Federal Holiday - Juneteenth

[Bene Futuis]

Seems like you are missing the point.

If there's actual evidence that's fine, and that's a different discussion. I don't disagree with your assertions above. The danger is in suggesting that GOP "may" do something, or that it "stands to reason" that they will.

Oh, I guess I don't get it either. Do you mean it's dangerous to suggest they "may" do something, since they obviously already are?

[Bene Futuis]

[revo]

Seems like you are missing the point.

If there's actual evidence that's fine, and that's a different discussion. I don't disagree with your assertions above. The danger is in suggesting that GOP "may" do something, or that it "stands to reason" that they will.

Ok, that's fair, but I think the new laws I posted prove my perspective.

[revo]

Well, this is the area of the country that refers to the Civil War as "The War Between the States" or "War of Northern Aggression," lol.

[Ken]

Oh, I guess I don't get it either. Do you mean it's dangerous to suggest they "may" do something, since they obviously already are?

No. Sorry I'm clearly not getting my point across if this was the reply.

The danger I was communicating (and revo got it on his last reply) is that hyperbole or conjecture can look like fear mongering.

Revo followed up with cited examples which made his point salient. When it's left at "they may do something", or "it stands to reason that they would", it can often have the opposite effect as intended. No longer the case here.

[Ken]

Except revo is not exaggerating the GOP stance, he is downplaying it. It's far more pervasive and nefarious than just a simple "glossing over" and it's already been happening for years.

Note that I wasn't disagreeing with that, but clearly my reply was not understood. No worries.

[Sour Masher]

I just wanna jump in to say I wasn't trying to give Repubs a pass--I know many would love to white wash slavery, and continue to try to do that. My perception, though, is that a lot of Repubs are not actively and consciously trying to deny slavery, but are more reacting to the coming to light a lot of what has been cast aside and denied by white America with a fear and anxiety, a kind of , wtf, "I am just minding my own indifferent business here, why are people coming at me with this stuff all of a sudden?" I would be shocked if the majority of GOPers who identity as being against CRT could define it, which is the saddest part to me. They let their anger over it be guided by those with an economic agenda to make them angry--the talking heads they watch on TV that carefully choose those aspects of the discussion that they believe will be most infuriating for their audience to hear. But few of them have actually read any of it firsthand, or tried to understand where it might be coming from. I don't know if it would matter in many cases if they did, but I just don't get being for or against something passionately when you have no real clue what it is about. I feel the same way about religious folks that don't even bother to read their own scriptures closely. I would much rather engage with someone who knows what the hell they are talking about, but most people do not, yet still FEEL very strongly about it.

[chancellor]

I'll believe Democrats really believe this shit once Sheldon Whitehouse is run out of office.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I'll believe Democrats really believe this shit once Sheldon Whitehouse is run out of office.

All of us?

[Sour Masher]

I'll believe Democrats really believe this shit once Sheldon Whitehouse is run out of office.

You are painting with the same broad brush I am sure you get frustrated with liberals paint conservatives with. What do you mean by dems here? Surely you concede they are not a monolithic entity--even less so than the GOP, which somehow maintains remarkable public solidarity on just about every issue that matters, when push comes to shove. I for one know lots of people who are registered Dems who very much believe in CRT--heck, I know people at the forefront of writing CRT in the academy. Granted, most of them are Democrats because they don't have another choice, and would label themselves progressive and vote progressive, if they could, but they are registered Dems nonetheless. None of them would ever vote for Whitehouse. So is the bar for what Dems or Repubs believe, as a broad group, what some subset of them in a specific area of the country tolerate? I feel like the Dems are a pretty big tent with lots of very big differences in belief-I'd argue there is more division on the Dem side than the Repub side at the moment. I am sure many Dem politicians don't know much of anything about CRT other than what it means for them politically, just like the vast majority of Republicans don't know shit about it, except the most inflammatory aspects of it highlighted by talking heads with an agenda.

[Sour Masher]

For the record, there are aspects of CRT, specifically as they related to my own teaching, and especially assessment, that I find problematic, but I am talking about more esoteric issues related specifically to what some proponents propose as solutions to the issues I agree exist--my issues with it are about the way some think we should respond to the underlying truths, not the truths themselves. I have not been convinced of the merits of labor-based grading practices, for instance, as a solution to leveling the playing field for students. I think it is potentially naïve and harmful to students. But that, like most of my other concerns, are issues of debate on solutions to problems I, and I think anyone who really studies the issues, agrees are very much real.

I really believe anyone with an open mind who looked with brutal honesty at our systems and how they developed and how the currently operate would come to accept as hard truths much of what is being attacked on the right in relation to the foundational truths that inform CRT. When I see many on the right reject out of hand CRT, in many cases, I am just seeing people cover their eyes so as not to see uncomfortable truths that they would see if they were willing to look.

But I am somewhat sympathetic to well-meaning conservatives who have questions and concerns about the implementation of CRT, because I know how "with us or against us" some of the push back can be to anyone that questions any aspect of CRT. I am very cautious about what I say and how and to who, because I know the pain and anger that informs those putting forth CRT, and the long and frustrating fight many of them have had in being heard at all. The debate happening at UNC now about whether a leading figure in CRT should be converted to tenure track is not isolated (nor is it unusual or surprising that at the heart of the conflict is the criticism of a rich, white, Trump supporter/donor vs an academic of color). A lot of folks have been in the spot of not having their scholarship count, because of questions about the validity of CRT research. So, it is really thin ice to tread on, even if you are an ally, when you question any part of it. And that egg-shell walking, for fear of being called part of the racist system of oppression, isn't ideal for robust discussion and honest dialogue. But neither is the fact that some of the attacks on CRT are so ill-informed that I'm paralyzed by my concern of being lumped in with such people (but again, it bums me out that any small criticism I make, to some people, would lead to some of them doing just that, but that is a separate issue to the merits of CRT).

Really, it amazes me how little, beyond some soundbites, many know about CRT, yet I see such staunch opposition to it on the right, as if it has become a symbol of all that is wrong with the left--the latest and most egregious example of the left's undercutting of the oh so precious myth of American exceptionalism, an attack on God's chosen people. The ironic thing is that in many ways, these staunch and vocal critics on the right have elevated CRT in the public discourse and increased the exposure of many CRT ideas that were not getting much attention before, and not all of it is negative attention, as they might want. I'd venture to guess that those few who knew nothing about CRT before that have looked into it sincerely have learned a lot of dark truths about our society they may not have known before.

[Bene Futuis]

Yes, because if one random Senator from Rhode Island belonged to an all white boating club or whatever, that must mean that critical race theory is not valid. Compelling stuff. I personally evaluate my beliefs on the membership status of county commissioners from Laramie, Wyoming, but I’ll have to rethink that one.

[Bene Futuis]

Plus, what about Robert Byrd? Checkmate, atheists.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Yes, and you and the GOP will get on board with the seriousness of the problems of sexual harassment and the rich white men abusing their positions of power if the Democrats would just deal with Al Franken, but of course they won't...so clearly they're hypocrites who can be ignored and sexual harassment isn't a real issue... Or maybe whataboutism isn't the right way to evaluate the validity of things?

[Sour Masher]

Yes, and you and the GOP will get on board with the seriousness of the problems of sexual harassment and the rich white men abusing their positions of power if the Democrats would just deal with Al Franken, but of course they won't...so clearly they're hypocrites who can be ignored and sexual harassment isn't a real issue... Or maybe whataboutism isn't the right way to evaluate the validity of things?

I loathe whataboutism, but I think Chance is not engaging in that here. I think he is just being a cynic and seeing CRT as just another political beach ball to be batted around. I believe he is saying that Dems (and I assume, generously, he meant Democratic politicians, taken as a whole) do not really understand or care about CRT or the underlying issues of white supremacy anymore than the Republicans do, but just as the Republicans get their base to clap and cheer when they crap on CRT, the Democrats say nice things about it as lip service to get their voters clapping, and that is all it is.

I disagree with that view, even when restricted to politicians, or at least I disagree with the premise that because one Democrat has proven to be tone deaf on this issue that it must follow that the whole of the party does not care about that issue, because they have not drum that one guy out of office. Just because colleagues in other states doe not actively campaign against someone who has shown to be racially tone-deaf does not mean they all don't care about CRT or systemic racism in America. Maybe many of them do not, but many do, and I am sure many have talked to Whitehouse privately about his response to the issue. If they all agreed with him as so many do with Trump and his ilk, I'd concede the point. But that is not the case.