The implosion of the Democratic Party thread

I have been fairly consistent with stating that CRT is concept developed by legal scholars and most commonly taught in law schools (with probably some exceptions for the undergraduate level, depending on the particular course). I admittedly don't fully understand CRT because I haven't taken any courses that cover CRT. Your admitted ignorance of a particular concept does not mean it is an undefined concept. My understanding is that CRT has existed as a concept for decades, it's based on the critical theory school of thought, and it generally looks at the interrelation of cultural and legal structures compared to race issues. In some instances, discriminatory outcomes are not based on overt, individual decisions, but are due to broader cultural and legal structures. Some US Supreme Court decisions have even touched on this area when certain laws are facially neutral but racially discriminatory in practice.

Up until the anti-CRT crowd made this an issue, it wasn't an issue; and if it was an issue, it was among legal scholars, not parents of kindergarteners. No one is trying to teach CRT at a K-12 level (or at least not what CRT actually is), and if they are, it would be foolish because a student would need to understand several other foundational concepts in constitutional law (among other areas) to learn about CRT. Based on what anti-CRT activists are saying, they come across as wanting to ban teaching particular parts in US history regarding racism. That's where the "they want to ban history" argument comes from--not because CRT is history, but because the anti-CRT crowd seems to think CRT is about any history of racism and they want it banned for that reason.

Regarding your last statement ("browbeat a captive audience into submission"), I would need to see a more specific example of what you're talking about.

Everything is a dog whistle, everyone is racist. It can’t possibly be anything else.

It's real simple: certain people led by Christopher Rufo have deliberately conflated critical race theory with a whole host of concepts, some of which should be taught, others of which should not. The actual thing that CRT used to refer to is not taught in any K-12 school. That should be the end of it, regardless of what it is. But it's not. Rufo has engaged in a PR campaign to repurpose the name to conflate it with: teaching that white people should feel guilt for the actions of their ancestors (bad, but not actually taught anywhere); less sanitized versions of American history than have traditionally been taught, which vary from merely better framing of already taught events -- eg. more about Grant's support of the Freedman's Bureau than his drinking, framing Reconstruction as a good thing rather than a bad one, etc. -- to the 1619 Project Curriculum which paints slavery and racism as central motivations for much of American history including the Revolution (which isn't entirely wrong, but is overly reductive and not necessarily useful either), and several levels in between (eg. actually teaching that Wilson was a huge racist, teaching about the race riots of the 1920s and 30s, etc); and various other "things conservatives don't like".

This isn't some grand conspiracy theory either, this is literally what he publicly said on Twitter that he was doing. I think that was even posted in this thread.

So in the original sense of the term, CRT doesn't belong in K12 schools, but it wasn't there to begin with. In the sense that conservatives are using it, it means something completely different, but Democrats are too stupid to figure out how to counter the conflation, and thus point out how the anti-CRT movement is partly pointless, partly lying, partly wrong, and containing just enough of something that might be truthful if you squint hard enough. Which I mean in the nicest possible way; it's a hard lie to counter, and my whole essay there doesn't fit in a campaign ad. But you should be fuming mad at this dude for trying to turn a well-defined concept into a nebulous basket of grievances that can't be easily refuted due to the confusion it causes.

I don't have firsthand knowledge of CRT because I haven't taken any courses or read any academic articles on the subject. But I know enough to know what CRT is, and it's not what @Federal Farmer and @Uncle Albert are pretending it is.

Edit: I'm also not claiming that someone without a law school education could never understand what CRT is--just that it helps understand certain fundamental concepts.

And it's a pretty great linguistic trap. Say that "CRT isn't taught in K12 schools", they point out all the rest of the things its being conflated with actually are (except the white guilt bit). Point out that's not CRT, and the obvious responses are "well I don't want them teaching my kids to feel guilty anyway". Point out that they're not being taught to feel guilty, and they point out how the other curricula are being taught so since it's all CRT, the white guilt thing must be too. Point out that that doesn't follow and their eyes glaze over. Teasing apart accidentally confused concepts is hard enough. Teasing apart deliberately conflated concepts is much harder, particularly when you have the entirety of the right-wing media landscape shilling for that conflation.

That's been the primary conservative media strategy for at least as long as I've been alive.

Fisherman's Worf is "an actual bona-fide lawyer" in the same way that Dayton Kitchens is "an actual bona-fide history teacher".

Definitely not. Some people against "CRT" are racist, some are power hungry and conniving. I imagine Christopher Rufo, for instance, is merely Machiavellian, and simply doesn't care one way or the other about racism.

The rest are rubes. You're most definitely a rube. And yes, it can't possibly be anything else but that. There's a paper trail.

EDIT: you know, what, there's partisans too, who'll believe in anything the Republican party tells them to. But you go to great lengths to tell us how you're not a Republican, so rube it is.

Lately I'm finding myself of the opinion that FF doesn't believe most the partisan bullshit he repeats, especially when it comes to things like CRT when the truth has been painstakingly laid out in front of him more than once. He knowingly and happily spreads lies and misinformation because he thinks doing so "owns the libs," and that's far more important to him than the truth. It's the equivalent of telling "yo momma" jokes to bully an awkward classmate. It's not about whether that kids mom is really obese or not, it's about making that kid cry on the playground.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_partisanship

I guess Trump never committed the cardinal sin of telling UA to do anything he didn't want to do.

Whiteness is a deal with the devil. Am I evil due to the color of my skin? Here:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you disabled? I'd think you of all people would understand the concept of structures and systems that weren't necessarily intended to fuck over certain people turning out to fuck over certain people.

Rube.

Please don't compare my bones to Dayton's.

Fisherman’s Worf is “Bones” in the same way that Dayton Kitchens “likes” Star Trek.

You're right, I don't like it when my bones are made by J.J. Abrams.

Karl Urban disagrees.

Glenn Youngkin's Underage Son Tried to Vote in Virginia Governor's Election, Officials Say

Spoiler alert: he tried at least twice.

Wait holy shit does this mean @Federal Farmer is Glenn Youngkin's son?

FTFY

If extremists were in control of the Democratic Party, Bernie would have been nominated as the presidential candidate. The 1% are in control of both parties.

This, This, and more This.

How is it that you can be so perceptive yet ...

Romantic love is the destruction of both men and women. If I ever find cupid I will kill him quickly and as painfully as possible.

only if you teach history honestly and with some depth.

Just wanted to give a shout out to @14thDoctor @Fisherman's Worf and @Order2Chaos for taking the time to try and explain CRT to FF, UA and RM even knowing their questions weren’t in good faith and would likely (and were) completely ignored.

The old adage if you are explaining you are losing is especially true with CRT. The vast majority of Republicans believe CRT is an elementary school curriculum designed to teach white kids they are the devil. This is completely absurd, but no matter how much you try to explain that it will never set in. So for me, I say Republicans are advocating censorship and they hate American history. It’s like they want to put our children at a disadvantage.

It's not a physical disability, but there's a definite lack of self-awareness.