Looking For a Good, Short Definition of Critical Race Theory? It Doesn’t Exist. Here’s One Anyway.

[miamited]

I don't know what kind of device you use. It's why I asked if you copied and pasted RDKirk's words.

Some people correspond on here using cell phones, others use computers, like me.


It's best just to use your own words rather than responding with someone else's post.

Hey Jim,

I don't think I've ever responded 'with' someone else's post. I've responded about someone else's post, just as you did in the post I've quoted here. You quoted my post #51. I think, though, that your confusion is in using the '@' followed by a screen name. If, in a response, you type the @ sign and then the person's screen name that you are referring to then that generally intends that you are talking about or referencing something that person said. It doesn't provide any copy or paste option where you would use their words in your post or response unless you then type in their words. Try it. A lot of times it's helpful when you're responding to people with wierd or long screen names. Once you type the @ and then begin typing the first couple of letters of the screen name, the program automatically offers options that you can pick from that you are addressing. So, if you're responding to someone like rumplestiltskin, you just type @ and then 'ru' and you'll get a list of screen names that start with 'ru' and rumplestiltskin is bound to be in there. You just pick it and go. It just makes it easier, I think, than copying or trying to remember long or difficult screen names.

You seem to be confusing the '@' identifier with the 'quote' function.

God bless,
Ted

 

[The Barbarian]

There is a short a definition, the other stuff mentioned like intersectionality, white privilege, wokeness, etc., are not critical race theory, those are just all the things conservatives don't like, so they decided to call whatever they dislike critical race theory.

Precisely. It's an old game for extremists. They find a term they hope no one understands, and then pretend it's about all kinds of terrible thin

 

[HannahT]

Precisely. It's an old game for extremists. They find a term they hope no one understands, and then pretend it's about all kinds of terrible thin

Remind me which side doesn't do that?

Come one now please.

Can I say RUSSIA and it doesn't show up in history that extremists didn't have something to say, and came up with pretty much nothing in reality? They all had proof and all have stuff that would surface that show the world! That was just the latest and greatest, and people wonder why the trust is lost. That lied burned both sides - both those that wanted to believe...and those that wondered.

Sadly that game is being played now with the term 'white supremacist' among other things, and people aren't biting as hard. Gosh. Wonder why?! Extremist terms gone wild maybe?!

History has been taught, and that includes all the warts and nasties. People are claiming today that history isn't being taught that way, and I have to ask since when? I'm old and I remember when it was...when did it change and why did it change? That's the excuse currently in the media about WHY people are so scared of it. That's such nonsense. We aren't afraid of teaching our past, and all those warts and nasties. We have had comedy shows on TV and the internet to wake people up, and progress has been made. History can't be changed, but moving past it with progress does help. Progress is always evolving.

Claiming its just extremists to NOT debate this issue is called fear. It's not extremists. That's just an excuse. I remember we used the term 'color blind' when my children were young, and that wasn't used as a legalistic term - as it is pretended to be today. It meant something that people decided to ignore today, because its convenient. Ignoring the mentality and the justice behind it doesn't erase it. That shows some don't wish to build on the progress, but ignore it. That's called gaslighting.

 

[The Barbarian]

Precisely. It's an old game for extremists. They find a term they hope no one understands, and then pretend it's about all kinds of terrible thin

Remind me which side doesn't do that?

Which is why I said "extremists" not just "right wing extremists." One of the reasons we have Joe Biden as president is that America is fed up with the extremists. And yes, there are people way out there on the extreme left, who do that kind of thing, too.

The republican problem is that the extremists now own them.

Sadly that game is being played now with the term 'white supremacist' among other things,

When Trump was elected, they thought their time had come, and the crawled out of the sewers to celebrate. So they became more visible. Some were even making policy. Even Trump's FBI chief became alarmed:

"I would certainly say, as I think I've said consistently in the past, that racially motivated violent extremism specifically of the sort that advocates for the superiority of the white race is a persistent evolving threat," Wray said. "It's the biggest chunk of our racially motivated violent extremism cases for sure and racially motivated violent extremism is the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism portfolio."
Fact Check: Did FBI Director Christopher Wray say white supremacy is biggest domestic terror threat?

But critical race theory is not at all what the white supremacists are claiming it is. It has less to do with claiming intentional racism and more to do with the structural barriers in society that exist without intentional discrimination.

History has been taught, and that includes all the warts and nasties.

When I was in school, no one taught (for example) the white race riot in Tulsa that wiped out a prosperous black community. American history in public schools has largely avoided some subjects.

Claiming its just extremists to NOT debate this issue is called fear.

The point of CRT is that it's not just extremists. They are the biggest immediate danger, because they riot, damage property and kill. They were among the most violent of the insurgents that attacked our Capitol on Jan 6.

Domestic right-wing extremists have killed over 300 people in the United States in the last 10 years, a new study finds, with a deadly attack at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, closing out a decade marked by white nationalist terror.


There were 42 murders in the U.S. committed by extremists in 2019, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s annual “Murder and Extremism” report published Wednesday. Of those murders, 38 were committed by people subscribing to far-right ideologies.
...
The bulk of last year’s domestic extremist murders occurred during the August massacre at a Walmart in El Paso, when a 21-year-old white man — who allegedly posted a racist screed online about the white nationalist “great replacement” conspiracy theory — shot and killed 22 people in one of the deadliest anti-Latino hate crimes in American history.


There was also the April 2019 shooting at a synagogue in Poway, California, when a 20-year-old man opened fire on a crowd of about 100 parishioners. He killed one woman and injured three others before his gun jammed. He later called 911 and reportedly told the dispatcher that Jews were trying to “destroy all white people.”
Report: U.S. Right-Wing Extremists Killed 330 People In Last Decade | HuffPost

It's not extremists.

See above. It's right wing extremists.