love him as a comedian but yeah, you don't get to pull your dick out and jerk off in front of a woman on your staff.

I mean, wtf Louis? Not cool.

Which is the commonly a funny thing about the evil of 'cancel culture' and this whole 'they are coming for you'.....the behavior is typically extreme douchbaggery.

Matt Gaetz is being investigated for sex trafficking and banging an underaged girl....and his line is if they come for me they'll come for you.

Interesting how guys like Ben Shapiro offends the 'woke' crowd all the time and he just makes himself super rich.
 

I’m McM you are aware, and he admitted to, what he did? I was incredibly disappointed as I love him as a comedian but yeah, you don't get to pull your dick out and jerk off in front of a woman on your staff.

I mean, wtf Louis? Not cool.

Which is the commonly a funny thing about the evil of 'cancel culture' and this whole 'they are coming for you'.....the behavior is typically extreme douchbaggery.

Matt Gaetz is being investigated for sex trafficking and banging an underaged girl....and his line is if they come for me they'll come for you.

Interesting how guys like Ben Shapiro offends the 'woke' crowd all the time and he just makes himself super rich.
that’s not exactly what happened with CK but your point is valid nonetheless.
 
Might have been interesting if they asked people that they polled exactly what CRT is.I'm still not exactly sure as the definition I often see on media sites (like Fox) which are hubs of anti-CRT efforts doesn't exactly mesh with the definition that the people who created or who utilize CRT apply to it. Wonder how much of that is by design? ...

For example, Fox hates CRT (pretty obvious), but even I'm shocked to the degree to which they feel the need to discuss it, much less attack it. I mean according to Media Matters Fox has mentioned CRT over 1330 times since mid-March. I personally find that bizarre as my limit of actually even thinking about it (esp prior to WC discussions) was probably south of 100...

But to knowingly mischaracterize KNOWN political operatives as "concerned parents" seems a little over the top, even for Fox... I mean we're talking about at least a dozen or so partisan political operatives who Fox never mentioned were actually anti-CRT operatives and not just "concerned parents"

The argument on CRT seems esp pronounced in Louden Co VA, where a couple of people defined as "parents" are actually activists, likely paid. One (Ian Pryor) is a past Fox "contributor". Another was merely identified as a "teacher"...

"Another regular ol’ concerned person that Fox featured—this time as “one of the teachers who was at that school board meeting” in Loudoun County that opposed critical race theory—was Lilet Vanetsyan, who is actually affiliated with pro-Trump political group Turning Point USA, runs a Teachers for Trump social-media group, and has worked as a reporter for conservative outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network."


As usual, follow the $$ when trying to analyze the grassroots aspects of these supposedly locally based controversies. Sort of reminiscent of those "local Tea Party rallies" which we only learned after the fact mainly consisted of activists bussed from respective Town Hall to Town Hall by the Koch Bros and Tobacco lobbyists...

Here is an NBC News expose on the "dark money" funding the anti-CRT movement

"Jeff Porter, superintendent of a wealthy suburban school district in Maine, had no idea that his community was about to become part of a national battle when in the summer of 2020 a father began accusing the district of trying to “indoctrinate” his children by teaching critical race theory.


To Porter, the issue was straightforward: The district had denounced white supremacy in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by police, but did not teach critical race theory, the academic study of racism’s pervasive impact."

 
Last edited:
Might have been interesting if they asked people that they polled exactly what CRT is.I'm still not exactly sure as the definition I often see on media sites (like Fox) which are hubs of anti-CRT efforts doesn't exactly mesh with the definition that the people who created or who utilize CRT apply to it. Wonder how much of that is by design...

For example, Fox hates CRT (pretty obvious), but even I'm shocked to the degree to which they feel the need to discuss it, much less attack it. I mean according to Media Matters Fox has mentioned CRT over 1330 times since mid-March. I personally find that bizarre as my limit of actually even thinking about it (esp prior to WC discussions) was probably south of 100...

But to knowingly mischaracterize KNOWN political operatives as "concerned parents seems a little over the top, even for Fox... I mean we're talking about at least a dozen or so partisan political operatives who Fox never mentioned were actually anti-CRT operatives and not just "concerned parents"

The argument on CRT seems esp pronounced in Louden Co VA, where a couple of people defined as "parents" are actually activists, likely paid. One (Ian Pryor) is a past Fox "contributor". Another was merely identified as a "teacher"...

"Another regular ol’ concerned person that Fox featured—this time as “one of the teachers who was at that school board meeting” in Loudoun County that opposed critical race theory—was Lilet Vanetsyan, who is actually affiliated with pro-Trump political group Turning Point USA, runs a Teachers for Trump social-media group, and has worked as a reporter for conservative outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network."


As usual, follow the $$ when trying to analyze the grassroots aspects of these supposedly locally based controversies. Sore of reminiscent of those "local Tea Party rallies" which we only learned after the fact mainly consisted of activists bussed from respective Town Hall to Town Hall by the Koch Bros and Tobacco lobbyists...

Here is an NBC News expose on the "dark money" funding the anti-CRT movement

"Jeff Porter, superintendent of a wealthy suburban school district in Maine, had no idea that his community was about to become part of a national battle when in the summer of 2020 a father began accusing the district of trying to “indoctrinate” his children by teaching critical race theory.


To Porter, the issue was straightforward: The district had denounced white supremacy in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by police, but did not teach critical race theory, the academic study of racism’s pervasive impact."

Yes, it must be amazing to you that protesters are activists for a party or policy.

Especially since you don't see it happening on a much larger scale with BLM or Antifa. I'm sure those organizations are just regular folk who got together over tea one day.
 
Yes, it must be amazing to you that protesters are activists for a party or policy.

Especially since you don't see it happening on a much larger scale with BLM or Antifa. I'm sure those organizations are just regular folk who got together over tea one day.
Color me shocked that you missed the point regarding FOX FAILING TO DISCLOSE that the people they identified as "concerned parents" were actually paid activists. Do you honestly believe FOX would feature a BLM activist, and rather than label them as such just characterize them as a "concerned parent"?

Better yet, can you provide another site that created segments featuring "concerned parents" who were actually undercover activists? The problem isn't that the people shown were "activists", the problem is that FOX pretended they were non-partisan outsiders ie "concerned parents"...

You've seen the labeling on commercials where it says something like the people shown are actors, right? That's because concerned parents is more likely to influence public opinion, esp other "concerned parents" than "paid activist". You know, credibility... ;)

I wonder why FOX labeled Barry Bennet who Politico defines as "one of the most influential lobbyists of the Trump era" as just "Little League parent"?

Come on Dan, you're going to tell us you'd be OK with CNN doing this?

Btw Dan- what's YOUR definition of CRT? Just curious...

 
Last edited:
Might have been interesting if they asked people that they polled exactly what CRT is.I'm still not exactly sure as the definition I often see on media sites (like Fox) which are hubs of anti-CRT efforts doesn't exactly mesh with the definition that the people who created or who utilize CRT apply to it. Wonder how much of that is by design? ...

For example, Fox hates CRT (pretty obvious), but even I'm shocked to the degree to which they feel the need to discuss it, much less attack it. I mean according to Media Matters Fox has mentioned CRT over 1330 times since mid-March. I personally find that bizarre as my limit of actually even thinking about it (esp prior to WC discussions) was probably south of 100...

But to knowingly mischaracterize KNOWN political operatives as "concerned parents" seems a little over the top, even for Fox... I mean we're talking about at least a dozen or so partisan political operatives who Fox never mentioned were actually anti-CRT operatives and not just "concerned parents"

The argument on CRT seems esp pronounced in Louden Co VA, where a couple of people defined as "parents" are actually activists, likely paid. One (Ian Pryor) is a past Fox "contributor". Another was merely identified as a "teacher"...

"Another regular ol’ concerned person that Fox featured—this time as “one of the teachers who was at that school board meeting” in Loudoun County that opposed critical race theory—was Lilet Vanetsyan, who is actually affiliated with pro-Trump political group Turning Point USA, runs a Teachers for Trump social-media group, and has worked as a reporter for conservative outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network."


As usual, follow the $$ when trying to analyze the grassroots aspects of these supposedly locally based controversies. Sort of reminiscent of those "local Tea Party rallies" which we only learned after the fact mainly consisted of activists bussed from respective Town Hall to Town Hall by the Koch Bros and Tobacco lobbyists...

Here is an NBC News expose on the "dark money" funding the anti-CRT movement

"Jeff Porter, superintendent of a wealthy suburban school district in Maine, had no idea that his community was about to become part of a national battle when in the summer of 2020 a father began accusing the district of trying to “indoctrinate” his children by teaching critical race theory.


To Porter, the issue was straightforward: The district had denounced white supremacy in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by police, but did not teach critical race theory, the academic study of racism’s pervasive impact."

Doesn’t much matter to me who opposes it-just that it’s opposed. CRT is anti scientific, illiberal horseshit that should never see the outside of a classroom.

The most interesting thing about that poll was how independents view critical race theory. 80 percent of them view it negatively. 80 percent.

If I were the Democrats, I would think long and hard about how much I push this crap, because the people who matter see it for what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Color me shocked that you missed the point regarding FOX FAILING TO DISCLOSE that the people they identified as "concerned parents" were actually paid activists. Do you honestly believe FOX would feature a BLM activist, and rather than label them as such just characterize them as a "concerned parent"?

Better yet, can you provide another site that created segments featuring "concerned parents" who were actually undercover activists? The problem isn't that the people shown were "activists", the problem is that FOX pretended they were non-partisan outsiders ie "concerned parents"...

You've seen the labeling on commercials where it says something like the people shown are actors, right? That's because concerned parents is more likely to influence public opinion, esp other "concerned parents" than "paid activist". You know, credibility... ;)

I wonder why FOX labeled Barry Bennet who Politico defines as "one of the most influential lobbyists of the Trump era" as just "Little League parent"?

Come on Dan, you're going to tell us you'd be OK with CNN doing this?

Btw Dan- what's YOUR definition of CRT? Just curious...

"Fox News on numerous occasions has reportedly conducted interviews with "everyday" parents or educators opposed to "critical race theory" — who also happened to be Republican activists."

First of all, you don't understand the word 'reportedly'. You take it as fact. Have you watched all of Fox to know? No, you haven't.

Second, you missed my point, even though I specifically pointed it out - 'concerned parents' can also be activists. So what? You can be both.

But no - you make it all about Fox. If you think CNN and MSNBC have not misrepresented issues in the past, you're not paying attention. Remember when last summer's riots were called 'mostly peaceful', while fires were going on in the background.

Even Goat has turned against CRT. Even he sees how destructive it is. If you want to cling to a lie, be my guest.
 
Doesn’t much matter to me who opposes it-just that it’s opposed. CRT is anti scientific, illiberal horseshit that should never see the outside of a classroom.

The most interesting thing about that poll was how independents view critical race theory. 80 percent of them view it negatively. 80 percent.

If I were the Democrats, I would think long and hard about how much I push this crap, because the people who matter see it for what it is.
Shhhh...... let them cling to support of CRT. It ensures overwhelming Republican victories in 2022 and 2024.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
Doesn’t much matter to me who opposes it-just that it’s opposed. CRT is anti scientific, illiberal horseshit that should never see the outside of a classroom.

The most interesting thing about that poll was how independents view critical race theory. 80 percent of them view it negatively. 80 percent.

If I were the Democrats, I would think long and hard about how much I push this crap, because the people who matter see it for what it is.
@TheOriginalHappyGoat - back to our discussion on “systemic racism” being the common bogeyman for everything and that it can happen without individuals actively being racist.

Well the grifter Marc Lamont Hill and a Yale professor are here to tell you that we are all racist. It seems to me at this point that CRT is 90% an economy unto itself and is simply an opportunity for people to make money



These people are awful humans. Wastes of oxygen.
 
This is the best discussion between someone defending CRT and someone against it that I have seen.

I think the CRT advocate makes some great points (although I still think he's wrong about teaching CRT in K-12 and fails to acknowledge the level of indoctrination that is going on that Rufo points out):

 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
This is the best discussion between someone defending CRT and someone against it that I have seen.

I think the CRT advocate makes some great points (although I still think he's wrong about teaching CRT in K-12 and fails to acknowledge the level of indoctrination that is going on that Rufo points out):

Nope. MLH is a cancer on society.
 
@TheOriginalHappyGoat - back to our discussion on “systemic racism” being the common bogeyman for everything and that it can happen without individuals actively being racist.

Well the grifter Marc Lamont Hill and a Yale professor are here to tell you that we are all racist. It seems to me at this point that CRT is 90% an economy unto itself and is simply an opportunity for people to make money



These people are awful humans. Wastes of oxygen.
I want to make clear I haven't bothered to watch this, but I'm guessing it would be appropriate to mention this reminder: one of the problems with pundits trying to make pet academic theories into mainstream movements is that they are rarely intelligent enough to speak of them - or even understand them - meaningfully.

If CRT is what I said it was - an offshoot of Marxist theory in ivory towers - then it's still fine and dandy and deserves to keep on doing what it's doing. If CRT is instead the mechanism by which people whose primary job is to bitch about things on television accomplish their life's calling, then it sadly is more likely what you fear it is, just a way to falsely lend gravitas to race-baiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
@TheOriginalHappyGoat - back to our discussion on “systemic racism” being the common bogeyman for everything and that it can happen without individuals actively being racist.

Well the grifter Marc Lamont Hill and a Yale professor are here to tell you that we are all racist. It seems to me at this point that CRT is 90% an economy unto itself and is simply an opportunity for people to make money



These people are awful humans. Wastes of oxygen.
It's ok to be openly racist if you're a person of color? Got it.
Political Intersectional & Critical Race Theory in action: Orwells 1984 come to life
racism=anti-racism
hate=love
bigotry=tolerance
 
If CRT is what I said it was - an offshoot of Marxist theory in ivory towers - then it's still fine and dandy and deserves to keep on doing what it's doing. If CRT is instead the mechanism by which people whose primary job is to bitch about things on television accomplish their life's calling, then it sadly is more likely what you fear it is, just a way to falsely lend gravitas to race-baiting.
There is no way critical theory can be morphed to critical race theory without the accompanying bitching about whites. Marx employed critical theory to exploit social divisions along the ideological/political lines he chose. People like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo inject race into critical theory for the sole purpose of exploiting skin color. Neither of them will apply the ideas of CRT to just a Black population because they can’t. Teaching and believing that whites are racist (or some other horrible), or that whiteism even exits in a multi-racial society is necessary to the whole idea of critical race theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
This is the best discussion between someone defending CRT and someone against it that I have seen.

I think the CRT advocate makes some great points (although I still think he's wrong about teaching CRT in K-12 and fails to acknowledge the level of indoctrination that is going on that Rufo points out):

I don’t think critical race theorists or critical theorists for that matter can have great points. That’s not to say those ideas should not be discussed and exposed to the test of open and free discussion. Today's problem is that we cannot have that discussion because too often the CRT advocates will say that ”you don’t get it because you are white”. That is how Marc Lamont Hill ended his interview. That ends all productive discussions going onward.

Here is why I reject critical theory in whatever form it takes, including race. Critical theory attempts to explain why power and privilege is not evenly distributed in a social group. The theory a fortiori rests on the notion that power and privilege in a group is a zero sum game. In order to have power and privilege you must take it from others. I wholeheartedly disagree. Power and privilege for any individual comes from intelligence, risk tolerance, education, being a high achiever, work, self confidence, and scores of other individual traits. The notion that white men are, or should be, afraid of changing demographics because we might lose power and privilege is bunk. The factors that give me power and privilege cannot be taken away.

Of course the question needs to be asked why does power and privilege seem to be divided along racial lines in a multi-racial group (the United States)? No doubt our slavery and Jim Crow past plays a role. Slavery has ended and the civil rights laws with various important court decisions obliterated Jim Crow, yet inequality persists. Why? I don’t think the answer lies in CRT and it’s bumper sticker messages of ”White privilege, systemic racism, or Black Lives Matter”. Inequality persists because we are teaching ourselves that it should exist because of our history. In this regard, Marc Lamont Hill is spot on when he said that race isn’t biology, it’s a social construct. The characteristics that give one power and privilege are stripped away from African Americans by all of us including CRT advocates. The cure is not in notions of whiteness or inherent white racism. The cure us to focus on providing the means to recognize and use all the tools necessary to have power an privilege for all races. We’ve done all we can to eliminate racial discrimination. A color blind society is a good thing. Teaching CRT to kids or adults can never accomplish what needs to be done to move forward.

Thanks for the interesting link. I’d love to watch Mark Lamont Hill interview Ben Carson about power and privilege.

Finally: anti-racist education is neither.
 
OT from Louis CK, who I generally like. But back to the thread topic...

Here's an interesting interview that in my opinion draws some pretty compelling scenarios between opposition to CRT (which is not designed to be taught K-12) opposition to the 1619 project (which is not the same as CRT) and support for "election integrity bills (voter suppression bills, IMHO) which seem to be the triumvirate connecting all the dots...

I think the fact that they start out the discussion of WHAT is taught by showing a history of GA textbook that was actually USED in classrooms for decades and contrast that with opposition to CRT which has NEVER been taught in Elementary schools in GA is beyond telling.

First off what was taught FOR decades is far more disturbing or dangerous than anything that could be conceivably taught in the year-old 1619 project. I don't see how anyone who is honestly not racist can disagree with that as what was actually taught basically attempted to downplay and even justify slavery. And this is GA, the state where following record #s of POC and mail-in voters participating in record #s , couldn't wait for Legislators of the Party who LOST rushing to enact a bill designed to assuage the "suspicions" of the people who support them (their fellow losers)...

I don't mean "loser" in a pejorative sense, just in terms of WHO most people in GA voted for. I mean is anyone going to try and claim that ANYONE in GA who voted for Biden, Ossoff and Warnock was dissatisfied with the "voter integrity" already in place or felt the need for this bill the GOP UNILATERALLY forced on them?

So basically the Legislators and voters/supporters of the PARTY that lost all 3 Federal elections up for grabs (the Losers) are somehow allowed to make the rules and restrict GA voting elements that the winners enthusiastically (based on turnout) actually supported in 2020. Is it just a coincidence that this same PARTY is at the forefront of attacking both CRT and the 1619 project, both of which have never been taught in GA schools and are also basically a reaction to the need to try and balance what WAS actually taught in schools for decades?

You might argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and that's a fair argument to make up to a point,imho. Don't personally agree, but I can see it as worthy of discussion...

But some of what I would characterize as racist textbooks were used in GA in parts of this Century. So by making the claim that (in your opinion) as yet untaught concepts (CRT and 1619 project for example ) are worse (pendulum swung too far) you're basically saying that they are worse than 70 yrs of race-based lies taught to millions of Georgians.

And the same Legislature (party) that seemingly had no issue with what history textbooks used in 2006 were saying, has a HUGE problem with what the 1619 Project "says". Are people not bothered by the hypocrisy inherent in the GOP's duality of trying to label 1619 as "racist" when in fact they basically endorsed the use of materials that are racist? My guess is some are, some aren't...

Here's a 2013 dissertation that examines racism in widely used GA history textbooks.
I'm sure I could find discussions involving SC, Texas, and others as well, but I'll stick to GA since that is the Specific connection that the video explores...

The Georgia bill you spend most of your post bitching about actually allows voting in more ways than were available before 2020. It just does not go as far as the emergency voting measures that were put in place in 2020 due to a pandemic.
 
Might have been interesting if they asked people that they polled exactly what CRT is.I'm still not exactly sure as the definition I often see on media sites (like Fox) which are hubs of anti-CRT efforts doesn't exactly mesh with the definition that the people who created or who utilize CRT apply to it. Wonder how much of that is by design? ...

For example, Fox hates CRT (pretty obvious), but even I'm shocked to the degree to which they feel the need to discuss it, much less attack it. I mean according to Media Matters Fox has mentioned CRT over 1330 times since mid-March. I personally find that bizarre as my limit of actually even thinking about it (esp prior to WC discussions) was probably south of 100...

But to knowingly mischaracterize KNOWN political operatives as "concerned parents" seems a little over the top, even for Fox... I mean we're talking about at least a dozen or so partisan political operatives who Fox never mentioned were actually anti-CRT operatives and not just "concerned parents"

The argument on CRT seems esp pronounced in Louden Co VA, where a couple of people defined as "parents" are actually activists, likely paid. One (Ian Pryor) is a past Fox "contributor". Another was merely identified as a "teacher"...

"Another regular ol’ concerned person that Fox featured—this time as “one of the teachers who was at that school board meeting” in Loudoun County that opposed critical race theory—was Lilet Vanetsyan, who is actually affiliated with pro-Trump political group Turning Point USA, runs a Teachers for Trump social-media group, and has worked as a reporter for conservative outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network."


As usual, follow the $$ when trying to analyze the grassroots aspects of these supposedly locally based controversies. Sort of reminiscent of those "local Tea Party rallies" which we only learned after the fact mainly consisted of activists bussed from respective Town Hall to Town Hall by the Koch Bros and Tobacco lobbyists...

Here is an NBC News expose on the "dark money" funding the anti-CRT movement

"Jeff Porter, superintendent of a wealthy suburban school district in Maine, had no idea that his community was about to become part of a national battle when in the summer of 2020 a father began accusing the district of trying to “indoctrinate” his children by teaching critical race theory.


To Porter, the issue was straightforward: The district had denounced white supremacy in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by police, but did not teach critical race theory, the academic study of racism’s pervasive impact."

So your argument is the Democrat Party equivalent of "George Soros Funded" which you and others have argued for years is just a boogeyman. Cool story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Marc Lamont Hill is spot on when he said that race isn’t biology, it’s a social construct. The characteristics that give one power and privilege are stripped away from African Americans by all of us including CRT advocates. The cure is not in notions of whiteness or inherent white racism.

We can discuss race, but let me make it easier, replace race with tribe. Humans are very tribal. For tens of thousands of years it was necessary. The people too trusting of other tribes would be killed by taking muffins to the newly discovered neighboring tribe. Those encounters seldom went well.

You took part for your work life, you dressed every morning to go to work as a member of the legal tribe. You did not want to be mistaken for a member of the mechanics tribe, or even the physician tribe.

About 40% of Whites do not know a Black. So I am not sure complete colorblindness is possible given that. Don't we have to have our tribes be more mixed?


I was reading about the WW2 GI Bill. It is accredited with lifting millions of Americans up. But Google it yourself, colleges and trade schools refused to let Black vets in. Blacks were redlined out of home ownership in areas where they could have built good equity. The rising up of the GI Bill was not allowed to far too many. Google it yourselves.

We can debate if race is real, but that does not mean tribalism and discrimination is not real. One may dislike Blacks because they are a different tribe and not a different race. That is a difference without a meaning.
 
We can discuss race, but let me make it easier, replace race with tribe. Humans are very tribal. For tens of thousands of years it was necessary. The people too trusting of other tribes would be killed by taking muffins to the newly discovered neighboring tribe. Those encounters seldom went well.

You took part for your work life, you dressed every morning to go to work as a member of the legal tribe. You did not want to be mistaken for a member of the mechanics tribe, or even the physician tribe.

About 40% of Whites do not know a Black. So I am not sure complete colorblindness is possible given that. Don't we have to have our tribes be more mixed?


I was reading about the WW2 GI Bill. It is accredited with lifting millions of Americans up. But Google it yourself, colleges and trade schools refused to let Black vets in. Blacks were redlined out of home ownership in areas where they could have built good equity. The rising up of the GI Bill was not allowed to far too many. Google it yourselves.

We can debate if race is real, but that does not mean tribalism and discrimination is not real. One may dislike Blacks because they are a different tribe and not a different race. That is a difference without a meaning.
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Analogies to tribalism is indeed one way to look at why we are divided along many different lines including race. CRT perpetuates the problem.

And while I agree that our tendency is to tribe up, i Think that tendency is of declining importance. Our challenge is to continue to make it less important. CRT pushes us in the other direction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
We can discuss race, but let me make it easier, replace race with tribe. Humans are very tribal. For tens of thousands of years it was necessary. The people too trusting of other tribes would be killed by taking muffins to the newly discovered neighboring tribe. Those encounters seldom went well.

You took part for your work life, you dressed every morning to go to work as a member of the legal tribe. You did not want to be mistaken for a member of the mechanics tribe, or even the physician tribe.

About 40% of Whites do not know a Black. So I am not sure complete colorblindness is possible given that. Don't we have to have our tribes be more mixed?


I was reading about the WW2 GI Bill. It is accredited with lifting millions of Americans up. But Google it yourself, colleges and trade schools refused to let Black vets in. Blacks were redlined out of home ownership in areas where they could have built good equity. The rising up of the GI Bill was not allowed to far too many. Google it yourselves.

We can debate if race is real, but that does not mean tribalism and discrimination is not real. One may dislike Blacks because they are a different tribe and not a different race. That is a difference without a meaning.
Tribalism exists...look no further than the person putting Stoll down for working in BFE Southern Indiana and calling people that don't live where he does a hillbilly.
Or maybe it's just plain ole bigotry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Tribalism exists...look no further than the person putting Stoll down for working in BFE Southern Indiana and calling people that don't live where he does a hillbilly.
Or maybe it's just plain ole bigotry.
Hypocrisy - it’s a theme....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Color me shocked that you missed the point regarding FOX FAILING TO DISCLOSE that the people they identified as "concerned parents" were actually paid activists. Do you honestly believe FOX would feature a BLM activist, and rather than label them as such just characterize them as a "concerned parent"?

Better yet, can you provide another site that created segments featuring "concerned parents" who were actually undercover activists? The problem isn't that the people shown were "activists", the problem is that FOX pretended they were non-partisan outsiders ie "concerned parents"...

You've seen the labeling on commercials where it says something like the people shown are actors, right? That's because concerned parents is more likely to influence public opinion, esp other "concerned parents" than "paid activist". You know, credibility... ;)

I wonder why FOX labeled Barry Bennet who Politico defines as "one of the most influential lobbyists of the Trump era" as just "Little League parent"?

Come on Dan, you're going to tell us you'd be OK with CNN doing this?

Btw Dan- what's YOUR definition of CRT? Just curious...


Isn't Planned Parenthood also both "concerned parents" AND "paid activists"? CRT profs? CRT media consultants? tax advisors? take your pick? every interest group agency?

ALL MEDIA present "cooked books." Media has never been unbiased and will never be. They CLAIM to be - but they lead the partisan marches every single day.

I'd like to start one of those MSNBC or Marc Lamont Hill segments by proposing that I tell them what it is like to black, and they tell me what it's like to be white, and they we can go from there.
 
Banning the teaching of even the existence of systemic racism is, ironically, a case study in systemic racism.
The teaching of systemic racism huh. What is systemic racism? I’d like to hear it. I for sure don’t want to hear my daughter’s account of it from a grade school teacher with a Bach from a directional school, but you’re a woke far left progressive so I’d be interested to hear your take on it. This is your time in the sun. Let’s hear it? Is it everywhere? All the institutions? Is it so pervasive it permeates everything we do? Or is it confined to employment? Or housing? Or maybe criminal justice? Where? And is it so pervasive to warrant teaching about it in schools? If so a definition of same should be easy and examples even easier.

My daughter’s best friend is a little black girl that spends the majority of her free time at our house. I shudder at the thought of those two ever sitting in a class together with some dolt bleating on about systemic racism
 
Last edited:
Banning the teaching of even the existence of systemic racism is, ironically, a case study in systemic racism.
If you can't prove it, don't teach it.

'Systemic racism' is a buzzword today, with no proof of it in the US.
 
Yeah, as long as you don't use the N word, belong to the KKK, or support segregation, then you cannot even possibly be even 0.1% racist. :rolleyes:
 
Let’s hear it? Is it everywhere? All the institutions? Is it so pervasive it permeates everything we do? Or is it confined to employment? Or housing? Or maybe criminal justice? Where?

Discussing those questions are what the anti-CRT people are wanting to prohibit.
 
ADVERTISEMENT