• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Banning Critical Race Theory

I go by what the Republican politicians themselves say. Are you arguing that OK lawmakers aren’t banning what they believe to be CRT?
 
PhDeac said:
I go by what the Republican politicians themselves say.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't do that, for Pubs or Dems. What politicians say the law says is not what the law says. What the law says is what the law says.

I know this is difficult to accept for the "We have to pass the law to know what it says" crowd, but it is, in fact, how law works.
 
I know you’re a lawyer so law trumps everything but rhetoric is important when we’re talking about how people get along in society. That is unless you think all these people showing up to protest school board meetings are actually reading the law.
 
The boogeymanning of “critical race theory” began, I think, with the asshole, Rufo. He started writing about it in alarming tones, got onto Fox News and thus came Trump’s attention resulting in the federal ban last September on any use of training relating to the concepts of “white privilege”and “critical race theory”.

And the boogeymanning subsequently has grown to become on of the latest Republican/conservative attempt at (m/d)isdirected passion for political gain.

What it seems to boil down to is a bunch of snowflakes who can’t handle the notion that if being black in ‘murica has been and is a disadvantage then not being black has been and is an advantage. Sure, it’s fine (maybe, sort of) to talk about the history of errors made by others in the past, but that’s all in the past! Some people wanting to question the notion that the effects of racism are essentially historical and fairly limited (or asserting otherwise) now that’s going too far!! It must be STOPPED! To the school board meeting (etc.)!

Meanwhile, let’s ignore real problems.

Good job, Republicans.
 
Last edited:
ConnorEl said:
The boogeymanning of “critical race theory” began, I think, with the asshole, Rufo. He started writing about it in alarming tones, got onto Fox News and thus came Trump’s attention resulting in the federal ban last September on any use of training relating to the concepts of “white privilege”and “critical race theory”.

And the boogeymanning subsequently has grown to become on of the latest Republican/conservative attempt at (m/d)isdirected passion for political gain.

What it seems to boil down to is a bunch of snowflakes who can’t handle the notion that if being black in ‘murica has been and is a disadvantage then not being black has been and is an advantage. Sure, it’s fine (maybe, sort of) to talk about the history of errors made by others in the past, but that’s all in the past! Some people wanting to question the notion that the effects of racism are essentially historical and fairly limited (or asserting otherwise) now that’s going too far!! It must be STOPPED! To the school board meeting (etc.)!

Meanwhile, let’s ignore real problems.

Good job, Republicans.
Click to expand...

Real talk? This post is every bit as ignorant as the clips from Republican legislators and governors that have been linked to over the past few pages.

The backlash against critical race theory in academia arose almost contemporaneously with its birth. in 1997, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner brought the issue to the masses in a scathing critique contained in a book review (of Beyond All Reason) published in the New Republic, called "The Skin Trade." You can read it here:

http://www.dariaroithmayr.com/pdfs/Posner-The Skin Trade-The New Republic.pdf.

There are many other insightful books, law review articles, and other publications that discuss the myriad problems with critical race theory. It's all well and good to make fun of uneducated dolts (you even have them say 'murica!), but you would do yourself a favor by grappling with what some really smart people are saying is wrong with critical race theory. Until you do, you're just as ignorant as the people you are trying to make fun of.
 
I’m talking about the current conservative “battle” against the boogeyman of “critical race theory”.

I don’t think my post about this is ignorant or inaccurate.

Certainly you’ve not shown it to be.
 
ConnorEl said:
I’m talking about the current conservative “battle” against the boogeyman of “critical race theory”.

I don’t think my post about this is ignorant or inaccurate.

Certainly you’ve not shown it to be.
Click to expand...

Well, that does it. I'm convinced.
 
ConnorEl said:
The boogeymanning of “critical race theory” began, I think, with the asshole, Rufo. He started writing about it in alarming tones, got onto Fox News and thus came Trump’s attention resulting in the federal ban last September on any use of training relating to the concepts of “white privilege”and “critical race theory”.

And the boogeymanning subsequently has grown to become on of the latest Republican/conservative attempt at (m/d)isdirected passion for political gain.

What it seems to boil down to is a bunch of snowflakes who can’t handle the notion that if being black in ‘murica has been and is a disadvantage then not being black has been and is an advantage. Sure, it’s fine (maybe, sort of) to talk about the history of errors made by others in the past, but that’s all in the past! Some people wanting to question the notion that the effects of racism are essentially historical and fairly limited (or asserting otherwise) now that’s going too far!! It must be STOPPED! To the school board meeting (etc.)!

Meanwhile, let’s ignore real problems.

Good job, Republicans.
Click to expand...

The bolded is, apparently, your understanding of the objections to critical race theory.

That is ignorant.

If the bolded is not your understanding of the objections to critical race theory, then you've built a mighty nice strawman there.

Either way, congratulations.
 
WakeBored said:
You shouldn't do that, for Pubs or Dems. What politicians say the law says is not what the law says. What the law says is what the law says.

I know this is difficult to accept for the "We have to pass the law to know what it says" crowd, but it is, in fact, how law works.
Click to expand...

I think you know exactly what’s going to happen despite your “above it all” law is the law whining.

Teachers who try to teach something race/slavery related will have their careers and lives ruined by awful parents and grandstanding Trumpist lawyers by frivolous lawsuits. Years and $ down the line maybe they get some justice after appeal. Unless of course it’s an awful Federalist judge at which point Junebug shrugs and says oh well.

Or the teachers save themselves the trouble and self censor to avoid getting anywhere near the line, effectively wiping out far more than what the law says. Which is the real goal.

Actually I think the real goal is the conflicts in the first scenario, that way there can be wedge issues to drive GOP voter turnout.
 
I don’t think you are this dumb.

The bolded is my assessment of what is driving the recent conservative fight against “critical race theory”.


Or do you think this recent flurry of passion springing from Rufo to Trump to Republicans broadly is really an attempt at academic debate?
 
WakeBored said:
The bolded is, apparently, your understanding of the objections to critical race theory.

That is ignorant.

If the bolded is not your understanding of the objections to critical race theory, then you've built a mighty nice strawman there.

Either way, congratulations.
Click to expand...

lol at "the" objections. Virtually no Republican politician campaigning against critical race theory has demonstrated an understanding of CRT itself, let alone the academic criticisms of it.
 
06deacon said:
I think you know exactly what’s going to happen despite your “above it all” law is the law whining.

Teachers who try to teach something race/slavery related will have their careers and lives ruined by awful parents and grandstanding Trumpist lawyers by frivolous lawsuits. Years and $ down the line maybe they get some justice after appeal. Unless of course it’s an awful Federalist judge at which point Junebug shrugs and says oh well.

Or the teachers save themselves the trouble and self censor to avoid getting anywhere near the line, effectively wiping out far more than what the law says. Which is the real goal.

Actually I think the real goal is the conflicts in the first scenario, that way there can be wedge issues to drive GOP voter turnout.
Click to expand...

"Nature is amazing." - Ron Swanson
 
201182654_2884608601868640_7905790600830348351_n.jpg
 
06deacon said:
I think you know exactly what’s going to happen despite your “above it all” law is the law whining.

Teachers who try to teach something race/slavery related will have their careers and lives ruined by awful parents and grandstanding Trumpist lawyers by frivolous lawsuits. Years and $ down the line maybe they get some justice after appeal. Unless of course it’s an awful Federalist judge at which point Junebug shrugs and says oh well.

Or the teachers save themselves the trouble and self censor to avoid getting anywhere near the line, effectively wiping out far more than what the law says. Which is the real goal.

Actually I think the real goal is the conflicts in the first scenario, that way there can be wedge issues to drive GOP voter turnout.
Click to expand...

+1. That's what most of us have been arguing here, complete with numerous articles posted where teachers and school officials/school board members in various states are saying that the self-censorship and second-guessing of lesson plans and curriculum requirements has already started.
 
Highland Deac said:
+1. That's what most of us have been arguing here, complete with numerous articles posted where teachers and school officials/school board members in various states are saying that the self-censorship and second-guessing of lesson plans and curriculum requirements has already started.
Click to expand...

If so, that's because fear-mongers like you whip them into a frenzy by telling them the law prohibits things it doesn't.
 
WakeBored said:
If so, that's because fear-mongers like you whip them into a frenzy by telling them the law prohibits things it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Oh for the love of God they're pulling out the exact same playbook that they've used against integration and every other change to society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top