By this same token, wouldn't school teachers get absolutely destroyed for teaching kids white people are bad and calling it the same thing as a previously obscure law school topic?
Has nothing to do with you calling the dad a liar and political setup. Keep deflecting and making it about me. It's fine. Expected when you are wrong and go off on another tangent vs "I may have been wrong about him, but obviously CRT isn't being taught correctly in his system". Which in reality is exactly what he said. Takes a man to say that though, and you aren't man enough.
Does this help, @IP? https://web.archive.org/web/20210705090534/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/
is that not exactly the same content I linked? what is the point of this exchange if you don't even look at what is posted in response?
I guess I didn't realize you were only claiming that one of the 4 photos he posted were made up. When you said "the snippet you posted isn't there," I assumed you were referring to the entirety of the two tweets, not just the small piece I called out. So your stance is that that 1 picture, out of the 4, is made up? And that he shared that made up picture (which references NEA) along with these other 3 real photos to make the 4th photo seem real? I can only find the first photo. Can you find archived versions of the other 2?
The ole reverse-uno card. I originally asked where I could find that 4th photo because I know it doesn't match the style of the claimed source. If we agree that this archived page is seemingly a legit NEA meeting item, maybe you can point out the parts that wrong/bad and indicate CRT is part of elementary school curriculum, but also something distinct from material concerning racism generally. Because that's the point, right? There is this big bad thing called CRT that is racist against white people that is being taught, right? Where is that shown in this NEA meeting document that was the alleged source in that tweet and news sources? It's a shell game. Where is the ball?
The man posted 4 photos. We agree that 1 of the 4 was listed on the NEA website at some point. We have proof of that. It's not there now, so, it must have been taken down. You're questioning whether 1 of the 4 photos actually ever existed on the NEA website because: 1. You claim he format doesn't align with the other photos 2. You say you can't find it archived anywhere. I disagree with 1. It's a zoomed in photo of specific bullet points. It's the same font, same types of bullets, and similar numbers of characters per line. For number 2, I asked if you could find any history of the other 2 photos ever existing. Any archived proof that they were on the website at any point? If not, then why would that same criterion disqualify the other photo, in your mind, but not these? Just the format, which, again, doesn't look different to me. It looks zoomed in and cropped. I see a guy who posted 4 photos, and I see an organization that posted something (who knows what?) and then took it down. But you want met to believe the guy posting the photos is the shady one, without any evidence that he's doing something shady?
let's stick to the archived page we have. which part is objectionable to you as an example of teaching CRT, however you define it?
I don't think that's true. Most people have zero problem with their kids learning about slavery and racism. Imo
True. But if a teacher in a class of mixed race kids starts talking about white privilege, its a problem for most, and will cause problems in the classroom, outside of it, mentally, socially and possibly physically.
This is what I think some parents worry about. This can cause kids to dislike each other and possibly cause problems. With that said I really doubt though that there are a bunch of teachers out there teaching about white privilege. It's just another thing put out there to get people fired up.
They don't necessarily need to. Large part of crt is teaching systemic racism being in US institutions, which keeps white people in power. Do we really think 11, 12, 13 year old "minorities" wont hold grudges, act differently or challenge white kids in class if they are given that message? If I'm 13 and told I'm set up for failure, as the black kids in class are set up to stay in power, I'm probably going to have an attitude towards them. Bitter, angry, spite, judging them, etc. It's divisive in a time where divisiveness is rampant, and will create more hate, imo, among kids who don't currently hate based on color. Not for all kids of course, but to pretend spite won't come from this is naive.
What about Asian, Jew and Indian privilege since the success of those groups doesn’t fit into the CRT box neatly and some of the CRT founders implied cheating and other questionable personal traits on those races to succeed. But CRT can basically morph to anything since it’s about individuals subjective feelings and story instead of objective facts. CRT actually is against objectivity and liberalism as a western and masculine way of thinking.
Whoa whoa, you are running right by my questions. Is it white privilege OR CRT that is objectionable? Or are they the same thing? There is something very fundamental about CRT which answers your question, and you are not getting what it is if you think those things don't fit into the CRT box. There are scholarly works applying CRT to other nations, such as Japan. I encourage you to quit reading whatever bullshit you are reading and actually go to primary sources for CRT. You know, before declaring something you don't really know much about is "against objectivity and liberalism as a western and masculine way of thinking." Whatever that even means. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol14/iss4/13/
He’s surprised me with lucid and accurate commentary vis a vis Afghanistan. Hopefully his actions continue to match his rhetoric.
I'm befuddled as to what people even want. I have seen conservative commentary criticizing his withdrawal, when that is what Trump's intentions were for 5 years. I have seen Afghan American commentary criticizing his withdrawal, when I read from them that the US has made things worse there and should butt out for years... now it is a betrayal that we are actually leaving? Mind you, these are specific individuals who have made these paradoxical comments. I am reluctant to leave as it will result in Taliban rule and all the bad things that go with that. But Biden and Trump are right: we have been there for 20 years, how can we keep persisting in this endeavor with no reasonable expectation of lasting change from the population there?
We have been there 20 years and the Taliban will swoop right back in and fill the vacuum when we leave. After 20 years. We will NEVER make a difference there, not in my life time, and I am tired of pouring trillions into that hole. We need to get out and let them figure it out themselves, as long as they don't start genocide, attacking neighbors, etc. It is a hard way to go, but we cannot afford to keep policing a state that refuses to adapt and change their ways. Time to get out.
But they will. And then we'll have to go in again. The Taliban was left to their own devices in the late 90s, early 00s. There was international outcry as they started destroying works of art, such as the large Buddha statues, and subjecting people to strict ideological rule, but... it was "their" problem (the Afghani people). And then they struck outwards. Because that is the natural progression of an ideology that can not tolerate any other. It's all well and good to say "leave them to it." But when the price is that we have to do it all over again... why leave at all? If we're going to say we're not going back in again, no matter what, then sure. But if the probability is high that we do, then why did we leave?
