Post-Trump GOP

A. Who's doing that? I have seen in this forum in the last week McCarthy hailed as righteous. Scary.
B. I think the trump base would fit into that category. 35%? Many here would fit into that category and you know it.

 

This is why Trump is useful:

 

When it's being preached to kids in schools, colleges, and practiced culturally, the fear is well-founded. You

I'll condemn those people all day long. I rip AC every chance I get. However, people like him have no power. They can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first. Cultural Marxists at the New York Times and on college campuses do. A Supreme Court that doesn't care what the law says has great power and far more dangerous than kooks like AC.

 

I for one, am truly anxious to see how they spin the Harris visit to El Paso. I’ll bet the pictures will be amazingly staged, surprised we haven’t heard Beto will be there.

 

I disagree. No one wants "communism". It's fear mongering for the base. Just like critical race theory. If your public school child is being taught critical race theory you should be thankful as it's only taught in law school or a masters social work curriculum. Banning CRT is like banning trigonometry in grade school.

 

You're blind. If you look at the actual agenda of BLM and Ibram X Kendi, it's really bad and dangerous ****. Just because some characterizations of communism are fear mongering doesn't mean all are.

Just FYI - even in law school CRT is kooky. It's not a serious part of the curriculum. And no, it's not like banning trig. It's more like banning astrology but a lot more dangerous because it's actually taken seriously.

 

People act like any aspect of socialism is a gateway drug to communism. Unless it's corporate bail outs and farm subsidies.

So, you'd agree it's not taught in secondary schools?

 

No. There is something different about what these people advocate. It's not like wanting single payer healthcare or farm subsidies.

No, and that's a stupid argument. A concept can be taught at the highest level in one institution while its principles are taught and applied in lower institutions at more elementary levels. For example, Constitutional Law is taught in law school, but its basic concepts are also taught in a high school government class.

 

They may not be gateway drugs but it is the slowly boiling pot with the frog in it. If you are going to cook that frog you have to boil him gradually.

 

What exactly do you think is being "preached" and "practiced"? How long have you been in Europe again?

It seems that conservatives are now upset that kids are being taught "critical thinking" skills in school because that's the lens with which race, history and ancillary programs are being taught in schools/colleges. If that leads people to be more open to socialist concepts then maybe we all need to look harder at the current systems we have in place, notably Capitalism.

To add some levity I got a chuckle out of this meme making the rounds:

 

Thinking "critical theory" is critical thinking is a complete misunderstanding of the facts. Critical theory teaches to accept strict dogmatic statements about society.

Critical thinking leads people to value freedom and free markets.

Critical theory is a pseudo-religion that leads people to mental slavery and government tyranny.

 

Does it? Or does it force one to think about dogmatic statements they've been taught in the past? I'd urge you to sit through a "Bias awareness" class or look at how race awareness are being taught in school. My experience is that it's not what the right is claiming.

No more than the teaching of "patriotism", "capitalism", and other views of history core to school curriculum in the 80's. It's indoctrination. Now they are simply saying "here is the curriculum but look for the bias, question".

 

I know exactly what they are teaching in schools. It isn't bias awareness. It is a strict dogma that is destructive of society. I am a free speech advocate but this is one thought I would consider banning completely. I wouldn't go that far though.

However, states dictate school curricula. They have the decision of what to teach and what not to teach. States have every right to decide that Cultural Marxism won't be taught in their schools. ISDs have every right to decide that Cultural Marxism won't be taught in their schools.

Critical thinking is more of a classical liberal education. Logic. Rhetoric. History. Philosophy. Etc. I also think some revisionist history should be taught which appropriately questions bias or error. Then students should be taught how to weigh different thoughts and debate through details to find the best stance.

That isn't Critical Race Theory. It teaches that white supremacy is endemic even when it isn't seen and that any attempt by white people to defend themselves or disagree that they are racist themselves is itself racism. You are guilty based on your race and there is no way to change your guilt. It is a demonic, evil theory that by its own bias and error should be thrown in the intellectual dust bin.

You don't really understand what CRT is. I have first hand seen training that is given in schools. It isn't what you are describing. Someone is lying to you.

 

I've read about what was pushed in Southlake, Texas and other localities. It's terrible stuff whether your kid is white or black. It's not critical thinking. It's injecting racial assumptions about institutions and people (against facts and evidence) into the curriculum. It's the opposite of the positive themes of the civil rights movement. I wouldn't want it from David Duke, and I don't want it from Ibram X Kendi. It's corrupt, and some facets of it likely violate the 14th Amendment and civil rights legislation that was crafted back when racial equality was the goal and intentions were better. They are considering bringing it into DoDEA, and if they do, my kid will be gone. We'll find a private British school, or I'll homeschool him.

The problem with this meme is that it presumes a false equivalence. The people laboring in medieval Europe had basically no upward mobility. People in the United States largely do. How many in medieval Europe had access to free education, scholarship funds, and credit to allow them to go to college? How easily could one start his own business?

Furthermore, though I have my criticisms of some of the richest in America and would stipulate that they've all done sleazy things at times, they are not like the wealthy in medieval Europe, who were wealthy largely because of who they were and what families they were born into. (In other words, they were wealthy for somewhat similar reasons that people in socialist countries are wealthy.) Guys like Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Gates had to do very big things to become billionaires. It wasn't just handed to them. Starting Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft and guiding them into being global giants is a big deal, and at times the government actively fought them. They did have to work hard and undoubtedly struggled at times.

Hell, look at pictures of Bill Gates as a kid. Think that dude didn't get his lunch money stolen more often than not? Lol.

 

Good post.

Actually using critical thinking skills to compare Medieval society to modern capitalism would bring you to the conclusion that the difference is that anyone in today's system can become well-to do or even rich, which was not the case under the feudal system. As Deez said, no one is caste in a fixed position.

The good news about socialism and capitalism is that you don't have to examine dogmatic statements. You can actually look at the factual results of the two systems. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other socio-economic system. Socialism has impoverished and killed a couple hundred million people or more. For the latest example, see Venezuela. Even if Libs are not smart enough to understand the economic reality of incentives and constraints, I'm at a loss to understand why Democrats cannot understand that simple fact that the results of the two systems of allocating scarce resources have wildly, and deadly, different results, and continue to espouse the greatness of Socialism. The definition of capitalism is "a price coordinated system of allocating limited resources". Nowhere in the definition of Capitalism does it state to act in a prejudiced manner toward somebody's skin color. In fact, it shows that doing so would actually make you worse off. If you do not hire a more qualified minority, your company is probably going to be worse off.

SH is stuck on dumb when it comes to income differences (as well as the repeated mistake of comparing today's society with past societies). To him, it is always society's fault that someone cannot "get ahead", but he always has the unspoken assumption that someone's success was magically bestowed upon him. As Deez points out, people like Gates are not feudal lords that inherited land via primogeniture. They are innovative leaders that worked endless hours to the exclusion of all other activities. In Gates' case that even included personal hygiene while he was coding. Those innovators did take monstrous risks, including dropping out of Harvard, to pursue the development and market viability of an, as yet, unknown product.

Bias training is unreliable. IAT testing is not a scientifically reliable measure of how people act, and it is falsely used to show that people are racists because that benefits the user of the tests. It has also been proven that bias training creates more bias.

 

A. Bannon says the quiet part out loud. https://news.yahoo.com/stephen-bannon-thinks-gop-could-210509904.html
B. What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack? This is an interesting piece. The point is that you may be in violation of the anti CRT laws by teaching history on topics such as chatel slavery, the Trail of Tears, and Jim Crow laws; or even a book by a black author. They use the word "chilling".

The fight about CRT in public schools is nothing more than fear mongering under option A above. So, keep ******* that chicken!

 

Anything that leads children to believe others should be given money is indoctrination.

We all know about racism in America. We all know about slavery. We all know about Jim Crow. We all know about lynchings. So what is left? To bludgeon white people today into thinking they have a mental disorder. If there is subtle racism in every white person, then yes, I can agree in theory it's bad. But it's not just white people. It's the human race. Looking down on others is commonplace. The majority abusing it's power is commonplace. Not wanting to work all your life so your family is not a burden on society just to pay people for something that happened long ago is normal rational thought.

I equate CRT with reparations. I'd be ok if we merely taught children that the human mind is very fragile and the horrors of the past are why black people (just like Jews who are always on high alert for anti-semitism) are the way they are today. We don't want to teach children that blacks are emotionally impaired (which would justify more oppression by people who won't hire them due to this theoretical emotional impairment) but that their legacy is part of who they are. It's a sociology class. It's a psychology class. And this knowledge can lead to empathy and maybe taking their concerns about the police more seriously.

But reparations and defunding the police and the white privilege campaign all come from the same place and they're inextricably bound to CRT. That is what I believe.

I understand Seattle's comments about other forms of indoctrination such as patriotism, the love of capitalism and I'd add religion are true on a base level. Kids are being taught things that become hard-wired. So we have to discuss the merits of this indoctrination.

Patriotism - is it or is it not vital that we have a national identity and the will to die for our country if we are invaded?

Capitalism - Very complicated for children. The spectrum between laissez fare and communism has many degrees of nuance. In the end, a rational capitalist wants a free market of merit and safeguards against work place abuses, environmental abuses, financial abuses and the like. But socialism begins to creep into the market by evidence of a vast bureaucracy which I believe was one of the evils of the Soviet Union. And we know our bureaucracy is vast. Those who support it's growth have decided they trust the government. And it's locked in. So what do we do? It seems that reasonable minds should be able to teach that capitalism with government oversight in limited areas is the lessor evil than the AOC's of the world who want to print money, regulate every action and thought and blame white people for all the problems.

Religion - Yes, children can be brainwashed. I don't like it and I've always talked to my children about choices. What miracles should they believe? What truth about the afterlife should they believe? In the end, I say to them, "Choose your truth, but keep it close to your heart so that it guides you towards kindness to others and not to oppress them. For what you believe is your concern and freedom is giving someone else the space to believe what they want to believe"

We are all brain-washed to a certain extent. But government power in the hands of emotionally charged people demanding money for actions that occurred long ago is too dangerous in my view.

Lastly, I do believe that Liberals are attempting to brainwash children and I don't trust them one bit.

 

Speaking of Chicken fugging, the article uses incorrect sources. Here is part of the Tennessee law, which is badly mischaracterized by the author:
This amendment does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or from allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include:

(1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional materials adopted in accordance with present law concerning textbooks and instructional materials;

(2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history;

(3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or

(4) Historical documents that are permitted under present law, such as the national motto, the national anthem, the state and federal constitutions, state and federal laws, and supreme court decisions.

Your reliance on biased interpretations of laws is just as weak as SH's reliance on lies about new voting laws. I suggest you actually research the laws before repeating lies, but I know that may be too much to ask.

 

Bubba the whole thing is a big cluster - , and “chilling” may be accurate in multiple facets. From what I’ve heard and read I do not want it in my young grandkids class, yet I certainly want them to be taught factual history.

 

If you want to debate how certain laws against CRT are drafted, that's fine. I'm open to that. However, you can absolutely teach on those subjects without CRT. Those aren't new topics. I was taught about all of them at length in school and always in a very negative light. However, I wasn't taught that racism was built into the American system at a fundamental, constitutional level, because of course, it wasn't.

The article that you shared actually is honest to a point but puts a positive spin on it. The idea is that we should assume that unequal outcomes are the result of racism rather than cultural differences or personal choices. It's making a leap that's obviously not supported by reality and advocates major and very fundamental changes (destroying basic individual freedoms, the federalist system, and, frankly eliminating democracy) to "fix" the inequities.

And I love when liberal commentators scream that Republicans are doing something for political reasons as if that's a reason to oppose them on the merits and as if everything all politicians do isn't done for political reasons. Do you think Democrats don't support single payer healthcare for political reasons? Of course they do. I'm sure Republicans are opposing CRT for political reasons. No ****, Coach. That doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

That is the crux of it to me. There is a built-in assumption that we aren't being taught the horrors of the past. We are. We always will be.

So why is that not enough?

The other assumptions made are as Mr. Deez mentioned; culture and personal choices including effort and sacrifice are not to be considered at all.

That means the entire thing is suspect. If you are eliminating variables then your core premise is faulty.

It's like trans women athletes. I think the trans community is fighting to the death over this because they have become so consumed with being a woman (focusing on trans women) that they are now fighting everything and are unable to admit that their "assigned" gender is actually a real gender including all the physical advantages that boys have. You can make the argument that you self-identify as a woman based upon however your consciousness self drives you and still admit that your "assigned" gender is in fact, a fact. It destroys their credibility to pretend otherwise.

I'm willing to stipulate that it is possible for a human being to wholly feel like the opposite gender, however that manifests itself in your thoughts and self-image but you can't close your eyes and make the physical form just go away.

 

You know what I wasn't taught in school? The realities of the assault in Greenwood, Oklahoma in 1921. I grew up within an hour drive and attended graduate school for a semester within walking distance of what was formerly known as "Black Wall Street". I didn't learn about how bad it was until I read up on it AFTER watching The Watchmen on HBO last year (2 thumbs up, by the way). That's an example of bias in education. Also, that ************ Andrew Jackson is still honored on our currency.

 

It's not enough, because it doesn't lead to the preferred outcome, which is totalitarianism. Instead, it leads to racial equality, the full integration of non-whites into the American system, and the gradual deemphasizing of race as a political and cultural force.

If you follow the racial radicals' position to its logical conclusion, the end result is pretty much unlimited and unchecked government power. Since this is becoming a partisan issue, Switzer is citing stuff that backpedals on the really ugly angles here. However, Ibram X Kendi doesn't hide the ball. He's very clear about what he wants.

 

Ok. I get that. I'm sure every state has lots of details that aren't covered. We could spend all day reviewing everything.

My education gave me the assumption that every black man in the past was at risk of being lynched for the slightest accusations. I assume that. I understand what that means. I don't know about Greenwood, but I do know about the pictures I've seen of lynched black men with a mob of smiling white people standing around. And let me tell you something:

It made me wish I was there with an assault weapon to cut them all down.

Violent thoughts eh? It's the same feeling I get when I see Holocaust documentaries. I want to burn the Nazi's alive.

Not very Christ-like eh?

I have these feelings from my education and research.

What else do you want? Money?

 

Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory both come from Marxists who couldn't understand why the Bolshevik Revolution didn't kick of an international socialist revolution. Being Jewish once the Nazis came into power they fled to the US to continue their research as to why history didn't progress as they expected it to according to Marx's dialectical historicism.

They came up with an idea that the working class in the West didn't revolt because their belief system was the same as the bourgeoisie and they were too focused on the enjoyment of their material lives. That realization should have ended their research and they should have become good Americans with the rest of society.

However, they never questioned the fundamental Marxist idea that for society to progress the current structure must be over thrown so that capitalism and individuality could be erased and the collective, socialist utopia could be founded.

So they determined the fault lines in the US were not class but race and gender. They developed ideas to attack those fault lines over many decades. Eventually those lines of thought became Critical Theory. Critical Race Theory is the subset attacking race divisions. There is also Critical Gender Theory which has produced much of the homosexual and transgender agenda we have suffered through over the last 5 years.

But here is the bottom line. These ideas were created with the purpose to break down our society so that it could be overthrown ideologically, meaning a rejection of individualism and capitalism. Then the government could be used to strip away individual rights, state's rights, and economic freedom. The US government would then be a socialist government and the revolution would not remove the US government but replace it from the inside out with people who believe in CT or CRT.

If you support these ideas you are a traitor to the US and to your neighbors. You are a useful idiot at best or a collaborator at worst.

 

You can always find anecdotes that weren't taught enough. There's limited time. Your high school teacher may have talked about Auschwitz but didn't get around to Treblinka and Sobibor. That doesn't mean she blew off the Holocaust.

We were taught about slavery at length, Jim Crow at length, that there was extensive black on white violence that the police overlooked, and of course that it was all terrible and that the country has a duty to make things right.

 

Can anyone cite credible sources of CRT being taught in schools? My personal access is specific to a single School District and my wife previously taught Middle School and drafted their 6th grade social studies curriculum which does cover the colonialism period.

There was a recent WaPost article that outlined Christopher Rufo's attempts to tie CRT to everything including socialism, anything related to diversity awareness.



See from above is that there is a concerted goal to put all social progressive ideology into the CRT bucket.

This is why we need to define CRT and not go off anecdotal stories. This is a theory that's been around for 40 years that is just now being used as a cultural division weapon.

 

Michael Flynn also is quite clear what he wants - a totalitarian regime. He was NSA. What role has that dude played in any administration?

I think it's ludicrous that you think THAT's the route to totalitarianism.

 

There's an Oklahoma History class that ignored it. Seems relevant and not "anecdotal".

History = he = football coach. Come on....

 

It goes directly back to Bannon saying that hammering on CRT will gain 50 seats. Invest in the suburbs too. White fear.