Current Events > Books by Black Authors being pulled from school libraries over fear of CRT.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I wonder what kind of hell would be unleashed if "Noughts and Crosses" was a reading option in American schools.

joe40001 posted...

One thing I will say (and this is not to defend the censorships): Part of the reason to push against the CRT descendant orthodoxy of race based essentialism is the white conservative response is going to be bad. Things like these censorships or worse can happen. There is only so long you can insist to people that they view everything view the lens of race before some far-right white-nationalists take you up on that proposition. And I really don't want to live in that world.

"Pointing out racism is going to make racists racist and that's why the liberals are responsible for white supremacy."

Shut. The fuck. Up.

pegusus123456 posted...

"Pointing out racism is going to make racists racist and that's why the liberals are responsible for white supremacy."

Shut. The fuck. Up.

Yeah that was a truly mind bogglingly stupid take. I don't care if racists get mad when we point out racism. If they want to go all right wing nationalist and Nazi about it, well we've dealt with them before and we can do it again.

This anti-CRT shit has very clearly been a pro-white supremacy movement.

joe40001 posted...

These days that term is used to refer not only to the original texts but the ideas and books that are descendants of those texts. Books like "White Fragility" and "How to be an Anti-Racist" are "CRT" in common language, and the ideas they push, particularly when taught as factual truth in classrooms are what most people mean when they say "CRT in schools".

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/6/AAJxOBAACzOQ.jpg

Way to fall for the playbook.

They literally want to make being Black a crime.

Being Progressive is to go forward. Conservative is to stay the same. Clearly we can't call them conservatives anymore. Regressives is more like it.

Party of projection strikes again

joe40001 posted...

Free-speech only for things you like isn't free-speech.

Hypocrites all over need to learn this.

Give them credit it where its due. Most have openly abandoned any pretense of caring about freedom of speech. I respect those who outright say they value [x] more than free speech more than I respect those who make inane comments like yeah but your not free from consequences!1!1!1!!!1 or those who think free speech just means freedom from government censorship.

joe40001 posted...

These days that term is used to refer not only to the original texts but the ideas and books that are descendants of those texts. Books like "White Fragility" and "How to be an Anti-Racist" are "CRT" in common language, and the ideas they push, particularly when taught as factual truth in classrooms are what most people mean when they say "CRT in schools".

I dont know why people are giving you shit about this. If you pay any attention to the look how not woke I am people, this is exactly how they use the term. They may or may not have an inkling of what critical race theory actually is, but Kendi and DiAngelo are exactly who they have in mind, not Kimberle Crenshaw. Its amusing to watch progressives and conservatives go after each other about CRT because they have entirely different ideas of what the term means.

AloneIBreak posted...

I dont know why people are giving you shit about this. If you pay any attention to the look how not woke I am people, this is exactly how they use the term. They may or may not have an inkling of what critical race theory actually is, but Kendi and DiAngelo are exactly who they have in mind, not Kimberle Crenshaw. Its amusing to watch progressives and conservatives go after each other about CRT because they have entirely different ideas of what the term means.

conservatives want to broaden the definition so that anything to do with black people is "critical race theory", then ban it from being taught in schools

Banning anything from a library is dumb as fuck.

Do these people have any idea the actual effort required to find a book, open it, read it, etc.

No, they do not.

This was always the endgame.

The entire party are fucking pathetic pieces of shit.

AloneIBreak posted...

Give them credit it where its due. Most have openly abandoned any pretense of caring about freedom of speech. I respect those who outright say they value [x] more than free speech more than I respect those who make inane comments like yeah but your not free from consequences!1!1!1!!!1 or those who think free speech just means freedom from government censorship.

Weird post in a topic about conservatives calling for government censorship.

And the government would have to actually eliminate free speech to protect all the snowflakes that want to be immune to the consequences of freely sharing the questionable thoughts that bounce around their heads.

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Weird post in a topic about conservatives calling for government censorship.

And the government would have to actually eliminate free speech to protect all the snowflakes that want to be immune to the consequences of freely sharing the questionable thoughts that bounce around their heads.

The topic strayed from the subject of government censorship well before I commented, but sure, weird.

Guide posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/6/AAJxOBAACzOQ.jpg

Way to fall for the playbook.

It's literally what people call it.

You can find a tweet where some rando says anything, that doesn't change how words work.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


CRT is what people are calling these movements in schools, there is no other term that has caught on. Arguing about the term is so beside the point and irrelevant. That's the term that's stuck.

joe40001 posted...

It's literally what people call it.

That is largely because of the efforts of this guy leading a propaganda campaign against it, which you have bought into.

joe40001 posted...

CRT is what people are calling these movements in schools, there is no other term that has caught on. Arguing about the term is so beside the point and irrelevant. That's the term that's stuck.

I'm surprised, with how deep into sociopolitical aspects you like to get, that you are out n' out foreign to this basic gaslight of association and malicious allegation.

It's like, McCarthyism 101. You'd be his favorite stool pigeon, with logic like that.

pegusus123456 posted...

"Pointing out racism is going to make racists racist and that's why the liberals are responsible for white supremacy."

Shut. The fuck. Up.

I can't tell if you are lying to others by completely misrepresenting what I said, or if you are lying to yourself by somehow actually reading what I said that way.

Some of the stuff they do in classrooms is entirely different than "pointing out racism" it actually encourages racial divisions. It is either bad faith or bad reading comprehension to just pretend all of these divisive things are in service of racial or human harmony.

Guide posted...

I'm surprised, with how deep into sociopolitical aspects you like to get, that you are out n' out foreign to this basic gaslight of association and malicious allegation.

It's like, McCarthyism 101. You'd be his favorite stool pigeon, with logic like that.

I don't understand what argument you are trying to make.

How is it gaslighting by association?

I don't understand why people get so upset by word meaning changing. "Woke" used to mean tolerant and aware of the struggles of others, usually in a compassionate and sympathetic way. Now it frequently refers to hostile people who want to get people fired on twitter over jokes they don't like.

And that's not my doing, people who self identified as "woke" started acting that way, and then the term's meaning changed. Just like people who cite CRT proper as inspiration started pushing academic plans and teachings that also got called CRT.

If it really would calm everybody down, I'm happy to call this type of teaching that encourages racial divisions inspired by Kendi type logic and which traces it's origins to ideas/teaches from CRT "X", but the issue is that if I call it that nobody will know what I'm talking about.

If you call it CRT, everybody (even the ones who get upset and "Um Aktually" at it) know exactly what I'm talking about. Give me a word that refers to the type of teaching where you take kids and separate them based on race and tell some of them they are oppressed and some are oppressors, and I'll use that term.

This argument about pedantry is so beside the point, everybody knows we aren't talking about legal documents when we talk about CRT in kid's schools.

Intro2Logic posted...

That is largely because of the efforts of this guy leading a propaganda campaign against it, which you have bought into.

I have no idea who that guy is, and I don't care.

I care about the actual things that are taught that presumably that guy has nothing to do with. I care about things that try to stoke racial division rather than heal it.

Some republican is trying to weaponize something the left is doing that is shitty? Ok, who cares?

"You can't dislike a bad thing Political Party 1 does because that plays into the hand of Political party 2."

Firstly, bad logic, and secondly, it doesn't work, because in this very topic I called out this dumb republican book banning policy. I will call out anything that I think is dumb or bad for the country, regardless of which political consultants that gives a boner to, that kind of political tribalism is something I absolutely don't care about.

Which team feels they are getting "political points" is irrelevant to my calculations and opinions on the nature of right/wrong and good/bad policy.

joe40001 posted...

I don't understand why people get so upset by word meaning changing.

Because, in some cases, like this one, it is weaponized, changed with malicious intent. This is why I make the McCarthyism comparison - One of McCarthy's defining tactics was calling anyone and everything he opposed, for any reason at all, "communism". It's a political scare tactic, not a natural social evolution. We still have repercussions from that bullshit to this day.

AloneIBreak posted...

I dont know why people are giving you shit about this. If you pay any attention to the look how not woke I am people, this is exactly how they use the term. They may or may not have an inkling of what critical race theory actually is, but Kendi and DiAngelo are exactly who they have in mind, not Kimberle Crenshaw. Its amusing to watch progressives and conservatives go after each other about CRT because they have entirely different ideas of what the term means.

It's a weird part of the argument. Because people will get upset because you use that term, but have no suggestions what alternative term you should use.

joe40001 posted...

Some of the stuff they do in classrooms is entirely different than "pointing out racism" it actually encourages racial divisions. It is either bad faith or bad reading comprehension to just pretend all of these divisive things are in service of racial or human harmony.

you should really stop accepting statements like that at face value

Lol they need a term. A buzzword to repeat on Fox News and YouTube videos 24/7

Guide posted...

Because, in some cases, like this one, it is weaponized, changed with malicious intent. This is why I make the McCarthyism comparison - One of McCarthy's defining tactics was calling anyone and everything he opposed, for any reason at all, "communism". It's a political scare tactic, not a natural social evolution. We still have repercussions from that bullshit to this day.

I disagree, because "Critical Race Theory" doesn't have a inherent negative connotation like communism did in those days, and thus labeling the classroom teachings which are derived from people like Kendi (who got their ideas from CRT), isn't a "trick" but just an organic term evolution.

If anything Kendi calling his particular ideology "anti-racism" is much more of a bad faith gaslight. Because many will weaponize it and act like opposing Kendi's perspective by definition makes you racist.

"Anti 'Anti-Racist'? By definition that's racist!" As if the contents of Kendi's arguments are irrelevant to that calculations.

It's the same logic as the "you can't vote against the PATROIT ACT, what are you, not a patriot?"

People calling this stuff CRT IMO is just because we literally don't have another word for it. But again, what should we call it instead? I'm open to a different term. But the whole "calling it CRT is wrong" only works if there is something else effective we can call it, otherwise the criticism is basically pointless because we need words for ideas to discuss ideas. As of right now, the word for the racially divisive stuff being taught in classrooms is generally "CRT or Critical Race Theory".

averagejoel posted...

you should really stop accepting statements like that at face value

I don't, I hear stories from many sources and have seen official documents released from schools.

Do you think no schools are in the name of Kendi-esque "anti-racism" doing exercises and teaching lessons specifically based around dividing people based on race? Or do you just think such things are good?

CRT is not being taught in K-12 pedagogy, it's a buzzword by Republicans to stir up their white voter base for the 2022 election cycle.

joe40001 posted...

You can find a tweet where some rando says anything, that doesn't change how words work.

Do you know who that "rando" is in that tweet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Rufo#Anti-critical_race_theory_activism

He's literally one of the people behind organizing the "anti-CRT" movement in the media.

joe40001 posted...

I disagree, because "Critical Race Theory" doesn't have a inherent negative connotation like communism did in those days, and thus labeling the classroom teachings which are derived from people like Kendi (who got their ideas from CRT), isn't a "trick" but just an organic term evolution.

If anything Kendi calling his particular ideology "anti-racism" is much more of a bad faith gaslight. Because many will weaponize it and act like opposing Kendi's perspective by definition makes you racist.

"Anti 'Anti-Racist'? By definition that's racist!" As if the contents of Kendi's arguments are irrelevant to that calculations.

I suggest that you acknowledge:

1. that you don't actually know what kids are being taught in schools
2. that you don't know anything about Kendi's work

there is room for disagreement with what Kendi says! there are ways to critically engage with his work. but you have to actually know what he says on a subject first you shouldn't be dismissing it based on whatever right-wing talking head you get your ideas from.

or if you're not going to do those things, then shut the fuck up

joe40001 posted...

I don't, I hear stories from many sources and have seen official documents released from schools.

Do you think no schools are in the name of Kendi-esque "anti-racism" doing exercises and teaching lessons specifically based around dividing people based on race? Or do you just think such things are good?

there's certainly a possibility that things like that are happening. I have seen no evidence from any legitimate source that it is actually happening though

averagejoel posted...

I suggest that you acknowledge:
1. that you don't actually know what kids are being taught in schools
2. that you don't know anything about Kendi's work
there is room for disagreement with what Kendi says! there are ways to critically engage with his work. but you have to actually know what he says on a subject first you shouldn't be dismissing it based on whatever right-wing talking head you get your ideas from.

or if you're not going to do those things, then shut the fuck up

I do know what it says. I've seen interviews from him, and summaries with direct quotes.

averagejoel posted...

there's certainly a possibility that things like that are happening. I have seen no evidence from any legitimate source that it is actually happening though

So you and I aren't even that far off then, we both agree that teachings like these can be a problem and possibly not something we should be teaching children, we just disagree on the prevalence.

joe40001 posted...

I do know what it says. I've seen interviews from him, and summaries with direct quotes.

you have certainly done an extremely poor job displaying any knowledge you have of his work

joe40001 posted...

So you and I aren't even that far off then, we both agree that teachings like these can be a problem and possibly not something we should be teaching children, we just disagree on the prevalence.

no. you need evidence from a legitimate source that it's actually happening

joe40001 posted...

It's a weird part of the argument. Because people will get upset because you use that term, but have no suggestions what alternative term you should use.

I dont know that that justifies knowingly using a term the wrong way, but I suppose at this point it doesnt matter because the term is entrenched.

ZMythos posted...

Do you know who that "rando" is in that tweet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Rufo#Anti-critical_race_theory_activism

He's literally one of the people behind organizing the "anti-CRT" movement in the media.

"I don't like Anchovies"
"You only don't like anchovies because of Bob"
"I don't care what some rando says"
"Bob isn't a rando, he's a media figurehead in the anti-anchovy movement"
"Again, I've never heard of Bob, I just don't like Anchovies"

It's that kinda deal. My problems with X are real and calculated independently of political nonsense. I am pro moving towards a more equal and race-divided society, and many in this movement are explicitly against that.

This is getting to extreme levels of ridiculousness imo.

averagejoel posted...

no. you need evidence from a legitimate source that it's actually happening

If I'm trying to persuade you to cosign the conclusion about prevalence. I'm not though, I have seen enough evidence to persuade myself, and am comfortable with us remaining on similar pages without me doing a big article aggregation effort that you likely aren't going to be particularly open to anyway.

AloneIBreak posted...

I dont know that that justifies knowingly using a term the wrong way, but I suppose at this point it doesnt matter because the term is entrenched.

Look, it upsets me to no end that people use the term "literally" when they mean figuratively. But I've made my peace that some people do that, and I understand what they mean when they say it. Unlike that scenario, with CRT there isn't another word that people have in common usage that refers to these classroom teachings.

I'll grant it's imperfect, but it's functional and it's undeniably caught on to refer to these things. So until an effective alternative comes out, I think it's best to just make peace with the meaning of how people are currently using the term so the nuts and bolts of the discussion can be had.

Most public schools do not have libraries. It is probably private schools pulling the books.

Just skimming this topic, "the REAL racist thing is pointing out racism because that is what makes the racists upset and causes them to be more racist and turn into Nazis" has got to be one of the absolute dumbest things i've ever heard anyone say.

CobraGT posted...

Most public schools do not have libraries.

This simply isn't true.

VipaGTS posted...

Just skimming this topic, "the REAL racist thing is pointing out racism because that is what makes the racists upset and causes them to be more racist and turn into Nazis" has got to be one of the absolute dumbest things i've ever heard anyone say.

Who said that? I must have missed it.

joe40001 posted...

Look, it upsets me to no end that people use the term "literally" when they mean figuratively. But I've made my peace that some people do that, and I understand what they mean when they say it. Unlike that scenario, with CRT there isn't another word that people have in common usage that refers to these classroom teachings.

I'll grant it's imperfect, but it's functional and it's undeniably caught on to refer to these things. So until an effective alternative comes out, I think it's best to just make peace with the meaning of how people are currently using the term so the nuts and bolts of the discussion can be had.

there isn't a legitimate discussion to be had here. one side is clearly and objectively in the wrong

AloneIBreak posted...

or those who think free speech just means freedom from government censorship.

What? When hasn't that been what it meant? What does it mean then?

CobraGT posted...

Most public schools do not have libraries. It is probably private schools pulling the books.

...what