Current Events > Yeah, CRT is absolutely much more toxic than teaching kids racial sensitivity

(+) Yeah! (+)

MajesticFerret posted...

Because a house costs finite resources and people's labor to build, neither of which you are entitled too, slave lording comrade.

You guys are totally ok with slavery the second it means you get to be lazy AF.

So socialized medicine is slavery? And socialized rent means people... have to live in full sized houses and not more economical apartments built for people who need free rent?

MajesticFerret posted...

We have places where people can live rent free and apparently,

Oh, so it's not impossible.

MajesticFerret posted...

I just think hyper idealistic communism is stupid and doesn't work and what you're pushing is stupid overly idealistic communism.

Socialized rent, which you said does exist, is not idealized communism

---

MajesticFerret posted...

I love how really dumb posters with no good arguments conflate not agreeing with you on one thing as surely you must be MAGA and gas lighting for it.

So do you actually have any arguments for the subject at hand, or should I just start marking your posts as off topic and move on?

You don't know my posting history and we had never argued. You got no way of knowing whether I am "dumb" or not. You assumed I was a commie and turns out I am probably more capitalist than you. I, however, have seen your MAGA posts at 261.

Anyway, on-topic, how do you feel about George Zimmerman? Derek Chauvin? Donald Trump? Kyle Rittenhouse? The Proud Boys? Putin?

Also, lmao@going the karen way and threatening to mark my posts.

tc's fingers are gonna be sore after typing all that shit out

---

Is the constitution requiring that free lawyers be provided to the poor slavery?

---

matchboxsantana posted...

@MajesticFerret how do you feel about George Zimmerman?

The fact that you're asking these questions is a sign that politics is literally nothing but a giant race war to you.

Don't have strong enough details in his case to die on a hill, but it's a guy who appears to have got off shooting a black teen in self defense. The contention comes from there being strong evidence he was a racist (said the n word in the police call), but there wasn't particularly strong evidence him being racist is the reason the kid was shot, with some witnesses helping Zimmermans case that the kid assaulted first, thus why the guy got off.

Derek Chauvin?

Giy who is going to prison for kneeling on someone's neck for 9mins. There is debate as to the motivation (is he racist, did he just lose track of time arguing with the witnesses there) but the end result is police officers should be more accountable for there actions and his recklessness cost a man his life.

Donald Trump?

Mediocre president with device rhetoric, but isn't the anti-christ like some hardcore liberals let on.

Kyle Rittenhouse?

Go who went to rally with a gun looking for trouble and definately found it.

The Proud Boys?

Founder (Gavin McInnes) is definately racist. Not sure how I feel about the entire organization and if they should be judged on his merits or not as I don't believe he is associated anymore.

Seems to be a bunch of violent rightists that like to get in fights with violent leftists, like Antifa.

As far as I'm concerned, I hope they both eat each other alive.

Putin?

President of Russia who does a lot of shady shit lol. C'mon, even if I was a MAGAist, you really expect them to defend Putin?

---

You may not be a MAGA guy but you do have a deeply deeply conservative world view and political orientation. That much is clear from everything you've ever posted.

---

So TC. What do you think the outcome of teaching CRT will be?

---

legendary_zell posted...

Is the constitution requiring that free lawyers be provided to the poor slavery?

They are being paid, so no.

But requiring the occasional lawyer to the poor is not the same as everyone living rent free.

Living standard is something directly preportional to societal contribution. Want to live in a big mansion? Contribute more to society and receive brownie points (money) to pay for it. Same applies to a house, condo, quality of apt, etc.

If you're ok with living rent free, you're going to have to live in places so low demand people would rather work to not live there than not work to live there.

So yeah, we already have "rent free" places, but all of society being rent free? Who decides who is going to live where, and how does society not immediately collapse of no one does anything? Cost of living is literally the no. 1 reason people still work. Take it out of the equation and most will stop working.

---

MajesticFerret posted...

Living standard is something directly preportional to societal contribution. Want to live in a big mansion? Contribute more to society and receive brownie points (money) to pay for it.

Does this standard apply to children born into wealth? Is Donald Trump Jr's living standard proportional to his contribution to society, for example?

---

MajesticFerret posted...

They are being paid, so no.

But requiring the occasional lawyer to the poor is not the same as everyone living rent free.

Living standard is something directly preportional to societal contribution. Want to live in a big mansion? Contribute more to society and receive brownie points (money) to pay for it. Same applies to a house, condo, quality of apt, etc.

If you're ok with living rent free, you're going to have to live in places so low demand people would rather work to not live there than not work to live there.

So yeah, we already have "rent free" places, but all of society being rent free? Who decides who is going to live where, and how does society not immediately collapse of no one does anything? Cost of living is literally the no. 1 reason people still work. Take it out of the equation and most will stop working.

We decide to pay those lawyers in some instances but nothing in the constitutional right says that lawyers have to be paid and very often, we're not.

That system for distributing housing you described is not only just a political stance and not any type of natural law, it's not even how it works now. Our ideas of what contributes to a society are political and largely arbitrary. Houses are not distributed based on "contribution to society" and they never have been.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

So TC. What do you think the outcome of teaching CRT will be?

I already said it. Disenfranchisement, particularly of POC who already hate school and feel disenfranchised by it, which will make things even worse for these people.

And the way they teach the doctrines will probably produce unnecessary white hate, which will result in an uptick in hate crimes on both ends which really doesn't need to be taught to teach historical awareness of injustice.

I think most POC who like/tolerate school enough to understand education is the highest probability path of success will probably just suck it up and hustle anyways, but they would have done this without CRT. CRT kinda seems to give disenfranchised people a free pass to continue to remain disenfranchised.

Why bother making good grades or striving to succeed in a system where everything you do is being pushed as ultimately only beneficial to white middle class, as this guy puts it?

My edits to the theory would be:

-teaching anyone well below college level that school is rigged against them is dumb, plus I don't think there's enough basis for all practices/policies in school to be as problematic as the paper suggests. You can teach them about economic handicaps, but keep that related to economics, don't need to tell anyone below college age school is rigged against them or insinuate it might be a waste of time and that the entire school system is heavily flawed and needs reworking, especially when no such alternative is suggested.
-teach more racial history exactly as is, and let people make their own conclusions. Villainizing everything, including the modern system, as white oppression isn't based enough in fact, and can come off as reverse racism unless taught with extreme care, which I doubt most teachers are qualified to do.

---

I keep thinking about CRT tvs when I see that term.

---

MajesticFerret posted...

I already said it. Disenfranchisement, particularly of POC who already hate school and feel disenfranchised by it, which will make things even worse for these people.

And the way they teach the doctrines will probably produce unnecessary white hate, which will result in an uptick in hate crimes on both ends which really doesn't need to be taught to teach historical awareness of injustice.

I think most POC who like/tolerate school enough to understand education is the highest probability path of success will probably just suck it up and hustle anyways, but they would have done this without CRT. CRT kinda seems to give disenfranchised people a free pass to continue to remain disenfranchised.

Why bother making good grades or striving to succeed in a system where everything you do is being pushed as ultimately only beneficial to white middle class, as this guy puts it?

My edits to the theory would be:

-teaching anyone well below college level that school is rigged against them is dumb, plus I don't think there's enough basis for all practices/policies in school to be as problematic as the paper suggests. You can teach them about economic handicaps, but keep that related to economics, don't need to tell anyone below college age school is rigged against them or insinuate it might be a waste of time and that the entire school system is heavily flawed and needs reworking, especially when no such alternative is suggested.
-teach more racial history exactly as is, and let people make their own conclusions. Villainizing everything, including the modern system, as white oppression isn't based enough in fact, and can come off as reverse racism unless taught with extreme care, which I doubt most teachers are qualified to do.

I'm on page 8 of the article and it says nothing unusual, what of the five tenets do you disagree with? Can you point to what in the text you think is misguided? I havent followed the whole topic so sorry if you have to repeat something

---

legendary_zell posted...

That system for distributing housing you described is not only just a political stance and not any type of natural law, it's not even how it works now.

It's exactly how it works now. Let me explain later.

Our ideas of what contributes to a society are political and largely arbitrary.

Calling supply and demand economics "arbitrary" is a bit ridiculous and short sighted, but ok.

Houses are not distributed based on "contribution to society" and they never have been.

Of course they are.

What determines what quality of house/living standards you have? How much money you have.

Your net worth and earnings are literally decided by societal contribution, which is determined through the free market, which is determined by what people are willing to pay for the value you bring, which is determined by supply/demand free market economics.

This can be in the form of immensely helping a few individuals (like a doctor or lawyer) or providing tons of enjoyment to countless individuals (like entertainers).

Every exchange of money is someone placing a monetary value on what value you are giving them, based on all the principles stated above.

Even trust fund babies, you can argue their parents did the contributing and they as part of the family unit, get to benefit from those contributions.

So yeah, your contribution to society more or less dictates where you can choose to live.

Very high societal contribution? Live wherever you want. Very low societal contribution? Your choices are more limited.

---

MajesticFerret posted...

Nah, teaching a bit more POC history would probably be enough there.

The biggest opponents of CRT don't want this either, as it's "divisive" as they say.

ThanksUglyGod posted...

The biggest opponents of CRT don't want this either, as it's "divisive" as they say.

i doubt youve actually talked to more than 5 people against crt irl. Stop taking media opinions as the popular opinion. I agree with the ferret, CRT should be out of schools but I would like more things like Tulsa and other horrific acts against blacks to be taught in school so that we are aware of our ugly history. More in schools about the government intentionally destroying black communities

I have TC tagged as Trumper, so theres a 0% chance Im reading any of this.

---

Why did TC post his manifesto on CE?

---

I've held the belief that overly long posts in forums and social media come off more as unhinged than anything

This reaffirms it.

---

lemondrop7 posted...

i doubt youve actually talked to more than 5 people against crt irl. Stop taking media opinions as the popular opinion. I agree with the ferret, CRT should be out of schools but I would like more things like Tulsa and other horrific acts against blacks to be taught in school so that we are aware of our ugly history. More in schools about the government intentionally destroying black communities

OK, then who or what is preventing these atrocities from being taught in schools now? Because none of this stuff is new you know.

MedeaLysistrata posted...
I'm on page 8 of the article and it says nothing unusual, what of the five tenets do you disagree with? Can you point to what in the text you think is misguided? I havent followed the whole topic so sorry if you have to repeat something

My foot note break down of my contentions with the tenets is:

(1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational;

I actually agree with this sentiment as studies have already shown people already instinctually side with people who look more like their family than people who don't look like their family with humans becoming less loyal and more innately fearful the further away from looking like their family unit they become.

However, he takes this too far. This is the part where he argues the entire basis of education is racist (he absolutely is NOT just talking about funding differences between schools), which I don't think he provides anywhere near enough evidence to suggest (again, America is basically doing what the rest of the world is doing from a high level) and provides many scholar quotes insinuating the standard way of teaching naturally disenfranchises POC, which I again take contention with.

Keep it a litte less subjective and talk about race in regards to economic impact, but teaching anyone below college level that the entire learning system is rigged against them is a dangerous accusation to make. College kids can handle this as they already made it through HS and are actively paying for school, but this particular message will resonate most strongly with kids who already hate school/the system, and it will help them justify poor performance.

(2) the idea of an interest convergence;

If he wants to talk about the idea of interest convergence and how it relates to disenfranchising people, he needs to be FAR more specific.

For example:
https://images.app.goo.gl/8gBXnyLDXqwo5tTa6

The following document is unacceptable and premotes white supremacy. White people didn't invent or moniker half of this shit and it insinuates virtually every aspect of western society is designed to premote white people and hurt non-white, which is simply not true.

If there are PARTICULAR western values you feel are racist...you should point them out. You can't just blanket statement call ALL western values as inherently "white," especially when if you're 8 pages deep, you know the document absolutely does not have a positive connation of things that are inherently "white."

(3) the social construction of race;

I didn't have any contentions here. If anything, teaching people that race is largely a social construct is just factual.

(4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling;

I HAD no contention with this, until the author suggested we should be teaching fictional stories about how it would be completely unexpected for white people to sell out all black people to aliens as slaves if they promised us a bunch of stuff, which is unproven and premotes that white people will ALWAYS be racist and will throw black people under the bus.

We have enough stories of the past of attrocities to teach those, we don't need to brainwash people into thinking they have nothing but a bleak racist future to look forward too.

and (5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation.

This is mostly true, but they really should add the word "some" in front of whites. It makes the statement more provably true, and helps not demonize low income whites, many of which probably didn't benefit from the power grab of using free labor.

---

legendary_zell posted...

You may not be a MAGA guy but you do have a deeply deeply conservative world view and political orientation. That much is clear from everything you've ever posted.

Nah, cool with ACA and more progressive taxes, even pushing harder particularly on taxing stock growth when a lot of people just want to tax shit the rich people are going to casually side step anyways, which is pretty much the mainstream DOC platform.

The fact that you think people aren't entitled to the money they have earned in our current system and the implication that individual earning is flawed and we need some sort of overarching system to dictate everyone's earnings is pretty textbook communism, comrade.

Everything looks "deepy Conservative" when you are a Marxist and hate capitalism/meritocracy.

Antifar posted...

Does this standard apply to children born into wealth? Is Donald Trump Jr's living standard proportional to his contribution to society, for example?

Yes, because Donald Trump Jr. is part of Trump's family unit, Trump Sr. (or more specifically even his Sr. Sr.) generated the wealth, and generational wealth is something we should ENCOURAGE, not frown upon.

Starting from ground zero in terms of wealth being something we should all strive for is the dumbest take imaginable. There's tons of lower income families that make immense sacrifices to put their kids through college so those kids can live a better life and not have to work as hard as them or wager their entire livelihood to try to start a business in the hopes it takes off and they can hand the business off to their children.

---

MajesticFerret posted...

(1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational;

I actually agree with this sentiment as studies have already shown people already instinctually side with people who look more like their family than people who don't look like their family with humans becoming less loyal and more innately fearful the further away from looking like their family unit they become.

I think people aren't engaging with your long posts because a lot of the time your very first paragraph is either hyperbolic or just flat out wrong.

When the author says racism is "ordinary" it's not to say that people have to learn not to be afraid of others outside of their family (not racism btw), it's the fact that racism is so prevalent in America that it's commonplace. Not aberrant.

Is this TCs way of masturbating?

---

ThanksUglyGod posted...

I think people aren't engaging with your long posts because a lot of the time your very first paragraph is either hyperbolic or just flat out wrong.

Dude, the reason my posts are long are because I needed to already provide receipts so guys like you wouldn't just hand wave all the other toxic shit the guy said.

"What you are saying is hyperbolic:" then go quote the toxic posts and tell me your alternative interpretation and stop being a lazy bum then.

When the author says racism is "ordinary" it's not to say that people have to learn not to be afraid of others outside of their family (not racism btw),

Being subconsciously afraid of people different than you is racist and is one of the key basis for inherent subconscious racism. Not expressed in this paper, but it's pretty commonly known psychology.

---

---

NoMeLx22x posted...

Is this TCs way of masturbating?

apparently so

MajesticFerret posted...

I actually agree with this sentiment as studies have already shown people already instinctually side with people who look more like their family than people who don't look like their family with humans becoming less loyal and more innately fearful the further away from looking like their family unit they become.

However, he takes this too far. This is the part where he argues the entire basis of education is racist (he absolutely is NOT just talking about funding differences between schools), which I don't think he provides anywhere near enough evidence to suggest (again, America is basically doing what the rest of the world is doing from a high level) and provides many scholar quotes insinuating the standard way of teaching naturally disenfranchises POC, which I again take contention with.

Keep it a litte less subjective and talk about race in regards to economic impact, but teaching anyone below college level that the entire learning system is rigged against them is a dangerous accusation to make. College kids can handle this as they already made it through HS and are actively paying for school, but this particular message will resonate most strongly with kids who already hate school/the system, and it will help them justify poor performance.

If racism is normal, then the basis of education is absolutely racist. If you read the part about universal paradigms vs relative paradigms again it should be clear that the idea behind universal education doesnt make sense in a multicultural context. Universal approaches to education can't solve racism because they are based on the idea that everyone is the same, but how can that be when racism is normal? If you agree racism is normal then I dont see why you dont expect to find it in schools. CRT confronts the problem of racism being normal by making students aware of where to see it. I dont see why racism would be the natural state of things and then it would be absent from schools.

MajesticFerret posted...

If there are PARTICULAR western values you feel are racist...you should point them out. You can't just blanket statement call ALL western values as inherently "white," especially when if you're 8 pages deep, you know the document absolutely does not have a positive connation of things that are inherently "white."

He is pretty neutral on 'white', doesnt even use the word colonial iirc.

MajesticFerret posted...

I didn't have any contentions here. If anything, teaching people that race is largely a social construct is just factual.

If you agree that this should be taught, you should agree with making students self aware of how social constructs can be to the detriment of someone, and how they are still contesed constructs that can be sabotaged (which is why telling stories might be important)

MajesticFerret posted...

This is mostly true, but they really should add the word "some" in front of whites. It makes the statement more provably true, and helps not demonize low income whites, many of which probably didn't benefit from the power grab of using free labor.

How much % of your disagreement comes from the sense that you dont want whites to be demonised? CRT teaches that power matters and mostly directs attention toward people in power. If it was taught in school, I hope there would be class analysis too.

---

Yeah, I tend to think a large pushback is due to how people are interpreting "white". There's definitely an academic way of defining whiteness that can lead to misunderstanding, and there probably should be more of a push to be more accommodating in the language used. People are sensitive and are going to read into things negatively otherwise.
---

emblem boy posted...

Yeah, I tend to think a large pushback is due to how people are interpreting "white". There's definitely an academic way of defining whiteness that can lead to misunderstanding, and there probably should be more of a push to be more accommodating in the language used. People are sensitive and are going to read into things negatively otherwise.

Yeah, I'd also imagine CRT is pedagogy more so than material to be studied, in the classroom

---

MajesticFerret posted...

Nah, cool with ACA and more progressive taxes, even pushing harder particularly on taxing stock growth when a lot of people just want to tax shit the rich people are going to casually side step anyways, which is pretty much the mainstream DOC platform.

The fact that you think people aren't entitled to the money they have earned in our current system and the implication that individual earning is flawed and we need some sort of overarching system to dictate everyone's earnings is pretty textbook communism, comrade.

Everything looks "deepy Conservative" when you are a Marxist and hate capitalism/meritocracy.

Yes, because Donald Trump Jr. is part of Trump's family unit, Trump Sr. (or more specifically even his Sr. Sr.) generated the wealth, and generational wealth is something we should ENCOURAGE, not frown upon.

Starting from ground zero in terms of wealth being something we should all strive for is the dumbest take imaginable. There's tons of lower income families that make immense sacrifices to put their kids through college so those kids can live a better life and not have to work as hard as them or wager their entire livelihood to try to start a business in the hopes it takes off and they can hand the business off to their children.

Being okay with the ACA doesn't make you not a conservative. It's a market based plan in itself, a giveaway to private insurers rather than sidelining them.

No one talked about an overarching system dictating people's earnings but the fact that you equate questioning whether Donald Trump Jr. deserves the wealth he has with Marxism says a lot.

The way you talk about the world is fundamentally, elementally, demonstrably conservative.

---