Woke is a Joke

[winsor 236]

28 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

then provide a few examples of actual things being taught that are wrong in your opinion.  or one.

What suggests that you have either the credibility or authority to provide assignments to me?

Why on earth would I expect you to be able to put it together if I diligently followed your orders?

What gives you the impression that I value your opinion, cognitive or correlative abilities even slightly?

Stick to name calling, it appears to be your long suit.

 

[BIGUN 1,314]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

it seems that you're evaluating something based on others' reactions to it, rather than on your own evaluation.

Most of what everyone is talking about is "Race Relations; not "Critical Race Theory." 

In my opinion, "Critical Race Theory" should be restructured into "Critical Respect Theory." Respect for all races, creeds, religions, genders (to include all the LGBTQEPS and gender identification). The starting position should not be all of the inequities of the past, but the way we will treat each other from today forward.       

[metalslug 36]

Quote

Ok cool! So we can teach CRT right. So what's your problem?

 If you ban CRT from the syllabus then what do you have? You still have an educator who thinks it is appropriate to tell a little girl she should know better because she's black. You still have school management who think it's appropriate to laugh at pupils who complain about racist treatment by teachers. You don't have a framework being taught which explains why those two things are still widespread in society in 2021. In what objective way is that a better situation?

My (public) school syllabus many years ago included Christian religion studies. Of course most of us knew it was horseshyte and I'm not aware of anyone who converted during that time, but knowledge of scripture was regarded as educational, if not actual faith. 

My preference would certainly be to not have CRT taught at all, but I'm willing to make some compromises so long as CRT studies can honestly be considered as actual academia and not activist nonsense. "This is what you should know", as opposed to "This is what you should do (or believe)".  I had also inferred in my earlier post that I'm not yet willing to dismiss all of CRT in it's entirety, some aspects of it (such as redlining and zoning laws, some legal precedents) may have some merit. I would be a bit curious why CRT is considered a separate subject; If it's factual academia then it could probably be folded into civics or history ?

[olofscience 480]

16 minutes ago, metalslug said:

"This is what you should know", as opposed to "This is what you should do (or believe)". 

Actually I'll go further - things shouldn't be preached to them. What students need to learn is how to think, not what to think.

Teach them how to do statistics.

Teach them the scientific method, and how biases can affect experimental results, and the different kinds of biases.

Teach them proper history, then give them current demographics, statistics, etc. of minorities. They'll put two and two together by themselves.

1 hour ago, winsor said:

What gives you the impression that I value your opinion, cognitive or correlative abilities even slightly?

Look at this guy, he's here to preach, not to discuss. What does he and another troll here have in common?

[jakee 1,489]

58 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

In my opinion, "Critical Race Theory" should be restructured into "Critical Respect Theory." Respect for all races, creeds, religions, genders (to include all the LGBTQEPS and gender identification). The starting position should not be all of the inequities of the past, but the way we will treat each other from today forward.       

Ok.... Since that's not what critical race theory is, can you just clarify whether you are indeed saying you don;t think critical race theory should be taught?

[jakee 1,489]

26 minutes ago, metalslug said:

My (public) school syllabus many years ago included Christian religion studies. Of course most of us knew it was horseshyte and I'm not aware of anyone who converted during that time, but knowledge of scripture was regarded as educational, if not actual faith. 

And?

Quote

My preference would certainly be to not have CRT taught at all,

Why?

Quote

but I'm willing to make some compromises so long as CRT studies can honestly be considered as actual academia and not activist nonsense. "This is what you should know", as opposed to "This is what you should do (or believe)".

Cool, you're ok with CRT being taught properly. So again, what's your problem?

Quote

I had also inferred in my earlier post that I'm not yet willing to dismiss all of CRT in it's entirety, some aspects of it (such as redlining and zoning laws, some legal precedents) may have some merit. I would be a bit curious why CRT is considered a separate subject; If it's factual academia then it could probably be folded into civics or history ?

You would need to ask the anti CRT scaremongers about that. I'm not aware of any widespread high school level teaching of CRT as an entire standalone subject. I am aware of republican legislatures banning or attempting to ban any mention of a single part of CRT in any lesson on any subject.

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Most of what everyone is talking about is "Race Relations; not "Critical Race Theory." 

Race relations is a large topic.  You can divide that into two main categories.

One is the response of the individual to other individuals and races, and how that defines racial strife (and equality) in the US.  This is something of the traditional approach to teaching race relations.  It concentrates on how individual attitudes towards races have evolved over the years.

The other is the systemic part of racism.  The obvious example here is slavery - a policy supported by the US Constitution, and enforced by a lot of laws in the US South before the Civil War.  After the Civil War the systems of racism in the US became more subtle.  Anti-miscegenation laws, redlining, school segregation (first official then unofficial) are all parts of that.  The study of that, and how that affects race relations, is critical race theory.

Quote

In my opinion, "Critical Race Theory" should be restructured into "Critical Respect Theory."

"Respect everyone else" is a great goal but is not a subject of study; it is a statement of intent.  If your goal is to widen the scope of Critical Race Theory it would become something like "Critical Legal Study" (which is what CRT arose from.)  That would include keeping whites from marrying blacks, outlawing gay marriage, preventing desegregation, keeping women from owning land etc. all of which attempted to preserve the primarily-white patriarchal culture of the US through legal means.

 

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

If you think I am wrong and have data to support your position, have at it.

 

1 hour ago, winsor said:

What suggests that you have either the credibility or authority to provide assignments to me?

You tell him Winsor! Who the fuck does that guy Winsor think he is anyway?

[billvon 2,991]

44 minutes ago, metalslug said:

My preference would certainly be to not have CRT taught at all, but I'm willing to make some compromises so long as CRT studies can honestly be considered as actual academia and not activist nonsense.

That is what CRT has been since the 1970's.  Several scholars started working on it, using the framework provided by Critical Legal Study, which is the study of how US laws are used to maintain the status quo of society's power structures, and as such is biased against marginalized groups.  A lot of the work the CLS scholars did focused on race, which is why the term CRT started to be used for such studies.  They went on for decades without much hoopla.

It is only recently that activists (on both sides) have made it into a cause celebre.

[metalslug 36]

Quote

And?
Why?
So again, what's your problem?

If you're not following yet, there's little more I can say that will clarify this for you. 

[jakee 1,489]

5 minutes ago, metalslug said:

If you're not following yet, there's little more I can say that will clarify this for you. 

So just another cheap shot instead of honest discussion. Why?

I'm curious as to what your motivation was to come here in the first place if that's all you wanted to offer.

[sfzombie13 324]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

What suggests that you have either the credibility or authority to provide assignments to me?

Why on earth would I expect you to be able to put it together if I diligently followed your orders?

What gives you the impression that I value your opinion, cognitive or correlative abilities even slightly?

Stick to name calling, it appears to be your long suit.

 

thought so.  now i know.  troll it is.  and not very good at it really if this is what you act like when asked one time for some supporting evidence to support what were obviously lies.  enjoy the rest of this whatever you're doing here.

[winsor 236]

2 minutes ago, metalslug said:

My (public) school syllabus many years ago included Christian religion studies. Of course most of us knew it was horseshyte and I'm not aware of anyone who converted during that time, but knowledge of scripture was regarded as educational, if not actual faith. 

My preference would certainly be to not have CRT taught at all, but I'm willing to make some compromises so long as CRT studies can honestly be considered as actual academia and not activist nonsense. "This is what you should know", as opposed to "This is what you should do (or believe)".  I had also inferred in my earlier post that I'm not yet willing to dismiss all of CRT in it's entirety, some aspects of it (such as redlining and zoning laws, some legal precedents) may have some merit. I would be a bit curious why CRT is considered a separate subject; If it's factual academia then it could probably be folded into civics or history ?

If American History included such works as "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" and the like, I'd be all for it.  Len Deighton's histories of the Second World War are much more nuanced than is typical, and Barbara Tuchman has a marvelously skeptical view of dearly held beliefs.

Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source, but some times the references are legit.  Their treatment of CRT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

seems to fit what I've read.

The Marxist foundations of Critical Theory and BLM suggest that the fundamentals cannot withstand scrutiny.  Also, the lack of data analysis to support theirl premises undercuts the veracity of their conclusions.  

While I agree that many of the things to which they are opposed are dreadful, for both CRT and BLM the cure is worse than the disease.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[olofscience 480]

48 minutes ago, winsor said:

Also, the lack of data analysis to support theirl premises undercuts the veracity of their conclusions.  

As opposed to...the lack of data analysis that you posted here?

When someone asked you for supporting evidence, you responded with insults. Just saying.

[metalslug 36]

Has anyone perhaps been aware of this published a few days ago ? 

A REPORT ON THE FIGHTING CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY SURFACE FLEET

Now, before someone jumps on the obvious; Yes, I'm aware that all four names under "Conducted at the Direction of..." are Republicans  (yeah, I looked those guys up because I'm aware that politics loves to drive reports).  If forum members choose to dismiss it out of hand on that alone though, then we might as well apply the same bias to dismiss any report the left conducts. 

In the event that some forum members decide to troll me on this; I'll state in advance that I cannot effectively debate this particular report as I have no significant knowledge of the modern US Navy or the veracity of statements in this report, and without better knowledge I expect it would be tricky for any forum member to shoot meaningful flak at this unless , heaven forbid, "it's perfectly OK for combat training to take a back seat...".  If you happen to be a senior and current naval officer who can debunk this then, by all means; have at it ! 

It's a long report and it's not all anti-woke sentiments throughout; but for relevance to this thread topic you may ready your fully-woke battleship cannons because, for what it's worth, here are some excerpts;

-----------------

A recently retired senior enlisted leader suggested that this dynamic was more a lack of proper prioritization. “I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training.”

“Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we’ll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,” lamented one lieutenant currently on active duty. “It’s criminal. They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we’ll all bleed the same colour.”

...destroyer captain lamented that,
“where someone puts their time shows what their priorities are. And we've got so many
messages about X, Y, Z appreciation month, or sexual assault prevention, or you name it. We don't even have close to that same level of emphasis on actual warfighting.”

[jakee 1,489]

26 minutes ago, metalslug said:

In the event that some forum members decide to troll me on this; I'll state in advance that I cannot effectively debate this particular report as I have no significant knowledge of the modern US Navy or the veracity of statements in this report,

Hang on a minute - if someone asks you a question you can't answer because you don't know anything about the subject you decided to introduce then you will define that as trolling?

That's a rather shitty attitude, isn't it?

[metalslug 36]

Quote

Hang on a minute - if someone asks you a question you can't answer because you don't know anything about the subject you decided to introduce then you will define that as trolling?

That's a rather shitty attitude, isn't it?

And so it begins again...   Nah, I feel trolling may include a pattern of asking questions with an advance awareness that the answer cannot reasonably be known to the question recipient, for the sake of "Aha, gotcha !",  or someone incessantly repeating questions because they cannot be bothered to read and/or comprehend pre-existing statements. That's shitty.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

11 hours ago, jakee said:

They are wrong. They're arguing against what scaremongers say critical race theory is rather than what it actually is.

Ya know? 

This is the crux of the matter.

First off, CRT is not taught in any school below college, and primarily at graduate level. 
The stupid state legislators who are passing laws against teaching it at elementary, middle or high school have pretty much passed laws against something that never happens.

 

Second, it's a theory.
Not unlike relativity, evolution or string theories.

They take an observed phenomenon and try to explain why it happens. 

They make assumptions, try to test them and then modify them as the understanding grows & evolves.

In the case of CRT, the basic premise is that racism exists (duh). 
The main question is asking why it is still as pervasive as it is, despite all of the advancements in Civil Rights over the past half century or so. 

The answer seems to be that there are a wide variety of social constructs (in all sorts of ways) that reinforce the racism. 
One of the more subtle and interesting ones is how the Long Island Parkway has low bridges. You might wonder how low bridges can be racist.
The reality is that those roads are the only way to get to the Long Island beaches. The low bridges prevent buses from using the Parkway.
So only passenger cars can take people to the beaches.
And poor black people are far, far less likely to have access to a car.
So the beaches became 'white only', not by law or rule, but by accessibility.

To reduce racism, understanding the underlying causes is vital. Seeing how ingrained those things are is the beginning to the process of removing them. 

But, of course, studying those things is 'racist'.
Removing those barriers would start the process of removing racism.

So some people are trying VERY hard to shut down the whole idea of CRT. To the point of spreading lies about it.

Go figure.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

29 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Ya know? 

This is the crux of the matter.

First off, CRT is not taught in any school below college, and primarily at graduate level. 
The stupid state legislators who are passing laws against teaching it at elementary, middle or high school have pretty much passed laws against something that never happens.

 

Second, it's a theory.
Not unlike relativity, evolution or string theories.

They take an observed phenomenon and try to explain why it happens. 

They make assumptions, try to test them and then modify them as the understanding grows & evolves.

In the case of CRT, the basic premise is that racism exists (duh). 
The main question is asking why it is still as pervasive as it is, despite all of the advancements in Civil Rights over the past half century or so. 

The answer seems to be that there are a wide variety of social constructs (in all sorts of ways) that reinforce the racism. 
One of the more subtle and interesting ones is how the Long Island Parkway has low bridges. You might wonder how low bridges can be racist.
The reality is that those roads are the only way to get to the Long Island beaches. The low bridges prevent buses from using the Parkway.
So only passenger cars can take people to the beaches.
And poor black people are far, far less likely to have access to a car.
So the beaches became 'white only', not by law or rule, but by accessibility.

To reduce racism, understanding the underlying causes is vital. Seeing how ingrained those things are is the beginning to the process of removing them. 

But, of course, studying those things is 'racist'.
Removing those barriers would start the process of removing racism.

So some people are trying VERY hard to shut down the whole idea of CRT. To the point of spreading lies about it.

Go figure.

Hi Joe,

Once again, a great post.  I completely agree with you.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,991]

 

2 hours ago, winsor said:

Critical Theory and BLM suggest that the fundamentals cannot withstand scrutiny. 

Now you are conflating BLM and CRT?   Because they both . . . have something to do with black people?   Are you going to conflate aircraft and sewers next, because they both deal with fluid dynamics, sort of?  (And some aircraft HAVE a sewer!  Sort of.)

A long, long time ago, a skydiving FAQ made the rounds.  It was mostly good stuff, but at the end there was a question "can skydivers breathe in freefall?" to which the author replied tongue-in-cheek "no, we absorb air through our skin."  The Usenet group rec.skydiving had some fun with that for a while, saying "yeah, and that's why our cheeks flap to absorb more air!" "That's why we can't jump through clouds, because the moisture clogs our pores" and "that's why only experts can wear full face helmets and nylon jumpsuits - they can hold their breath for a minute.  That's why they are out of breath after the dive!"

It was funny for a while then died off.

A few years later I was chief instructor at Brown and a group from a local tech company showed up because two of their group were doing tandems, and they were all there for the spectacle.  I went looking for the students themselves (something that occupied at least 25% of my time as an instructor) and overheard one of the non-skydivers talking to his friend.

"Yeah, skydivers can't breathe in freefall," he said.  "The wind is too strong.  They absorb it through their skin."

"Where did you hear that?" I asked him.

"I found it on the Internet!" he said, as if his ability to use the Internet was notable.  (At that point, it sort of was; you had to have at least a modicum of experience to get on the 'net via a dial up modem, running at the blazing speed of 9600bps.)

"That's not really true.  You can breathe, it just feels like you . . . "

"Oh yeah?  Well, do you jump through clouds?"

"We try not to, because . . ."

"Yep.  That's what the thing on the Internet said.  You can't because the moisture clogs up your skin and you suffocate."  He looked to his friends to see if they would acknowledge and compliment him "ferreting out the secret" that this lying skydiver didn't want him to find out.  They did not.

This guy knew what was up.  He had Done His Research.  He actually did more than listen to NPR; he looked up some information on the Internet (technically Usenet.) 

I took him about as seriously as I take you on this topic.

 

[jakee 1,489]

56 minutes ago, metalslug said:

And so it begins again...   Nah, I feel trolling may include a pattern of asking questions with an advance awareness that the answer cannot reasonably be known to the question recipient, for the sake of "Aha, gotcha !"

Except that you have in this instance introduced a subject for discussion and stated that you won't be able to discuss it in any way, so attempting to discuss it with you is trolling. That's the biggest 'gotcha' I've ever seen.

[billvon 2,991]

37 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The answer seems to be that there are a wide variety of social constructs (in all sorts of ways) that reinforce the racism. 
One of the more subtle and interesting ones is how the Long Island Parkway has low bridges. You might wonder how low bridges can be racist.
The reality is that those roads are the only way to get to the Long Island beaches. The low bridges prevent buses from using the Parkway.
So only passenger cars can take people to the beaches.
And poor black people are far, far less likely to have access to a car.
So the beaches became 'white only', not by law or rule, but by accessibility.

Yep.  And I would add that his work on parks and pools reflected that as well.   The pools in white neighborhoods were sited centrally, such that they were accessible by walking and driving.  The pools in black neighborhoods were generally accessible only by car, and lacked large parking lots or easy road access. 

The Moses highways themselves go mostly in straight lines, often bisecting mostly-black neighborhoods.  There is one notable exception.  A group of wealthy landowners convinced Moses to build a five mile detour around the Wheatley Hills section of Long Island.  (Specifically the area near the intersection of Willetts road and Old Westbury road.)  Thus there is an odd and very large jag in the Northern State Parkway.  I was intimately familiar with that section, commuting to my summer job for years on it.  It added several minutes to everyone's drive -  but it appeased the rich.

Again, this is not indicative that Moses was an evil, horrid racist.  He was likely simply heeding the desires of the neighborhoods on Long Island.  But the result was a further racial division on Long Island.  Like you mentioned, understanding the roots of that division is important in overcoming it.  (And, of course, is what CRT looks at.)

[Phil1111 1,149]

On 7/17/2021 at 8:11 AM, olofscience said:

Libel suit, dismissed.

With costs

[BIGUN 1,314]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Several scholars started working on it, using the framework provided by Critical Legal Study, which is the study of how US laws are used to maintain the status quo of society's power structures, and as such is biased against marginalized groups.

 

2 hours ago, billvon said:

The Moses highways themselves go mostly in straight lines, often bisecting mostly-black neighborhoods.  There is one notable exception.  A group of wealthy landowners convinced Moses to build a five mile detour around the Wheatley Hills section of Long Island. 

Now, you're getting into the depth of CRT. Everything before was race relations. We're not talking about race as socially constructed groups in CRT. We're talking about one group of people only giving another group of people those opportunities and freedoms when it is in their own interests and they have the legal means to enforce those interests. 

And, let's not delude ourselves into thinking this is a black and white issue. It's about power over others that one group of people . . . 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

...And, let's not delude ourselves into thinking this is a black and white issue. It's about power over others that one group of people . . . 

Very true.

It's about the people in power (mainly old white men) doing everything they can to maintain that power. 
And exploit 'the masses' for profit.

Poor people of all colors, women, but also, primarily, minorities.