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.
No. It's an academic legal theory for critical examination of laws and how they got there.
Contrary to what ever you've read - ESPECIALLY here - it only exists in law school.
Everything you are reading that is "white guilt" or what ever else the conservative media is pushing this week is just that, the latest talking point to energize their base. Ask yourself, why wasn't this a talking point in 1978 when Delgado wrote the critical race theory book. We've had 42 years of CRT being taught and only now it's a talking point?
Because obviously there is a topic and there is how that topic is taught. While technically it can be argued that what is being taught outside of select higher educational venues is not CRT, but, that doesn't mean key concepts of CRT can not be used to push a specific agenda. That the two get intertwined, or that the latter gets labeled as the former, is an outcome of this approach.
It would be similar to racist anglo folks using aspects of Darwinism to push the agenda that blacks are mentally inferiour. The issue isn't with Darwin, it what aspects are focused on, how it's presented, and the agenda of those who are teaching it.
No. It's an academic legal theory for critical examination of laws and how they got there.
Contrary to what ever you've read - ESPECIALLY here - it only exists in law school.
Everything you are reading that is "white guilt" or what ever else the conservative media is pushing this week is just that, the latest talking point to energize their base. Ask yourself, why wasn't this a talking point in 1978 when Delgado wrote the critical race theory book. We've had 42 years of CRT being taught and only now it's a talking point?
The right has definitely used the term as a cover-all very every leftist idea around race that is out there.
But it doesn't really matter whether you want to call "White Fragility" and "How to be an anti-racist" "critical race theory" or the "new religion of anti-racism" (as coined by John McWhorter), they are harmful ideas which do have roots in Marxism.
The media bandwagon jumping on these ideas post Floyd, and having a sitting Presidents press secretary refer to "police violence" and "systemic racism" after the Ma'Khia Bryant justified police shooting proves that these aren't just college radical ideas that you get away from when you leave the Universities.
This kind of whacked out distortion of language and justice is unhealthy for a society. As much as I've always despised the talk radio and right wing twitter audience and their ability to parrot anything their media heroes say, in this case I have to pick the lesser of 2 evils.
I voted against the abomination that is Trump, I will now vote against the overt racialization course that the Democrats have decided to take.
No. It's an academic legal theory for critical examination of laws and how they got there.
Contrary to what ever you've read - ESPECIALLY here - it only exists in law school.
Everything you are reading that is "white guilt" or what ever else the conservative media is pushing this week is just that, the latest talking point to energize their base. Ask yourself, why wasn't this a talking point in 1978 when Delgado wrote the critical race theory book. We've had 42 years of CRT being taught and only now it's a talking point?
Forget "taught." It's being APPLIED, if you want to mince words. Like any Leftist would do, you're intentionally zeroing in on a particular word in order to invalidate the overall point being made, which is pretty obvious.
And don't challenge that it's being applied in real life. If I have to dig up the numerous threads on this board, along with the myriad of YT videos showing it happening, then I'm going to go out my way to embarrass you over it.
Maybe you've lived your life in a classroom, or maybe you're just being disingenuous, but this BS doesn't stand, any more. Either expose yourself to the real world or start being honest about what you're seeing.
No. It's an academic legal theory for critical examination of laws and how they got there.
Contrary to what ever you've read - ESPECIALLY here - it only exists in law school.
Everything you are reading that is "white guilt" or what ever else the conservative media is pushing this week is just that, the latest talking point to energize their base. Ask yourself, why wasn't this a talking point in 1978 when Delgado wrote the critical race theory book. We've had 42 years of CRT being taught and only now it's a talking point?
wow. hard to believe that leftists still aren't too ashamed to keep pushing this blatant lie..
It's actually teaching white supremacy. Only the superior ones are in a position to oppress, and be guilty when they use their strength to harm others.
The Africans did lose to the strength of the white man, so did the Indians and all the natives where the white men colonized during European imperialism. The slaves lost.
CRT teaches that not only did Africans lose, but black people continued to lose throughout American history and today they are still losing.
No. It's an academic legal theory for critical examination of laws and how they got there.
Contrary to what ever you've read - ESPECIALLY here - it only exists in law school.
Everything you are reading that is "white guilt" or what ever else the conservative media is pushing this week is just that, the latest talking point to energize their base. Ask yourself, why wasn't this a talking point in 1978 when Delgado wrote the critical race theory book. We've had 42 years of CRT being taught and only now it's a talking point?
See what I mean by propaganda. Apparently the teacher’s unions needed $5 million dollars to defend something that “isn’t even taught in K-12.”
Think of it like this if it helps. The Grievance Study Affairs is the left’s Pentagon Papers.
The left wing positions will not make any sense until you’ve familiarized yourself with Critical Social Justice sufficiently. Then you realize Critical Theory and specifically CRT is their playbook. It was their “war manual.”
Now does it make anymore sense as to why they’re so loathed to admit to it?
They don’t have another playbook and they’ve spent a hundred years fine tuning this one. Does anyone really think they came up with all these Kafkatraps, fallacious arguments and linguistic traps last year? No, they fine tuned the ideology every single time valid criticism is thrown at them. They are lawyers, psychologist, scholars, activist, etc. after all.
The best example of this so far was James Lindsay simply writing 2+2=4. The CSJ types went mad. Never mind that Lindsay has a doctorate in math. What they did after that was nothing short of a large Twitter mob seeking out any authority to justify their position that 2+2 can really equal anything since we socially construct our language and meanings. They eventually got an academic to respond and that just spiraled out of control.
CSJ is making conversations and debates impossible. It ties people’s identities to politics and requires that identity be at the forefront of anyone speaking (live experience, standpoint epistemology, positionality) they can voice their opinions. Now do you understand why people put their pronouns in their bios and why they go through their entire past before they even write anything else in a research paper. They soundly reject anyone who is not “properly” positioned.
And here is why these conversations are impossible in an end sum conflict theory Marxian assessment.
Quote:
Humans have been able to successfully inhabit almost all of the earth's natural environments. Similar to all other organisms, we are still motivated by primordial instincts, among them the drive to propagate our DNA to the limits of possibility (72). DNA is clearly important for the inheritance of traits, but any process or activity which contributes to parent-offspring resemblance within populations has potential evolutionary relevance.
The only peaceful course forward is “colorblindness” that is built in to the constitution. It’s also why the very first paragraph of CRT: An Intro says:
Quote:
Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
That is diametrically opposed to the US Constitution. Of course that can be changed through the legislature. But the radical left didn’t go that route. Why?
Because they have to pull the foundation of the country out from under it some other way other than through a democratic process. In their words “the master’s tools will not dismantle the master’s house.”
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.
