Should Critical Race Theory be taught in our schools? (Baghdad, communist, revolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Frankly, my dear, how is channeling Joe McCarthy helpful?
The literal author, and one of the founders, of Critical Race Theory: An Introduction talking about their very first meeting.
Who is gaslighting who? Who is lying straight to your face and trying to tell you what you’re seeing isn’t happening? Worse even than that, who is demanding you pay them for their lies? Who is demanding that you support their “movement” (read:revolution) while they plot your demise?
The literal author, and one of the founders, of Critical Race Theory: An Introduction talking about their very first meeting.
Who is gaslighting who? Who is lying straight to your face and trying to tell you what you’re seeing isn’t happening? Worse even than that, who is demanding you pay them for their lies? Who is demanding that you support their “movement” (read:revolution) while they plot your demise?
Thank you for this. Sorry I could not rep you again. Your contributions to this thread have been very helpful.
Can you please send a link to the entire interview if you have it readily available? (My apologies if you already posted it and I missed it.)
P.S. on Edit: I did find this, however, and I will see if I can order a used copy.
ADDED TO EDIT: The used copies I found started at almost $60, so I ordered a new and updated copy from B&N at $17.99. Even though I hated adding to the writers' profit, even by a dollar or so, I think it is important to go to the source wherever possible.
Last edited by katharsis; 07-01-2021 at 07:51 AM..
The literal author, and one of the founders, of Critical Race Theory: An Introduction talking about their very first meeting.
Who is gaslighting who? Who is lying straight to your face and trying to tell you what you’re seeing isn’t happening? Worse even than that, who is demanding you pay them for their lies? Who is demanding that you support their “movement” (read:revolution) while they plot your demise?
The gaslighting is the movement to ban teaching an honest accounting of American history.
It's a reactionary movement bent on reasserting whitewashed American myths, the Lost Cause mythologies amongst others, & is feckless propaganda masquerading as history.
Rather than a 'Red Scare' it's 'Scaring the Red States' & the 'Gaslighting Old Party'.
The gaslighting is the movement to ban teaching an honest accounting of American history.
It's a reactionary movement bent on reasserting whitewashed American myths, the Lost Cause mythologies amongst others, & is feckless propaganda masquerading as history.
Rather than a 'Red Scare' it's 'Scaring the Red States' & the 'Gaslighting Old Party'.
Notice how when they have to face unpleasant facts that fly in the face of accusations they just made, they switch it up and try to move back to a position that’s much easier to defend (because they literally got out in their lying place). This is called the Motte and Bailey tactic of debate and it’s fallacious and deceptive. These people think it allows them to make the most outlandish claims that fly in the face of unpleasant facts thrown in their face and when challenged they move the goalpost and change their argument to one that is sort of like the previous argument but attempts to broaden the generalization.
And this is their entire debate tactic:
Quote:
One of the difficulties of getting people to behave better epistemically is that, whilst intellectual dishonesty is wrong, it is difficult to convict people of intellectual wrongs. As David Stove showed in his wonderful paper ‘What is Wrong with Our Thoughts?’ (The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies Chapter 7 ), there are indefinitely many ways of cheating intellectually and for most there is no simple way to put one’s finger on how the cheat is effected. There is just the hard work of describing the species in detail.
For my original purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents philosophical propositions with similar properties: desirable to their proponents but only lightly defensible. The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed.
Diagnosis of a philosophical doctrine as being a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is invariably fatal. Once made it is relatively obvious to those familiar with the doctrine that the doctrine’s survival required a systematic vacillation between exploiting the desired territory and retreating to the Motte when pressed. Clearly, the diagnosis is not confined to philosophical doctrines: others may suffer the same malady.
Bailey:
“America is systemically racist and is governed by racist white people who perpetuate white supremacy!”
Motte:
“We just want to teach an accurate history.”
“I literally just showed you were the person who wrote the foreword in CRT: An Introduction where she explicitly says the ideological critique is to stir emotions and foment rage for political and economic change via something other than elections?!”
“That’s not real CRT!”
“They’re not a legal scholar so they’re not CRTs.”
They’re not teaching college level courses to children!”
Their entire platform is based on lying to your face until they’ve gained enough power so they no longer have to lie. Who knows how disgusting these people really are?
Thank you, and in reading it . . . WOW. Here are some selected excerpts from that link that "blew me away." (When reading, remember this interview took place n 2010.) These excerpts are in order from how they appear in the link and they are all exact QUOTES, with my italics:
[SNIP]
"DELGADO: [snip] Teachers believe that they treat their students equally. [snip] If you analyze the content, the ideology, the curriculum, the textbooks, the teaching methods, they are the same. [snip] Critical race theory is in some ways livelier in education right now than it is in law, where it is a mature movement that has settled down by comparison."
[SNIP]
"DELGADO: Obama seems to have good instincts about what to do, and people of diverse groups - including Muslims outside the U.S. and other similar groups-are more open to him than they were to his predecessors. But it is still questionable whether the President will fully exploit the advantages he has.[snip] Right now, America is in a weakened state, with only so much international power to use in shaping other countries' actions. It seems doubtful that Obama will use his remaining power of persuasion to pursue human rights issues when he has to worry about domestic economic problems every day."
[MAJOR SNIP]
"STEFANCIC: We still are not able to see how much his symbolic power will be limited by the reality of his position. What he is able to do, the important legacy he can create, relates to the space he can open up for other reformers to work." [snip]
[MAJOR SNIP]
"STEFANCIC: [snip] Minority scholars realize that if they offend their colleagues by taking too outspoken a stand in favor of immigration, say, or criticizing the government's agenda in the area of torture and human rights, it can comeback to haunt them at tenure time."[snip]
"DELGADO: And a third type of self-censorship sets in when one writes, as many of us do, for a dominantly white audience. [snip] We think it is a mistake for a minority scholar to write too much of his or her work with a white audience in mind. If you do, you end up pulling your punches and choosing words and topics that will resonate with your audience."[snip]
END QUOTES.
Last edited by katharsis; 07-01-2021 at 08:15 AM..
The gaslighting is the movement to ban teaching an honest accounting of American history.
It's a reactionary movement bent on reasserting whitewashed American myths, the Lost Cause mythologies amongst others, & is feckless propaganda masquerading as history.
Rather than a 'Red Scare' it's 'Scaring the Red States' & the 'Gaslighting Old Party'.
What's an "Honest Account of American History?"
Is that like "Common sense gun laws?"
You think Hate-America marxists are going to provide an "Honest" account?
Thank you, and in reading it . . . WOW. Here are some selected excerpts from that link that "blew me away." (When reading, remember this interview took place n 2010.) These excerpts are in order from how they appear in the link and they are all exact QUOTES, with my italics:
"DELGADO: [snip] Teachers believe that they treat their students equally. [snip] If you analyze the content, the ideology, the curriculum, the textbooks, the teaching methods, they are the same. [snip] Critical race theory is in some ways livelier in education right now than it is in law, where it is a mature movement that has settled down by comparison."
"DELGADO: Obama seems to have good instincts about what to do, and people of diverse groups - including Muslims outside the U.S. and other similar groups-are more open to him than they were to his predecessors. But it is still questionable whether the President will fully exploit the advantages he has.[snip] Right now, America is in a weakened state, with only so much international power to use in shaping other countries' actions. It seems doubtful that Obama will use his remaining power of persuasion to pursue human rights issues when he has to worry about domestic economic problems every day."
[MAJOR SNIP]
"STEFANCIC: We still are not able to see how much his symbolic power will be limited by the reality of his position. What he is able to do, the important legacy he can create, relates to the space he can open up for other reformers to work." [snip]
[MAJOR SNIP]
"STEFANCIC: [snip] Minority scholars realize that if they offend their colleagues by taking too outspoken a stand in favor of immigration, say, or criticizing the government's agenda in the area of torture and human rights, it can comeback to haunt them at tenure time."[snip]
"DELGADO: And a third type of self-censorship sets in when one writes, as many of us do, for a dominantly white audience. [snip] We think it is a mistake for a minority scholar to write too much of his or her work with a white audience in mind. If you do, you end up pulling your punches and choosing words and topics that will resonate with your audience."[snip]
END QUOTES.
If they were doing law I’d be fine with that. They call themselves a “movement of activist and scholars.”
I’m not sure why anyone who knows anything about Marx would need any more information. This is called praxis, theory in practice.
So the parents, and probably scholarships maybe even most scholarships since they all are doctorates at the philosophical level, paid to create “activist scholars” (read: revolutionaries). The. The “activist scholars” went on to entering into the workforce and K-12 education where now it seems none of them want to talk much about that “activist scholarship” and their Marxist leanings. They know why and they know exactly what they’re doing.
I can nuance and I can even see positive things in Marxian thought but if the people pushing that ideological POV are deceptive in their tactics then what is one to assume about all of their other motives? If their ideas are so great why did they never once present them as a running platform when they ran for office? Instead they run on something completely opposite and then when in power they institute their radical agenda.
Read the thread. You just wasted your time telling us what some other group of people think CRT is. Why do you ignore the actual scholars and instead copy and paste from a third party source? And the anger. Why are all the people who know CRT so well but aren’t “for it” so angry?
For anyone that reads this this thread has more than sufficient quotes and links to back up the quotes from the people that wrote the books and created the “movement.” Don’t take some random newbie’s copy and paste from some website that is not directly from the people who founded the ideology.
I get it that in the circles of people who traffic in this sort of self-absorbed bull**** rhetoric, the production this kind of pseudo-intellectual double-speak is highly prized and among the highest forms of virtue signaling.
Also known as continental philosophy. Not to be confused with analytic philosophy.
The former is geared towards sociology and politics and generally derided outside of its circles as pointless or obscurantist. The latter is more geared towards science and mathematics, and more rigorous, but suffered last century with the collapse of empiricism.
Dialectic in this context refers to dialectical logic, proposed by continental philosophers as a challenge to formal logic.
Quote:
The law of dialectical logic is contradiction. This, however, is not destructive; on the contrary, the opposites constitute a whole. The whole is not only different from its contradictory moments, but also more than them. It is another, third thing in which opposites are in a systematic relation with each other. If only A is for B and B is for A there is systematicity in their unity.
In other words, it isn't just ethics and aesthetics (politics and culture) in which left and right refuse to see eye-to-eye.
The leadership on both sides subscribe to fundamentally different conceptions of logic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
