Jackson, Biden's Supreme Court pick, refuses to define the word 'woman'

Primavera said:
Are you serious?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm serious. The blurb says "... this primer does so as well. It not only covers a range of emerging new topics and events, it also addresses the rise of a fierce wave of criticism from right-wing websites, think tanks, and foundations, some of which insist that America is now colorblind and has little use for racial analysis and study."

It's not a school textbook. I want to read the actual words that are taught to kids.
 
christiefan915 said:
Would it be better if I called him a hebephile?

No, I didn't know about "Airmiles Andy" but was familiar with his arrogance.
Click to expand...

Well it would certainly be more accurate at least, it ironic, considering your criticism of British tabloids, that they insist on using the paedo label to sensationalise and destroy people.
 
Primavera said:
She stripped him of his titles because he was getting huge negative publicity that could cause great harm to the Royal Family. Nobody is bigger than the Firm, does that really need to be spelt out to you?
Click to expand...

I trust that she didn't take this action based on rumor. She's a smart woman.
 
Primavera said:
Well it would certainly be more accurate at least, it ironic, considering your criticism of British tabloids, they insist on using the paedo label to sensationalise.
Click to expand...

I criticize our tabloids, too. They're just as vicious.

iu
 
christiefan915 said:
Again, neither book is a textbook for the K-12 crowd.
Click to expand...

You're very naive if you think that the Left don't want to introduce CRT to schools.

CRT is a movement of admitted far-left scholars who wish to challenge power structures represented in the American legal culture and society with respect to “the rule of law” and “equal protection.” Their belief is that whereas our laws are ostensibly “neutral” and “objective,” they are neither — and never could have been objective in the first place because of the racial dynamic that has been exercised legally and ideologically over the course of American history. Thus, they call for “race-consciousness” in a reexamination of race and racism, which they believe was essentially discarded when the ideas of integration, assimilation, and color-blindness became the official norms. While these ideas are not necessarily bad things in and of themselves, CRT theorists believe current laws continue to promote racial domination and subjugation of people of color in both a systemic and institutional manner, and that legal remediation for past injustices is warranted.

It is not my intent to elucidate the details of CRT here (which I will in the future as it deserves a fair hearing) but to demonstrate that what most think is CRT is not CRT. It is my belief those who oppose CRT in the classroom are correct that what is being called CRT should not be taught in K-12 instruction. What must be understood is that CRT has its roots in Critical Theory (CT), which is the original thought of Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci, who argued that societies generally consist of two classes: oppressors and the oppressed, which could be applied not only to economic classes but also those of race and sex. CT, applied to race in America, examines the power dynamics of oppressors (whites) and the groups they have oppressed since the founding of this country (blacks and other people of color). Accordingly, this set of values of the dominant oppressor class must be overcome and exchanged for a new system of values that empowers marginalized groups.

CRT, I believe, is being specifically promoted in K-12 curriculums to layer on top of CT to form an outright Marxist approach, which seeks to transform and undermine traditional American values. Understandably, parents have opposed what they see as far-left Marxist indoctrination being pushed down from the academy and legal profession onto young impressionable minds still in the process of formation. CT offers a cynical critique of the American system of government that fails to account for racial progress and cooperation among both whites and people of color who have worked to build a more inclusive future for our country.

The last thing children need is to be told they and their classmates are either oppressors or oppressed based simply on the color of their skin. Indeed, children should be taught the full truth of our history, including the many times we have failed to live up to our ideals. But that is not the project of CRT, which due to its nuances and complexity as a recent and decidedly immature race-based legal theory, is highly inappropriate for K-12 students. In short, the theory has limited pedagogic value and is enormously difficult to understand (let alone teach) by instructors not versed in legal theory and civil rights legislation.

https://www.discovery.org/leadershi...heory-intriguing-but-wrong-for-k-12-education
 
Primavera said:
You're very naive if you think that the Left don't want to introduce CRT to schools.

CRT is a movement of admitted far-left scholars who wish to challenge power structures represented in the American legal culture and society with respect to “the rule of law” and “equal protection.” Their belief is that whereas our laws are ostensibly “neutral” and “objective,” they are neither — and never could have been objective in the first place because of the racial dynamic that has been exercised legally and ideologically over the course of American history. Thus, they call for “race-consciousness” in a reexamination of race and racism, which they believe was essentially discarded when the ideas of integration, assimilation, and color-blindness became the official norms. While these ideas are not necessarily bad things in and of themselves, CRT theorists believe current laws continue to promote racial domination and subjugation of people of color in both a systemic and institutional manner, and that legal remediation for past injustices is warranted.

It is not my intent to elucidate the details of CRT here (which I will in the future as it deserves a fair hearing) but to demonstrate that what most think is CRT is not CRT. It is my belief those who oppose CRT in the classroom are correct that what is being called CRT should not be taught in K-12 instruction. What must be understood is that CRT has its roots in Critical Theory (CT), which is the original thought of Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci, who argued that societies generally consist of two classes: oppressors and the oppressed, which could be applied not only to economic classes but also those of race and sex. CT, applied to race in America, examines the power dynamics of oppressors (whites) and the groups they have oppressed since the founding of this country (blacks and other people of color). Accordingly, this set of values of the dominant oppressor class must be overcome and exchanged for a new system of values that empowers marginalized groups.

CRT, I believe, is being specifically promoted in K-12 curriculums to layer on top of CT to form an outright Marxist approach, which seeks to transform and undermine traditional American values. Understandably, parents have opposed what they see as far-left Marxist indoctrination being pushed down from the academy and legal profession onto young impressionable minds still in the process of formation. CT offers a cynical critique of the American system of government that fails to account for racial progress and cooperation among both whites and people of color who have worked to build a more inclusive future for our country.

The last thing children need is to be told they and their classmates are either oppressors or oppressed based simply on the color of their skin. Indeed, children should be taught the full truth of our history, including the many times we have failed to live up to our ideals. But that is not the project of CRT, which due to its nuances and complexity as a recent and decidedly immature race-based legal theory, is highly inappropriate for K-12 students. In short, the theory has limited pedagogic value and is enormously difficult to understand (let alone teach) by instructors not versed in legal theory and civil rights legislation.

https://www.discovery.org/leadershi...heory-intriguing-but-wrong-for-k-12-education
Click to expand...

I'll say it again. What I want to see is an actual book showing how CRT is being taught... the actual words, phrase, pictures etc. that students are seeing. Not the RW opinion that CRT is evil.

Just once I'd like to read something that wasn't conservative opinion.
 
RB 60 said:
What does Melania have to do with anything? She married Trump long before he even considered running for president.

You sure deflected far from what is being discussed here. No wonder you think men can compete in women's sports. Sad. really fucking sad...
Click to expand...

Melania slept her way into a rich man's wallet... or so she thought.
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
It really isn't. On the other hand, virtually all of the Q & A I've seen with her so far has her giving non-answers to every question tossed at her. That is, she doesn't answer the question but rather equivocates, obfuscates, or otherwise weasel words an evasion of an answer. Her repeatedly saying that something asked isn't a "legal matter" per se and that she can't or won't comment on it tells me that her handlers and preppers advised her to avoid straight / direct answers to questions that might then be used in a 'gotcha' scenario.

In short, she's not telling the committee much of anything about her other than she's a good weasel of a liar...err, lawyer. Good lawyers make lousy judges. That's because a good lawyer has no scruples or morals and is willing to do anything to win for their client. A good judge has to have a moral grounding and the firmly fixed set of values that go with that.
Click to expand...
Wrong. She's not falling for the teabagger bait.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'll say it again. What I want to see is an actual book showing how CRT is being taught... the actual words, phrase, pictures etc. that students are seeing. Not the RW opinion that CRT is evil.

Just once I'd like to read something that wasn't conservative opinion.
Click to expand...

On the Virginia Department of Education website, several examples of the department promoting Critical Race Theory can be found, including a presentation from 2015, when Terry McAullife was governor, that encourages teachers to "embrace Critical Race Theory" in "order to re-engineer attitudes and belief systems."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vi...-mcauliffe-claims-its-never-been-taught-there
 
christiefan915 said:
Who woulda thunk it? The hypocrite.
Click to expand...

He's a hypocrite and fraud of the first magnitude. He doesn't even live in Missouri; he uses his sister's address there for senatoring purposes. He lives in Virginia in a ritzy home. You might recall that a prayer vigil and short demonstration was held in front of that home in January last year, protesting Hawley's Big Lie nonsense. They terrorized his wife by leaving a copy of the Constitution on the front porch. Hawley was poutraged for weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top