Muons, Leptons and CRT

[beagle9]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

Agree .....

 

[xband]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

Critical race theory is a hypotheses.

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I stated the reason I’m against the teaching of CRT the other day: It will instill distrust, antipathy and hate against whites among students of all races.

However, after doing some quick research to find out just what exactly CRT claims, I came to the realization that CRT has not yet been codified into a single theory or document that has been peer-reviewed and accepted by the legal community as a whole as is done in the scientific community.

In other words, it is simply a collection of what are often simply opinions and viewpoints. There may some merit to the theory but I am not comfortable with the idea of teaching an untested theory to our children that will likely do nothing more than foment resentment against whites.

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

It makes a lot of difference. You've got your panties in a knot, and don't even know why. Right wing pundits told you to be upset about it. They didn't tell you, and you don't know why. That doesn't make you feel at least a little dumb?

LOL, you appear to be the one that’s got “your panties in knot”, you haven’t presented a single credible argument that defends CRT and why it should be taught to children in school, all you’ve done is attempt to obfuscate by sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting the same MEANINGLESS rebuttal along with adding in some nonsense about “right wing pundits”.

I suspect that you have absolutely NO idea what the history and foundations of the CRT are, which is why you are totally inept when it comes to defending it.

Allow me to take a wild stab at what you’ll attempt next in your silly non-argument, you’ll call me some sort of “Trumpster” and then attempt to discount my argument on that basis, am I correct?

Woah there buddy. I didn't start this thread complaining about Critical Race Theory, and I haven't advocated for it. Right wingers are extremely upset over it, and I'm just asking why. If you are that upset, you should be able to explain why, right? If you can't say exactly why it upsets you so much, then it looks like you are just mad because you were told to be mad.

 

[NightFox]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

Critical race theory is a hypotheses.

IMHO it doesn’t qualify for that moniker, since “hypothesis” tends to lend it the credibility of being derived via the scientific method in the minds of observers, which it isn’t, a technicality to be sure but there’s no reason to obfuscate it’s basis by intentionally attempting to mislead, just call it what it is, an argument based on opinion.

The scientific method requires systematic observation, measurement, experimentation and testing and that doesn’t describe the methods used to develop “CRT”.

Some people (not you) don’t seem to understand why presenting such an argument as fact to children in school, isn’t OK, I suspect those same people would be up in arms if the arguments of say Murray Rothbard that were similarly derived were taught to children in school and presented as fact.

 

[kyzr]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

1. Here is a site that says it tracks where CRT is being taught:

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movemen…

nypost.com

2. I'm reading a book by an active duty AF officer, Matthew Lohmeier called "Irresistible Revolution". In it he documents the democrats attempted "communist" takeover of the US military by pushing CRT.

 

[NightFox]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

It makes a lot of difference. You've got your panties in a knot, and don't even know why. Right wing pundits told you to be upset about it. They didn't tell you, and you don't know why. That doesn't make you feel at least a little dumb?

LOL, you appear to be the one that’s got “your panties in knot”, you haven’t presented a single credible argument that defends CRT and why it should be taught to children in school, all you’ve done is attempt to obfuscate by sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting the same MEANINGLESS rebuttal along with adding in some nonsense about “right wing pundits”.

I suspect that you have absolutely NO idea what the history and foundations of the CRT are, which is why you are totally inept when it comes to defending it.

Allow me to take a wild stab at what you’ll attempt next in your silly non-argument, you’ll call me some sort of “Trumpster” and then attempt to discount my argument on that basis, am I correct?

Woah there buddy. I didn't start this thread complaining about Critical Race Theory, and I haven't advocated for it. Right wingers are extremely upset over it, and I'm just asking why. If you are that upset, you should be able to explain why, right? If you can't say exactly why it upsets you so much, then it looks like you are just mad because you were told to be mad.

Woah there back at you, you didn’t start the thread, you just jumped in and criticized the premise of the OP without offering up an alternative argument and then when I pointed out the error of your ways, you doubled down with your non-argument along with intimating some non-sequitur BS regarding “right wing pundits”.

So let’s be clear are you DEFENDING the CRT as an actual “theory” that should be taught to children in schools or are you not? If you are defending the CRT and it’s teaching to children in schools, then present your argument based on reason and evidence, so far you haven’t done that.

As far as me being “upset”, there’s a HUGE difference between me being “upset” and me disagreeing with a point of view and explaining my reasons for disagreement.

 

[BULLDOG]

I stated the reason I’m against the teaching of CRT the other day: It will instill distrust, antipathy and hate against whites among students of all races.

However, after doing some quick research to find out just what exactly CRT claims, I came to the realization that CRT has not yet been codified into a single theory or document that has been peer-reviewed and accepted by the legal community as a whole as is done in the scientific community.

In other words, it is simply a collection of what are often simply opinions and viewpoints. There may some merit to the theory but I am not comfortable with the idea of teaching an untested theory to our children that will likely do nothing more than foment resentment against whites.

No answer yet, but can you name schools teaching Critical Race Theory in K/12?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I stated the reason I’m against the teaching of CRT the other day: It will instill distrust, antipathy and hate against whites among students of all races.

However, after doing some quick research to find out just what exactly CRT claims, I came to the realization that CRT has not yet been codified into a single theory or document that has been peer-reviewed and accepted by the legal community as a whole as is done in the scientific community.

In other words, it is simply a collection of what are often simply opinions and viewpoints. There may some merit to the theory but I am not comfortable with the idea of teaching an untested theory to our children that will likely do nothing more than foment resentment against whites.

No answer yet, but can you name schools teaching Critical Race Theory in K/12?

I never said any schools were teaching it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

1. Here is a site that says it tracks where CRT is being taught:

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movemen…

nypost.com

2. I'm reading a book by an active duty AF officer, Matthew Lohmeier called "Irresistible Revolution". In it he documents the democrats attempted "communist" takeover of the US military by pushing CRT.

So no K/12 schools are teaching it. Why are you so upset about something that isn't happening? Are you so controlled by pundits till you will rant like that crazy lady at a school board meeting just because you were told to be mad about something that isn't happening? You should be embarrassed.

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

1. Here is a site that says it tracks where CRT is being taught:

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movemen…

nypost.com

2. I'm reading a book by an active duty AF officer, Matthew Lohmeier called "Irresistible Revolution". In it he documents the democrats attempted "communist" takeover of the US military by pushing CRT.

Democrats attempting a communist takeover of our military? You know that's batshit crazy, don't you?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

All of history is subject to revision that is the nature of the beast. The issue here seems to be that some folk do not want history to be revised because it conflicts with their setttled world view.

In the UK we were taught about the wonders of empire and how amazing Britain was to hold moat of the world in subjugation. What we were not told about were the massacres, rapes,murders and theft that was done on an industrial scale. Slavery was never mentioned either.
The legacy of that drags us down today as many brits still have a superiority complex in regard to minorities. Bad history causing problems today.

It seems to be a similar case in the US. You have been taught a version of history that you are comfortable with and you dont want that changed in any way.

An earlier poster listed the sort of things he did not want to see revised.

1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
Patently this is not the truth. You can argue the exact date to your hearts content, 1776 was the date you beat the british.
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
Well that was one of the reasons but not the whole reason.
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
The constitution did not recognise Blacks as actual people.
4. The founding ideals were all false
They were aspirational but hypocritical. A document praising freedom but an economy based on slavery. Hmmm.
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it
Well I have never seen that claim made. A straw man.

You cannot have a national narrative that fails to recognise the fact that Black folk suffered for centuries in A,merica. It is no longer possible.

The sooner that you calm down andengage in a respectful debate the sooner that you canmake progress. Its just the same over here.

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

It makes a lot of difference. You've got your panties in a knot, and don't even know why. Right wing pundits told you to be upset about it. They didn't tell you, and you don't know why. That doesn't make you feel at least a little dumb?

LOL, you appear to be the one that’s got “your panties in knot”, you haven’t presented a single credible argument that defends CRT and why it should be taught to children in school, all you’ve done is attempt to obfuscate by sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting the same MEANINGLESS rebuttal along with adding in some nonsense about “right wing pundits”.

I suspect that you have absolutely NO idea what the history and foundations of the CRT are, which is why you are totally inept when it comes to defending it.

Allow me to take a wild stab at what you’ll attempt next in your silly non-argument, you’ll call me some sort of “Trumpster” and then attempt to discount my argument on that basis, am I correct?

Woah there buddy. I didn't start this thread complaining about Critical Race Theory, and I haven't advocated for it. Right wingers are extremely upset over it, and I'm just asking why. If you are that upset, you should be able to explain why, right? If you can't say exactly why it upsets you so much, then it looks like you are just mad because you were told to be mad.

Woah there back at you, you didn’t start the thread, you just jumped in and criticized the premise of the OP without offering up an alternative argument and then when I pointed out the error of your ways, you doubled down with your non-argument along with intimating some non-sequitur BS regarding “right wing pundits”.

So let’s be clear are you DEFENDING the CRT as an actual “theory” that should be taught to children in schools or are you not? If you are defending the CRT and it’s teaching to children in schools, then present your argument based on reason and evidence, so far you haven’t done that.

As far as me being “upset”, there’s a HUGE difference between me being “upset” and me disagreeing with a point of view and explaining my reasons for disagreement.

I don't think I've told anybody they were wrong. I'm just asking you to explain your point of view. So far, nobody has done that. Lots of people are saying it is wrong, but cant point out specifically what part is wrong, and why. If you think it attacks white people, then say where it specifically attacks white people. If you can't do that then well......

 

[kyzr]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

1. Here is a site that says it tracks where CRT is being taught:

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movemen…

nypost.com

2. I'm reading a book by an active duty AF officer, Matthew Lohmeier called "Irresistible Revolution". In it he documents the democrats attempted "communist" takeover of the US military by pushing CRT.

So no K/12 schools are teaching it. Why are you so upset about something that isn't happening? Are you so controlled by pundits till you will rant like that crazy lady at a school board meeting just because you were told to be mad about something that isn't happening? You should be embarrassed.

Yes, many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, especially in the urban plantations.
Here is one Chinese-American mom who recognizes it for what it is, "America's Cultural Revolution" and she is warning us that CRT needs to be stopped ASP.

Mom who survived Mao’s China calls critical race theory America’s Cultural Revolution

Xi Van Fleet said critical race theory “should have no place in our schools.”

nypost.com

 

[NightFox]

You cannot have a national narrative that fails to recognise the fact that Black folk suffered for centuries in A,merica. It is no longer possible.

The sooner that you calm down andengage in a respectful debate the sooner that you canmake progress. Its just the same over here.

We already have that “national narrative”, unfortunately it has been politicized for partisan purposes to the point that it no longer has any relationship to reality and therefore doesn’t foster any sort of productive debate.

One side calling the other side “racists” for not buying into their assertions lock, stock and barrel and the other side responding back by hurling baseless insults will never achieve any desirable results. It’s what we do in modern American with anything that can be used as a wedge issue for our two political crime families to gain an advantage over each other.

We learned that shit from you Brits.

 

[BULLDOG]

All of history is subject to revision that is the nature of the beast. The issue here seems to be that some folk do not want history to be revised because it conflicts with their setttled world view.

In the UK we were taught about the wonders of empire and how amazing Britain was to hold moat of the world in subjugation. What we were not told about were the massacres, rapes,murders and theft that was done on an industrial scale. Slavery was never mentioned either.
The legacy of that drags us down today as many brits still have a superiority complex in regard to minorities. Bad history causing problems today.

It seems to be a similar case in the US. You have been taught a version of history that you are comfortable with and you dont want that changed in any way.

An earlier poster listed the sort of things he did not want to see revised.

1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
Patently this is not the truth. You can argue the exact date to your hearts content, 1776 was the date you beat the british.
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
Well that was one of the reasons but not the whole reason.
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
The constitution did not recognise Blacks as actual people.
4. The founding ideals were all false
They were aspirational but hypocritical. A document praising freedom but an economy based on slavery. Hmmm.
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it
Well I have never seen that claim made. A straw man.

You cannot have a national narrative that fails to recognise the fact that Black folk suffered for centuries in A,merica. It is no longer possible.

The sooner that you calm down andengage in a respectful debate the sooner that you canmake progress. Its just the same over here.

Thanks. I started to give him similar answers, but since the 1619 project isn't really the subject of this thread, I didn't want to get sidetracked.

 

[NightFox]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

You do realize that Critical Race Theory wasn’t developed via any generally accepted scientific method, right? It was just a bunch of legal scholars putting together opinions based on historical data and legal arguments. It really doesn’t deserve the moniker of “theory” and should be title “Critical Race ARGUMENT”. There is no reasonable justification for this to be taught to children in school, it’s tantamount to teaching an ideology.

IMHO Teachers need to stick to facts not opinions, especially NOT opinions that carry significant risk of engendering self loathing, resentment and disharmony among children.

which of those historical data and legal arguments are flawed? This should be easy if you really know what you are talking about.

What difference does that make? It’s still not a “theory” it’s an argument and should be treated as such, i.e. should NOT be taught in schools to children.

Anyone can cherry pick a bunch of historical facts and legal arguments, form an opinion based on them and call it a “theory”, does that mean that it should be taught to children and presented as fact? There’s nothing wrong with teaching the historical facts that underly CRT individually but when you start teaching an ARGUMENT as some sort of scientific product AND that has so many potential negative side effects on children, you’ve stepped WAY over the line.

It makes a lot of difference. You've got your panties in a knot, and don't even know why. Right wing pundits told you to be upset about it. They didn't tell you, and you don't know why. That doesn't make you feel at least a little dumb?

LOL, you appear to be the one that’s got “your panties in knot”, you haven’t presented a single credible argument that defends CRT and why it should be taught to children in school, all you’ve done is attempt to obfuscate by sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting the same MEANINGLESS rebuttal along with adding in some nonsense about “right wing pundits”.

I suspect that you have absolutely NO idea what the history and foundations of the CRT are, which is why you are totally inept when it comes to defending it.

Allow me to take a wild stab at what you’ll attempt next in your silly non-argument, you’ll call me some sort of “Trumpster” and then attempt to discount my argument on that basis, am I correct?

Woah there buddy. I didn't start this thread complaining about Critical Race Theory, and I haven't advocated for it. Right wingers are extremely upset over it, and I'm just asking why. If you are that upset, you should be able to explain why, right? If you can't say exactly why it upsets you so much, then it looks like you are just mad because you were told to be mad.

Woah there back at you, you didn’t start the thread, you just jumped in and criticized the premise of the OP without offering up an alternative argument and then when I pointed out the error of your ways, you doubled down with your non-argument along with intimating some non-sequitur BS regarding “right wing pundits”.

So let’s be clear are you DEFENDING the CRT as an actual “theory” that should be taught to children in schools or are you not? If you are defending the CRT and it’s teaching to children in schools, then present your argument based on reason and evidence, so far you haven’t done that.

As far as me being “upset”, there’s a HUGE difference between me being “upset” and me disagreeing with a point of view and explaining my reasons for disagreement.

I don't think I've told anybody they were wrong.

Fair enough, so you’re not defending the CRT then? If that’s the case I apologize for misreading your motive.

I'm just asking you to explain your point of view. So far, nobody has done that.

Excuse Me? I DID explain my point of view, however your responses so far have been underwhelming to say the least.

Lots of people are saying it is wrong, but cant point out specifically what part is wrong,

I never said it was wrong, what I said is that it isn’t a theory it’s an argument and I explained why I believed that was the case, and then pointed out why it shouldn’t be taught to school children.

I also pointed out why I believe your initial question regarding its underpinnings was irrelevant given the fact that it’s an argument not theory.

What more do you want?

 

[kyzr]

All of history is subject to revision that is the nature of the beast. The issue here seems to be that some folk do not want history to be revised because it conflicts with their setttled world view.

In the UK we were taught about the wonders of empire and how amazing Britain was to hold moat of the world in subjugation. What we were not told about were the massacres, rapes,murders and theft that was done on an industrial scale. Slavery was never mentioned either.
The legacy of that drags us down today as many brits still have a superiority complex in regard to minorities. Bad history causing problems today.

It seems to be a similar case in the US. You have been taught a version of history that you are comfortable with and you dont want that changed in any way.

An earlier poster listed the sort of things he did not want to see revised.

1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
Patently this is not the truth. You can argue the exact date to your hearts content, 1776 was the date you beat the british.
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
Well that was one of the reasons but not the whole reason.
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
The constitution did not recognise Blacks as actual people.
4. The founding ideals were all false
They were aspirational but hypocritical. A document praising freedom but an economy based on slavery. Hmmm.
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it
Well I have never seen that claim made. A straw man.

6. You cannot have a national narrative that fails to recognise the fact that Black folk suffered for centuries in A,merica. It is no longer possible.

The sooner that you calm down and engage in a respectful debate the sooner that you can make progress. Its just the same over here.

I was that earlier -poster. I can refute your misconceptions.
1. Agreed
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
Well that was one of the reasons but not the whole reason.
Prove it was one of the reasons.

3. The US Constitution is anti-black
The constitution did not recognise Blacks as actual people.
What part of "All men are created equal" don't you understand?

4. The founding ideals were all false
They were aspirational but hypocritical. A document praising freedom but an economy based on slavery. Hmmm.
Talk about hypocritical. Britain didn't outlay slavery until 1833. Slavery was the norm until it wasn't.

Slavery in Britain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it
Well I have never seen that claim made. A straw man.
It is a documented claim made in the 1619 Project essay, duh.

6. You cannot have a national narrative that fails to recognise the fact that Black folk suffered for centuries in America. It is no longer possible.
The national narrative we need to have is why race is even a factor in 2021. We need to eliminate race from all forms and discussions. It simply doesn't matter anymore. The US is colorblind. The democrats always trying to play the race card is doing nothing but creating unnecessary division. The US census needs to either add anther "race" called "mixed" or eliminate race altogether. The "one drop rule" needs to be eliminated.

‘One-drop rule’ persists — Harvard Gazette

Harvard psychologists have found that the centuries-old “one-drop rule” assigning minority status to mixed-race individuals appears to live on in our modern-day perception and categorization of people like Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Halle Berry.

news.harvard.edu

 

[BULLDOG]

Physics requires proof, by observation and provable facts. Critical race theory is junk assertions and no science. Higgs Bosons? Ok. But critical race theory is subjective political junk ideology hidden behind unintelligible pseudo intellectual claptrap pretending to be science.

Really? Have you looked at the research that went into developing the critical race theory? Which part, of that research was flawed, and why? Just saying you disagree with the conclusions is not an answer. I'm asking why you disagree.

The "1619 Project" and CRT are not history they are ideology.
Their bogus history was refuted in "the President's Advisory 1776 Commission" report, written by real professors and historians, not stupid communist/racists.
A 40-page report was released January 21, 2021. Read it and learn the truth:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

As expected, you're trying to weasel out of giving an answer, again. I asked a specific question, and had hoped that you would at least try to answer. I didn't ask for a 40 page reading assignment. If you can't give a credible answer, then admit you have no idea why you disagree instead of attempting such a childish stunt.

Here is the answer to your specific question:
The 1619 Project was published in NYT Magazine August 2019. It was an essay written by Nikole Hannah-Jones without any citations or references. It is simply incorrect, as documented and refuted by real historians. It is simply an amateurish attempt to "reframe history" and "decenter whiteness" according to the author. It is ideology pretending to be history.
Some of the unsubstantiated and simply incorrect claims include:
1. America was founded in 1619, not 1776
2. The reason for the American Revolution was to protect slavery
3. The US Constitution is anti-black
4. The founding ideals were all false
5. That slavery didn't exist until the US started it

The 1619 Project is nothing but a poorly written collection of racist lies.
That answers your question. There was no research, there are no citations, its total bullshit.

Nice shot, but wrong target. The 1619 project and Critical Race Theory are not the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I can repute much of what you wrote, but since we aren't talking about the 1619 project, I'll save that for another time. I still haven't been able to find any K/12 school that is teaching Critical Race Theory. Can you point a few out?

1. Here is a site that says it tracks where CRT is being taught:

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movemen…

nypost.com

2. I'm reading a book by an active duty AF officer, Matthew Lohmeier called "Irresistible Revolution". In it he documents the democrats attempted "communist" takeover of the US military by pushing CRT.

So no K/12 schools are teaching it. Why are you so upset about something that isn't happening? Are you so controlled by pundits till you will rant like that crazy lady at a school board meeting just because you were told to be mad about something that isn't happening? You should be embarrassed.

Yes, many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, especially in the urban plantations.
Here is one Chinese-American mom who recognizes it for what it is, "America's Cultural Revolution" and she is warning us that CRT needs to be stopped ASP.

Mom who survived Mao’s China calls critical race theory America’s Cultural Revolution

Xi Van Fleet said critical race theory “should have no place in our schools.”

nypost.com

Oh God.... Not another crazy lady at a school board meeting.
If many K/12 schools are teaching CRT, then name at least one.