US The Left is trying to redefine critical race theory because they are losing

The Left is trying to redefine critical race theory because they are losing​

Zachary Faria
Wed, June 16, 2021
https://sneed.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/1rtCC1lrrxpdRootngrBjQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTY0MDtoPTM5MC42NDkzNTA2NDkzNTA2NQ--/https://sneed.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/iomc0IwxJSXPyFIyy6jdww--~B/aD05NDA7dz0xNTQwO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/https://media.zenfs.com/en/washington_examiner_articles_265/be0409ae997de566fa3f7e0a59cda4d6
The Left tried to use last summer’s momentum from the Black Lives Matter movement to push its destructive ideas of so-called “anti-racism” and critical race theory. Now, they’re frantically trying to redefine the terms of the debate, as the momentum has built up against them instead.

Liberals are now asking that you pay no attention to the curriculum behind the curtain. They have taken to insisting that critical race theory isn’t actually being taught in K-12 schools, even though there are clear examples that show that it is. The New York Times even wrote in July 2020 about the “anti-racism” programs being brought to parents and staff in various school districts. Another New York Times piece published just two weeks ago noted that critical race theory is a "framework that has found its way into K-12 public education."

The controversial, Pulitzer-winning 1619 Project, which was riddled with historical inaccuracies and crafted on the false premise that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, has also been pushed into K-12 curricula. The project’s architect, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is among the many liberals trying to cast critical race theory in the narrowest terms possible.

She is trying to distance her shoddy “journalism” from critical race theory because the push against it is real and effective.

As with nonsensical definitions of "assault weapon" or weapon of war" in the gun debate, the Left constantly tries to redefine the terms of debate when they are losing an issue. Were it not for the shield of the Supreme Court, abortion would be far more restricted in the United States. That is also a losing issue for them, so much so that they must redefine the pro-life movement as “anti-choice" and abortion is a “procedure” or, more simply, a “women’s rights issue.” In recent years, they have tried hard to shift attention from abortion itself to birth control.

Now, they’re trying to erase their own connections to Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, and other racial hucksters whom they zealously promoted not long ago — people who, yes, have managed to worm their way into K-12 curricula. All of those school districts spending thousands on Kendi’s books, “anti-racism” programs, and bureaucrats with words such as “equity” in their title — now, these clowns want to make us all think that we imagined all of it.

This is obviously a good sign. It means that the push against these toxic ideas, from both Republican state governments and the concerned parents at local school board meetings, is working. Much like Hannah-Jones did in constantly moving the goalposts on the merits of the 1619 Project, she and other liberals are doing the same here because they are losing the fight to indoctrinate America’s youth with their toxic and divisive racial obsession. We are on the right path, and the push to reject these ideas must continue apace.
Article Archive
——-
I wouldn’t say the Democrat party is losing but they realize that support for critical race theory isn’t as high as they thought and now they’re backtracking.

 

[X Prime]

It is self referential to the nth degree and takes forever to go over in precise detail.

This is most social science. A lot of studies refer back to their own work, which is needed to pad the citation count but arguably dubious in terms of rigor.

I thought the entire point of studies and science was other people replicating it for confirmation.

 

[FlappyBat]

This is most social science. A lot of studies refer back to their own work, which is needed to pad the citation count but arguably dubious in terms of rigor.

I thought the entire point of studies and science was other people replicating it for confirmation.

I meant self referential more interns of theory wide self references. Like if you take the statement "Whiteness is destroying society" you have to go through a chain of 20 different books ( not even by the same author) for each word to get an exact definition of what each of those words mean in normal language. Not basic citation inflation.

 

[X Prime]

I meant self referential more interns of theory wide self references. Like if you take the statement "Whiteness is destroying society" you have to go through a chain of 20 different books ( not even by the same author) for each word to get an exact definition of what each of those words mean in normal language. Not basic citation inflation.

Ah, you mean self-referential in terms of being it impenetrably labyrinthe for the layperson on purpose. Also a fair point.

I do suspect a fair amount of the motivation is plain citation padding, given the small minds we are talking about here, though.

 

[L50LasPak]

A bunch of people writing nonsense about a theory that is nonsense. The absolute state of political discourse right now.

 

[Wesley Willis]

CRT has done demonstrably worse damage by making racists out of people.

There's actual SCOTUS cases over creationism in school. I doubt any of this will be challenged in court, which will make the fight worse.

 

[X Prime]

There's actual SCOTUS cases over creationism in school. I doubt any of this will be challenged in court, which will make the fight worse.

No lawyer wants to be called racist, after all. Since apparently in Current Year it is OK to threaten and harass opposing counsel if they're on the wrong political team.

 

[Wesley Willis]

No lawyer wants to be called racist, after all. Since apparently in Current Year it is OK to threaten and harass opposing counsel if they're on the wrong political team.

At least with the challenge over creationism you could use the Constitution. Teaching it without also teaching evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. What Amendment does CRT violate? It's illogical, irrational and dumb. But that argument doesn't win court cases. CRT is insidious dogma.

 

[Reverend]

I don't have anything further to add to this thread that would be considered valuable, but I'll leave it with this warning:

You have just celebrated a government legislating against the teaching of something. Ergo, this will not be the last thing they will ban - and you are not going to like what some people in their ears are going to say should not be taught and give them plenty of money to have other things banned. It also means that you are celebrating that they can legislate what can be taught.

Perhaps in Salt Lake they will ban any teaching that questions the truth of Mormons, or perhaps anything (like critical thinking) that could shed a light on thinking that Mormons aren't the best - or ban books that question it.

I get it you don't like CRT, but again you are celebrating a slippery slope and I promise you, whatever you think is right to be taught or not is NOT going to be the same as what people (often religions and deluded meglomaniacs) think, and now they can lobby to have other things added to the "do not teach list" with their money.

It will take time, but the slope has started. Watch. This is nothing to celebrate even if you hate CRT you aren't seeing where this can - and will - go to.

The slope became an avalanche long ago as the states have banned "problematic" books from school libraries thereby removing those forms of art from the system and anything contained therein must be sought elsewhere.

CRT is a project from a bygone era that is no longer relevant and any discussion of teaching that one race is superior/inferior over another is best left to Shit-tier message boards like KF and TheMarySue.

 

[Kosher Dill]

What Amendment does CRT violate? It's illogical, irrational and dumb. But that argument doesn't win court cases.

As near as I can tell, there's no right to a valid education anywhere in the Constitution, statute, case law, or common law. It was a groundbreaking decision when one state supreme court (Michigan's I believe) recently declared that citizens have the right to be educated to the point of literacy.
But it would be perfectly legal for public schools to teach geocentrism, phlogiston theory, spontaneous generation, Lysenkoism, and 2+2=3.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

This is most social science. A lot of studies refer back to their own work, which is needed to pad the citation count but arguably dubious in terms of rigor.

None of it can be replicated either. You can't just go and objectively test "are all US institutions racist?
just like you can't objectively test "is social conditioning the reason we own property?"; instead they can only "theorize" how things would be based on other hypothetical theorizations, and then assert it as fact.

Spoiler: Science Sperging

Re: self-citing
So this happens a lot in the biological sciences too, the difference is 1) replication, 2) peer-review, 3) ironically because of greater rigor in the bio field; such that you can't test the hypothesis that X happens because of Y reasons without first citing the fact that X happens in the first place. More often than not, if you're one of the researchers asking why X happens then you are also one of the researchers that observed that X happened, documented that X happened, and thus have to cite back to where you proved to the peer-reviewers/editors that X did happen/does happen, in order to test in good faith for what reasons it happens. Additionally, if you become intimately familiar with a certain subject or phenomenon after years of work, you end up as a major source of literature on that subject and often have to cite your past publications for the same reasons.

Now the difference is, as explained above in less detail above, unlike social "sciences", the biological sciences can be replicated - or at least attempt to be replicated.
If I try to publish a paper, the peer-review/editor committee of any decent publication journal is going to look at my methodology. If my methodology is consistent with existing literature and found to be sound chances are my paper will pass peer-review.
Now, another scientist can go back and say "Yes, FP et al (2021) found Frog Species X exhibiting some based behavior at Site Y; however we think this was a fluke" they can then either 1) do their own study with my same methodology and publish their results or 2) attempt it with a different methodology and attempt to explain why their methodology is better and/or findings make more sense. (Alternatively, I could find new information which causes me to retract my own paper).
In the social "sciences", this never happens.
There is no way to objectively test if all institutions in the US, both de-jure and de-facto, are in fact racist. Thus there is no way to go back and replicate the experiment, beyond proposing your own untested theory. (this applies to other social theory besides CRT as well).

Now, TBF to the social "sciences", there are some more respectable paths of research, for example questions of how human test subjects behave under certain conditions, or perceptions of specific subjects via surveys, etc.
But the more you get into concepts like "society" and "institutions" and "power" the more untested crackpot shit you get.

 

[Meat Target]

I'm enjoying the Republicans Pouncing and journos crying foul at scrutiny.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1405659379198836745

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

I'm enjoying the Republicans Pouncing and journos crying foul at scrutiny.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1405659379198836745

View attachment 2271468

"...including one group who tried get drag queen story hour banned from school"
Good. I hope they succeed.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

At least with the challenge over creationism you could use the Constitution. Teaching it without also teaching evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. What Amendment does CRT violate? It's illogical, irrational and dumb. But that argument doesn't win court cases. CRT is insidious dogma.

It violates the 14th amendment by insisting that races are given inherently, unequal protection and application of the law, specifically Affirmative Action in the education system.

 

[Overly Serious]

Education too.

At this point it looks like it would take an apocalypse to remove the woke cult from power.

What it will take is people calling their bluff. Right now, you literally will not get hired as a teacher if you are openly Conservative. If a school is desperate to fill a role then they'll generously turn a blindeye on a don't-ask-don't-tell basis but if a candidate volunteers it, no. Same with academic appointments - they're not like regular work where you have an interview and demonstrate skills. It'll be a day long thing, going out to dinner with the rest of the faculty to see if you're a "good fit". Wrong political views, you don't get hired.

Everyone is afraid.

But what we have seen on multiple occasions is when someone openly doesn't care and refuses to apologise, often times it works out for them. Sometimes it doesn't but often it does. It ends when more people call their bluff and get away with it. That's why they do everything they can to punish even the slightest lack of repentance and nothing sends them into a greater rage than not apologising. Because if they don't and get away with it, it directly calls their bluff and weakens them.

Works a lot better than suggesting CRT is “just asking questions” like that definition listed earlier.

They only want to ask questions because they've already decided what the answers are.

 

[GenericYuserName1997]

It is important to understand the difference between a theory and the belief system of those who are heralding it.

Example: If a theory (remember, a theory as in idea) is proposed with a proposition, the proposition can quickly get lost when we start listening to it's adherents and start to lose focus on the actual theory. Often proponents of a theory want to install THEIR belief system into the theory or through the use of the theory really forward their own theory. We see this on talking heads all the time who take something and then give hours of opinions on the matter and insert their case into it so viewers adopt it, but it is not the original proposition any longer.

While CRT is a flawed theory it does have some merits, it is worth looking at as it was based on observations which while are subject to interpretation are convincing enough to propose the theory of systemic racism and prejudice, alas the main proponents of it have thrust their ideologies and interpretations into it and thus what they are clamoring for is fundamentally distant from actual CRT. An analogy would be gay rights being blended with the abhorrent demands of the Trans community that attempt to hijack the movement for their own purposes. Thus the Equality Act is seen as for Trans people when it started out as something else and is permanently associated with a tiny fraction of the people it is supposed to cover.

My main problem with banning CRT is that we are banning thought. It is a theory, not anything else based on some observed facts. If we do not teach it then we do not get it refined or debated to a workable theory or removed as a theory worth even a pursuit.

No matter how horrible I consider other forms of belief or ideas held by others, the idea of banning it's teachings is fundamentally wrong. If we can not teach people how to think to make up their own minds, then I guess we will have to start banning Ancient Aliens and Mermaids on the History Channel also. While at it, we open the door to banning religion also and other philosophies.

You just don't do it. And every time you ban an idea, it never ever works out how you hope it will.

Teach people HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

The thought belief called critical race theory is not a theory. A theory is set in stone because it has been tested and capable of being falsified. What is being called CRT is not even close to the realm of theory. It’s what is called pseudoscience.

 

[Unpaid Emotional Labourer]

The thought belief called critical race theory is not a theory. A theory is set in stone because it has been tested and capable of being falsified. What is being called CRT is not even close to the realm of theory. It’s what is called pseudoscience.

It’s called a theory to trick people, and the architects did this deliberately. They knew the word “theory” would give people a false sense that something was or has been tested, debated, studied. It’s actually critical race activism. It is 100% committed to aggressive subversive activism and laughs at the fools falling for the false “theory” part of the name.

 

[TFT-A9]

Yeah add "theory" to the list of words they've perverted into practical meaninglessness. Nothing about CRT has the rigor of an actual scientific theory. It doesn't even have the coherence of a hypothesis, really.

 

[Snekposter]

Yeah add "theory" to the list of words they've perverted into practical meaninglessness. Nothing about CRT has the rigor of an actual scientific theory. It doesn't even have the coherence of a hypothesis, really.

CRT is the only theory that can be proven by being disproven.

 

[Product Placement]

Left is losing on this area for sure, just like the right is losing on public health care issues. The fact is both the right and left-wing in America are losing to each other on so many different issues, that losing on one issue means fuck all and it's still anyone's game when it comes to elections.

 

[Pompano Mike]

Left is losing on this area for sure, just like the right is losing on public health care issues. The fact is both the right and left-wing in America are losing to each other on so many different issues, that losing on one issue means fuck all and it's still anyone's game when it comes to elections.

Definitely agree that the Democrat messaging on healthcare is whipping the GOP's ass, although it's fairly clear that there is broad bipartisan agreement with the status quo amongst the actual politicians. However, the progressive racial rhetoric and belief system is so corrosive that it may turn public opinion against it to such a degree that it will force a correction. It isn't just the indoctrination in schools, it's the correlation it has with preferential race-based economic policies, hiring practices, and most importantly, criminal justice trends. People don't like to feel like they or their loved ones are unsafe, no matter how much BLM merchandise they put up in their yards or on their social media profiles. The egregious injustice and rampant crime that we're seeing in jurisdictions with lefty prosecutors and judges is pissing off a LOT of people very quickly.

As for elections who fucking knows. These are isolated examples, but there was recently a successful referendum vote in Austin, which is deep blue, to repeal changes progressives had made to the city's code of ordinances that basically made it impossible to prohibit or prosecute disgusting hobo behavior (which resulted in an absolute explosion of camps overflowing with human shit, needles, and trash in that city). There is also a fairly serious ongoing effort to recall George Gascon, who is the vile Soros-backed DA of LA County. There is some reason to feel some hope from stuff like this, but life in Clownworld should teach us not to be too optimistic.