Thanks for the article and story. Seems it's on repeat these days: (1) Professor (mostly who are white) gets targeted by student mob; (2) administrators take the same position as the student mob; (3) professor is suspended or fired; (4) more details come to light showing professor was wronged and should not have been let go; (5) professo…
Thanks for the article and story. Seems it's on repeat these days: (1) Professor (mostly who are white) gets targeted by student mob; (2) administrators take the same position as the student mob; (3) professor is suspended or fired; (4) more details come to light showing professor was wronged and should not have been let go; (5) professor writes an article/story about cancelation; (5) outrage among readers who then write serious comments in the comment section; (6) nothing changes; (7) repeat.
Not to be a Debbie Downer or anything, but our atrocious leadership in the White House just designated a letter against parents protesting against CRT in schools (which is what this letter describes) and labeling them as terrorists..... so yeah, not expecting anything to change anytime soon.
I was gonna say, more or less, what M. Reagan said.
But, see the problem here? Rather, the problems.
People have teathered their brains and hearts to a political party. So a LOTTA discussion here revolves around OWNING up to problems. That THIS President or THAT one is the root of all EVIL, right?
My eyes opened a lot for me earlier this year and I started looking at things a lot differently. I've made my political views known, which are Dead-Centrist, but that isn't really important, to me anyway.
What's important is that NONE of this even comes into play before Nov. '22, right? And, to me anyway, what should be the majority of the discussion here should be: "What to do about this mess, NOW."
In EVERYTHING in the universe there are differences and samenesses. Right NOW, best to concentrate energy on what people agree on, right?
I disagree. I voted for Biden and support much of what he does. The woke candidates didn't win the Democratic primary, they lost decisively. Even the NYC mayor isn't from the illiberal left.
To attempt to blame this phenomenon on mainstream liberals and all Democrats is wrong. We are pushing back on this radical ideology, however, I don't see very many on the right pushing back on their radical fringe.
We, center right and center left, agree on much more than we disagree.
We need to stop the high profile (media thrives on controversy and negativity) radicals with their big expensive megaphones from creating exclusive tribes that will destroy us as a nation.
I agree. However, if you voted for the person who is empowering this craziness then that is what you stand for. Can you think of one leader who has used the justice dept in this way against political opposition whio history does not consider a monster?
I don't think Biden is empowering the radical left. He's not directly confronting them and I don't blame him for not opening that can of worms.
I like his emphasis on climate change/ protecting our environment.
I like his policy on extending the child tax credits. He wants Medicare to be able to use market forces to drive down drug prices, though a couple of Democrats and all of the GOP are blocking that. I don't see the radical, defund the police or excuse all student loan debt happening. I do believe that the wealthy should pay more in taxes and they need to go after the big loopholes. I agree that putting more money in for IRS tax collection will be a good use of taxpayers money.
Given Jan. 6th, which I watched as it was happening, I think the Justice Dept. is justified in investigating what happened. It was an unprecedented assault on our democracy. The goal was to overthrow the election results.
Though I'm sure we disagree on the events, and I suspect you believe the election was stolen from Trump, there are probably a number of things we agree on. Both of us want free and fair elections. We want the person who got the most votes to win.
But who do we trust? I trust the Trump appointed officials, who said it was fair and untampered with...Chris? something? Bill Barr said there was no evidence of overwhelming fraud or election tampering. None of the court cases, 60? or there abouts, were able to show proof of election tampering. Even the Arizona private re-count couldn't come up with evidence of fraud.
I assume then, that You voted for T.Rump? There are two versions of what he did the evening of Jan. 3, some say he strong-armed the Justice Dept, and some say he didn't. Hard to determine the FACTS of the matter, but one FACT stands out: He HAD the meeting, when in all likelihood it should never have happened in the FIRST place.
May draw different conclusion in the future, as I'm still reading stuff. But if You're holding up T.Rump as the right-thinking President that really DID get elected, then I think You have overlooked a few things.
I honestly think this is the most important comment in the whole thread, including mine. I desperately want to be an anti Trump Republican, but am stuck in the Democratic party while i wait for Trump to die. But my entire political motivation is to attack the woke left, which i abhor. But as Sharon says, the Democrats have been much more successful in controlling their woke fringe than the Republicans in controlling their Trump fringe. i hate wokeism, but it really doesn' t play much of a role in mainstream Democratic politics. It's taken over the universities and media, but that's not a field where a voter can make a difference. Meanwhile the Republicans have completely rolled over to be dominated by the dumbest, laziest, most incompetent leader in the history of the republic. Every time I give up on the Democratic party's latest woke error, I need to remember that the Republicans are much more reprehensible until they are rid of Trump.
When the Republicans capture almost every aspect of being a "classical liberal" there is something very wrong and corrupt within the Democratic Party. How many Democrats do you think still don't know the entire Trump/Russian Collision, Russia Alpha Back/Trump server, the Steele Dossier and the Russian Bounty program were all fabrications of the Democratic Party and their willing accomplices in the media?
Think about that for a minute. The Democrats conspired with foreign operatives to create fake information on a political opponent. The media and Democrats ran with a known fabricated story for 18 months non-stop designed to sow resentment, hatred and devision.
How many Democrats do you think still don't know VP Biden used 1 billion USD of tax payer money to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect the company Hunter had a $50,000/month seat on the board for?
If you voted for Biden, this is exactly what you voted for.
I got my information from the Economist and listening to testimony from Trump appointees. I also read the special prosecutors report and it didn't sound like nothing. There were a lot of GOP appointees and supporters who were pretty upset about Trump's handling of Ukraine.
Where are you getting your information from?
Yes. A lot of my info came from the NYT, but it was collaborated with other more objective sources. To me the most telling was testimony from Trump appointees and career state department people who'd served under both Dem and Rep administrations.
I mentioned my sources of information. What are your sources? The Economist ran several in-depth articles on the Hunter Biden affair, of which they were critical of the system of political patronage, but they outlined the history of prosecutors and government actors in Ukraine and Biden was supporting the anti-corruption.
Where are you getting your information from? What are your sources?
Joe Biden bragging at the Council of Foreign Relations about using a 1 billion dollar incentive to Ukraine ONLY if they fired a prosecutor (turns out it was Konstantin Kulik). The video of him bragging about how tough he is is easy to find.
The emails (detailed in the now validated NY Post article based on Hunter Biden's lots laptop) showing an executive of Burisma telling Hunter Biden to "use his influence" to make the investigation into Burisma, being led by Konstantin Kulik, "to go away".
The now verified meeting between Joe Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive at Burisma.
The timeline of these events is (roughly):
Hunter gets email to make an investigation go away.
A few weeks later, Joe Biden and Hunter meet with Vadym Pozharskyi.
A few weeks later, Joe Biden meets with Ukrainian President and forces him to fire Konstantin Kulik to get $1,000,000,000 in aid.
This is how Hunter earned his 50K/month.
NOTE: ABC, NBC, CBC, CNN, WaPo, NYT... have 0 interest in covering this so they simply lie to the American public by ommision.
You can read the emails your self. You can look at the photos and data yourself. You can watch the video yourself. You can draw your own timeline and use your own rational reasoning.
I didn’t loose anything 2 years ago. I have no conceptual clue what you are talking about.
6 years ago, the center left Democrats lost to the radical, and militant, left wing of their party. There is no centrist Democrats anymore. I was one. The party, as it stands, is irredeemable.
Oh come on, this isn't Biden's fault anymore than Covid wasn't Trumps fault. This woke stuff has apparently been building for decades, and runs rampant on its own steam now. Do you really think it would matter who sits in the Oval Office? The President's favor or disfavor on this issue would hardly move the needle.
The current regime fully backs Critical Race Theory and given various Critical Theories (gender, queer …) are all illiberal and are the foundation of “woke”…
Take the case of co-ed regret sex. When Obama (and very soon) Biden are in office, universities are pressured to maximize prosecutions of men and to afford men minimal to zero due process. As a result, the universities get sued and pay out millions of dollars. This would be a sorry act of fiduciary irresponsibility except for the valid excuse that they are under duress from the Feds. When Trump (I'm not a fan disclaimer) is President, the regulations promote greater due process and fair outcomes. Yes, it matters who is President. This is just one example. There are thousands.
I’m always amused by the multiple texts/comments I have seen/heard that praise Trumps policies while disavowing Trump. Aren’t the very successful policies enough to make one appreciate Trump?
He is exceedingly imperfect as a human. He is bombastic, self righteous, narcissistic, crude (though he can be gut busting funny at times) but a product of the 60’s and 70’s.
Overall, being an economist at heart, he made mostly good policy decisions.
Given the choice between mostly good policies and mean tweets OR horrid policies masked in politeness, I’ll take the former.
Before anyone writes off what I "say," on account-a this article IS by the NYT, I wanna say this:
Per usual, the Times gets the story wrong. I don't question they got the testimony correctly, but the story as a whole is wrong.
The HERO of the story, from what I read in a book that was a WaPo hatchet-job, was UNDOUBTEDLY Attorney General Bill Barr. The article says this: "The Senate panel found that Barr personally demanded that the department investigate voter fraud allegations, even if other authorities had looked into them and not found evidence of wrongdoing."
ICBW, but I THINK the evidence Barr came up with, was that there was ZERO fraud, and that everybody who said there was ZERO fraud were correct. I think these findings, as much as any other, were what the honest people in the government relied on to prevent, in essence, a dictatorship by T.Rump. Him who relied on Guiliani??!? A person who can only understand the people who tell them what they WANNA hear? That Sidney (last-name-forgotten)? Rely on her? She's getting SUED for making false statements.
If You think the election was stolen, these are the people You are relying on for evidence of it? Hm, is all I can say.
I don't think it was here, but on another article by M. Weiss where I said, "T.Rump would do ANYTHING to stay in power." Turns out, I was 100% right. Simply because I judged the man on his CHARACTER.
Now, mebbe 2/3 of Repubs will say this is ALL LIES. But consider these were ALL T.RUMP'S MEN who are saying it. What axe do they have to grind against T.Rump? Naw, T.Rump's way is the way of the world these days, right?
Indeed, what the President SAYS won't often make a big difference. But the ACTIONS of the administration can make a big difference.
Compare the Obama administration's instructions to colleges that accused students need not have a chance to defend themselves to the Trump administration restoring the right to a fair hearing.
I mark that up to the fact that primary and secondary education is practiced for the BENEFIT of girls, and works AGAINST boys. In general. No doubt due to the fact that women overwhelmingly outnumber men when it comes to teachers, right?
I think it does matter who sits in the White House, because a leader sets a tone. In Biden's case, he has defaulted to his party's progressive left, which is totally supportive of this kind of totalitarian behavior and says so publicly. Trump's bombast is certainly no solution either. Sigh...
Trump stood strong for America and Americans. Guess I’m “old fashioned “ but would like a President that strongly advocates for our country and our people.
Here's my problem with T.Rump, M. Madjack. Well, two of the main problems:
I judge a man by his CHARACTER, not the color of his skin. (Not saying Biden's a WHOLE lot better. Just not AS bad.) Like the things Steven N. "said" and THEN some.
But, two, he went WAY outta his way to promote a hatred amongst the partisans. Biden not doing much in the way of bringing the country together, and I fault him heavily for that (amongst other things).
If that were true, then this woke stuff would have been at least minimized under Trump's tenure. But it wasn't, it was flourishing despite him. And that's including having the House and Senate and Court.
These socio-cultural crusades don't 'bend the knee' to any particular administration. In fact, they hardly pay them any mind.
We certainly do not own this. Mob intimidation is as old as America, with January 6 being the ultimate example--a violent attack on Congress designed to cancel the election. The left and right wings love cancel culture because it gives them power beyond their small numbers, and they apply it to whomever they consider the enemy--from the Red Scare and McCarthyism to domestic terrorism to forced Woke firings by the left wing.
McCarthyism???? What are you referring to? If you mean Senator Joe McCarthy, he only identified Communists and Communist agents in the government, and as we know (Venona papers, etc.), was 90+% correct. He did not attack people outside the government. That was the House Unamerican Activities Committee, controlled for much of the time by Democrats. Perhaps you meant HUACism?
"a violent attack" with no weapons???? I believe that is a bit of hyperbola based on the videos I have seen. It was weird and dystopian but far from "violent".
I agree that the rally, march, and protest weren't violent. The riot was. Rioters didn't need guns to hurt cops (and each other), they did plenty of damage with steel pipes, bear spray, shields, batons, hammers, bike racks, and other blunt instruments that can break bones and crush skulls with one swing. More than 100 people were injured in that riot. To call it "far from violent" is simply not the case.
Compared to the “Summer of Love” in Portland that resulted in 5 shootings, 3 murders and 50 rapes. I consider the Jan 6 kerfufle “far from violent”.
Compared to “Firery but mostly peace protests” leaving multiple people in the hospital and millions in property damage, I consider the Jan 6 2.5 hour debacle mostly a blip and not really “violent”.
Jan 6 was a relatively small group of people with no political power, influence or any real support.
It is, however, a perfect example of Marcus’s Repressive Tolerance:
“movements from the left must be extended tolerance, even when they are violent, while movements from the right must not be tolerated, including suppressing them by violence.”
"Movements from the left must be extended tolerance, even when they are violent ..."
Not me, Bubba. I demanded *at the time* that the George Floyd rioters and looters be arrested, charged, and tried, and found it outrageous that city officials in Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis refused. It was criminal dereliction of duty, and they should have been removed from office by voters.
Why don't you hold your Red Hat rioters to the same standard?
“I demanded *at the time* that the George Floyd rioters and looters be arrested, charged, and tried, and found it outrageous …”
My neighbor, in AZ, moved from LA in part because his Chinese neighbor had his house fire bombed by BLM activists while his family was home. His crime, he was unwilling to pay 5% revenue charge to put a BLM sign in his deli window. The perpetrators were bailed out by our VP’s freedom fund. She used her influence to make sure no charges for attempted murder.
Excuse me, but the January 6 attack was not "violent". The protestors were not armed in any way.
You must be thinking of the attempt by Sanders volunteer James Hodgkinson to assassinate two dozen Republican members of Congress in June 2017. He WAS armed and had a list of the members he wanted to kill and fired hundreds of shots at the Senators and Representatives, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise, the third highest ranking member of the House at the time.
That was violence against Congress, FAR worse than anything that happened on January 6, 2021.
"Excuse me, but the January 6 attack was not "violent."
Get back to me when you're serious.
As for Hodgkinson, he was shot and killed by police. Liberals and Democrats across the nation applauded that outcome for his act of terror. So did Bernie Sanders, the Congressional Democratic Softball Team that was practicing at another field and immediately stopped to offer prayers to their fallen colleagues, and every other Democrat in public office.
But nobody on January 6 tried to kill any member of Congress. The only deaths were among the protesters and the only one who was killed was killed by a Capitol Police member.
Hodkinson tried to assassinate two dozen members of Congress, and nearly succeeded.
It doesn't matter what the Democrats may have said afterwards. It is the actual action that counts.
You are completely missing my point. None of the protesters was armed on January 6. Not a single one. James Hodgkinson was armed and was definitely trying to assassinate multiple members of Congress.
I am not talking about what Republicans or Democrats may have said, but about the facts of the two situations.
Clearly, Hodgkinson's attack, no matter what might have motivated him, was FAR worse objectively than the January 6 protests.
McVeigh didn't carry a gun, either. He killed hundreds of people without one.
The January 6 rioters didn't carry guns, either. But they were heavily armed, with batons, shields, bear spray, fire extinguishers, and other blunt instruments that can cave in a skull. Hundreds of them attacked the police (and each other) like grizzly bears, causing hundreds of injuries. That they failed to kill anyone is astonishing.
Hodgkinson's terrorist attack was more lethal than January 6, but we liberals universally condemned it and applauded that he died in the police shootout. (As did sane conservatives and moderates.) You, on the other hand, are still apologizing and excusing the rioters and insurrectionists of January 6. Shame on you.
Your whataboutism is embarrassing, and I won't reply to it any more.
Please forgive me, but I disagree. I’ll start by agreeing that the far right is as much a scourge as the far left. And the tactics both use are similar. However, the far left now controls the media, the government, Hollywood, academia and corporate America. The far left has money and is very well organized. The far right controls nothing, has no money and is not very well organized. The way I see it, moderate Democrats made a pact with the far left to oust the previous president - and now own what the far left is doing to America. There are many liberals on this page who agree with my assessment and have the courage to accept this. The problem lies with those moderate Democrats who will not acknowledge this and are afraid to say anything about it, who just hide their heads hoping this will all go away. It won’t go away unless all moderates resist the far left ideology.
No forgiveness needed in disagreement, I do it all the time!
As for the rest, I am a liberal, closer to center than not, but not "moderate" as in "moderate Democrat Joe Manchin." I do not own and will not accept the blame for the un-American actions of the Woke, any more than I blame thoughtful conservatives for the un-American insurrection of January 6.
We made no "pact" to oust Trump--Democrats can't organize a one-car funeral, let along a national political strategy. Trump ousted himself, we just voted to help him on his way.
That "many liberals" agree with your assessment doesn't make it correct, it only means they agree with your assessment. The "far left" doesn't control anything any more than the far right does. They are both useful idiots for Big Corporate that controls all of it. MAGA and Wokeism are noisy, occasionally violent, political theater that fights the Culture Wars designed to distract us from how throughly we are being screwed by Big Corporate and their bought and paid for politicians.
We all need to resist the far left, far right, Wokeism, Trumpism, and their corporate puppeteers as the poison they are.
The corporate puppeteers is a great way to describe it. This is the single biggest issue that many people either don’t see or are ignorant of - that while the corporate empire may publicly support the left, they do so in order to distract or provide cover for what they are doing with their other hand, which is enhancing their political and economic control over how things get done in the USA.
It's a roundtable discussing "The Elites." What one-a the commenters, Wesley Yang (who I follow on his Substack), calls "The Successor REGIME."
Corporate puppeteers make up only SOME of the millions in this crew of BISSTARDS. It's the people in GOVERNMENT, a lotta them. ENTRENCHED. I need to read it a third time.
The VAST majority of the people on January 6 were there legitimately to protest an election that was questionable. Anyone involved in violence should be prosecuted (including thousands of BLM/antifa terrorists over the last year). The role of the FBI/security services in fomenting violence should be thoroughly investigated. The sad “disorderly tourists” that wandered into the capital unhindered once the doors were open should be left alone. The political prisoners should be treated the same as other prisoners in our corrupt judicial system.
THIS view I agree with, Madjack. The punishments should fit the crimes: peaceful protestors were there legally and should be left in peace. Your "disorderly tourists"--they weren't tourists, but I get your point--who wandered around but did not damage should be charged with misdemeanor trespassing, pay a small fine, and get on with their lives. Rioters should be hit with jail terms, possibly prison, depending on whether they hurt anyone. The relative handful of insurrectionists who actively tried to overturn election results, along with anyone who helped plan the invasion, should be slammed hard.
As for the George Floyd riots, I said at the time that peaceful protestors should be left alone but rioters and looters should be stopped and arrested. Local and state governments who allowed the violence to go on day after week after month should be removed from office by voters for failure to perform their duties. And the city idiots who allowed the occupation and blockade of blocks of Seattle and Minneapolis should be charged with criminal dereliction of duty.
All I'm saying is that "cancel culture" takes many forms, that the right and the the left do it, and normal people need to "cancel" this nonsense at the start.
I think Biden/Harris got so many more votes than Clinton in 2016 because of many people being gotten to vote without learning much about them (they hardly campaigned!). Biden got 15 million more votes while mostly sitting at home, while Trump got 13 million more votes with many large rallies.
A major factor was the massive funding by the Zuckerbergs (and some others) of get-out-the-vote efforts in Democratic Party strongholds. For example:
"Of the top 20 “grants” provided by CTCL to cities and counties, 19 have gone to jurisdictions that Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won in 2016. The sole county on the list that Mr. Trump carried in 2016 received a paltry $289,000 — less than 0.5% of the $63 million Mr. Zuckerberg and his other high-tech allies provided to those 20 cities and countries through CTCL."
There is more on other states, too, at this news item on MSN:
If Biden voters are responsible for the Woke, Trump voters are responsible for January 6, which was the ultimate act of cancel culture---using a violent riot to cancel the outcome of the presidential election.
Aw, poor baby, triggered like the RW snowflake you are. Just own what you did on January 6, just like I own the view that the Woke mob needs to be destroyed before it harms more people.
Most of the commenters here seem to be politely discussing issues. You seem to relish contrarianism for its own sake. And the only one here engaged in name-calling. I think you would fit better in some other discussion rather than this one.
"I think you would fit better in some other discussion rather than this one."
Not your call. If that's not too impolite of me.
"You seem to relish contrarianism for its own sake."
I have better things to do than throw bombs just to watch them explode. I counter assertions with which I disagree or are based on false information. I praise assertions with which I agree or make a good argument. I will continue to do so until Bari says otherwise, and I don't expect that she will.
"And the only one here engaged in name-calling."
JDFree: "You are truly pathetic."
madaboutmd: "I think he's actually an incredible racist who enjoys seeing the mass murders of urban blacks."
More mad: "You are either too lazy or know very well that you can't disprove the information in the NEWS piece."
Yes, I would appear to be the only name-caller . . .
I don't insult anyone unless they drop one on me first: see, JDFree in this very thread. Most of my exchanges here have been pleasant and free of rancor. Some are ... not. Sorry that bothers you, but defending myself doesn't bother me at all.
Did any of the Jan 6 protestors have weapons? No. How did the protesters get into the capital? They were let in. Who was heavily involved in instigating the crowd? The FBI. Who shot an unarmed, non-threatening individual to death and the escaped accountability? A capital police officer. Who has wrongfully imprisoned many of the protesters for political reasons? The DOJ. Who owns the capital? The people. As more evidence emerges it is clear that the Jan 6 protest was converted to a small riot by the deep state committed to creating a false narrative.
True, but mostly white. They are better, and more satisfying targets. And, bonus, the admins feel less guilty. A win-win for mob rule and feckless universities.
When teachers are bullying children about the color of their skin that’s a problem-stop acting like this is about history or free speech- its like the activist of today a bunch of bullies in the name of social justice-
Really? Teachers are coming from woke colleges. No teacher is bullying any student of color. HAAAAHHHHHHH. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. It's probably not the color of their skin but because they have bad behavior. In that case, the offender should be removed from a class, and his behavior problem should be addressed. Maybe, he or she, can't be mainstreamed.
ICBW, but I believe M. Kham was referring to the cases where teachers bully WHITE kids for being oppressors and having "white privilege" they shouldn't have.
But, actually, they also bully students of color into believing there really isn't much they can accomplish in the U.S. as long as there's a spec of "systemic racism" to be found anywhere.
I don't know WHAT to say about liberals who don't see this going on. No, not EVERYWHERE. But we only hear about the tip of the iceberg, AFAIK.
You know nothing about CRT and I say that nicely. It has NOTHING to do with “teaching more about slavery and the civil rights movement in schools.” Nothing. Anyone that told you that lied blatantly to your face.
Kimberly Crenshaw, the grand mama bear of CRT partially defined it as “drawing on a wide range of scholarly ideologies to include feminism, Marxism, and post-modernism.”
CRT really is as close to an “evil” religious ideology as you can get.
She was very ethical. She wrote about herself being the most oppressed class and something she could never have as the greatest oppressor. HAAAHHHAAAHHAAA
I don't think you understand CRT and what's behind it. It is not grounded in history, in which slavery unfortunately was (and is) a global phenomenon - there is no such nuanced perspective in CRT. It is about control and power by separating individuals based on superficial characteristics, and making them hate each other. I agree social media is a big problem. I'm just not sure what the best solution is.
I agree with you regarding how we should not cancel CRT and about the many misconceptions that surround it. However, I disagree with your assessment of CRT as simply leaning about slavery and civil rights. CRT is learning about these topics from a perspective that deemphasizes the individual and individual choices, and sees racism as a pervasive an inescapable force we have all been socialized into. The best and most objective way to get a quick understanding of CRT is to check out its tenets from any pro-CRT website. Notice how the questioning and/or critiquing of enlightened liberal values (humanism, individualism, empiricism) is usually listed as part of such tenets. It is the rejection of such values that should alarm us all.
CRT is based on meta-ethical relative morality, which gives justice to the most powerful class. It was what Stalin's Russia used. The Black LEsbian is the social construct with the most power, and the White Male Streight Christian has the least power. It treats the least powerful with disrespect and no ability to speak back logically; its proponents do not listen and do not practice self-control. They take initiatives on their own and are so aggressive that their actions border on violence.
CRT is a cultural thing. It's not about free speech. It is how the speech is presented. Marcuse's repressive tolerance. Coercion and soul robbing. No listening, no tolerance, no objectivity, and no respect. The Ford Foundation teaches this.
So depressing how all these institutions with mega endowments--foundations, universities etc.--have been taken over by corrupt and incompetent leaders.
CTR—as it is taught today— is neither objective nor empirical. It relies on standpoint epistemology, which tends to look at science and objectivity as white/oppressive ways to understand the world. If we emphasize the value of evidence and objectivity, it follows that—in the long term—this will be to the detriment of CRT and related ideologies.
That’s true of any Critical Theory. They call to action, they specifically reject objective truth for “narrative” truth and they reject rational thought.
Any Critical Theory is, by definition, a religion and a bad one at that.
I don’t like CRT, but I agree with you. We cannot be “against cancel culture” and then promote the cancelation of an ideology (however erroneous and misguided). The best way to challenge CRT is by requesting it be taught along with contrasting models/opinions on racism so we can allow individuals to reach their own conclusions based on logic and evidence. Critical thinking skills are crucial right now!
There is a reason why Mein Kampf is still found in US libraries: there is great value in understanding where evil comes from. Should the ideas in Mein Kapf be taught to young children without critical thinking skills? Absolutely not. Should we teach children to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions based on reasoning and evidence? Absolutely. I like to think about long term solutions. Ultimately, if CRT lacks the empirical evidence to back up its claims (something I am inclined to believe) it will be debunked and cast into obscurity.
I hope you do understand that "CRT lite" is taught to grade school kids as a fact and the most popular way is to put white 8 year old in front of the class and explain that he is an oppressor and worst person in the universe? Did you hear a story of a mixed race boy who was told that he has to hate his late white father and admit that his black mom was a victim? Mom was suing the school district. Parents are not objecting to discussing a racial theory on the grad school level, they don't want teachers to brainwash school kids with so called "facts".
Sadly, I am aware of how these ideas are being taught to young children. While I am not for the banning of CRT, I do sincerely hope that—in the instances where it applies—children and adults who have been discriminated based on skin color can successfully sue based on the Civil Rights Act.
I want to make a case for promoting critical thinking in schools as a way to challenge the ideas associated with the bulk of post-modern, critical theory-inspired ideologies (not just CRT). I appreciate that the concept of critical thinking is quite complex in itself, but in most of its definitions it incorporates ideals such as fair mindedness and the capacity to assess and understand alternative view points. In that regard, I do not feel that to advocate for censorship is consistent with critical thinking. I think this is particularly relevant given how proponents of CRT are using the efforts to ban the ideology as a way to further their preconceived ideas on power/ oppression.
Of course, there is great nuance to this topic. I understand that there is great variability about how this bans are being enacted and implemented on each state (some some of this legislations I can get behind more than others). On the other hand, I am also aware that some states are implementing curricula that comes from the field of critical pedagogy (e.g., culturally responsive sustaining education) which incorporates concepts such as the “dismantling of systemic privilege” and intersectionality in all academic subjects. This further complicates matters.
Whether we want to challenge curricula or individual ideas, however, I believe we should incorporate and promote different (perhaps better?) ideas on the topics of racism and social justice rather than rely on censorship. This should be coupled with a push to teach of critical thinking skills in schools. Ultimately, this might yield better long term results. This is why I feel in such a way:
1. This approach would dispel the notion that those who oppose ideologies like CRT do so because they do not want kids learning about the history of racism/slavery/civil rights and/or want to indoctrinate kids into blind patriotism/American exceptionalism.
2. I understand that post-modern, Critical Theory inspired ideologies (what Lindsay and Pluckrose refer to as applied postmodernist fields of study) place great emphasis on discourses/narratives/language. Think about what a big blow it would be for these ideologies to no longer have the monopoly on topics such as racism as social justice. For example, as far as I am concerned, Kendi doesn’t own the trademark on anti-racism. There are several ways to be anti-racist, and we should aim to dispel Kendi’s false dichotomy.
3. If we truly believe that these this kind of theories lack a solid empirical foundation (based on their critique of enlightened liberal values and their reliance on standpoint epistemology) then, to promote the importance of empiricism and evidence in schools would take advantage of the core vulnerabilities of these ideologies.
4. It would allow to the record straight: ideologies that are based on critical theory and postmodernist thought sometimes come under the label “critical” (e.g., critical social justice, CRT, critical pedagogy) but share little in common with the notion of critical thinking. To analyze complex topics such as racism and social justice solely through ONE framework—particularly a framework that allows little room for dissent—is NOT teaching our kids to think critically. People need to be aware of the differences.
5. In the current climate of social media echo chambers, politicization and polarization, critical thinking skills would protect youth against the dangers of other dangerous ideas.
Thank you for the detailed response. I am with you on most of this stuff, BUT you did not mention age appropriate teaching, and this my my main concern. CRT as a theory does not have any place in the elementary/middle school. I am all for discussion with much older kids in the appropriate setting. It seems that grown adults are punished for even attempting to doubt any part of CRT, which ends up as a simple indoctrination for children.
You are correct; age is a crucial factor. Younger children have a limited capacity to think abstractly about these issues, so they are particularly vulnerable. My kids are little (3 and 7) and the eldest attends public school. I think we are lucky because my daughter’s teacher is in her 50s. From my observations, she seems to think of topics like racism and multiculturalism from the more traditional (non-woke) liberal perspective. I scrutinized the curriculum that was proposed and I didn’t find anything I could object to. I remain vigilant, however, and I am not taking for granted that things will remain this way.
In that regard, I am glad there are resources like FAIR. They recently released an alternative curriculum to teach topics like racism/race relations in a way that aligns with enlightened liberal values (pro-human values) and incorporates critical thinking. Peter Boghossian— an expert in pedagogy and critical thinking—is FAIR advisor (like Bari). I wouldn’t be surprised if he played a role in the creation of this curriculum. I attended a virtual meeting about the curriculum and there are different topics that are covered by grade; it all seems very age-appropriate. If I were in a situation where my biracial children were being taught about “whiteness” or separated into affinity groups, I would be the first parent pushing for the FAIR curriculum. If I got the sense that the administration had capitulated to the ideology, I would likely pull my daughter out of school.
CRT (and works like “White Fragility” and “How to be an Anti-Racist” belong on the same shelf as Hitlers Mien Kampf). When you are old enough, you study them to understand evil.
Gave You a heart on this, M. Alejandra. But, I'm afraid I'm not so optimistic. The Way the world moves isn't always decided on empirical evidence. It just doesn't, and surely You know that, especially lately, a LOTTA Science has gone political. Make ZERO effort to disprove the hypothesis. Only collect the data that would support their thesis. Confirmation Bias exists in Science now, where it didn't used-ta.
But more to the point, the "Successor Regime" was built, and is maintained by, emotions. In fact, it rides on the view that empirical understandings are "whiteness." If that wasn't the case, and this movement was based on some kind-a empirical grounds, it wouldn't last three seconds, right?
So I don't think it will be defeated easily, nor quickly, nor by Scientific evidence. You MAY be right that it should be. Won't, is all I'm saying.
I can be quite cynical, but deep down I am an idealist and I realize how idealistic I sound in the above post. I am of course aware politicization of science in the current polarized climate. This is not only evidenced by individual stories like Mr Abbot’s here, but the deep seeded bias in some academic fields was exposed in the grievance studies affair (also known as Sokal Square). Like you, I worry about this since good science is by definition unbiased and apolitical. This is what should be taught in schools as part of critical thinking skills. Of course, we are a long way there, but one can dream.
Yet, I still think it impractical to flat out ban CRT. Not only are we setting a negative president for what is allowed to be taught in schools, but in the current political climate this mandates are likely to backfire (I think true believers of this ideology will find a way to circumvent and banning them feeds their fervor). Perhaps we should instead take advantage of the situation to push curricula that challenges CRT (such as FAIR’s).
Yah, agree on ALL points, M. Alejandra. Banning CRT works in FAVOR of CRTers. Drives Center-Left Democrats further left, when they should be going further center.
agree with you; censorship from the right is not the solution. I believe much of the current political climate and CRT (ie: communistic) fascination stems from lack of advancement and accumulation of net wealth among black Americans (as well as many white Americans and Americans of all heritage) whose American ancestry goes back generations. Many such people have no material worth to show for their centuries of American lineage. It's very difficult, if not impossible, for them to compete with immigrants. It's hard for upper class children to compete too, but they at least have strong families and some financial security. Children who raised in families that have little financial cushion and minimal family support are crushed by debt, drugs, depression etc. It's important to be able to review, discuss and try to understand societal ills from all angles and make sure our (knee-jerk) solutions aren't making things worse. I am not opposed to discussing some systematic racism in our past. No doubt it existed and still exists. I am also not necessarily against some level of (well conceived) gov't aid when paired with conservative solutions as well, ie: marrying and staying marrying seems to boost standard of living more than just about anything else. What I am very much against is the censoring of conservative voices and solutions. We need all brains on deck!! One tangential concern is that more harm is caused by marijuana than, as a society, we are willing to admit. I asked my son's high school dean if there would be any drug education. Her response: "The school doesn't believe it works as the kids just do drugs anyway." WTF? The reality that kids experiment is not a reason to not educate them about harms. The ones who have been preached to about the harms will have a voice that reminds them when it's time to stop. We have stopped teaching kids that drugs are bad and lives are being ruined.
Once the get rid of currency with a digital dollar and monitoring what you buy, there won't be any drugs. This will happen when 7G or 8G is working. Japan is working on 7G now and experimenting in India and Japan. The Chinese are exploring software use on 5G. The Brits are working on (Britcoin). Everything will be on the cloud. Why do you think America is so far behind in upgrading networks? Why do you think they don't care about drugs? They also don't care about borders, what will they pay the illegals with? I think they are setting us up for a digital ID that is cloud-based. You will get paid and pay with this ID. No more guns, ammo, porn, prostitutes, or any black market or illegal things.
I agree with you 100% C Bell. One of the main problems about CRT is that while it claims to want to open dialogue on the topics of racism/race relations, in reality, it aims to dominate the narrative in a sort of draconian way. (As I mentioned on a previous post, based on standpoint epistemology those deemed marginalized have the authority. However, if a “marginalized” person who opposes the narrative they are considered an “internalized oppressor.” Thus, the ideology cannot be challenged.) CRT and antiracism —both of which use the intersectional frame—also make the mistake of distilling the individual into an identity. I do not think this is a helpful perspective.
I came to the conclusion a while back that to do justice such a complex and important topic, the nuanced opinions of scholars/intellectuals from all sides the policial spectrum must be included. I think part of the problem is that there is a lack of evidence-based solutions to some of the disparities you mentioned. If there were, perhaps these narratives would have as strong an appeal. I hope the “woke” trend pases and we are able to see this as a wake up call.
yes, i see the rub, how do you have an open dialogue with people who support an ideology that opposes open dialogue... but I do think people are learning how to defend themselves against this bullying. CRT is just another academic concept that can be debated like all others. We are learning that if they call you a racist or an oppressor or any other name...so what...apparently we're all racists so I guess we're in good company. Celebrities, professor, business owners etc need to stop the public self-flagellation for these perceived micro-aggressions. It's weird and just feeds the beast.
I think there are true believers of this ideology as well as people who go along in good faith thinking this will be an effective way to overcome racism and injustice. I think those who are not true believers can be eventually swayed by ideas to combat/ameliorate racism that the fall outside the framework of CRT and related ideologies. Likewise, I think we should continue to make a case for the fact (and it is a fact, since this is part of the CRT tenets) that ideologies like CRT stand in contrast to the ideas of enlightenment liberalism.
That is like suggesting we to bring in the flat earther’s to present to a geography class…There are views on matters of racism that are not CRT and that are not fringe (or at least, they shouldn’t be). The idea is to talk about racism within an framework that is more compatible with the values of enlightened liberalism (individualism, humanism, empiricism). Good news is, such critical-thinking-based curriculum already exists: https://www.fairforall.org/
I think people are sloppy on both sides about the term CRT. Progressives will say it’s just some obscure legal theory that’s completely harmless, while conservatives lox it with all sorts of evil baggage. But this is all besides the point. CRT is just used today to represent the whole suite of 1619 project/diangelo/kendi silliness. My school district teaches all three of these things in high school and they absolutely should not. These are absurd false diatribes against white people. Whether you want to call it CRT or something else is a distraction; that stupid stuff shouldn’t be peddled as fact to kids
I think you're coming from a good place. I agree about your social media comment. I do disagree with your analysis on CRT; perhaps it's not "hating" white people, but certainly alienating them to the point where parents have a legitimate concern for concepts taught in the classroom. Take the phrases "white privilege" "white advantage" "eliminating whiteness" "white supremacy" "only whites can be racist" "deconstruct whiteness." (I could go on but you get the point). Also couple this language with the activists who claim antiracism is the only way to combat racism, which according to Ibram X. Kendi, is actively using these linguistic concepts to be hyper aware of skin color at every level of interaction, from babies to adults, from kindergarten to the work place. So this is not, as you said, about slavery (although those wounds are still there and rightly so) or textbook US history or even the civil rights movement. It's about linguistic and social reprogramming, with white people, fortunately or unfortunately, taking the short end of the stick. Which, according to some, is what they deserve anyway.
The only thing people deserve is to be treated with respect, tolerance, listening and a present their view point. The view of "white privilege" is a marage.
In the past 40 years there has been managed decline because of NAFTA. Union Jobs, high paying manufacturing jobs in semiconductors, steel, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, electronics, appliances, software and other industries has evaporated. Migrants coming into the country have lowered wages in the meat packing, hospitality, construction, lawncare and other industries. The Black community has not had a chance to flower even though the seeds of equal rights and affirmative action to create equality have been planted.
The war on drugs, which has been lost, has unfairly targeted Black communities. Poverty and not seeing success has created anger. The Elites at the same time have profited. You have corrupt politicians that do not effect change. Laws are not passed for moral reasons to help the people. Laws proclaimed are a joke. Biden trying to tax the rich. They will just use loop holes and off-shore the money.
See the Pandaora Papers (1). Most politicians are out to make money, lobiests on K street have doubled. The stock market is rigged for the rich to invest in, the middle class guy has no chance.
Why do Elites like the Ford Foundation support ASU and MIT? Why does the McAurthur support Kendi with a genius grant? The US is the only country that allows philanthropy to invest in political causes.The elites do not want unity, they are seeking control and want confusion. Social Media and the mass Media push a constant narrative. The corrupt politicians work in tandem with corporate elites, one feeds the other.
This is why the Blacks have been depressed and why racism is part of the perceived engineered consent. It is an illusion, the reality is the top 1% own 80% of the wealth in this country. Harrass the corporate elites, leave the average "White Guy" alone, he has nothing but anger like the Blacks
TYTY M. Odin. I have different statistics about who owns how much of the wealth. No matter. But I thought this article was interesting on several points: "The Truth about Redlining" https://glennloury.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-redlining
"If you look at the bottom 50% of white people in terms of wealth and the bottom 50% of black people in terms of wealth, there is almost no wealth gap at all. The entire gap is in the top 50%. And the reason, of course, that there's no wealth gap in the bottom 50% is that practically none of those people, white or black, have any significant wealth today. And again, that's a horrifying fact."
My statistics say that the bottom 50% holds TWO (2) % of the wealth. That puts EVERYONE reading this in the category of "them" to these poor people.
Agree with most of that, but I have some small notes.
One is that by "wealth" above we mean "how much money would you have left if you sold everything you own at market values, and paid off all debts". This kind of wealth is just "wealth=own-owe". People of low wealth can own very little and owe very little, or they can own (and make use) of a lot, but also owe a lot. Sometimes even people with high incomes and very lavish lifestyles can have negative net wealth. Sometimes people living very frugally below what their income could afford and avoiding debt, are accumulating wealth at decent rates.
So having lower wealth is an unreliable proxy for living in poverty. Of course there is some correlation, but other cultural factors need to be taken into account as well.
And the second point is to consider what wealth means operationally.
In the US, a person's "wealth" would often be *far* higher, if the value of their future Medicare and Social Security benefits was taken into account.
Or put another way, without any Medicare or Social Security, how big a payment would be needed at retirement to buy pre-paid equivalent services (eg: inflation adjusted annuities and prepaid medical coverage for life)? And how does that figure compare with one's own-owe wealth?
Even as a middle class person, by far the largest "wealth" equivalent I will have for retirement is future Medicare and Social Security. That mounts up to more than the value of my savings or equity, and I'm sure that I'm not alone.
For some people, even people not close to retirement, the bulk of their effective "wealth" is current and future social welfare services (eg: MedicAid rather than MediCare) and entitlements (which refers here to direct government payments, not attitudes).
The traditional wealth measures of own-owe are meaningful and this is not intended to distract from or dismiss that; but they are incomplete as an assessment of "how well people are doing" or what their effective "wealth-equivalent" really is.
(A related point - the stats about how many people live below the federal poverty line are based on only what people have acquired on their own, without including [federal/state/local] government assistance, in services or cash. The number who remain below that dollar line even after all government assistance is far smaller).
To be clear, I applaud the situation above - that retirement benfits channeled through the government are available to greatly raise the effective wealth of most retirees; and that social welfare even more greatly increases the effective income and wealth of those at the lower economic rungs of society. I'm not advocating for any reduction! I'm just saying that for clear thinking, we need to not sweep those laudable programs under the rug when analyzing effective real world income and wealth. Keep it also in our thinking, rather than considering only "net wealth on paper"
My friend's son is 1/4 italian 1/4 korean, 1/4 russian jew 1/4 indian. His school told him he had to join an affinity group and he asked his mom (half korean) which group he should join--"white or asian?" My ancestry is mainly british isles but i have a german last name; my husband is austrian but has an english last name. His mother was czech. I had dinner with a syrian muslim friend recently. She just joined the eastern orthodox lebanese church in my town because the food there reminded her of home. I ate pakistani food last night. Three entrees for $34 with tip and tax. Best meal i have had in weeks. The atmosphere was humble but service was incredibly warm and welcoming. I live in the bible belt btw. The united states is a friggin' miracle. Our lack of pure-blood pedigrees is our greatest asset. We are a nation of individuals. The teacher's job is to encourage kids to explore their undoubtably diverse (and mixed) heritage and embrace the differences and similarities they have with the child who sits next to them. Dividing them up into groups based on skin color is a doomed experiment.
Very well said, C Bell. That's my experience, too, in Chicagoland. I believe there is a much larger disconnect between people and elite leadership than between people and people. People mostly get along. Our leaders generate strife and tension to get noticed and get re-elected.
Thank you. The costco in Brooklyn (my home until this year) represents our great country as well as any place. It's where every conceivable slice of humanity--little old jewish couples, chinese-Americans, the half-jamaican/half dutch rastafarian dude, uber drivers, PTA moms and even socialite party throwers--come together in the ritual of buying food. We bump carts, ask opinions on fit (there are no mirrors so you have to ask) fight for pole position at check out, and trade cooking tips. It's almost symphonic!
And I was careful to say "perhaps" because I do not think everyone who wants CRT in schools or the workplace "hate" white people. I think they do hate or extremely dislike what they see as injustice. The problem is when their view of injustice blames a certain group of people and uses these new linguistic tropes ("evils of whiteness" etc) without recognizing (whether purposely or not) the extreme horrid effect on a population, specifically the young. The end result, is, well, hating white people and a culture that celebrates hating white people, even if that was not the intent.
Totally disagree. CRT is not a balanced honest exposition of American history. It is evil and racist. I love history and am all for a complete elucidation of historical facts
One of various instantiations of Critical Race Theory discourse has been the New York Times notorious "1619 Project". Here is a fantastic essay for you to read by Dr. Sean Wilentz, historian at Princeton:
Yes, slavery did not start when the English brought slaves from Africa here. It was thriving for hundreds of years among the American Indian tribes in North America and continued after the English (and others from Europe) arrived. If the "1619 Project" had been named the "1019 Project" it would have been less dishonest, evil and racist.
And CRT ignores the strong opposition to slavery among whites. Blacks did not end slavery. They still run the slave trade in Africa (and again through Libya thanks to our actions). William Wilberforce was the single most important person in ending the slave trade and eventually slavery. He was white.
And the U.S. surely is not racist today. Example: the highest paid job in the U.S. (not including executive positions but just regular jobs) is player, National Basketball Association, at $8.32 million for 2019-20 ( the most recent I could find: https://sport-net.org/what-is-the-average-nba-salary-6/) and that is a majority-black job, with at least 450 persons holding it at any
The greatest living intellectual in the U.S. today is Thomas Sowell, and he is black.
The President of the leading intellectual institution in the U.S., the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, is Condoleezza Rice, and she is black.
America's best known surgeon is Ben Carson, and he is black.
https://www.fairtransparency.org/ Website doesn't show much, but good group. RESPECTFULLY counters the notions that go under the umbrella heading of CRT. Outmanned, outgunned, but they try to go against the kind-a thing that went on here against M. Abbot. "CRT," the 1619 Project, BLM, and taking away freedom of speech is all of a bundle, AFAIK.
M. Weiss is an advisor to group. One-a my main charities.
Can you define systemic racism and explain how it is manifested and in which cities and companies and universities it is most prevalent? The CRT debate is a red herring. The question is how America is to be portrayed in our schools: as an imperfect country trying to get better or a sinful nation that needs to be fundamentally transformed. What is your view as to what should be taught in schools and colleges?
I'm a Jew. 75 years ago 6,000,000 died because of the then latest version of CRT. Your comments have the appearance of being "fair" and "even" but you are really another version of Matt Mullen - a troll.
Any “ideology” that separates people(and vilifies them) by group is evil and racist(if groups separated by race: see “white supremacy”). Historically “Kulaks” in USSR; “capitalist roaders” in China. CRT is a change in tactics by Marxists of separating and vilifying by class to separating and vilifying by race. They are evil, racist, and dishonest.
Thanks for the article and story. Seems it's on repeat these days: (1) Professor (mostly who are white) gets targeted by student mob; (2) administrators take the same position as the student mob; (3) professor is suspended or fired; (4) more details come to light showing professor was wronged and should not have been let go; (5) professor writes an article/story about cancelation; (5) outrage among readers who then write serious comments in the comment section; (6) nothing changes; (7) repeat.
Not to be a Debbie Downer or anything, but our atrocious leadership in the White House just designated a letter against parents protesting against CRT in schools (which is what this letter describes) and labeling them as terrorists..... so yeah, not expecting anything to change anytime soon.
But well wishes to you and your young family.
Anyone who voted for or supported Biden owns this
I was gonna say, more or less, what M. Reagan said.
But, see the problem here? Rather, the problems.
People have teathered their brains and hearts to a political party. So a LOTTA discussion here revolves around OWNING up to problems. That THIS President or THAT one is the root of all EVIL, right?
My eyes opened a lot for me earlier this year and I started looking at things a lot differently. I've made my political views known, which are Dead-Centrist, but that isn't really important, to me anyway.
What's important is that NONE of this even comes into play before Nov. '22, right? And, to me anyway, what should be the majority of the discussion here should be: "What to do about this mess, NOW."
In EVERYTHING in the universe there are differences and samenesses. Right NOW, best to concentrate energy on what people agree on, right?
Rank ordered voting. That’s my solution.
I disagree. I voted for Biden and support much of what he does. The woke candidates didn't win the Democratic primary, they lost decisively. Even the NYC mayor isn't from the illiberal left.
To attempt to blame this phenomenon on mainstream liberals and all Democrats is wrong. We are pushing back on this radical ideology, however, I don't see very many on the right pushing back on their radical fringe.
We, center right and center left, agree on much more than we disagree.
We need to stop the high profile (media thrives on controversy and negativity) radicals with their big expensive megaphones from creating exclusive tribes that will destroy us as a nation.
I agree. However, if you voted for the person who is empowering this craziness then that is what you stand for. Can you think of one leader who has used the justice dept in this way against political opposition whio history does not consider a monster?
I don't think Biden is empowering the radical left. He's not directly confronting them and I don't blame him for not opening that can of worms.
I like his emphasis on climate change/ protecting our environment.
I like his policy on extending the child tax credits. He wants Medicare to be able to use market forces to drive down drug prices, though a couple of Democrats and all of the GOP are blocking that. I don't see the radical, defund the police or excuse all student loan debt happening. I do believe that the wealthy should pay more in taxes and they need to go after the big loopholes. I agree that putting more money in for IRS tax collection will be a good use of taxpayers money.
Given Jan. 6th, which I watched as it was happening, I think the Justice Dept. is justified in investigating what happened. It was an unprecedented assault on our democracy. The goal was to overthrow the election results.
Though I'm sure we disagree on the events, and I suspect you believe the election was stolen from Trump, there are probably a number of things we agree on. Both of us want free and fair elections. We want the person who got the most votes to win.
But who do we trust? I trust the Trump appointed officials, who said it was fair and untampered with...Chris? something? Bill Barr said there was no evidence of overwhelming fraud or election tampering. None of the court cases, 60? or there abouts, were able to show proof of election tampering. Even the Arizona private re-count couldn't come up with evidence of fraud.
I assume then, that You voted for T.Rump? There are two versions of what he did the evening of Jan. 3, some say he strong-armed the Justice Dept, and some say he didn't. Hard to determine the FACTS of the matter, but one FACT stands out: He HAD the meeting, when in all likelihood it should never have happened in the FIRST place.
May draw different conclusion in the future, as I'm still reading stuff. But if You're holding up T.Rump as the right-thinking President that really DID get elected, then I think You have overlooked a few things.
so you voted for BI.DET ?
Haha! Good 'un. I did. But I won't again. If T.Rump runs, I'll sit it out.
I honestly think this is the most important comment in the whole thread, including mine. I desperately want to be an anti Trump Republican, but am stuck in the Democratic party while i wait for Trump to die. But my entire political motivation is to attack the woke left, which i abhor. But as Sharon says, the Democrats have been much more successful in controlling their woke fringe than the Republicans in controlling their Trump fringe. i hate wokeism, but it really doesn' t play much of a role in mainstream Democratic politics. It's taken over the universities and media, but that's not a field where a voter can make a difference. Meanwhile the Republicans have completely rolled over to be dominated by the dumbest, laziest, most incompetent leader in the history of the republic. Every time I give up on the Democratic party's latest woke error, I need to remember that the Republicans are much more reprehensible until they are rid of Trump.
TDS in full display. 5 billion in property damage. Around 30 murders. 100’s beaten to a bloody pulp. That is "controlling" the woke left?
The problem is you lost 6 years ago.
When the Republicans capture almost every aspect of being a "classical liberal" there is something very wrong and corrupt within the Democratic Party. How many Democrats do you think still don't know the entire Trump/Russian Collision, Russia Alpha Back/Trump server, the Steele Dossier and the Russian Bounty program were all fabrications of the Democratic Party and their willing accomplices in the media?
Think about that for a minute. The Democrats conspired with foreign operatives to create fake information on a political opponent. The media and Democrats ran with a known fabricated story for 18 months non-stop designed to sow resentment, hatred and devision.
How many Democrats do you think still don't know VP Biden used 1 billion USD of tax payer money to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect the company Hunter had a $50,000/month seat on the board for?
If you voted for Biden, this is exactly what you voted for.
I got my information from the Economist and listening to testimony from Trump appointees. I also read the special prosecutors report and it didn't sound like nothing. There were a lot of GOP appointees and supporters who were pretty upset about Trump's handling of Ukraine.
Where are you getting your information from?
Yes. A lot of my info came from the NYT, but it was collaborated with other more objective sources. To me the most telling was testimony from Trump appointees and career state department people who'd served under both Dem and Rep administrations.
I’m talking about VP Biden using $1.000,000,000 of tax payers money to get a prosecuted fired for his sun Hunter on behest of a foreign company.
That doesn’t bother you at all?
I never mentioned Trump’s impeachment.
I mentioned my sources of information. What are your sources? The Economist ran several in-depth articles on the Hunter Biden affair, of which they were critical of the system of political patronage, but they outlined the history of prosecutors and government actors in Ukraine and Biden was supporting the anti-corruption.
Where are you getting your information from? What are your sources?
Joe Biden bragging at the Council of Foreign Relations about using a 1 billion dollar incentive to Ukraine ONLY if they fired a prosecutor (turns out it was Konstantin Kulik). The video of him bragging about how tough he is is easy to find.
The emails (detailed in the now validated NY Post article based on Hunter Biden's lots laptop) showing an executive of Burisma telling Hunter Biden to "use his influence" to make the investigation into Burisma, being led by Konstantin Kulik, "to go away".
The now verified meeting between Joe Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive at Burisma.
The timeline of these events is (roughly):
Hunter gets email to make an investigation go away.
A few weeks later, Joe Biden and Hunter meet with Vadym Pozharskyi.
A few weeks later, Joe Biden meets with Ukrainian President and forces him to fire Konstantin Kulik to get $1,000,000,000 in aid.
This is how Hunter earned his 50K/month.
NOTE: ABC, NBC, CBC, CNN, WaPo, NYT... have 0 interest in covering this so they simply lie to the American public by ommision.
You can read the emails your self. You can look at the photos and data yourself. You can watch the video yourself. You can draw your own timeline and use your own rational reasoning.
Or you can have someone tell you what to believe.
Hi M. Reagan. I skimmed quickly, so may have missed it. But when You're talking sources only thing I can do about it is follow links.
I mainly read books, and don't have the skills to research things, both. I'm sure I ought-a.
Here is Biden bragging about how tough he is:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u27qy5YViFs
The events of this story predate Hunter being told “to us his influence to make this problem go away”
I didn’t loose anything 2 years ago. I have no conceptual clue what you are talking about.
6 years ago, the center left Democrats lost to the radical, and militant, left wing of their party. There is no centrist Democrats anymore. I was one. The party, as it stands, is irredeemable.
Oops, I completely misread your intent, and apologize for that. I deleted the comment so it doesn't make the rounds.
Amen to this.
Oh come on, this isn't Biden's fault anymore than Covid wasn't Trumps fault. This woke stuff has apparently been building for decades, and runs rampant on its own steam now. Do you really think it would matter who sits in the Oval Office? The President's favor or disfavor on this issue would hardly move the needle.
The current regime fully backs Critical Race Theory and given various Critical Theories (gender, queer …) are all illiberal and are the foundation of “woke”…
It very much maters who is in the Oval Office.
Take the case of co-ed regret sex. When Obama (and very soon) Biden are in office, universities are pressured to maximize prosecutions of men and to afford men minimal to zero due process. As a result, the universities get sued and pay out millions of dollars. This would be a sorry act of fiduciary irresponsibility except for the valid excuse that they are under duress from the Feds. When Trump (I'm not a fan disclaimer) is President, the regulations promote greater due process and fair outcomes. Yes, it matters who is President. This is just one example. There are thousands.
TYTY. I was just reading this article this morning, Jim C: "Joe Biden Abandons Due Process" https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/joe-biden-abandons-due-process/
I’m always amused by the multiple texts/comments I have seen/heard that praise Trumps policies while disavowing Trump. Aren’t the very successful policies enough to make one appreciate Trump?
He is exceedingly imperfect as a human. He is bombastic, self righteous, narcissistic, crude (though he can be gut busting funny at times) but a product of the 60’s and 70’s.
Overall, being an economist at heart, he made mostly good policy decisions.
Given the choice between mostly good policies and mean tweets OR horrid policies masked in politeness, I’ll take the former.
Before anyone writes off what I "say," on account-a this article IS by the NYT, I wanna say this:
Per usual, the Times gets the story wrong. I don't question they got the testimony correctly, but the story as a whole is wrong.
The HERO of the story, from what I read in a book that was a WaPo hatchet-job, was UNDOUBTEDLY Attorney General Bill Barr. The article says this: "The Senate panel found that Barr personally demanded that the department investigate voter fraud allegations, even if other authorities had looked into them and not found evidence of wrongdoing."
ICBW, but I THINK the evidence Barr came up with, was that there was ZERO fraud, and that everybody who said there was ZERO fraud were correct. I think these findings, as much as any other, were what the honest people in the government relied on to prevent, in essence, a dictatorship by T.Rump. Him who relied on Guiliani??!? A person who can only understand the people who tell them what they WANNA hear? That Sidney (last-name-forgotten)? Rely on her? She's getting SUED for making false statements.
If You think the election was stolen, these are the people You are relying on for evidence of it? Hm, is all I can say.
I don't think it was here, but on another article by M. Weiss where I said, "T.Rump would do ANYTHING to stay in power." Turns out, I was 100% right. Simply because I judged the man on his CHARACTER.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-cites-details-trump-pressure-120632391.html
Now, mebbe 2/3 of Repubs will say this is ALL LIES. But consider these were ALL T.RUMP'S MEN who are saying it. What axe do they have to grind against T.Rump? Naw, T.Rump's way is the way of the world these days, right?
Elsewhere M. Shayne said is Dems and Repubs BOTH.
Does anyone care to deny this?
Disagree. I think it is very helpful having a strong voice in the White House speaking against this ideology and in support of America and Americans.
Indeed, what the President SAYS won't often make a big difference. But the ACTIONS of the administration can make a big difference.
Compare the Obama administration's instructions to colleges that accused students need not have a chance to defend themselves to the Trump administration restoring the right to a fair hearing.
TY. And Biden taking away that right, as I pointed out to Jim C above.
And note the precipitous drop of young men going to college which started under Obama.
I mark that up to the fact that primary and secondary education is practiced for the BENEFIT of girls, and works AGAINST boys. In general. No doubt due to the fact that women overwhelmingly outnumber men when it comes to teachers, right?
I think it does matter who sits in the White House, because a leader sets a tone. In Biden's case, he has defaulted to his party's progressive left, which is totally supportive of this kind of totalitarian behavior and says so publicly. Trump's bombast is certainly no solution either. Sigh...
Trump stood strong for America and Americans. Guess I’m “old fashioned “ but would like a President that strongly advocates for our country and our people.
Here's my problem with T.Rump, M. Madjack. Well, two of the main problems:
I judge a man by his CHARACTER, not the color of his skin. (Not saying Biden's a WHOLE lot better. Just not AS bad.) Like the things Steven N. "said" and THEN some.
But, two, he went WAY outta his way to promote a hatred amongst the partisans. Biden not doing much in the way of bringing the country together, and I fault him heavily for that (amongst other things).
Just IMHO.
If that were true, then this woke stuff would have been at least minimized under Trump's tenure. But it wasn't, it was flourishing despite him. And that's including having the House and Senate and Court.
These socio-cultural crusades don't 'bend the knee' to any particular administration. In fact, they hardly pay them any mind.
We certainly do not own this. Mob intimidation is as old as America, with January 6 being the ultimate example--a violent attack on Congress designed to cancel the election. The left and right wings love cancel culture because it gives them power beyond their small numbers, and they apply it to whomever they consider the enemy--from the Red Scare and McCarthyism to domestic terrorism to forced Woke firings by the left wing.
McCarthyism???? What are you referring to? If you mean Senator Joe McCarthy, he only identified Communists and Communist agents in the government, and as we know (Venona papers, etc.), was 90+% correct. He did not attack people outside the government. That was the House Unamerican Activities Committee, controlled for much of the time by Democrats. Perhaps you meant HUACism?
"a violent attack" with no weapons???? I believe that is a bit of hyperbola based on the videos I have seen. It was weird and dystopian but far from "violent".
I agree that the rally, march, and protest weren't violent. The riot was. Rioters didn't need guns to hurt cops (and each other), they did plenty of damage with steel pipes, bear spray, shields, batons, hammers, bike racks, and other blunt instruments that can break bones and crush skulls with one swing. More than 100 people were injured in that riot. To call it "far from violent" is simply not the case.
Compared to the “Summer of Love” in Portland that resulted in 5 shootings, 3 murders and 50 rapes. I consider the Jan 6 kerfufle “far from violent”.
Compared to “Firery but mostly peace protests” leaving multiple people in the hospital and millions in property damage, I consider the Jan 6 2.5 hour debacle mostly a blip and not really “violent”.
Jan 6 was a relatively small group of people with no political power, influence or any real support.
It is, however, a perfect example of Marcus’s Repressive Tolerance:
“movements from the left must be extended tolerance, even when they are violent, while movements from the right must not be tolerated, including suppressing them by violence.”
"Movements from the left must be extended tolerance, even when they are violent ..."
Not me, Bubba. I demanded *at the time* that the George Floyd rioters and looters be arrested, charged, and tried, and found it outrageous that city officials in Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis refused. It was criminal dereliction of duty, and they should have been removed from office by voters.
Why don't you hold your Red Hat rioters to the same standard?
P.S. Your whataboutism is duly noted.
“I demanded *at the time* that the George Floyd rioters and looters be arrested, charged, and tried, and found it outrageous …”
My neighbor, in AZ, moved from LA in part because his Chinese neighbor had his house fire bombed by BLM activists while his family was home. His crime, he was unwilling to pay 5% revenue charge to put a BLM sign in his deli window. The perpetrators were bailed out by our VP’s freedom fund. She used her influence to make sure no charges for attempted murder.
The Democrats are corrupt to the core.
It's extortion and racketeering, in addition to arson and attempted murder. Whatever happen to the guys charged?
But "Democrats" are not corrupt to the core. Some are, some aren't. Just like Republicans.
No charges were filed. Our VP ‘s “Freedom Fund” got them all dismissed.
Yah. Afeared perps got away with it, but ICBW.
Excuse me, but the January 6 attack was not "violent". The protestors were not armed in any way.
You must be thinking of the attempt by Sanders volunteer James Hodgkinson to assassinate two dozen Republican members of Congress in June 2017. He WAS armed and had a list of the members he wanted to kill and fired hundreds of shots at the Senators and Representatives, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise, the third highest ranking member of the House at the time.
That was violence against Congress, FAR worse than anything that happened on January 6, 2021.
"Excuse me, but the January 6 attack was not "violent."
Get back to me when you're serious.
As for Hodgkinson, he was shot and killed by police. Liberals and Democrats across the nation applauded that outcome for his act of terror. So did Bernie Sanders, the Congressional Democratic Softball Team that was practicing at another field and immediately stopped to offer prayers to their fallen colleagues, and every other Democrat in public office.
So excuse me, you're wrong.
But nobody on January 6 tried to kill any member of Congress. The only deaths were among the protesters and the only one who was killed was killed by a Capitol Police member.
Hodkinson tried to assassinate two dozen members of Congress, and nearly succeeded.
It doesn't matter what the Democrats may have said afterwards. It is the actual action that counts.
Oh, baloney. "Democrats" are no more responsible for this maniac than "Republicans" were responsible for Timothy McVeigh.
You are completely missing my point. None of the protesters was armed on January 6. Not a single one. James Hodgkinson was armed and was definitely trying to assassinate multiple members of Congress.
I am not talking about what Republicans or Democrats may have said, but about the facts of the two situations.
Clearly, Hodgkinson's attack, no matter what might have motivated him, was FAR worse objectively than the January 6 protests.
McVeigh didn't carry a gun, either. He killed hundreds of people without one.
The January 6 rioters didn't carry guns, either. But they were heavily armed, with batons, shields, bear spray, fire extinguishers, and other blunt instruments that can cave in a skull. Hundreds of them attacked the police (and each other) like grizzly bears, causing hundreds of injuries. That they failed to kill anyone is astonishing.
Hodgkinson's terrorist attack was more lethal than January 6, but we liberals universally condemned it and applauded that he died in the police shootout. (As did sane conservatives and moderates.) You, on the other hand, are still apologizing and excusing the rioters and insurrectionists of January 6. Shame on you.
Your whataboutism is embarrassing, and I won't reply to it any more.
Please forgive me, but I disagree. I’ll start by agreeing that the far right is as much a scourge as the far left. And the tactics both use are similar. However, the far left now controls the media, the government, Hollywood, academia and corporate America. The far left has money and is very well organized. The far right controls nothing, has no money and is not very well organized. The way I see it, moderate Democrats made a pact with the far left to oust the previous president - and now own what the far left is doing to America. There are many liberals on this page who agree with my assessment and have the courage to accept this. The problem lies with those moderate Democrats who will not acknowledge this and are afraid to say anything about it, who just hide their heads hoping this will all go away. It won’t go away unless all moderates resist the far left ideology.
No forgiveness needed in disagreement, I do it all the time!
As for the rest, I am a liberal, closer to center than not, but not "moderate" as in "moderate Democrat Joe Manchin." I do not own and will not accept the blame for the un-American actions of the Woke, any more than I blame thoughtful conservatives for the un-American insurrection of January 6.
We made no "pact" to oust Trump--Democrats can't organize a one-car funeral, let along a national political strategy. Trump ousted himself, we just voted to help him on his way.
That "many liberals" agree with your assessment doesn't make it correct, it only means they agree with your assessment. The "far left" doesn't control anything any more than the far right does. They are both useful idiots for Big Corporate that controls all of it. MAGA and Wokeism are noisy, occasionally violent, political theater that fights the Culture Wars designed to distract us from how throughly we are being screwed by Big Corporate and their bought and paid for politicians.
We all need to resist the far left, far right, Wokeism, Trumpism, and their corporate puppeteers as the poison they are.
The corporate puppeteers is a great way to describe it. This is the single biggest issue that many people either don’t see or are ignorant of - that while the corporate empire may publicly support the left, they do so in order to distract or provide cover for what they are doing with their other hand, which is enhancing their political and economic control over how things get done in the USA.
I would see that, and RAISE You one, M. Katz. There's this interesting article that I've read twice now. "The Authority Blob."
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/authority-blob-roundtable
It's a roundtable discussing "The Elites." What one-a the commenters, Wesley Yang (who I follow on his Substack), calls "The Successor REGIME."
Corporate puppeteers make up only SOME of the millions in this crew of BISSTARDS. It's the people in GOVERNMENT, a lotta them. ENTRENCHED. I need to read it a third time.
Tablet is always good. Yes, that will take a few reads to digest. But the theme, the managerial class are the elites, is accurate.
Thanks, I’ll read this. And yes - the Administrative Branch of the government is a big problem in our Country.
Well said, Brian.
The VAST majority of the people on January 6 were there legitimately to protest an election that was questionable. Anyone involved in violence should be prosecuted (including thousands of BLM/antifa terrorists over the last year). The role of the FBI/security services in fomenting violence should be thoroughly investigated. The sad “disorderly tourists” that wandered into the capital unhindered once the doors were open should be left alone. The political prisoners should be treated the same as other prisoners in our corrupt judicial system.
THIS view I agree with, Madjack. The punishments should fit the crimes: peaceful protestors were there legally and should be left in peace. Your "disorderly tourists"--they weren't tourists, but I get your point--who wandered around but did not damage should be charged with misdemeanor trespassing, pay a small fine, and get on with their lives. Rioters should be hit with jail terms, possibly prison, depending on whether they hurt anyone. The relative handful of insurrectionists who actively tried to overturn election results, along with anyone who helped plan the invasion, should be slammed hard.
As for the George Floyd riots, I said at the time that peaceful protestors should be left alone but rioters and looters should be stopped and arrested. Local and state governments who allowed the violence to go on day after week after month should be removed from office by voters for failure to perform their duties. And the city idiots who allowed the occupation and blockade of blocks of Seattle and Minneapolis should be charged with criminal dereliction of duty.
All I'm saying is that "cancel culture" takes many forms, that the right and the the left do it, and normal people need to "cancel" this nonsense at the start.
Nice post.
Thanks, Steven.
Common ground. Nice post.
Thanks kindly. I try to apply my standards to all sides, because cancellation is a plague for everybody.
I'd like to think that the average Biden supporter had no idea he would go this far, this fast, this reckless.
How on earth could the average Biden voter not know??
Only if that Biden supporter was not paying attention, perhaps because of the hatred for the previous president and nothing more.
I think Biden/Harris got so many more votes than Clinton in 2016 because of many people being gotten to vote without learning much about them (they hardly campaigned!). Biden got 15 million more votes while mostly sitting at home, while Trump got 13 million more votes with many large rallies.
A major factor was the massive funding by the Zuckerbergs (and some others) of get-out-the-vote efforts in Democratic Party strongholds. For example:
"Of the top 20 “grants” provided by CTCL to cities and counties, 19 have gone to jurisdictions that Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won in 2016. The sole county on the list that Mr. Trump carried in 2016 received a paltry $289,000 — less than 0.5% of the $63 million Mr. Zuckerberg and his other high-tech allies provided to those 20 cities and countries through CTCL."
There is more on other states, too, at this news item on MSN:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-mark-zuckerberg-s-350-million-threatens-democracy/ar-BB1afARG
Yes, the Democrats wanted it more than the Republicans.
Well if they wanted it more means they cheated more than yes, the dems wanted it more.
The average Biden voter had no idea - sounds about right. But hey, no more mean tweets and that’s what’s important right?
Why, most domestic hate crimes are committed by Democrats?
If Biden voters are responsible for the Woke, Trump voters are responsible for January 6, which was the ultimate act of cancel culture---using a violent riot to cancel the outcome of the presidential election.
You are truly pathetic. To try to equate January 6 to what your kind have been doing is like equating a racial epithet to a lynching.
Aw, poor baby, triggered like the RW snowflake you are. Just own what you did on January 6, just like I own the view that the Woke mob needs to be destroyed before it harms more people.
Most of the commenters here seem to be politely discussing issues. You seem to relish contrarianism for its own sake. And the only one here engaged in name-calling. I think you would fit better in some other discussion rather than this one.
"I think you would fit better in some other discussion rather than this one."
Not your call. If that's not too impolite of me.
"You seem to relish contrarianism for its own sake."
I have better things to do than throw bombs just to watch them explode. I counter assertions with which I disagree or are based on false information. I praise assertions with which I agree or make a good argument. I will continue to do so until Bari says otherwise, and I don't expect that she will.
"And the only one here engaged in name-calling."
JDFree: "You are truly pathetic."
madaboutmd: "I think he's actually an incredible racist who enjoys seeing the mass murders of urban blacks."
More mad: "You are either too lazy or know very well that you can't disprove the information in the NEWS piece."
Yes, I would appear to be the only name-caller . . .
I don't insult anyone unless they drop one on me first: see, JDFree in this very thread. Most of my exchanges here have been pleasant and free of rancor. Some are ... not. Sorry that bothers you, but defending myself doesn't bother me at all.
Did any of the Jan 6 protestors have weapons? No. How did the protesters get into the capital? They were let in. Who was heavily involved in instigating the crowd? The FBI. Who shot an unarmed, non-threatening individual to death and the escaped accountability? A capital police officer. Who has wrongfully imprisoned many of the protesters for political reasons? The DOJ. Who owns the capital? The people. As more evidence emerges it is clear that the Jan 6 protest was converted to a small riot by the deep state committed to creating a false narrative.
Sure, both of them...
It’s professors who are woke but not woke enough.
True, but mostly white. They are better, and more satisfying targets. And, bonus, the admins feel less guilty. A win-win for mob rule and feckless universities.
When teachers are bullying children about the color of their skin that’s a problem-stop acting like this is about history or free speech- its like the activist of today a bunch of bullies in the name of social justice-
Really? Teachers are coming from woke colleges. No teacher is bullying any student of color. HAAAAHHHHHHH. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. It's probably not the color of their skin but because they have bad behavior. In that case, the offender should be removed from a class, and his behavior problem should be addressed. Maybe, he or she, can't be mainstreamed.
ICBW, but I believe M. Kham was referring to the cases where teachers bully WHITE kids for being oppressors and having "white privilege" they shouldn't have.
But, actually, they also bully students of color into believing there really isn't much they can accomplish in the U.S. as long as there's a spec of "systemic racism" to be found anywhere.
I don't know WHAT to say about liberals who don't see this going on. No, not EVERYWHERE. But we only hear about the tip of the iceberg, AFAIK.
You know nothing about CRT and I say that nicely. It has NOTHING to do with “teaching more about slavery and the civil rights movement in schools.” Nothing. Anyone that told you that lied blatantly to your face.
Kimberly Crenshaw, the grand mama bear of CRT partially defined it as “drawing on a wide range of scholarly ideologies to include feminism, Marxism, and post-modernism.”
CRT really is as close to an “evil” religious ideology as you can get.
She was very ethical. She wrote about herself being the most oppressed class and something she could never have as the greatest oppressor. HAAAHHHAAAHHAAA
I don't think you understand CRT and what's behind it. It is not grounded in history, in which slavery unfortunately was (and is) a global phenomenon - there is no such nuanced perspective in CRT. It is about control and power by separating individuals based on superficial characteristics, and making them hate each other. I agree social media is a big problem. I'm just not sure what the best solution is.
I agree with you regarding how we should not cancel CRT and about the many misconceptions that surround it. However, I disagree with your assessment of CRT as simply leaning about slavery and civil rights. CRT is learning about these topics from a perspective that deemphasizes the individual and individual choices, and sees racism as a pervasive an inescapable force we have all been socialized into. The best and most objective way to get a quick understanding of CRT is to check out its tenets from any pro-CRT website. Notice how the questioning and/or critiquing of enlightened liberal values (humanism, individualism, empiricism) is usually listed as part of such tenets. It is the rejection of such values that should alarm us all.
CRT is based on meta-ethical relative morality, which gives justice to the most powerful class. It was what Stalin's Russia used. The Black LEsbian is the social construct with the most power, and the White Male Streight Christian has the least power. It treats the least powerful with disrespect and no ability to speak back logically; its proponents do not listen and do not practice self-control. They take initiatives on their own and are so aggressive that their actions border on violence.
CRT is a cultural thing. It's not about free speech. It is how the speech is presented. Marcuse's repressive tolerance. Coercion and soul robbing. No listening, no tolerance, no objectivity, and no respect. The Ford Foundation teaches this.
So depressing how all these institutions with mega endowments--foundations, universities etc.--have been taken over by corrupt and incompetent leaders.
CRT as defined is the assertion that messenger-shooting is not only legitimate; it is the only legitimate means of judging messages.
CRT in practice is Orwellian historical revision of the sort that history's worst totalitarians have demanded.
No decent human being defends it.
CTR—as it is taught today— is neither objective nor empirical. It relies on standpoint epistemology, which tends to look at science and objectivity as white/oppressive ways to understand the world. If we emphasize the value of evidence and objectivity, it follows that—in the long term—this will be to the detriment of CRT and related ideologies.
Take the example of CRT-inspired implicit bias trainings. There is no empirical evidence to back up their effectiveness. The best way to stop the propagation of such trainings is to point out the facts: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unconscious-bias-and-diversity-training-what-the-evidence-says
That’s true of any Critical Theory. They call to action, they specifically reject objective truth for “narrative” truth and they reject rational thought.
Any Critical Theory is, by definition, a religion and a bad one at that.
I don’t like CRT, but I agree with you. We cannot be “against cancel culture” and then promote the cancelation of an ideology (however erroneous and misguided). The best way to challenge CRT is by requesting it be taught along with contrasting models/opinions on racism so we can allow individuals to reach their own conclusions based on logic and evidence. Critical thinking skills are crucial right now!
Right. CRT should be taught alongside Mein Kampf.
There is a reason why Mein Kampf is still found in US libraries: there is great value in understanding where evil comes from. Should the ideas in Mein Kapf be taught to young children without critical thinking skills? Absolutely not. Should we teach children to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions based on reasoning and evidence? Absolutely. I like to think about long term solutions. Ultimately, if CRT lacks the empirical evidence to back up its claims (something I am inclined to believe) it will be debunked and cast into obscurity.
I hope you do understand that "CRT lite" is taught to grade school kids as a fact and the most popular way is to put white 8 year old in front of the class and explain that he is an oppressor and worst person in the universe? Did you hear a story of a mixed race boy who was told that he has to hate his late white father and admit that his black mom was a victim? Mom was suing the school district. Parents are not objecting to discussing a racial theory on the grad school level, they don't want teachers to brainwash school kids with so called "facts".
Sadly, I am aware of how these ideas are being taught to young children. While I am not for the banning of CRT, I do sincerely hope that—in the instances where it applies—children and adults who have been discriminated based on skin color can successfully sue based on the Civil Rights Act.
I want to make a case for promoting critical thinking in schools as a way to challenge the ideas associated with the bulk of post-modern, critical theory-inspired ideologies (not just CRT). I appreciate that the concept of critical thinking is quite complex in itself, but in most of its definitions it incorporates ideals such as fair mindedness and the capacity to assess and understand alternative view points. In that regard, I do not feel that to advocate for censorship is consistent with critical thinking. I think this is particularly relevant given how proponents of CRT are using the efforts to ban the ideology as a way to further their preconceived ideas on power/ oppression.
Of course, there is great nuance to this topic. I understand that there is great variability about how this bans are being enacted and implemented on each state (some some of this legislations I can get behind more than others). On the other hand, I am also aware that some states are implementing curricula that comes from the field of critical pedagogy (e.g., culturally responsive sustaining education) which incorporates concepts such as the “dismantling of systemic privilege” and intersectionality in all academic subjects. This further complicates matters.
Whether we want to challenge curricula or individual ideas, however, I believe we should incorporate and promote different (perhaps better?) ideas on the topics of racism and social justice rather than rely on censorship. This should be coupled with a push to teach of critical thinking skills in schools. Ultimately, this might yield better long term results. This is why I feel in such a way:
1. This approach would dispel the notion that those who oppose ideologies like CRT do so because they do not want kids learning about the history of racism/slavery/civil rights and/or want to indoctrinate kids into blind patriotism/American exceptionalism.
2. I understand that post-modern, Critical Theory inspired ideologies (what Lindsay and Pluckrose refer to as applied postmodernist fields of study) place great emphasis on discourses/narratives/language. Think about what a big blow it would be for these ideologies to no longer have the monopoly on topics such as racism as social justice. For example, as far as I am concerned, Kendi doesn’t own the trademark on anti-racism. There are several ways to be anti-racist, and we should aim to dispel Kendi’s false dichotomy.
3. If we truly believe that these this kind of theories lack a solid empirical foundation (based on their critique of enlightened liberal values and their reliance on standpoint epistemology) then, to promote the importance of empiricism and evidence in schools would take advantage of the core vulnerabilities of these ideologies.
4. It would allow to the record straight: ideologies that are based on critical theory and postmodernist thought sometimes come under the label “critical” (e.g., critical social justice, CRT, critical pedagogy) but share little in common with the notion of critical thinking. To analyze complex topics such as racism and social justice solely through ONE framework—particularly a framework that allows little room for dissent—is NOT teaching our kids to think critically. People need to be aware of the differences.
5. In the current climate of social media echo chambers, politicization and polarization, critical thinking skills would protect youth against the dangers of other dangerous ideas.
Thank you for the detailed response. I am with you on most of this stuff, BUT you did not mention age appropriate teaching, and this my my main concern. CRT as a theory does not have any place in the elementary/middle school. I am all for discussion with much older kids in the appropriate setting. It seems that grown adults are punished for even attempting to doubt any part of CRT, which ends up as a simple indoctrination for children.
You are correct; age is a crucial factor. Younger children have a limited capacity to think abstractly about these issues, so they are particularly vulnerable. My kids are little (3 and 7) and the eldest attends public school. I think we are lucky because my daughter’s teacher is in her 50s. From my observations, she seems to think of topics like racism and multiculturalism from the more traditional (non-woke) liberal perspective. I scrutinized the curriculum that was proposed and I didn’t find anything I could object to. I remain vigilant, however, and I am not taking for granted that things will remain this way.
In that regard, I am glad there are resources like FAIR. They recently released an alternative curriculum to teach topics like racism/race relations in a way that aligns with enlightened liberal values (pro-human values) and incorporates critical thinking. Peter Boghossian— an expert in pedagogy and critical thinking—is FAIR advisor (like Bari). I wouldn’t be surprised if he played a role in the creation of this curriculum. I attended a virtual meeting about the curriculum and there are different topics that are covered by grade; it all seems very age-appropriate. If I were in a situation where my biracial children were being taught about “whiteness” or separated into affinity groups, I would be the first parent pushing for the FAIR curriculum. If I got the sense that the administration had capitulated to the ideology, I would likely pull my daughter out of school.
Yah, good points, M. GR.
TYTY M. Alejandra. Sounds like pretty good game plan to me. But whatdoiknow?
CRT (and works like “White Fragility” and “How to be an Anti-Racist” belong on the same shelf as Hitlers Mien Kampf). When you are old enough, you study them to understand evil.
Gave You a heart on this, M. Alejandra. But, I'm afraid I'm not so optimistic. The Way the world moves isn't always decided on empirical evidence. It just doesn't, and surely You know that, especially lately, a LOTTA Science has gone political. Make ZERO effort to disprove the hypothesis. Only collect the data that would support their thesis. Confirmation Bias exists in Science now, where it didn't used-ta.
But more to the point, the "Successor Regime" was built, and is maintained by, emotions. In fact, it rides on the view that empirical understandings are "whiteness." If that wasn't the case, and this movement was based on some kind-a empirical grounds, it wouldn't last three seconds, right?
So I don't think it will be defeated easily, nor quickly, nor by Scientific evidence. You MAY be right that it should be. Won't, is all I'm saying.
I can be quite cynical, but deep down I am an idealist and I realize how idealistic I sound in the above post. I am of course aware politicization of science in the current polarized climate. This is not only evidenced by individual stories like Mr Abbot’s here, but the deep seeded bias in some academic fields was exposed in the grievance studies affair (also known as Sokal Square). Like you, I worry about this since good science is by definition unbiased and apolitical. This is what should be taught in schools as part of critical thinking skills. Of course, we are a long way there, but one can dream.
Yet, I still think it impractical to flat out ban CRT. Not only are we setting a negative president for what is allowed to be taught in schools, but in the current political climate this mandates are likely to backfire (I think true believers of this ideology will find a way to circumvent and banning them feeds their fervor). Perhaps we should instead take advantage of the situation to push curricula that challenges CRT (such as FAIR’s).
Yah, agree on ALL points, M. Alejandra. Banning CRT works in FAVOR of CRTers. Drives Center-Left Democrats further left, when they should be going further center.
And, yah. I dream also. Idealistic. TYTY,
agree with you; censorship from the right is not the solution. I believe much of the current political climate and CRT (ie: communistic) fascination stems from lack of advancement and accumulation of net wealth among black Americans (as well as many white Americans and Americans of all heritage) whose American ancestry goes back generations. Many such people have no material worth to show for their centuries of American lineage. It's very difficult, if not impossible, for them to compete with immigrants. It's hard for upper class children to compete too, but they at least have strong families and some financial security. Children who raised in families that have little financial cushion and minimal family support are crushed by debt, drugs, depression etc. It's important to be able to review, discuss and try to understand societal ills from all angles and make sure our (knee-jerk) solutions aren't making things worse. I am not opposed to discussing some systematic racism in our past. No doubt it existed and still exists. I am also not necessarily against some level of (well conceived) gov't aid when paired with conservative solutions as well, ie: marrying and staying marrying seems to boost standard of living more than just about anything else. What I am very much against is the censoring of conservative voices and solutions. We need all brains on deck!! One tangential concern is that more harm is caused by marijuana than, as a society, we are willing to admit. I asked my son's high school dean if there would be any drug education. Her response: "The school doesn't believe it works as the kids just do drugs anyway." WTF? The reality that kids experiment is not a reason to not educate them about harms. The ones who have been preached to about the harms will have a voice that reminds them when it's time to stop. We have stopped teaching kids that drugs are bad and lives are being ruined.
Once the get rid of currency with a digital dollar and monitoring what you buy, there won't be any drugs. This will happen when 7G or 8G is working. Japan is working on 7G now and experimenting in India and Japan. The Chinese are exploring software use on 5G. The Brits are working on (Britcoin). Everything will be on the cloud. Why do you think America is so far behind in upgrading networks? Why do you think they don't care about drugs? They also don't care about borders, what will they pay the illegals with? I think they are setting us up for a digital ID that is cloud-based. You will get paid and pay with this ID. No more guns, ammo, porn, prostitutes, or any black market or illegal things.
Yah, I wonder about those things myself. No crystal ball, but what You say COULD happen, M. Odin. TYTY.
I agree with you 100% C Bell. One of the main problems about CRT is that while it claims to want to open dialogue on the topics of racism/race relations, in reality, it aims to dominate the narrative in a sort of draconian way. (As I mentioned on a previous post, based on standpoint epistemology those deemed marginalized have the authority. However, if a “marginalized” person who opposes the narrative they are considered an “internalized oppressor.” Thus, the ideology cannot be challenged.) CRT and antiracism —both of which use the intersectional frame—also make the mistake of distilling the individual into an identity. I do not think this is a helpful perspective.
I came to the conclusion a while back that to do justice such a complex and important topic, the nuanced opinions of scholars/intellectuals from all sides the policial spectrum must be included. I think part of the problem is that there is a lack of evidence-based solutions to some of the disparities you mentioned. If there were, perhaps these narratives would have as strong an appeal. I hope the “woke” trend pases and we are able to see this as a wake up call.
yes, i see the rub, how do you have an open dialogue with people who support an ideology that opposes open dialogue... but I do think people are learning how to defend themselves against this bullying. CRT is just another academic concept that can be debated like all others. We are learning that if they call you a racist or an oppressor or any other name...so what...apparently we're all racists so I guess we're in good company. Celebrities, professor, business owners etc need to stop the public self-flagellation for these perceived micro-aggressions. It's weird and just feeds the beast.
I think there are true believers of this ideology as well as people who go along in good faith thinking this will be an effective way to overcome racism and injustice. I think those who are not true believers can be eventually swayed by ideas to combat/ameliorate racism that the fall outside the framework of CRT and related ideologies. Likewise, I think we should continue to make a case for the fact (and it is a fact, since this is part of the CRT tenets) that ideologies like CRT stand in contrast to the ideas of enlightenment liberalism.
Cool. Let’s get the KKK in there teaching white supremacy doctrines. I’m sure you agree with that.
That is like suggesting we to bring in the flat earther’s to present to a geography class…There are views on matters of racism that are not CRT and that are not fringe (or at least, they shouldn’t be). The idea is to talk about racism within an framework that is more compatible with the values of enlightened liberalism (individualism, humanism, empiricism). Good news is, such critical-thinking-based curriculum already exists: https://www.fairforall.org/
I think people are sloppy on both sides about the term CRT. Progressives will say it’s just some obscure legal theory that’s completely harmless, while conservatives lox it with all sorts of evil baggage. But this is all besides the point. CRT is just used today to represent the whole suite of 1619 project/diangelo/kendi silliness. My school district teaches all three of these things in high school and they absolutely should not. These are absurd false diatribes against white people. Whether you want to call it CRT or something else is a distraction; that stupid stuff shouldn’t be peddled as fact to kids
I think you're coming from a good place. I agree about your social media comment. I do disagree with your analysis on CRT; perhaps it's not "hating" white people, but certainly alienating them to the point where parents have a legitimate concern for concepts taught in the classroom. Take the phrases "white privilege" "white advantage" "eliminating whiteness" "white supremacy" "only whites can be racist" "deconstruct whiteness." (I could go on but you get the point). Also couple this language with the activists who claim antiracism is the only way to combat racism, which according to Ibram X. Kendi, is actively using these linguistic concepts to be hyper aware of skin color at every level of interaction, from babies to adults, from kindergarten to the work place. So this is not, as you said, about slavery (although those wounds are still there and rightly so) or textbook US history or even the civil rights movement. It's about linguistic and social reprogramming, with white people, fortunately or unfortunately, taking the short end of the stick. Which, according to some, is what they deserve anyway.
The only thing people deserve is to be treated with respect, tolerance, listening and a present their view point. The view of "white privilege" is a marage.
In the past 40 years there has been managed decline because of NAFTA. Union Jobs, high paying manufacturing jobs in semiconductors, steel, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, electronics, appliances, software and other industries has evaporated. Migrants coming into the country have lowered wages in the meat packing, hospitality, construction, lawncare and other industries. The Black community has not had a chance to flower even though the seeds of equal rights and affirmative action to create equality have been planted.
The war on drugs, which has been lost, has unfairly targeted Black communities. Poverty and not seeing success has created anger. The Elites at the same time have profited. You have corrupt politicians that do not effect change. Laws are not passed for moral reasons to help the people. Laws proclaimed are a joke. Biden trying to tax the rich. They will just use loop holes and off-shore the money.
See the Pandaora Papers (1). Most politicians are out to make money, lobiests on K street have doubled. The stock market is rigged for the rich to invest in, the middle class guy has no chance.
Why do Elites like the Ford Foundation support ASU and MIT? Why does the McAurthur support Kendi with a genius grant? The US is the only country that allows philanthropy to invest in political causes.The elites do not want unity, they are seeking control and want confusion. Social Media and the mass Media push a constant narrative. The corrupt politicians work in tandem with corporate elites, one feeds the other.
This is why the Blacks have been depressed and why racism is part of the perceived engineered consent. It is an illusion, the reality is the top 1% own 80% of the wealth in this country. Harrass the corporate elites, leave the average "White Guy" alone, he has nothing but anger like the Blacks
(1)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oFEXmCCLWI
TYTY M. Odin. I have different statistics about who owns how much of the wealth. No matter. But I thought this article was interesting on several points: "The Truth about Redlining" https://glennloury.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-redlining
"If you look at the bottom 50% of white people in terms of wealth and the bottom 50% of black people in terms of wealth, there is almost no wealth gap at all. The entire gap is in the top 50%. And the reason, of course, that there's no wealth gap in the bottom 50% is that practically none of those people, white or black, have any significant wealth today. And again, that's a horrifying fact."
My statistics say that the bottom 50% holds TWO (2) % of the wealth. That puts EVERYONE reading this in the category of "them" to these poor people.
Agree with most of that, but I have some small notes.
One is that by "wealth" above we mean "how much money would you have left if you sold everything you own at market values, and paid off all debts". This kind of wealth is just "wealth=own-owe". People of low wealth can own very little and owe very little, or they can own (and make use) of a lot, but also owe a lot. Sometimes even people with high incomes and very lavish lifestyles can have negative net wealth. Sometimes people living very frugally below what their income could afford and avoiding debt, are accumulating wealth at decent rates.
So having lower wealth is an unreliable proxy for living in poverty. Of course there is some correlation, but other cultural factors need to be taken into account as well.
And the second point is to consider what wealth means operationally.
In the US, a person's "wealth" would often be *far* higher, if the value of their future Medicare and Social Security benefits was taken into account.
Or put another way, without any Medicare or Social Security, how big a payment would be needed at retirement to buy pre-paid equivalent services (eg: inflation adjusted annuities and prepaid medical coverage for life)? And how does that figure compare with one's own-owe wealth?
Even as a middle class person, by far the largest "wealth" equivalent I will have for retirement is future Medicare and Social Security. That mounts up to more than the value of my savings or equity, and I'm sure that I'm not alone.
For some people, even people not close to retirement, the bulk of their effective "wealth" is current and future social welfare services (eg: MedicAid rather than MediCare) and entitlements (which refers here to direct government payments, not attitudes).
The traditional wealth measures of own-owe are meaningful and this is not intended to distract from or dismiss that; but they are incomplete as an assessment of "how well people are doing" or what their effective "wealth-equivalent" really is.
(A related point - the stats about how many people live below the federal poverty line are based on only what people have acquired on their own, without including [federal/state/local] government assistance, in services or cash. The number who remain below that dollar line even after all government assistance is far smaller).
To be clear, I applaud the situation above - that retirement benfits channeled through the government are available to greatly raise the effective wealth of most retirees; and that social welfare even more greatly increases the effective income and wealth of those at the lower economic rungs of society. I'm not advocating for any reduction! I'm just saying that for clear thinking, we need to not sweep those laudable programs under the rug when analyzing effective real world income and wealth. Keep it also in our thinking, rather than considering only "net wealth on paper"
My friend's son is 1/4 italian 1/4 korean, 1/4 russian jew 1/4 indian. His school told him he had to join an affinity group and he asked his mom (half korean) which group he should join--"white or asian?" My ancestry is mainly british isles but i have a german last name; my husband is austrian but has an english last name. His mother was czech. I had dinner with a syrian muslim friend recently. She just joined the eastern orthodox lebanese church in my town because the food there reminded her of home. I ate pakistani food last night. Three entrees for $34 with tip and tax. Best meal i have had in weeks. The atmosphere was humble but service was incredibly warm and welcoming. I live in the bible belt btw. The united states is a friggin' miracle. Our lack of pure-blood pedigrees is our greatest asset. We are a nation of individuals. The teacher's job is to encourage kids to explore their undoubtably diverse (and mixed) heritage and embrace the differences and similarities they have with the child who sits next to them. Dividing them up into groups based on skin color is a doomed experiment.
Very well said, C Bell. That's my experience, too, in Chicagoland. I believe there is a much larger disconnect between people and elite leadership than between people and people. People mostly get along. Our leaders generate strife and tension to get noticed and get re-elected.
Excellent point. This is the real America. We live in the central great plains and it is the same here.
Thank you. The costco in Brooklyn (my home until this year) represents our great country as well as any place. It's where every conceivable slice of humanity--little old jewish couples, chinese-Americans, the half-jamaican/half dutch rastafarian dude, uber drivers, PTA moms and even socialite party throwers--come together in the ritual of buying food. We bump carts, ask opinions on fit (there are no mirrors so you have to ask) fight for pole position at check out, and trade cooking tips. It's almost symphonic!
Make no mistake - CRT is about hating white people.
And I was careful to say "perhaps" because I do not think everyone who wants CRT in schools or the workplace "hate" white people. I think they do hate or extremely dislike what they see as injustice. The problem is when their view of injustice blames a certain group of people and uses these new linguistic tropes ("evils of whiteness" etc) without recognizing (whether purposely or not) the extreme horrid effect on a population, specifically the young. The end result, is, well, hating white people and a culture that celebrates hating white people, even if that was not the intent.
Totally disagree. CRT is not a balanced honest exposition of American history. It is evil and racist. I love history and am all for a complete elucidation of historical facts
One of various instantiations of Critical Race Theory discourse has been the New York Times notorious "1619 Project". Here is a fantastic essay for you to read by Dr. Sean Wilentz, historian at Princeton:
https://www.opera-historica.com/pdfs/oph/2021/01/05.pdf
Yes, slavery did not start when the English brought slaves from Africa here. It was thriving for hundreds of years among the American Indian tribes in North America and continued after the English (and others from Europe) arrived. If the "1619 Project" had been named the "1019 Project" it would have been less dishonest, evil and racist.
And CRT ignores the strong opposition to slavery among whites. Blacks did not end slavery. They still run the slave trade in Africa (and again through Libya thanks to our actions). William Wilberforce was the single most important person in ending the slave trade and eventually slavery. He was white.
And the U.S. surely is not racist today. Example: the highest paid job in the U.S. (not including executive positions but just regular jobs) is player, National Basketball Association, at $8.32 million for 2019-20 ( the most recent I could find: https://sport-net.org/what-is-the-average-nba-salary-6/) and that is a majority-black job, with at least 450 persons holding it at any
The greatest living intellectual in the U.S. today is Thomas Sowell, and he is black.
The President of the leading intellectual institution in the U.S., the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, is Condoleezza Rice, and she is black.
America's best known surgeon is Ben Carson, and he is black.
Do CRT programs acknowledge any of this?
No. They CAN"T. Doesn't follow "THe Narrative." Their unwritten "bible."
Hi M. Adrian. Good question! :)
https://www.fairtransparency.org/ Website doesn't show much, but good group. RESPECTFULLY counters the notions that go under the umbrella heading of CRT. Outmanned, outgunned, but they try to go against the kind-a thing that went on here against M. Abbot. "CRT," the 1619 Project, BLM, and taking away freedom of speech is all of a bundle, AFAIK.
M. Weiss is an advisor to group. One-a my main charities.
Can you define systemic racism and explain how it is manifested and in which cities and companies and universities it is most prevalent? The CRT debate is a red herring. The question is how America is to be portrayed in our schools: as an imperfect country trying to get better or a sinful nation that needs to be fundamentally transformed. What is your view as to what should be taught in schools and colleges?
I'm a Jew. 75 years ago 6,000,000 died because of the then latest version of CRT. Your comments have the appearance of being "fair" and "even" but you are really another version of Matt Mullen - a troll.
Any “ideology” that separates people(and vilifies them) by group is evil and racist(if groups separated by race: see “white supremacy”). Historically “Kulaks” in USSR; “capitalist roaders” in China. CRT is a change in tactics by Marxists of separating and vilifying by class to separating and vilifying by race. They are evil, racist, and dishonest.