Space Force Officer Relieved After Denouncing CRT/Marxism

[taxi1]

I don't think it needs to be a zero sum game

That's where to place the crowbar to nudge the boulder.

It's an empirical fact that statistically, people hate loss more than they love gain. The problem needs to be understood as a rising tide raising all the boats.

 

[Flash]

School district politics and policy are grass roots retail civics....And remember, in the meeting above, we are talking Laudon County. Laudon is a very liberal county. Takes a lot to piss off liberals with "antiracist" policies.

Are you talking about Loudoun County, Virginia? If so it isn't 'very liberal' though it has become more 'blue' recently as the population of the county has almost tripled in the past 20 years due to suburban growth. Like several outer suburban metropolitan DC counties Loudoun went from being a largely a rural county to a more predominantly suburban one in the last 40 or so years, and at the same time have often gradually swung from leaning red to leaning blue. Loudon's US Representative was reliably Republican from 1980 until 2019 and it usually voted Republican until the last 4 presidential elections, and for 3 of them it was relatively close compared to the counties closer to DC. It also happens to have the highest median household income in the country for at least a decade.

The school board used to be more conservative until recently, but as the population grew the school population changed (it is majority 'minority' now) and makeup of the board changed politically too. So less a liberal bastion and more the changing political reality of the 'average' American suburb.

My bad, I think. Just a confused old man. Saw the videos of the Laudon meeting on TV.

Incidentally the two morons arrested/charged were there to speak out/protest the teaching of CRT, which wasn't on the agenda and isn't taught or scheduled to be taught in Loudoun. But I guess that doesn't stop folks from getting all riled up over it.

 

[Mirage]

So I found that passage and the surrounding text on the internet and read it a bunch of times. I'm not sure that's exactly what he intended to convey but I can see how that could be concluded from the text. However, I didn't see anywhere that he specifically said taking from group to give to another. But we'll just have to agree to disagree on this I guess.

What do you think he intended to convey, if not what I said (which is just taking him at his word and interpreting his words according to their definitions)?

When did I say he is advocating taking from one group to give to another? I said the antiracist bank policy would be to make it harder for white people to get loans than other races (ie, discriminate against white people in the same way that other races have been discriminated against in the past). Though, to be fair, he and the CRT movement in general have absolutely advocated taking from whites and giving to others. That's what reparations are. See https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/ibram-x-kendi-opposing-reparations-racist/592060/

You are assuming a zero sum game where one group's gain is another's loss. His theory is that a more just society is better for everyone. That ought to at least be open to argument.


Ibram X. Kendi on anti-racism, Juneteenth, and the reckoning that wasn’t (msn.com)

My bold font below:

Fabiola Cineas
Absolutely. The thing that’s scariest for me in the conversations that have emerged in the past year is this idea that the more power that people of color get, the more equality that there is.

This means that white people are going to live in a world that’s worse for them. It means that it’s this, again, this idea of the zero-sum game that progress for people of color means that white people are going to lose. I feel like that is one of the most dangerous things that I’ve seen emerge in the past year or just get more attention. What are your thoughts on that?

Ibram X. Kendi
It is. And, for those white Americans and even people of color who believe that idea, I would point them to two recent books that were published. One is a book called The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee, which directly challenges this so-called zero-sum myth — that is, “people of color gain, white people lose.” And indeed, studies have shown historically and even currently that as we institute anti-racist policies, we all benefit.

The vast majority of Americans benefit as we’ve instituted racist policies or as we have not protected those Black people who [were] being preyed upon by lending packages before the Great Recession, which then allowed those predatory loans to pervade the entire system and thereby take down white homeowners because we did not care about those lives who were Black. [And] who were being lost at the end of April last year from Covid-19, which then allowed people to be like, oh, it’s not a big deal if we open states back up, which then led to more and more white people dying as well as people of color.

But then another book I would recommend is called A Dying of Whiteness by Jonathan Metzl. And both of these books really show how white racism is not just harmful to people of color, it’s harmful to white people, that anti-racism is not just beneficial for people of color, it’s beneficial to the majority of white Americans.

And I mean, we can go all the way back to whether we’re talking about the slaveholding era, where white slaveholders not just sapped the wealth of enslaved people of color, but the vast majority of people who lived in the South by the time of the Civil War were non-slave-holding, largely poor whites, whose poverty was directly related to the riches of racist white slaveholders.

Again, when did I say that the gain of POC would only come at the loss of white people? I think nothing of the sort. Going through every institution we have and rooting out all forms of discrimination is what I would advocate for. That would stop discrimination against POC, lifting them up, without adding discrimination against white people that will bring them down.

I'm also not sure at all what the point of that passage was. And you still haven't said what you think the antiracist policy for the bank would be, only that you think I was wrong. Very curious where the fault in my thinking is or how I'm misinterpreting all of this.

 

[Pags]

What do you think he intended to convey, if not what I said (which is just taking him at his word and interpreting his words according to their definitions)?

When did I say he is advocating taking from one group to give to another? I said the antiracist bank policy would be to make it harder for white people to get loans than other races (ie, discriminate against white people in the same way that other races have been discriminated against in the past). Though, to be fair, he and the CRT movement in general have absolutely advocated taking from whites and giving to others. That's what reparations are. See https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/ibram-x-kendi-opposing-reparations-racist/592060/


Again, when did I say that the gain of POC would only come at the loss of white people? I think nothing of the sort. Going through every institution we have and rooting out all forms of discrimination is what I would advocate for. That would stop discrimination against POC, lifting them up, without adding discrimination against white people that will bring them down.

I'm also not sure at all what the point of that passage was. And you still haven't said what you think the antiracist policy for the bank would be, only that you think I was wrong. Very curious where the fault in my thinking is or how I'm misinterpreting all of this.

Like I said...I'm not sure. The writing is pretty stilted and would take a fair amount of understanding for me to unpack as I'm not particularly schooled in the rhetoric at use...but, a rough cut would be that he's advocating for policies that actively attempt to address the current situation. These policies would not be race neutral and instead would acknowledge that the problem at hand is racially based because of the racist policies that caused it. So therefore to solve it you wouldn't have neutral policies because that wouldn't work you'd have policies that actively tried to remedy the problem area. So, with our redlining example that bank wouldn't just give out more mortgages and hope it would work. The bank would have a new policy in place to help disadvantaged communities to purchase homes. Since the bank isn't limited in the number of mortgages it can give, this wouldn't impact others seaking a mortgage.

Basically he's advocating that in order to level the playing field you should fill in the low spots as opposed to scraping everything down to the lowest level or just equally distributing dirt across the field and hoping that it changes the topography of the field.

I'll continue to beat my drum on this, these ideas are written to appeal to one side and haven't been well written to sell them to those who need to buy them. The fact that the language is so stilted and has generated such disagreement as to meaning and intent amongst a college educated crowd shows to me that it's not great writing for selling a potentially unpopular idea.

 

[Mirage]

Like I said...I'm not sure. The writing is pretty stilted and would take a fair amount of understanding for me to unpack as I'm not particularly schooled in the rhetoric at use...but, a rough cut would be that he's advocating for policies that actively attempt to address the current situation. These policies would not be race neutral and instead would acknowledge that the problem at hand is racially based because of the racist policies that caused it. So therefore to solve it you wouldn't have neutral policies because that wouldn't work you'd have policies that actively tried to remedy the problem area. So, with our redlining example that bank wouldn't just give out more mortgages and hope it would work. The bank would have a new policy in place to help disadvantaged communities to purchase homes. Since the bank isn't limited in the number of mortgages it can give, this wouldn't impact others seaking a mortgage.

Basically he's advocating that in order to level the playing field you should fill in the low spots as opposed to scraping everything down to the lowest level or just equally distributing dirt across the field and hoping that it changes the topography of the field.

I'll continue to beat my drum on this, these ideas are written to appeal to one side and haven't been well written to sell them to those who need to buy them. The fact that the language is so stilted and has generated such disagreement as to meaning and intent amongst a college educated crowd shows to me that it's not great writing for selling a potentially unpopular idea.

Well, I hope you're right and that's what he's saying. You're definitely right that we'll have to agree to disagree. I cannot fathom any alternate meaning to the quote I provided other than he thinks discrimination against white people is "the only remedy" for past discrimination. Words have meaning, and those words to me mean your ideas about creating policies that don't discriminate against white people are not what he is advocating for, no matter how much you want it to mean that.

 

[Pags]

Well, I hope you're right and that's what he's saying. You're definitely right that we'll have to agree to disagree. I cannot fathom any alternate meaning to the quote I provided other than he thinks discrimination against white people is "the only remedy" for past discrimination. Words have meaning, and those words to me mean your ideas about creating policies that don't discriminate against white people are not what he is advocating for, no matter how much you want it to mean that.

Have you read the rest of the text? Or just that quote?

From the other quote that Taxi1 posted and others I've seen from the author I don't think he's advocating discrimination against white people.

 

[wink]

Are you talking about Loudoun County, Virginia? If so it isn't 'very liberal' though it has become more 'blue' recently as the population of the county has almost tripled in the past 20 years due to suburban growth. Like several outer suburban metropolitan DC counties Loudoun went from being a largely a rural county to a more predominantly suburban one in the last 40 or so years, and at the same time have often gradually swung from leaning red to leaning blue. Loudon's US Representative was reliably Republican from 1980 until 2019 and it usually voted Republican until the last 4 presidential elections, and for 3 of them it was relatively close compared to the counties closer to DC. It also happens to have the highest median household income in the country for at least a decade.

The school board used to be more conservative until recently, but as the population grew the school population changed (it is majority 'minority' now) and makeup of the board changed politically too. So less a liberal bastion and more the changing political reality of the 'average' American suburb.



Incidentally the two morons arrested/charged were there to speak out/protest the teaching of CRT, which wasn't on the agenda and isn't taught or scheduled to be taught in Loudoun. But I guess that doesn't stop folks from getting all riled up over it.

Yes. Loudoun. I maybe wrong about the spelling, but not the politics. Your history lesson matters not. Presently, Loudoun is very liberal. You said it. The school board make up is now liberal. Loudoun voted over 60% for Biden, just 35% Trump. That is a huge margin and certainly not representative of an "average" suburb.

As is apparent from the discussion here, actual CRT is not often what people think it is. That is unfortunate because I believe the real deal is just as ridiculous as what is more commonly referred to as CRT. And, a by product is people like you rightfully insist CRT is not being taught to elementary school students, because it is a graduate level discussion. But all that does is allow people to hide the fact that what is in many curricula is divisive, radical and racist in its own right. It may not be CRT, but it is wrong for our youth. Teach kids MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail and the I have a Dream speech.

 

[Mirage]

Have you read the rest of the text? Or just that quote?

From the other quote that Taxi1 posted and others I've seen from the author I don't think he's advocating discrimination against white people.

Yes, I've read the entire book by graduate school standards. Here's another quote for you from it, "The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist..."

There can be no doubt that he is advocating for discrimination that, in his opinion, brings equity. That's just the only way to interpret what he says. You are doing some serious mind-bending word Jiu-Jitsu to come to any other conclusion, and I'm not sure why you are trying to force that conclusion.

 

[Pags]

Yes, I've read the entire book by graduate school standards. Here's another quote for you from it, "The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist..."

There can be no doubt that he is advocating for discrimination that, in his opinion, brings equity. That's just the only way to interpret what he says. You are doing some serious mind-bending word Jiu-Jitsu to come to any other conclusion, and I'm not sure why you are trying to force that conclusion.

I have doubt so I disagree. There's no mind bending here, I just don't draw that same conclusion. But it's ok if we disagree.

I guess at the end of the day I'm suspect of any hill that either side has chosen to die on in the forever culture wars. In most cases the slope isn't as steep or as slippery as many think it is.

I remember similar histrionics about other attempts at "indoctrination" via public school or other cultural blights and most of them did not have the negative outcomes that were feared. I read Catcher in the Rye, had sex Ed in school, didn't have the ten commandments in my school, listened to evil music, had anarchy symbols on my notebooks, played evil video games and I and my peers turned out ok.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I have doubt so I disagree. There's no mind bending here, I just don't draw that same conclusion. But it's ok if we disagree.

I guess at the end of the day I'm suspect of any hill that either side has chosen to die on in the forever culture wars. In most cases the slope isn't as steep or as slippery as many think it is.

I remember similar histrionics about other attempts at "indoctrination" via public school or other cultural blights and most of them did not have the negative outcomes that were feared. I read Catcher in the Rye, had sex Ed in school, didn't have the ten commandments in my school, listened to evil music, had anarchy symbols on my notebooks, played evil video games and I and my peers turned out ok.

You have doubt? Earlier you didn’t think he was advocating discrimination. He is, by his own words. It sounds more like you just don’t want to hear it.

 

[Python]

I have doubt so I disagree. There's no mind bending here, I just don't draw that same conclusion. But it's ok if we disagree.

I guess at the end of the day I'm suspect of any hill that either side has chosen to die on in the forever culture wars. In most cases the slope isn't as steep or as slippery as many think it is.

I remember similar histrionics about other attempts at "indoctrination" via public school or other cultural blights and most of them did not have the negative outcomes that were feared. I read Catcher in the Rye, had sex Ed in school, didn't have the ten commandments in my school, listened to evil music, had anarchy symbols on my notebooks, played evil video games and I and my peers turned out ok.

Glad you got to read Catcher in the Rye. I hope you got to read To Kill A Mockingbird, because many kids these days won't. The Sex Ed you received isn't anything I'd find controversial, but the kids today are getting something different; even more concerning is how young they are. If you think the examples I've chosen were cherry picked, they're not. Plenty of book banning and "advanced" sex ed for young kids these days at many locations across the country.

I played Grand Theft Auto 3 and listened to Korn too. Turned out ok. But let's not make false equivalencies about yesterday's moral panics and today's. Especially now since the racial dimension is added to the recipe that wasn't there before.

 

[Brett327]

Loudoun voted over 60% for Biden, just 35% Trump.
[/QUOTE]
Shocking! So, the electorate went 60/40 in favor of the centrist Democrat, rejecting the malignant narcissist who clumsily paid hush money to the porn star he jizzed into. Such radicals, those Loudoun county voters. Indistinguishable from Mao or Castro!

 

[Brett327]

Loudoun voted over 60% for Biden, just 35% Trump.

Shocking! So, the electorate went 60/40 in favor of the centrist Democrat, rejecting the malignant narcissist who clumsily paid hush money to the porn star he jizzed into. Such radicals, those Loudoun county voters. Indistinguishable from Mao or Castro!

 

[Python]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/teacher-pushes-back-against-k-12-critical-race-theory-indoctrination/?fbclid=IwAR1V3VLb3sfNAF8hDFNn80BYdrvS4ykacaU48MWbgjNqL4zamntsX2E3kv4

I’m glad this teacher spoke up, but unfortunately she felt the need to resign. Worth the read to see what’s going on.

 

[wink]

Shocking! So, the electorate went 60/40 in favor of the centrist Democrat, rejecting the malignant narcissist who clumsily paid hush money to the porn star he jizzed into. Such radicals, those Loudoun county voters. Indistinguishable from Mao or Castro!

Seriously, no one doubts Trump's character and actions did not inform voters. But it does not tell the story. You can't assume Trump's charter was solely responsible for the last election results. I'd love to. It would mean the voters had little problem with GOP polices, just hated Trump. In the case of Loudoun it is probably more likely the voters party politics influenced them. My comment challenged was that Loudoun was liberal, which was notable given the push back by parents to the DEM dominated school board, which they elected not long ago.

Clinton 55% Trump 38% ( before many more allegations and behavior by Trump )
Board of Supervisors 6-3 DEM
School Board 7-2 DEM
State Senators 3-1 DEM
State Delegates 7-1 DEM

And, I might add. A Loudoun DEM is likely not a Joe Machin.

Loudoun is presently liberal. No way around it. And that is interesting given the push back to liberal polices also supported by the President.