The part I can't for the life of me figure out is whether Dems/progressives/elites are consiously gaslighting voters with "CRT isn't real/is only taught in law schools", or if they really just can't see the forest for the trees.
Sure, a lot of what Republicans/Chris Rufo/Younkin call CRT is really other similar ideologies like standpoint …
The part I can't for the life of me figure out is whether Dems/progressives/elites are consiously gaslighting voters with "CRT isn't real/is only taught in law schools", or if they really just can't see the forest for the trees.
Sure, a lot of what Republicans/Chris Rufo/Younkin call CRT is really other similar ideologies like standpoint epistemology, postcolonial theory, postmodernism, black nationalism, etc., so if you want to get extremely technical and hair-splitting, the issues in schools are often not critical race theory PER SE.
But to make the logical leap from "there are other more technically precise terms to call this stuff" to "move along nothing to see here (you racist)"....I just don't see how Democrats wouldn't anticipate that rhetorical evasive maneuver to be poorly received by voters. Chris Rufo calling a postcolonial white-bashing textbook a CRT white-bashing textbook doesn't mean the white-bashing textbook is a "made-up issue".
So it's either the most incompetent attempt at gaslighting I've ever seen, or else the woke crowd really has drank so much of their own Kool-Aid that they don't see anything problematic in schools right now. I really can't figure it out.
Miles, It's more the latter than the former. The "it's technically not CRT" retort is a loophole. A way to outsmart the "hysteria" of CRT opponents. "When they go low, we go high" mentality. They're digging in their heels.
I've been a public school teacher for 20 years. I've been through many DEI trainings. And while I've never received a 3-ring binder labeled "Critical Race Theory Teaching Materials," all the tenets of it (privilege, white supremacy, implicit bias, intersectionality, etc., etc.) are the foundation of every workshop. Teachers have been hearing about--and actively trying to close--the achievement gap for years. We want our students to thrive, and current DEI trainings propose a very seductive solution to it--as long as you (the teacher) "do the work." I stepped away from teaching for a year and it cleared my head, thank God. I cannot speak for Progressives outside public ed, but those within it are caught up in the fervor. And to be sure, not all teachers are on board, but people should never underestimate the power of groupthink. Particularly right now when Unions are highly visible and calling for teacher unity. The institutional ethos is pretty intense.
I suspect many making the "it's not CRT" argument know they're being pedantic and splitting hairs, but it's a way to self-righteously sidestep a larger, complex discussion they'd rather not have. They're convinced they're right, and they're not going to justify "racist" arguments by engaging in discourse about it. That's my take on it, anyway.
They know, they just think that you don’t, or that they can convince you that the Theory itself is not being taught in K12 schools, which is factually correct, and ignores the truth which is the application of CRT is being taught to teachers and is definitely in schools.
Miles you write very well. To answer your question I don’t think they’re gaslighting I think they are sincere, schools are fine and altogether correct to counter the parents presumed racial biases.
Miles your question was of course leading - you well know it’s a bit of both. I chose the true believer explanation and Mike Cranny picked the realpolitik, they know explanation. Go with Mike’s!
Fair point. I've been fascinated for a while by how progressive thinking has merged the black-and-white Manichean worldview of Marxism with the epistemic nihilism of postmodernism, to arrive at this kind of pessimist/fatalist theory of discourse where there's no such thing as facts; everything is just competing propaganda for different political projects. E.g., when Trump is in office, "vaccines work" is right-wing propaganda, but once Biden is in office, "vaccines don't work" is right-wing propaganda. Whether or not the vaccines work is irrelevant; all rhetoric is evaluated in terms of political cui bono.
Once someone drinks that Kool-Aid, it's more or less inevitable that they say "well fuck it, if all discourse is either propaganda for the good guys, or propaganda for the bad guys, then I'll just be a shameless partisan hack everytime I open my mouth, because at least that way I know that the propaganda I'm shilling is the "good" propaganda, as opposed to the "bad" propaganda.
At which point it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; the people who live their lives by the lights of a theory that teaches all discourse is propaganda and everyone is a shill, end up becoming shills peddling propaganda, and another NPC is born.
In this case, admitting that something has gone wrong in schools is seen as "bolstering problematic right wing talking points", so progressives will just say the opposite (i.e. "nothing to see here"), to make sure that everything coming out of their mouths is "on the right side of history". Narratives > Reality.
Non-Playable Character. Gaming term for someone who can't really think for themselves, and can only cycle through a few pre-scripted lines of dialogue.
Became used as an analogy for super woke people who all sound interchangeable because they're all parroting the same talking points.
The part I can't for the life of me figure out is whether Dems/progressives/elites are consiously gaslighting voters with "CRT isn't real/is only taught in law schools", or if they really just can't see the forest for the trees.
Sure, a lot of what Republicans/Chris Rufo/Younkin call CRT is really other similar ideologies like standpoint epistemology, postcolonial theory, postmodernism, black nationalism, etc., so if you want to get extremely technical and hair-splitting, the issues in schools are often not critical race theory PER SE.
But to make the logical leap from "there are other more technically precise terms to call this stuff" to "move along nothing to see here (you racist)"....I just don't see how Democrats wouldn't anticipate that rhetorical evasive maneuver to be poorly received by voters. Chris Rufo calling a postcolonial white-bashing textbook a CRT white-bashing textbook doesn't mean the white-bashing textbook is a "made-up issue".
So it's either the most incompetent attempt at gaslighting I've ever seen, or else the woke crowd really has drank so much of their own Kool-Aid that they don't see anything problematic in schools right now. I really can't figure it out.
Miles, It's more the latter than the former. The "it's technically not CRT" retort is a loophole. A way to outsmart the "hysteria" of CRT opponents. "When they go low, we go high" mentality. They're digging in their heels.
I've been a public school teacher for 20 years. I've been through many DEI trainings. And while I've never received a 3-ring binder labeled "Critical Race Theory Teaching Materials," all the tenets of it (privilege, white supremacy, implicit bias, intersectionality, etc., etc.) are the foundation of every workshop. Teachers have been hearing about--and actively trying to close--the achievement gap for years. We want our students to thrive, and current DEI trainings propose a very seductive solution to it--as long as you (the teacher) "do the work." I stepped away from teaching for a year and it cleared my head, thank God. I cannot speak for Progressives outside public ed, but those within it are caught up in the fervor. And to be sure, not all teachers are on board, but people should never underestimate the power of groupthink. Particularly right now when Unions are highly visible and calling for teacher unity. The institutional ethos is pretty intense.
I suspect many making the "it's not CRT" argument know they're being pedantic and splitting hairs, but it's a way to self-righteously sidestep a larger, complex discussion they'd rather not have. They're convinced they're right, and they're not going to justify "racist" arguments by engaging in discourse about it. That's my take on it, anyway.
Excellent
They know, they just think that you don’t, or that they can convince you that the Theory itself is not being taught in K12 schools, which is factually correct, and ignores the truth which is the application of CRT is being taught to teachers and is definitely in schools.
i'd love to see you debate with RJF, who just replied with the opposite take. I'm torn so I want to see who wins.
Miles you write very well. To answer your question I don’t think they’re gaslighting I think they are sincere, schools are fine and altogether correct to counter the parents presumed racial biases.
i'd love to see you debate with Mike Cranny, who just replied with the opposite take. I'm torn so I want to see who wins.
Miles your question was of course leading - you well know it’s a bit of both. I chose the true believer explanation and Mike Cranny picked the realpolitik, they know explanation. Go with Mike’s!
But isn’t that what they always do when one of their policies plummet their pol numbers, Deny deny deny nothing to see here move along.
Fair point. I've been fascinated for a while by how progressive thinking has merged the black-and-white Manichean worldview of Marxism with the epistemic nihilism of postmodernism, to arrive at this kind of pessimist/fatalist theory of discourse where there's no such thing as facts; everything is just competing propaganda for different political projects. E.g., when Trump is in office, "vaccines work" is right-wing propaganda, but once Biden is in office, "vaccines don't work" is right-wing propaganda. Whether or not the vaccines work is irrelevant; all rhetoric is evaluated in terms of political cui bono.
Once someone drinks that Kool-Aid, it's more or less inevitable that they say "well fuck it, if all discourse is either propaganda for the good guys, or propaganda for the bad guys, then I'll just be a shameless partisan hack everytime I open my mouth, because at least that way I know that the propaganda I'm shilling is the "good" propaganda, as opposed to the "bad" propaganda.
At which point it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; the people who live their lives by the lights of a theory that teaches all discourse is propaganda and everyone is a shill, end up becoming shills peddling propaganda, and another NPC is born.
In this case, admitting that something has gone wrong in schools is seen as "bolstering problematic right wing talking points", so progressives will just say the opposite (i.e. "nothing to see here"), to make sure that everything coming out of their mouths is "on the right side of history". Narratives > Reality.
Narrative greater than reality, good coinage, bullseye I think.
NPC?
Non-Playable Character. Gaming term for someone who can't really think for themselves, and can only cycle through a few pre-scripted lines of dialogue.
Became used as an analogy for super woke people who all sound interchangeable because they're all parroting the same talking points.
Miles check out Wesley Yang‘s substack - it is a roaring blast furnace of ideas
Cool.