CRT and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

[TLK Valentine]

Okay but you also realize in the time you spent creating this post, you could ACTUALLY prove your point, prove him/her wrong, and silence them.

Censors have little incentive to "prove" their points -- their cheerleaders have even less.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay but you also realize in the time you spent creating this post, you could ACTUALLY prove your point, prove him/her wrong, and silence them.
Just seems like a waste of time to complain too much at length.

If I'm asked for evidence, I provide evidence (assuming my claim isn't opinion).

I did that.

To be completely honest, the suggestion that the evidence provided is elaborately faked is not a legitimate complaint. If that poster and I are to proceed...he has to explain what he will accept. Anyone can claim any evidence is elaborately faked. Think of flat-earthers and young earth creationists.

To me there is far more value in exposing how intellectually bereft the request is.

I'll continue, I'll provide evidence....but I need to know 2 things.

What do you consider valid evidence that you are wrong?

If that is provided....what will your response be?

When it comes to providing sources for other posters, personally, I do it with the assumption that most posters who disagree with probably not look. I do it for my PERSONAL integrity and the integrity of my own argument. They can take that information and do what they want with it but I PERSONALLY think that without good evidence my argument is weaker and I don't like that.

I hear ya @rambot ....but it's the second time this thread already. What if the next ten posters ask the same thing then reject the same evidence for the same poor reasons?

At a point, it's more useful to show these people don't consider evidence. It's a bit like every argument I've had with an evolution denier....they ask for evidence, I provide, they say it's not really evidence.

This is a dogmatic line of thinking. I think people fundamentally defend it because it is a way of telling others "I'm a good person, I'm not racist". Sadly, they don't understand that according to CRT that's not possible....they are always racist and always will be racist in this worldview.

 

[RDKirk]

Smart guy.
Just like the assignment listend above we ask the kids to do it for themselves. The kids define their identities based on where they are at, what they value and what "groups" they are a part of. This includes innocuous safe groups (hockey teams, church groups, homework clubs) and others (nationality, religion, etc....). It's up to the KIDS to say their identities.

Maybe they shouldn't yet decide on labels for themselves.

 

[rambot]

I was actually thinking of the other person who keeps repeatedly asking for evidence and yet doesn't seem to want to actually discuss anything other than the perceived quality of what has been already given. It may all be innocent, but well...just call me suspicious.

Based on his/her few posts, I don't get that feeling from leafniggle.

I guess that's ANOTHER lesson in bias right?

 

[rambot]

If I'm asked for evidence, I provide evidence (assuming my claim isn't opinion).

I did that.

To be completely honest, the suggestion that the evidence provided is elaborately faked is not a legitimate complaint.

I disagree. This is the internet. People pull stuff ALL the time "like that". Quoting out of context.

If that poster and I are to proceed...he has to explain what he will accept. Anyone can claim any evidence is elaborately faked. Think of flat-earthers and young earth creationists.

To me there is far more value in exposing how intellectually bereft the request is.

I'll continue, I'll provide evidence....but I need to know 2 things.

What do you consider valid evidence that you are wrong?

If that is provided....what will your response be?

See the beautiful thing about the soft/social science is that saying "you're wrong" gets kinda........nothing. Because there are so many people espousing contradictory views through it all that best, what you'd get from someone like me is that I disagree with thta person.

I hear ya @rambot ....but it's the second time this thread already. What if the next ten posters ask the same thing then reject the same evidence for the same poor reasons?

Well it's on them. You've done your due dilligence and you can rest in the comfort of that.
At least, that's my attitude. Sure it's frustrating, but again, it's an online discussion forum, that chances of having a meaningful impact on another person is preeeetty small.

At a point, it's more useful to show these people don't consider evidence. It's a bit like every argument I've had with an evolution denier....they ask for evidence, I provide, they say it's not really evidence.

The only way to show that is to consistently PROVIDE evidence that then gets avoided. But to say "I'm not providing evidence because you'll ignore it" doesn't prove that they don't consider evidence.

This is a dogmatic line of thinking. I think people fundamentally defend it because it is a way of telling others "I'm a good person, I'm not racist". Sadly, they don't understand that according to CRT that's not possible....they are always racist and always will be racist in this worldview.

Yes, everyone is racist. Me too
I think I'm a good person still. I have to let go of my old definition of racism (in much the same way I had to let go of my use and definition of the word "queer"...I loved that word). But it's just a word.

Anyways.....

I'm doing parent teacher interviews this afternoon and my break is done. Now I gotta deal with some parents. Wish me luck and have a good evening. Don't get too frustrated by this place. Just do right by you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Censors have little incentive to "prove" their points -- their cheerleaders have even less.

The point has been proven. The reason given for evidence denial is quite frankly, silly.

Anyone can claim any evidence is an elaborate fake.

Is it possible these screenshots are photoshopped fakes that aren't real? Sure.

Is it possible scientists are using a series of elaborate hoaxes to make it appear that the earth is round when it's actually flat? Why not?

If that is your objection then there's more value in talking about your ability to evaluate evidence.

I've been going back and forth as to whether or not you're being sea lioned.

I think gaslighting is a better word. In the example provided , I was being trolled .

People telling me something isn't happening....and I provided direct evidence from the people doing it....and that evidence is rejected as fake?

Gaslighting.

I'm not worried about the trolling. I think there's people like @rambot who understand that at the very least, there are concepts in CRT included into curriculum.

That's where the conversation is needed. Are these good ideas? Are they facts or opinions? Do they constitute political views?
Are they possibly harmful?

Etc.

 

[bekkilyn]

Based on his/her few posts, I don't get that feeling from leafniggle.

I guess that's ANOTHER lesson in bias right?

We'll just have to see how it all plays out.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Germany doesn't tell young Germans that in their society that every German is an anti-Semite and they are responsible for "fixing the past".

Nor does CRT.

What is the cause for this?

The cause for massive wealth inequality? Some say blacks are inherently lazy or immoral. You don't believe that, do you?

Equality of outcomes is not, nor ever has been, the goal of the US.

Equality of individual outcomes is not expected. But massive inequality of an entire class of people that comprises 14% of the population proves there is a problem.

The point has been individual liberty. You can spend your time building a business....or you can spend your time protesting social issues.

Individual liberty was violated by slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, lynching, forced segregation, violent displacement, eminent domain, etc. The black businessmen of Tulsa built a great business community, before it was all taken from them. Social progress against racism has only ever advanced following public protests.

The person protesting has no reason to complain they aren't as wealthy as the businessman. That's a choice they made.

They did not make the choice to be born into a family that had their wealth taken from them by violence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The point has been proven.

Neither by nor to anyone whose opinion matters in a society where censorship is the norm.

If that is your objection

You're not paying attention. I'm not objecting to anything -- because you're not a censor, I'm questioning its relevance.

When censorship is the norm, only the censors' opinions matter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I disagree. This is the internet. People pull stuff ALL the time "like that". Quoting out of context.

I first provided a Fox News article that included the screenshots.

I don't think they are photoshopping fake evidence. This is a news source that admits when it accidentally uses the wrong image. They are completely liable for damages caused by such mistakes. The Virginia Department of Education would have a slam dunk case of libel.

Plus I checked, they are real.

The old "fake evidence" canard needs some legitimacy before I'm willing to entertain it. I don't just dismiss a study someone links me out of hand as "fake". I point out it's mistakes, errors, flaws, etc.

It's a bare minimum of courtesy imo. If someone bothers to provide evidence, and you asked for it, addressing it is the bare minimum.

See the beautiful thing about the soft/social science is that saying "you're wrong" gets kinda........nothing. Because there are so many people espousing contradictory views through it all that best, what you'd get from someone like me is that I disagree with thta person.

If your claim has no evidence.....or is merely an ambiguous interpretation...."you're wrong" is a fair response.

Well it's on them. You've done your due dilligence and you can rest in the comfort of that.
At least, that's my attitude. Sure it's frustrating, but again, it's an online discussion forum, that chances of having a meaningful impact on another person is preeeetty small.

The only way to show that is to consistently PROVIDE evidence that then gets avoided. But to say "I'm not providing evidence because you'll ignore it" doesn't prove that they don't consider evidence.

On another thread, a poster asked for evidence of CRT in schools. I asked what he would consider evidence. He wanted explicit examples of material used in classrooms and the direct connection between those materials and CRT.

That's a tall order, but I did the work anyway....I provided all of that.

The response was a completely fictional interpretation of the evidence that was contradicted by the evidence itself.

I don't know if I made any difference....and like you, I often provide this stuff for lurkers.

But he hasn't returned to argue this stuff isn't in schools and I consider that a good thing.

Yes, everyone is racist. Me too
I think I'm a good person still. I have to let go of my old definition of racism (in much the same way I had to let go of my use and definition of the word "queer"...I loved that word). But it's just a word.

Do you believe that you can stop being racist?

I'm doing parent teacher interviews this afternoon and my break is done. Now I gotta deal with some parents. Wish me luck and have a good evening. Don't get too frustrated by this place. Just do right by you.

Thanks @rambot, don't work too hard.

 

[bekkilyn]

Candance comments on the "CRT"-positive Rutgers professor who teaches that white people are inherently corrupt and morally bankrupt.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Neither by nor to anyone whose opinion matters in a society where censorship is the norm.

You don't think the Virginia Department of Education is a legitimate source of information about what is taught in Virginia schools?

You're not paying attention. I'm not objecting to anything -- because you're not a censor, I'm questioning its relevance.

When censorship is the norm, only the censors' opinions matter.

What is the problem with it's relevance?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don't have a problem with teaching that. But I have to ask why Is it necessary to learn about every single event in the history of the US that was racially motivated?

The Tulsa race massacre was not a small incident. Here is a list of at least seven of the best books written about the Tulsa race massacre. List of Tulsa Race Massacre books. This incident was every bit as significant in American history as Paul Revere's ride to Lexington. But I am ashamed to say I had not heard of it until about 3 years ago, because it was not taught when I went to school. CRT examines, among other things, they way the selection of what we remember and what we choose to forget defines us as a nation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You don't think the Virginia Department of Education is a legitimate source of information about what is taught in Virginia schools?

The censors will label whatever they don't want as deserving of censorship... that's how it works.

What is the problem with it's relevance?

It has none. Nobody ever became a censor by licking their boots.

Do try to remember what I've said many times before -- I only object to government censorship on general principle... I know that they only ever appear to succeed in the short term.

Those who are serious about defying these bans will find ways around them -- with considerable ease, as censors generally aren't that bright.

And in the long run, censorship will fail, so its opponents can play the long game -- as censors generally aren't that patient either.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Interesting:

Parents' disconnect on critical race theory has enflamed elections

More than 60% of American parents want their kids to learn about the ongoing effects of slavery and racism as part of their education, according to a new USA TODAY/Ipsos poll.

But just half of parents support teaching critical race theory in schools – even though the theory's main premise is that racism continues to permeate society. About 4 in 10 parents support restrictions on schools' ability to teach critical race theory.

Take away the scary buzzwords, and parents will let their children be taught...

See how easy it is to get around the censors?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Cultivating awareness.

No, I'm sorry...

What I'm asking is how you....a teacher....would be able to detect what biases are affecting a student.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting:

Parents' disconnect on critical race theory has enflamed elections



Take away the scary buzzwords, and parents will let their children be taught...

See how easy it is to get around the censors?

If this was about teaching history....it wouldn't be an issue.

Parents are going to board meetings complaining about the racial rhetoric injected into the lessons with terms like white supremacy, and white privilege.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The censors will label whatever they don't want as deserving of censorship... that's how it works.

You mistake me.

I provided evidence of CRT in schools.

We can talk about censorship but first we have to get past all the gaslighting and dishonesty and denial coming from people saying it isn't in schools.

I'll gladly discuss the legitimacy of these opinions.

Do try to remember what I've said many times before -- I only object to government censorship on general principle...

You wouldn't object to teaching nazi ideology as truth in schools?

I find that hard to believe. I think you would wholeheartedly support censorship.

 

[rambot]

No, I'm sorry...

What I'm asking is how you....a teacher....would be able to detect what biases are affecting a student.

Oh. That's not my job to detect exactly which biases affect a student. I'm not making any evaluative comments about student in that context.

My job is to help students be aware of their own biases and know how they CAN affect their outlook.

 

[rambot]

Maybe they shouldn't yet decide on labels for themselves.

It kinda depends on what you mean by "labels".
In grade 3(ish...not as knowledgeable of loewr level curriculum) we are teaching kids to label themselves to get to know themselves and their character; honest, kind, hard working. Though you are doing that at that cognitive level. But you teach them that skill.

At the jr high level (where I work) you encourage them to evaluate their social world; their "immediate" context and their groups they belong to (consiously or not).
But I wouldn't personally call these labels. At least not harmful labels.

I had a kid say that they belonged to the identity of "Albertan" and then, and this was HARD for them, they had to describe what they thought that meant. Only managed a BIT of an idea (but that has more to do with the cognitive functioning of my kids)