Why would I need to give you one when you already posted a really excellent one? Do you expect me to believe that you're a greater expert on the needs of the US military than a literal general? I'd like to see you make a better argument than him, or at least show better credentials.

I don't expect you would. You reduced critical race theory down to a history lesson.

Wow, that guy sure seems intelligent.

You really need to lie about a public post not far from here that anyone can see? Geez man, it's just pathetic. I'm embarrassed for you.

CRT is a perspective that excludes all other perspectives.

lol ihiv. Keep slangin' those mantras.

....and the Dr. Seuss controversy lol

https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/2...heory-polling/

That's what's so annoying. You actually don't disagree with the mantra, but you reject it. If a person does not subscribe to the tenets, they are upholding racism. What do you think is going to happen to a soldier who rejects all or part of CRT?

I mean, if CRT is truly exclusive of all other perspectives, and the military teaches multiple perspectives including CRT, it sounds like the military isn't teaching CRT at all, so really, there's nothing for you to worry about in our military.

Uh, which part and why is really important for any reasonable person to answer the question.

If you're standing in KG3's shoes the founding fathers/our ancestors look like a bunch of radical leftist revolutionaries. It's no accident that the conservatives toss out commie to chum the waters at just about everything they don't like--it works like a frigging charm every time. And if any of the rank n file are having a tough time getting there--they have plenty of little helpers to coax them along. There are no new battle lines--they're basically the same as they have been for ages now. It's just easier to keep the troops' attention by re-packaging the same old thing as some new and novel threat. Basic marketing--these ain't no regular bleeding hearts folks--this is some new purple hair super commie **** coming to steal you and your children's souls

That's fine and all, but I've actually read the epistemology behind CRT/CT/Critical Pedology. I didn't rely up on anyone to explain it to me. That doesn't mean, there aren't people doing the very thing you're suggesting, and it doesn't mean there are people who don't buy it just on mere suggestion. I don't disagree that's going on from the Fox News types who are essentially using it as a political football.

Maybe you could argue the seed was planted from outside sources, but the fact remains is is this stuff is derived not from liberal thinkers, but critical theorist. That fact is routinely denied. Not only is it denied by progressives, the conclusions and virtues of critical theory are defended with conviction, in the same breath.

It's a rhetorical question. I know what happens to US soldiers who don't buy into the US military's dogma, specifically their equal opportunity policies. I doubt it's called equal opportunity anymore, though. (CRT says equal opportunity is racist).

The US military teaches a perspective.

This is a teacher.

The logical conclusion of Marxism, is revolution.

IHIV,

Do you recognize that this issue of CRT was suddenly 'found' and elevated by the 'right' as a great concern as the 'Next Brown Menace' election platform plank?

Can and will you admit that regardless of whether or not you think you come to it and at it, honestly?

lol, you're whole raison d'etre ITT is to regurgitate a small handful of right wing twitter accounts. "Read the epistemology" "didn't rely on anyone" lolololololololol

Grievance Studies Affair.


But besides that, it's been around for a while. First it was social justice warriors, (kind of the first term I remember being associated with it), political correctness, then it was cancel culture, then it was woke, now it is critical race theory. The difference between the previous ones, and CRT is the fact there was no real epistemology associated with the others. It was just a phenomenon. There were many debates here, and elsewhere about social justice warriors, and the epistemology. Most of those discussions revolved around the fact social justice warrior didn't really have any clear definition. It was too ambiguous of a term and it wasn't really accurate in describing the bent of mind. Many people, including some of the staunches progressives, denied it even existence. Similar to how some of the initial posters in this thread indicated it was some obscure academia topic.

I do know Trump capitalized on it once Chris Rufo started to report on it and exposed it's presence as a part of public institutions. Many would argue Trump had no idea this stuff was going on until Rufo brought it to his attention, which resulted in the executive order. Politicians follow the culture, not the other way around. I do know there's many people that are just using it to paint the lefties is bad. Yes, it's being politicized. Trump resonated when he struck back at cancel culture... He damn sure leveraged it for his own good.

This is one of the reasons why I cite James Lindsey more than Rufo. James Lindsey was involved in the grievance studies affair I talked about before. This is when I became aware of it. It wasn't that big of a deal to me because it was strictly within academia, so I didn't pay too much attention to it.

Now can you distinguish between the more intellectual disagreements with critical race theory and the politicization that's going on with? Of course, these two things are not mutually exclusive, but it does appear you guys conflate the political objections with the intellectual objections.

Man I don't know. Given that no one here still doesn't know what you're talking about and you defined critical race theory as being ambiguous and we've seen a lot of bleed over from being opposed to critical race theory to being opposed to generic diversity training, I'm going to say they're nearly identical

In any case, this is going to be the Republican case de jure just like the Tea Party

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-theory-495712

I'd say the difference is that no one outside of the actual Koch brothers actually cared about deficit spending or the deficit because the the real driving force was to link Obama to Marxism and spending money on undesirables and in this case it's to link critical race theory to Marxism and spending on undesirables, reparations and diversity training expenses, so I'd say people will actually be more engaged. None of that need to care about abstract things about the budget.

What's the real question is how quickly Democrats give in to defang Republicans' attempt to politicize it. No politician is really going to die on the hill of whether people say objectivity is racist vs objectivity has been used by racists so they'll be more than willing to give a bit.

Lol.

The woke tells me, explicitly, what their ideology is. I go read about critical race theory, and see that it's a critical theory. I learned more about that, and I read about Critical Pedology. It's not complicated.

We all are

Joy Reid is the best

There's a reason why the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff testified about it. Seems to me, Democrats are going all in on it.

The military adoption is fairly terrible.

The US military operates on a fundamental principle, subjugation to civilian leadership, and the chain of command. It also disassociates politics. It doesn't stop service members from engaging in political activities off-duty. The only time you can violate an order, is if it's illegal or immoral. The US military is also committed to its TTP's, techniques, tactics, and procedures. That's from pay to equal opportunity. The US military also operates on uniformity. You must follow policy and regulations.

Critical race theory gives them a new code. They have a moral and ethnical obligation to upend systemic racism. All systems are racist, and anyone upholding that system is a racist.

Two issues with this:

1. If you dispute anything taught in critical race theory, it upholds systems of racism, which makes you a racist. You will be kicked out of the military for being a racist. That's not really a big concern. Except you're going to turn the military into an ideological unit, which it is not supposed to be, nor do you want it to be. They also sworn to protect and defend the US.

2. A moral and ethical obligation in upending systemic racism could result in a military coupe, and outright mutiny, if they think the POTUS is a racist. I'm not saying this is likely, but with critical race involved, you make it that much easier. It provides a moral justification.

Throwing back in my face a right wing twitter account that selectively curates out of context nobodies for your amusement is some sort of rebuttal of my point? It's like you couldn't be less self-aware if you tried.

Just amazing.

Want more receipts?