The attack on CRT is just the start

Read: Anything that doesn't toe the "everything is racist!!111" line with enough enthusiasm. Can't be skeptical without endorsing the other side. Fuck off.

This is where you disclose the divinely neutral, unbiased sources YOU deem worthy.

Unless those assholes have a default victimhood status or appoint themselves their spokesman. Then it's cool.

Not really.

It's telling them what happened rather than hero worshipping the Founders/Churchill. It gives them a chance to do better by being honest about the mistakes others made.

What they do with that information is what defines them.

It is what they are EXPECTED to do with that knowledge that betrays the true agenda here.

It's never cool to be an asshole.

No. That is what propaganda tells you is expected.

What agenda?

CRT is a made up term AFAICT which refers to history being taught correctly rather than as a form of propaganda.

I'd rather know the Empire my Grandparents were first hand witness to was a vast, bloated, filthy, corrupt, violent, oppressive regime than spend class time saluting a flag and singing "Rule Brittannia"

There's nothing the least bit skeptical about regurgitating propaganda word for word, pixel for pixel.
The fact you consider yourself a paragon of skepticism is a sick joke.
I won't use hyperbole and say "the sickest joke there is" because one of the sickest jokes there are is Qanon becoming such an entrenched religion, that a father of a school shooting victim told his kid "you're in on the hoax".
You're not that far gone, but you're getting there.

The Daily Worker!


No, but could you imagine?

Something, something, pink hair, something, something, welfare leeches, something, something, feminists chopping off my pee-pee.

What the hell is this shit?

Article I saw on Facebook, I'll try to find it...

Ah, shit, "anonymous Rediter".
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/redditor-parkland-survivor-qanon-dad-shooting-hoax/

My dad went from fairly liberal to trump-like supporter, but it took 40 years and much of that due to Rush Limbaugh (whom I will despise to my dying day because of this). If the anonymous redditor posts under the same name over the course of years and has consistently posted normal stuff, I may give it more weight. But, this just sounds like someone trying to stir up shit.

Why don't you think about that from the black kids angle? You arew on the bottom because of all sorts of racism that still isn't gone, but we don't want to talk about it and all of our ancestors are great heroes despite the fact they thought you were basically livestock to be cruelly exploited.

UA is so one dimensional and he is just perfect to be our new dayton.

Aren't you normally against attempts at mind reading and ascribing motives to other people?

If you've got anti-white supremacy groups saying "what's exactly what white supremacists believe in" and also avowed white supremacists saying "that's exactly what I/we believe in," that feels pretty open and shut to me.

Well, at least I chased down the source.
Like you're supposed to do.
*Cough* UA *cough*

So it's as I said. Everything that isn't unconditional agreement is "white supremacist talking points. "

There is NO way to articulate any suspicion or doubt that will receive the holy seal of approval. Toe the line, or you are racist.

You can fuck completely the hell off with all of that.

No one is saying that but you. I thought you were against trying to force everything into a for/against binary choice?

But since you're here, could you list some "suspicions" or "doubts" that you think don't also qualify as white supremacist talking points? I'll try to keep an open mind.

a little advice from the master troll. You should do more fucking around with @Jenee . I get your schtick, and you do a job of stirring the pot, but if you want the good froth on the top you have to give it more airy bantor. You are doing the couple thing, which is interesting, and I am trying to help with some fire of my own, but you have to spin the girl more or else the fire will burn her.

Just sayin. I am sure she can take it, but you could really be good if you put some more action into it.

[/trollmaster]

There are, but you suck at this.
There, someone had to say it.
Apparently, I've been chosen.

Stop perpetuating the conservative lie that redefines what CRT actually is. We dont know all of that because we learned about CRT, we know all of that because we learned history. Conservatives and Uncle Albert aren't advocating to get rid of CRT, they are advocating to get rid of a certain part of our history that they consider embarrassing or uncomfortable, or else not worth teaching because it doesn't benefit them directly.

I was cranking up the dial to rattle UA's cage, but correction accepted anyway.

Aw you really do believe that don't you.

Bless.

Y'all fuckin' suck at this. If this thread had been locked after post 25, nothing of value would have been lost.

But is it really because we objectively suck, or it is because the thread was designed by a racist?

Sorry it's systemic.

Keep up your fight for the good guys @Uncle Albert

Think of it like this boss.

You're driving thorough Memphis and your aim is to go to Jackson MS, but someone gives you directions to Jackson TN and you head off on I-40 eastbound. If I learn of your situation and I say "you've got it wrong - you need to be on I-55 southbound" - the fact that the former instructions were in error does NOT in ANY sense imply that the revised instructions are in error to an equal degree in the opposite direction.

It's entirely possible that one of them is actually accurate.

Or again, if you've been told all your life that in the original Star Trek, the character Spock was a half-Romulan and at some point someone says "NO! He was a half-Vulcan!" ... the fact the former story was a lie gives you ZERO information as to whether the new information is accurate. It would take an idiot to conclude "Well now I can't trust either one of them!"

anyone who thinks ANY education in the humanities (and to an extent, even otherwise) is anything OTHER than indoctrination is a hopelessly naive clown. It has never been and can never be otherwise.

Is it possible to teach "John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dealy Plaza, Dallas TX, on November 22, 1963" and STOP?
Yes.
Have you "taught history"?
Fuck no. You cited a bit of trivia.

The question before the educator is, when I present the context surrounding the fact in question, is it an accurate reflection of the context insofar as we can know it - or is it simply what I WANT the student to THINK was the context in order to advance a separate agenda?


To wit:
Literally EVERY document published by a succeeding state declared in the strongest possible terms "we're out because slavery"
After the war, quite a few of those same people were like "NONO! You misunderstood! States rights and stuff, northern aggression, TARIFFS!"

And, given forgiveness for their treason they built a whole god damned alternate history around their lies, wrote them into textbooks, and taught the false narrative to school kids for over a century.

SO

When 21st century historians consider the ACTUAL FUCKING PRIMARY SOURCES and conclude "these bastards were clear that the succeeded over slavery" they are REVISING the previous narrative around that historical event - OMG REVISIONIST HISTORY!

Except they are revising a false claim to an accurate one. That the accurate one is basically the opposite of the lie does NOT mean they are equally "indoctrination" and therefore both are offensive to your noble soul - it is entirely possible, and in fact the case, that one claim reflects ACTUAL GOD DAMN FACTS and the other is a bullshit lie.

IF you, in your righteous indignation, propose to argue that any particular, specific (not generic bullshit propaganda terms like "CRT" but a SPECIFIC) teaching is in error, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate via reliable historical sources that the point in contention is false.

Otherwise, you are no more relevant to the discussion than the dude who tells me Tom Hanks drinks adrenocrome.


ETA...

Pro-tip:
It's possible to be indoctrinated into a accurate understanding of the subject matter. Indoctrination is not, by definition, unethical.