Social CRT (Critical Race Theory) Megathread, Vol.1

[panamaican]

This is pure fantasy. No one on the right wants to stop teaching about slavery and Jim Crow. You have absolutely no evidence of this. Anyone who is defending this AP course which includes queer theory and then trying to turn it around as trying to erase black history is a clown that cannot be reasoned with.

You missed what I said:

" any vestige of the truth of slavery and Jim Crow from public education"
"explain a complex part of history"
"parents don't want their kids to empathize because they want to perpetuate the narrative that no one should feel bad about what happened."

I didn't say they don't want to teach about slavery and Jim Crow. I said they don't want to teach the truth of it, they want to avoid the complexity of it, and they don't want their kids to empathize with it.

Anyone who confuses the difference between teaching something accurately and not teaching it at all is a clown that cannot be reasoned with, lol. And queer history in the black community is not inappropriate in an African American AP History class because that is an area of black history where the experience is divergent from how the mainstream experienced it. Of course, I don't expect many people to know that...which is why it would be taught in an AP course.

People realize the AP courses are meant to be college credit courses, right? So they're going to handle more complex subject matter than a generic high school class on the same subject. It feels like a lot of you are expecting an AP class to resemble a middle school class.

 

[IamStryker]

I didn't dismiss what your issue with pride parades was. We didn't really discuss what your issue was beyond agreeing that they shouldn't be in schools. But that they shouldn't be in schools isn't the end of the conversation.
Your 'black and white' thinking comes in because you don't acknowledge the context and WHY behind what I/the left think. You and I agree that Pride parades shouldn't be in school, but not for the same reasons.


The right needs to actually understand the words they use/hear, and arguments being made before they attempt to engage in debate. You guys just say words and act as if they are automatically bad.
"Gender identity" , "Queer" , "Homosexual" , "Transgender"...none of these words are evil words. Can individuals teach or present these topics in inappropriate ways? Yes. But that doesn't mean the topics in and of themselves are bullshit.

My original point here was---you guys don't make any distinction between TALKING about topics and PUSHING/PROMOTING a topic. It isn't the same thing.
There are legitimate academic conversations to be had on any of these topics that doesn't require a teacher to "push/promote" a "transgender/homosexual lifestyle".
Your gender and sexuality ties into your ideas of masculinity/femininity, family make up, politics and political power, religion, history, how people have and haven't moved up or down in society because of their gender/sexuality, etc....there are a ton of discussions that can be had on the topic that have nothing to do with turning kids gay/"promoting gay lifestyle".
You can have no interest in the topic, or think it is a waste of time, but it's a perfectly legitimate subject in the field of humanities.

I think the issue is we fundamentally disagree on certain things. For one I don't agree with your point that the right does not draw a distinction between talking about a topic and promoting it. I think we do that all of the time just like in our back and forth I have been saying I woukd like to see this compromise where things can be discussed without a political agenda. I have not seen the left willing to do this.

Gender identity is a great example because I have yet to see it being discussed in schools in a way that is not part of political activism. If a school can discuss the concept of gender by simply talking about gender norms/stereotypes that's fine. But when the left wants to put gender identity in schools this is not what they want. They want to teach the boys can become girls nonsense.

 

[SummerStriker]

I think the issue is we fundamentally disagree on certain things. For one I don't agree with your point that the right does not draw a distinction between talking about a topic and promoting it. I think we do that all of the time just like in our back and forth I have been saying I woukd like to see this compromise where things can be discussed without a political agenda. I have not seen the left willing to do this.

Gender identity is a great example because I have yet to see it being discussed in schools in a way that is not part of political activism. If a school can discuss the concept of gender by simply talking about gender norms/stereotypes that's fine. But when the left wants to put gender identity in schools this is not what they want. They want to teach the boys can become girls nonsense.

You think that telling the truth about the nature of gender is activism because you have the wrong opinion.

 

[IamStryker]

I didn't say they don't want to teach about slavery and Jim Crow. I said they don't want to teach the truth of it, they want to avoid the complexity of it, and they don't want their kids to empathize with it.

How are you coming to this conclusion? You have sone kind of evidence?

Anyone who confuses the difference between teaching something accurately and not teaching it at all is a clown that cannot be reasoned with, lol.

Good thing I said nothing like that.

And queer history in the black community is not inappropriate in an African American AP History class because that is an area of black history where the experience is divergent from how the mainstream experienced it.

Then keep it in college because queer theory is inappropriate in a public highschool.

People realize the AP courses are meant to be college credit courses, right? So they're going to handle more complex subject matter than a generic high school class on the same subject. It feels like a lot of you are expecting an AP class to resemble a middle school class.

Naw I just don't want highschools to turn into the sane far left cess pool that colleges have become. Queer theory is anything but neutral.

 

[panamaican]

How are you coming to this conclusion? You have sone kind of evidence?

I think the recent falsities put forward about CRT and about what is being taught in schools is fairly implicative of that.

Good thing I said nothing like that.

No, you didn't say it. You failed to recognize the distinction in what I was saying. I said one thing, you missed it and alleged that I said the other thing.

Then keep it in college because queer theory is inappropriate in a public highschool.

AP courses are college courses. When you say "keep it in college" that's exactly what an AP course does.

Naw I just don't want highschools to turn into the sane far left cess pool that colleges have become. Queer theory is anything but neutral.

It's history. I'm starting to get the impression that you don't know what an AP course is and how and why it differs from a normal high school course.

 

[IamStryker]

You think that telling the truth about the nature of gender is activism because you have the wrong opinion.

The truth? You seriously look at this ideology and think it's the truth? No its a huge lie. Children are being told that if they don't like their gender just change it if they want. Transition socially and then with drugs later to stop puberty. Somehow you look at this belief system and think it's the truth. It's a denial of the truth.

 

[panamaican]

I think the issue is we fundamentally disagree on certain things. For one I don't agree with your point that the right does not draw a distinction between talking about a topic and promoting it. I think we do that all of the time just like in our back and forth I have been saying I woukd like to see this compromise where things can be discussed without a political agenda. I have not seen the left willing to do this.

Gender identity is a great example because I have yet to see it being discussed in schools in a way that is not part of political activism. If a school can discuss the concept of gender by simply talking about gender norms/stereotypes that's fine. But when the left wants to put gender identity in schools this is not what they want. They want to teach the boys can become girls nonsense.

I'm going to point out the obvious problem. You think that teaching something that you don't agree with is "political activism". Which, obviously, contradicts your statement that you want "...compromise where things can be discussed without a political agenda."

To you, the very discussion of some subjects implies a political agenda.

It's like me saying that I want a world where we can discuss pets without a political agenda....but any discussion about pets must be limited to cats, dogs and hamsters. By artificially limiting what other people can talk about I am pushing my own political agenda under the false claim that doing so limits politics.

 

[IamStryker]

I think the recent falsities put forward about CRT and about what is being taught in schools is fairly implicative of that.

What falsities?

No, you didn't say it. You failed to recognize the distinction in what I was saying. I said one thing, you missed it and alleged that I said the other thing.

They are both equally baseless. Not teaching it or completely lying about it are equally silly accusations.

AP courses are college courses. When you say "keep it in college" that's exactly what an AP course does.

Obviously keep it in college and not taught to highschool students.

It's history. I'm starting to get the impression that you don't know what an AP course is and how and why it differs from a normal high school course.

It's taught in the highschool to highschool students right? Then I stand by what I said.

 

[panamaican]

What falsities?

A complete misrepresentation of what CRT is. And complete misrepresentation of what is being taught.

They are both equally baseless. Not teaching it or completely lying about it are equally silly accusations.

But that's not what you said before. What you said before made clear that you didn't understand the difference between the two. You can pivot now, that's fine.

Obviously keep it in college and not taught to highschool students.


It's taught in the highschool to highschool students right? Then I stand by what I said.

So, kids are smart enough to take college courses...except the ones you don't like. Silly.

 

[IamStryker]

I'm going to point out the obvious problem. You think that teaching something that you don't agree with is "political activism". Which, obviously, contradicts your statement that you want "...compromise where things can be discussed without a political agenda."

To you, the very discussion of some subjects implies a political agenda.

It's like me saying that I want a world where we can discuss pets without a political agenda....but any discussion about pets must be limited to cats, dogs and hamsters. By artificially limiting what other people can talk about I am pushing my own political agenda under the false claim that doing so limits politics.

You are correct on one thing. The idea that boys can be girls and vice-versa is an inherently left wing political ideology. So I agree I would never agree in putting it in public schools. I thought SmilinDesperado wanted to see topics like gender discussed in a neutral and rational faction without any political bias. But I am happy to say if I was wrong then I completely disagree with putting this far left nonsense in schools. There can be no compromise if you just want these extremist views taught in school.

 

[IamStryker]

A complete misrepresentation of what CRT is. And complete misrepresentation of what is being taught.

Cool let's see it. Give me a link.

But that's not what you said before. What you said before made clear that you didn't understand the difference between the two. You can pivot now, that's fine.

Nonsense. You said "There is an ongoing push, by some, to erase any vestige of the truth of slavery and Jim Crow from public education". I responded that no one on the right wants to stop teaching about those things and I am obviously implying teaching the truth of what happened. You seriously thought I was arguing that they are being taught but not correctly?

So, kids are smart enough to take college courses...except the ones you don't like. Silly.

Has nothing to do with intelligence. I dont think far left view points need to be in highschools. I think public Highschools should be kept politically neutral and that can't happen if they get a bunch of shitty college classes shoved into them.

 

[shockaholic12]

You are correct on one thing. The idea that boys can be girls and vice-versa is an inherently left wing political ideology. So I agree I would never agree in putting it in public schools. I thought SmilinDesperado wanted to see topics like gender discussed in a neutral and rational faction without any political bias. But I am happy to say if I was wrong then I completely disagree with putting this far left nonsense in schools. There can be no compromise if you just want these extremist views taught in school.

You recently posted exactly how a person can socially and medically transform themselves to represent the opposite gender. Now you are saying that transformation to trans can't take place. It seems what you're saying is actually that you don't agree with the practice, not that the practice isn't possible, but also contradicting yourself. Which is you projecting beliefs/politics.

By your logic schools should be teaching that this is a practice that exists and that is available to society and just not saying whether or not it's a good idea for an individual. But I don't think you're actually ok with that, you seem to just not want the topic even mentioned. It's hard to follow your logic.

 

[ringking1982]

I don't really understand what CRT is. Does anyone? What's in the curriculum? Is it taught by woke teachers with an ideological agenda? (not surprising). Can someone who is NOT LEFT but rather in the center explain?

The left give a definition but then the right give something different. I don't know which is true.

Thanks.

Rant below...optional read.

But I tell you this, a lot of things proposed by the left just don't make sense.... also I do NOT trust the left's version of CRT or what it is supposed to do, with their biological science denial and ultra virtue signaling. They ignore statistics and are extreme race baiters. The same left states that push child transgender surgeries probably push this trash as well. If they segregate kinds in class based on skin color as a "lesson", shame white kids (as usual) and look at skin color instead of merit then it must be stopped.

 

[shockaholic12]

I don't really understand what CRT is. Does anyone? What's in the curriculum? Is it taught by woke teachers with an ideological agenda? (not surprising). Can someone who is NOT LEFT but rather in the center explain?

The left give a definition but then the right give something different. I don't know which is true.

Thanks.

Rant below...optional read.

But I tell you this, a lot of things proposed by the left just don't make sense.... also I do NOT trust the left's version of CRT or what it is supposed to do, with their biological science denial and ultra virtue signaling. They ignore statistics and are extreme race baiters. The same left states that push child transgender surgeries probably push this trash as well. If they segregate kinds in class based on skin color as a "lesson", shame white kids (as usual) and look at skin color instead of merit then it must be stopped.

the core theory is from like the 70s and basically argues race is a social construct and racism isn’t something that is just a product of individual’s personal bias but can also be perpetuated by legal systems and government policies.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I think the issue is we fundamentally disagree on certain things. For one I don't agree with your point that the right does not draw a distinction between talking about a topic and promoting it. I think we do that all of the time just like in our back and forth I have been saying I woukd like to see this compromise where things can be discussed without a political agenda. I have not seen the left willing to do this.

Gender identity is a great example because I have yet to see it being discussed in schools in a way that is not part of political activism. If a school can discuss the concept of gender by simply talking about gender norms/stereotypes that's fine. But when the left wants to put gender identity in schools this is not what they want. They want to teach the boys can become girls nonsense.

No, the fundamental issue here is that you talk in wide generalities when the conversation requires nuance and specifics. You are just saying you want to see compromise while contradicting that statement in the same sentence or paragraph.

"Political agenda" is an extremely broad term that means absolutely nothing because you can attach it to anything--which is what you are doing here. Again, just using a word that you don't like/understand qualifies as a "political agenda" to you, which is why you and other right wingers most definitely are NOT making distinctions between talking about something and promoting it in some unsavory way.

In your last post, you mentioned the word 'gender identity' as if those words are inherently evil or part of a "political agenda". I specifically gave you a few examples of how gender identity could be taught in a class, and it has NOTHING to do with this crap that you keep talking about of "wanting to teach boys can become girls". You have nothing to back up this statement, it's just something you are pulling out of rightwing Twitter. There is no teacher lesson plan that says "Lesson 1 Objective: Teach boys to be girls"
If I wanted to teach a class on WW2 where I specifically wanted to talk about the mindset of the German population, a study on gender identity would be helpful in having that conversation. Having strict ideas on gender roles makes it a lot easier to mobilize a population to do certain things. Homosexuals were also targeted by Nazis, so a study on the history of homosexuality and society would also be necessary.
If I wanted to look at how gays are treated in particular cultures and what effect that has on them and broader society, that also has nothing to do with "teaching boys to be girls". The gay black experience isn't the same as the gay white experience because of some cultural factors, and that can be a good discussion to have.
These are all entirely normal and important discussions to be had in a humanities course.
You guys are just completely ignorant when it comes to these topics, and instead of actually doing some reading on exactly what 'gender identity' or queer studies is, you assume it's all just a "political agenda" where the left wants boys to be girls......all due respect, but this thinking is fucking retarded. You can't talk about compromise if you don't even know what we're talking about.

 

[IamStryker]

No, the fundamental issue here is that you talk in wide generalities when the conversation requires nuance and specifics. You are just saying you want to see compromise while contradicting that statement in the same sentence or paragraph.

Contradicting how? You seem to aggressively accuse me of things without backing it up in every post.

"Political agenda" is an extremely broad term that means absolutely nothing because you can attach it to anything--which is what you are doing here. Again, just using a word that you don't like/understand qualifies as a "political agenda" to you, which is why you and other right wingers most definitely are NOT making distinctions between talking about something and promoting it in some unsavory way.

If we get into specific examples I think I can prove my position that right wingers do distinguish between talking about something and promoting it. The problem with something like gender identity is you can't teach it without promoting it. The very idea that a person can transition to the opposite gender whenever they want to just by identifying as that gender is in itself an extremist belief system and teaching it at all gives it validity. Furthermore if a teacher did try to teach it in a neutral fashion by giving the right wing position on it the left would viciously attack that teacher as a transphobe.

In your last post, you mentioned the word 'gender identity' as if those words are inherently evil or part of a "political agenda". I specifically gave you a few examples of how gender identity could be taught in a class, and it has NOTHING to do with this crap that you keep talking about of "wanting to teach boys can become girls". You have nothing to back up this statement, it's just something you are pulling out of rightwing Twitter.

Where are you getting this from? I know what gender identity is. It was coined by John Money. The definition given by NPR is "ones own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither, or both." This teaches young people that how they identify is more important than their biology. They can change their gender whenever they want for any reason. It's why the trans population is exploding.

There is no teacher lesson plan that says "Lesson 1 Objective: Teach boys to be girls"
If I wanted to teach a class on WW2 where I specifically wanted to talk about the mindset of the German population, a study on gender identity would be helpful in having that conversation. Having strict ideas on gender roles makes it a lot easier to mobilize a population to do certain things. Homosexuals were also targeted by Nazis, so a study on the history of homosexuality and society would also be necessary.
If I wanted to look at how gays are treated in particular cultures and what effect that has on them and broader society, that also has nothing to do with "teaching boys to be girls". The gay black experience isn't the same as the gay white experience because of some cultural factors, and that can be a good discussion to have.
These are all entirely normal and important discussions to be had in a humanities course.
You guys are just completely ignorant when it comes to these topics, and instead of actually doing some reading on exactly what 'gender identity' or queer studies is, you assume it's all just a "political agenda" where the left wants boys to be girls......all due respect, but this thinking is fucking retarded. You can't talk about compromise if you don't even know what we're talking about.

You are equating completely different things. I have zero issues discussing gender roles. That is competely different than teaching gender identity.

You quickly assume I do not know what I am talking about and I don't know why. I have likely done more reading on gender identity than you have.

 

[IamStryker]

You recently posted exactly how a person can socially and medically transform themselves to represent the opposite gender. Now you are saying that transformation to trans can't take place. It seems what you're saying is actually that you don't agree with the practice, not that the practice isn't possible, but also contradicting yourself. Which is you projecting beliefs/politics.

By your logic schools should be teaching that this is a practice that exists and that is available to society and just not saying whether or not it's a good idea for an individual. But I don't think you're actually ok with that, you seem to just not want the topic even mentioned. It's hard to follow your logic.

I am pretty clear on this if you read my posts with any consistency. I never said transitioning isnt possible so not sure where that came from. I think this is one topic that can't be taught in public schools because it's an extreme and harmful ideology that just became popular over the last 15-20 years. There are some subjects that can be covered in a neutral fashion but I don't see gender identity being one. Would the left ever agree to cover both sides of the issue? Can they show the documentary what is a woman to the kids as well? I seriously doubt it so it's something for parents to discuss if they want. Not schools.

 

[shockaholic12]

I am pretty clear on this if you read my posts with any consistency. I never said transitioning isnt possible so not sure where that came from. I think this is one topic that can't be taught in public schools because it's an extreme and harmful ideology that just became popular over the last 15-20 years. There are some subjects that can be covered in a neutral fashion but I don't see gender identity being one. Would the left ever agree to cover both sides of the issue? Can they show the documentary what is a woman to the kids as well? I seriously doubt it so it's something for parents to discuss if they want. Not schools.

You're actually really murky. You go back and forth from saying "My personal belief is this topic is too harmful to be taught." and advocating for things to be taught covering both sides.

The practice exists and trying to hide it from children probably isn't going work for long. I advocate covering the existence of trans people and not arguing for or against it as whether it's a good idea for anyone because it is a case by case situation in the end and those further discussions can happen with their family/therapist.

 

[emefer]

Is this CRT or just systemic racism

 

[Mr Holmes]

I see a lot of pearl clutching over Florida's curriculum. Most of you don't even live there. The victim complex is strong with you guys.