Archy1221

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I think it's a real stretch to suggest teaching CRT and teaching that slavery didn't exist are equally bad. Actually it's not a stretch. The suggestion itself is pretty evil.  Maybe someone could help me find the piece of CRT that is so irksome or factually dishonest. 

Just what is critical race theory anyway?

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

 

A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.

 

Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts.

CRT also has ties to other intellectual currents, including the work of sociologists and literary theorists who studied links between political power, social organization, and language. And its ideas have since informed other fields, like the humanities, the social sciences, and teacher education.

 

This academic understanding of critical race theory differs from representation in recent popular books and, especially, from its portrayal by critics—often, though not exclusively, conservative Republicans. Critics charge that the theory leads to negative dynamics, such as a focus on group identity over universal, shared traits; divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups; and urges intolerance.

 

Thus, there is a good deal of confusion over what CRT means, as well as its relationship to other terms, like “anti-racism” and “social justice,” with which it is often conflated.

 

To an extent, the term “critical race theory” is now cited as the basis of all diversity and inclusion efforts regardless of how much it’s actually informed those programs.

 

One conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation, recently attributed a whole host of issues to CRT, including the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, LGBTQ clubs in schools, diversity training in federal agencies and organizations, California’s recent ethnic studies model curriculum, the free-speech debate on college campuses, and alternatives to exclusionary discipline—such as the Promise program in Broward County, Fla., that some parents blame for the Parkland school shootings. “When followed to its logical conclusion, CRT is destructive and rejects the fundamental ideas on which our constitutional republic is based,” the organization claimed.

Does critical race theory say all white people are racist? Isn’t that racist, too?

 

The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism.

Some critics claim that the theory advocates discriminating against white people in order to achieve equity. They mainly aim those accusations at theorists who advocate for policies that explicitly take race into account. (The writer Ibram X. Kendi, whose recent popular book How to Be An Antiracist suggests that discrimination that creates equity can be considered anti-racist, is often cited in this context.)

 

Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified. Among lawyers, teachers, policymakers, and the general public, there are many disagreements about how precisely to do those things, and to what extent race should be explicitly appealed to or referred to in the process.

 

Here’s a helpful illustration to keep in mind in understanding this complex idea. In a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court school-assignment case on whether race could be a factor in maintaining diversity in K-12 schools, Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion famously concluded: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” But during oral arguments, then-justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “It’s very hard for me to see how you can have a racial objective but a nonracial means to get there.”

 

Good thing nobody suggested they are equally bad.  I guess that means no one is evil in that sense.  
 

Neither is good though which you probably agree deep down inside.  

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

It'll never not be funny that a border wall is where people suddenly want the government to be fiscally responsible. It doesn't matter to me if it ever gets built, because it isn't going to solve the problem completely. Though, I think it'd be a reasonable deterrent.

 

No doubt, some people feel that way.

I wonder how people square the thought of a wall being environmentally damaging but 1,000,000 super large windmills are not?  

11 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

A mass migration of unskilled workers might make you feel good, but it brings on it's own set of problems. There's nothing wrong with a secured border, and enforcing reasonable border laws. There's no doubt that many Hispanics are hard working people, looking to build a better life for their families, but like other races, there are plenty of them here only to take advantage of our ridiculously generous welfare system, with no real intentions of being productive members of society.

Here is what Hispanics in a Pew survey think about boarder security.   75% very much or somewhat agree the US needs to increase border security to prevent illegal crossings.  
 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/20/most-latinos-say-u-s-immigration-system-needs-big-changes/ft_2021-04-19_latinos_02a/

34 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I think the confused one here is you. Firstly, I never said you're in favor of teaching a false narrative of history. What I did accuse you of is equating the proposed Oklahoma law to CRT and being a Russian Bot.

 

Here you comment on the original post concerning the Oklahoma law, which aims to limit teaching about Oppressive race and victim race in regards to slavery.

 

In this post, you say that teaching CRT is bad. This is in response to me asking you to clarify what you meant by "both are bad" in the original post concerning the proposed Oklahoma law. This is why I accused you of grouping the proposed Oklahoma law with CRT, because you did it in the post quoted above.

 

Yes you did, in the previous quote. 

 

This brings me to my larger point, the anti-intellectual wing of modern conservativism is dangerous. In this case, anything inconvenient regarding race can be lumped in with a boogeyman like CRT and be banned. This won't stop, the concern is what the new 'CRT' will be.

 

 

For some reason you forgot to include the original post that I responded to which included mentions of both CRT and the slavery teachings.  That’s a very important starting off point to the entire discussion.  Hence the comment from me that both could be bad.  I DID NOT bring CRT into the discussion.  So I’m Not equating or comparing or whatever you want to believe, instead I’m saying both could be bad.  
 

It’s like saying Nebraska special teams is bad and people being a douche on an airplane is bad.  Both can be bad but I’m not equating the two.  
 

Take it up with @Enhance if you think and want to continue accusing me if being a Russian bot and continue that discussion.  

24 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

It's funny because you're equating CRT to any teaching regarding race, and you think it's some evil plot. 

 

You tow the Republican party line so hard I sometimes wonder if you're a Russian bot.

I don’t think anyone really understands what you are talking about at this point.

Whats actually funny is you trying to tell me what I’m equating CRT to when I’ve actually spelled it out in a past discussing with another poster.  Multiple paragraphs on it actually.  So instead of you telling me what I’m saying, why don’t you  just read what I’m actually putting on the site and go from there.  
 

And how you got to this point from me saying both the teaching of a false slavery narrative and the teaching of CRT is quite amazing 

12 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yes!!!  Exactly!

 

If your platform is "this dude lied" you better be ready to shut the f#&% up!

 

thank you for pointing that out.  

 

 

It’s ironic who is actually accusing you of trolling. 

19 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

An off-ramp for the global pandemic. And it happened on Joe Biden's watch. This is great news. 

I don’t really care who’s watch it happened on.  Though I don’t think Biden developed Omicron .  Could be wrong, though doubtful.  Remember he thinks the national government can’t do anything and it’s up to the States. 

14 minutes ago, commando said:

with all the red states fighting the vax mandate tooth and nail.    remember when i said the republicans were fighting the mandates so hard so that joe would fail against covid so they could blame him/    and bam....here they are blaming him.    it was so predictable.

I think you missed the whole point.  
 

candidate Joe says the national government should solve this (when he’s not in charge)

President Joe says it’s actually a State issue and National government can’t stop it. (Now that he’s in charge). 

This would be very good news if it pans out..

Hmm…Interesting perspective now that’s it’s his watch.

2 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Telling students that black people were victims who were oppressed by white people isn't CRT. That's a simple fact of history

Ya no kidding.  I never said it was CRT. 
 

What I did say was that teaching a lesson that insinuates slavery didn’t exist or wasn’t as bad as it actually was is bad.  Full stop.  
 

next point of what I said is teaching CRT is bad.  Full stop.   I never once equated the two together other than to say both teachings are bad.  Why are you trying so so hard to say that I think they are related in other ways?   It’s a thing you constantly do and still never makes sense.  
 

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

What you said is "both" are bad.

 

Which implies yes, slavery is bad, but also that it's taught in a way that you think is bad.

 

So, please, clarify what you meant by "both are bad".

Both as in teaching slavery didn’t exist in the form that it actually did exist and teaching CRT.  Both are bad. 

Santa’s magic and immune from Covid just as he was immune from the Plague, small pox, measles, etc.. .   Thought everyone already knew this

8 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Care to elaborate?  Was this in response to the post about slavery?

 

Because it was absolutely about one race oppressing a victim race. There are hundreds of years of laws documenting it. 

Ya, I understand the history of slavery.  Kinda why I said it’s bad

Could be both are bad.  Doesn’t have to be an either or. 

20 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

college is going to be more and more only for the affluent

Only if you pick the wrong path to a college education, which we have shown multiple times.  

5 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

That’s a fair point. Our government wastes a ton of taxpayer money on numerous things. But it’s not hypocritical to object to the items we might have some control over. I am not for any of those things but I am a little resigned to accepting some of them as just being the way things are. If all of it was eliminated, we could be taxed less and keep more of our money. That might make education and everything more affordable.

 

One of my biggest objections to things like forgiving student loans is for fairly selfish reasons. It’s not a benefit anyone in my family ever got to take  advantage of. Why should I pay taxes to help forgive others debt or this huge child tax credit that was just implemented. That’s another one I’ll never benefit from. Seems they always start this s#!t after we’ve already fully paid our own way. I’d probably be for some of this crap if I or my family could ever benefit from it but as it is I am against it. Tired of paying my own way and then being taxed to pay the way for others too. Our school loans were not forgiven and we’ve already paid them ourselves. We got by paying for everything when we had kids so why should I kick in now so others can have it easier (talking about the recently enacted child tax credits). When do I get some of the government dole? If they forgive student loans now, wouldn’t it only be fair to also reimburse those of us who didn’t have it forgiven?

Some of what he said isn’t really comparable to the idea of eliminating student loan debt.  Bailing out banks, yes it is because they accumulated the debt like the students did.  
Oil gets subsidies just like farmers.  This isn’t them taking on debt and having it eliminated.  Though I wish we would eliminate the licking of winners and losers here too.  Buying military equipment is in no way the same as eliminating student loan debt, but we can agree that military waste is definitely prevalent.  
 

I’m gonna make an educated guess though and say that if all those things were eliminated, our politicians could find some other stupid thing or things to waste our money on instead of lowering our taxes.  I wish what you said is what would happen though. 

32 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Over/under on the amount of HB members on HB that have Asperger’s.

 

I’ll set the line at at least a bazillion!

 

Everyone is so damn “literal” it’s ridiculous!

There isn’t a bazillion HB members.

<insert cute cat gif> 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

That kid didn’t  get millions for “staring at an Indian”

Not sure what’s funny, he got millions for being unjustly disparaged by news agency’s. 

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And it shouldn’t be on the tax payers if you make the wrong choice. 

Agree. 

26 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ok, so there is zero debt and $100,000 debt. So the grey area is $30,000-60,000?

 

And they can’t pay that off and they saddled with huge debt the rest of their lives?

 

Still don’t okie how someone comes out with that much debt for under grad…..but ok. 

I think we have both shown that it’s more than possible to get through school without “life crushing debt”. As a matter of fact, we’ve shown ways to get through with school with very minimal debt.  Others have shown ways to get through school with life crushing debt.  At this point it seems to be a personal choice on which path to choose.    

14 hours ago, commando said:

if that kid can get millions for staring at the indian.....these workers should hit the jackpot.

That kid didn’t  get millions for “staring at an Indian”

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

First, you're only looking at tuition and not the total cost. Second, while it's great for residents of Kansas, not everyone grew up there. You're picking a specific example and assuming that can apply everywhere, but it doesn't apply everywhere and doesn't address the issue of how some students can rack up $100k+ of debt.

First, on-line school doesn’t add additional living expenses.  Those expenses are already occurring whether someone goes to school or not.   That’s different than moving on campus and incurring additional living expenses. 
Second, you don’t have to live in Kansas to get that on-line rate so yes it applies everywhere so it does address the issue. 

44 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

So you indeed cannot show what you're claiming

On-line tuition costs for the University from my home town.  $227 times 15 = $3405per semester.  $3405 X 2 = $6810.   If someone can’t figure out how to pay $6,810 by working during school or…taking out the maximum amount of $6810 X 4= $27,240 in loans.  Who can’t pay back $27,000 in loans after getting a four year degree?  There ya go.  And that’s just one option of doing things.  

https://www.fhsu.edu/sfs/students_parents/tuition/fy22-tuition-and-fees.pdf

Degree programs. 
 

https://www.fhsu.edu/online/degrees/