I'm not sure I follow. When Tucker and his friends make an ignorant or deliberately dishonest statement about CRT, and "the left" point out the error, then "the left" is doing the same?
It's not hard to see where your sympathies lie.
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
I'm not sure I follow. When Tucker and his friends make an ignorant or deliberately dishonest statement about CRT, and "the left" point out the error, then "the left" is doing the same?
It's not hard to see where your sympathies lie.
whatithink
GOLD
I agree that life experiences shape our thoughts and influences, be that cultures we are brought up in, or interacted with or adopted or read about etc. I'm not into philosophy, per se, or philosophers at all. So I have no context to comment on what pyramids they may have developed etc.
Generally though I see labels being thrown around constantly, driven to a large extent by the media and politicians for their own ends. So if I state an opinion, someone immediately sticks a label on me, e.g. my colorblind comment apparently means racism to some CRT proponent, which would seem to label me racist (to them) by extension ... although they may be nice and say I'm an unintentional racist. For that example, I would just think, "wtf, they've lost the plot", and carry on, bemused and not very bothered by them.
I underlined the ad hominem part in case you didn't do that on purpose.
I googled the term "post modernist racial theory" and they suggested "postmodernism racial theory" for which the first resulting paragraph is
Adherents of postmodern theory argue that social catego- ries, such as gender, race, and sexuality are socially constructed and that essentialist notions of identity, which suggest that identity is static, natural, and unchanging, are theoretically wrong
Is that what you meant?
You used the term "CRT proponent". Who did you have in mind?
Way to crash into that barn:
1. The right seems to be making CRT (something which is a very specific philosophical difference) a general boogey man.
separately
2. The left is disingenuously saying the only thing they are trying to push is historical facts to make sure racism is talked about. That's not what's going on. Accompanying those facts is a post modernist philosophy that goes along with them. How those facts are to be interpreted
Also on a side note, this was always going to be inevitable. There are only so many hours in the classroom so the discussion of history requires making choices about what you are going to talk about: are you going to talk about western civ or are you going to devote equal time to Asian history? How much on US history v. world history? If AP Euro history why not AP Asia history? Do you talk about great people, great battles, inventions or ordinary folks (knowing if you talk about great people they are mostly rich men since these are the people who rightly or wrongly carried the most influence)? Do I devote a month to African American history (in which case, as with my son's elementary school, everyone else wants a credit too including Latino [don't even get me started on Latinx], Asian, South Asian, Persian, LGBTQ [and then every one of the sub letters], women and those with disabilities)? The philosophies themselves (traditionalism, modernism, postmodernism), representing different ways to view the world, will affect what topics we choose to focus on, how we portray them (since all stories have heroes and villains) and what philosophy we push along side of it. Given the split in the philosophies, the current clash was always inevitable. Even putting a flag on a truck on the 4th of July is now controversial: is it a hostile act in support of Trumpism and repression, is it a showing a patriotism in a nation with an imperfect history but that represents still the pinnacle of democracy, is it a proud act of support for one's country, which should come first and foremost before anything except some exceptions like God.
I don't know where you got it from. I could only outline my understanding, which for the same reasons you stated, I decline to do today.
I wasn't engaging in an ad in an attempt to win an argument. I was merely stating a fact....this is a conversation which is better held face to face (or in the classroom), if you weren't a disagreeable person I would have loved to have pursued it with you as philosophy (as opposed to politics which I can't stand) is one of my prides and joys, but you are a disagreeable person which means I don't want to, and in any case I'm not sure you have the capacity right now to carry on such a conversation (for which despite our disagreements and name callings, you do, as a human being, have my sympathies).
I don't know where you got it from. I could only outline my understanding, which for the same reasons you stated, I decline to do today.
I wasn't engaging in an ad in an attempt to win an argument. I was merely stating a fact....this is a conversation which is better held face to face (or in the classroom), if you weren't a disagreeable person I would have loved to have pursued it with you as philosophy (as opposed to politics which I can't stand) is one of my prides and joys, but you are a disagreeable person which means I don't want to, and in any case I'm not sure you have the capacity right now to carry on such a conversation (for which despite our disagreements and name callings, you do, as a human being, have my sympathies).
[/QUOTE]
I only disagree with you when you are wrong. Most of my responses to your posts are simply attempts to clarify what you mean, which for some reason you feel merit an insult as a response. You can call me all the names you like when you don't have a ready answer. That says more about you than it does about me.
I wasn't engaging in an ad in an attempt to win an argument. I was merely stating a fact....this is a conversation which is better held face to face (or in the classroom), if you weren't a disagreeable person I would have loved to have pursued it with you as philosophy (as opposed to politics which I can't stand) is one of my prides and joys, but you are a disagreeable person which means I don't want to, and in any case I'm not sure you have the capacity right now to carry on such a conversation (for which despite our disagreements and name callings, you do, as a human being, have my sympathies).
[/QUOTE]
I only disagree with you when you are wrong. Most of my responses to your posts are simply attempts to clarify what you mean, which for some reason you feel merit an insult as a response. You can call me all the names you like when you don't have a ready answer. That says more about you than it does about me.
I only disagree with you when you are wrong. Most of my responses to your posts are simply attempts to clarify what you mean, which for some reason you feel merit an insult as a response. You can call me all the names you like when you don't have a ready answer. That says more about you than it does about me.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with your schtick is you disagree without adding anything meaningful in return or taking a position yourself. To say you are trying to clarify is laughable since what you are doing is trying to pull the conversation down tangents so you can troll. It’s why you focus on odd little branches instead of the main line of thought.
As for the names you are the one throwing around the coocoos and nonsense. You are a disagreeable person and I just throw it back at you.
whatithink
GOLD
The reply was a follow on from https://www.socalsoccer.com/threads/bad-news-thread.19412/post-399335.
So these people from that "those pushing CRT (and their associated fellow traveler philosophies, whatever wants to call them these days) are saying. They'd say your colorblindness is actually racism ", whoever they may be.
More interesting than the stupid mask stuff, children under 12 unlikely according to Fauci to be vaccinated before year end.
You are just adding evidence to my theory about the emptiness of your posts.
And you as to my theory of you and how you operate.
Desert Hound
DA
That is indeed the issue with espola. Never taking a position.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hands and knees maybe.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Little by little, common sense is making its return.
Singapore has announced that it will stop counting COVID "cases," and focus entirely on outcomes -- which is what we should have been doing from the start.
We're still tracking them in the U.S., though, and you may have heard that the 7-day case average increased by 25 percent between June 28 and July 11. But the 7-day average of hospitalizations is up just 6.5 percent.
Kyle Lamb provides context for these numbers: across these same dates in 2020, cases rose 41% and hospitalizations (using COVID Tracking Project state census numbers) rose 59%.
Now, instead of 41% and 59%, it's 25% and 6.5%.
In the UK we likewise see a decoupling of cases from deaths
Singapore has announced that it will stop counting COVID "cases," and focus entirely on outcomes -- which is what we should have been doing from the start.
We're still tracking them in the U.S., though, and you may have heard that the 7-day case average increased by 25 percent between June 28 and July 11. But the 7-day average of hospitalizations is up just 6.5 percent.
Kyle Lamb provides context for these numbers: across these same dates in 2020, cases rose 41% and hospitalizations (using COVID Tracking Project state census numbers) rose 59%.
Now, instead of 41% and 59%, it's 25% and 6.5%.
In the UK we likewise see a decoupling of cases from deaths
Here' a position -- you have no idea what you are talking about whenever you mention CRT.
Change my mind.
Hüsker Dü
DA
You seem to be confusing a reaction to a agenda pushing effort to an agenda. IMHO
No…the left has an agenda too. It may not be “crt” (don’t care what you label it) but there is an ideology or ism behind this effort on the left to update the curriculum. In fact I’m sure the right would say they are just reacting to the lefts efforts to push an agenda. When a perspective depends on your partisan bias it’s time to check that bias.
Only you would believe that only one side of this has an agenda and it isn’t yours.
Which is which?
Is CRT an agenda which the right reacted to?
Or is anti-CRT an agenda which the left is reacting to?
Looks like both, at least to me.