Not sure why you replied to me with this.

'White rage' is a thing. Just as 'racial bogeyman' is a thing. I am not the one denying any of them or how or why they are used. I just said the latter WAS being used by politicians and Right media to gin up election base rage to get out the vote and raise money.

Lucky denied that was true and acted like it was laughable to even think it and then he was proven wrong and entered the spin zone.


There is no claim. I STATED that stance from the start.

Forum conversations are just that... conversations. Give and take.

You want to treat them like you are dealing with employees. You demand they go do your work for you and educate you on something that is common and well known while you REFUSE to do the thing being requested of you.

That does not work with me. Full stop. When you ask for something and I say 'ok but here is what i want in return for that' and your answer is basically 'no GFY but give me what i demand' then absolutely YES, even if I have what you are asking for, you are not getting it.

I've been in forumland too long where someone demands you go find and quote old posts saying they said what they did or other requests such as you made. You do the search. Find it and provide it. They reply 'it does not matter anyway as it was not core to my view'. So they asked you for no reason other than to make you run around for something they would dismiss even if proven.

It was such a simple request Cuepee for you to show the actual connection between anti-CRT rhetoric and the "fear of the brown menace".
Wookie did it with a single tweet. I was not aware that such talk existed within the discourse-sphere as I assumed that most of the rhetoric dealt with education and racialization. I should not however be surprised that it does.
It was nothing more and nothing less. If you're going to make a claim you should be able to back it up-- and that wasn't done by you posting a bunch of articles talking about how CRT talk had exploded and asking me to fill in the blanks.

So now that you can see you were wrong the whole time about Tucker, are you going to be any less smug?

What? I don't watch Tucker and I never said anything about him.
Why do you enjoy lying so much? Do you think it's pathological?

It's a non responsive reply.

Does it mean you need 3, 5 or 100 more such examples?

Are you saying now you accept my position? May in the future?

What I see now is an open ended 'give me more' but with no quid pro quo. Offering zero while demanding all.

It does scapegoat the "white race". It reintroduces the concept of a "white race". It starts ascribing features and characteristics to this "white race" that led to racism (see below). And then associates this "white race" to every single white person. It is essentially creates an original sin and associates it to the "white race", and ultimately all "white people". It then argues this original sin must be fixed. Which is Critical Pedology.


(these features and characteristics are almost universally associated with liberalism and capitalistic values, and not many, if any associated with the more conventional understanding of white supremacy, i.e. neo-nazis, white nationalist, segregationalist, et al)

**This notwithstanding Robin DiAngelo's ascription of a mental condition to white people, or the general's ascription of rage to the white race.

So now your position is you can maintain your position was correct as long as you were not familiar with the examples provided to you?

You don't see how that is problematic when you also claim not to watch most Right leading media and yet you scoffed at my statement that 'right meaning media is doing this'? And now you seem to be saying your statement was FINE because you don't watch Tucker and thus your statement was not applicable to him?

He btw being the biggest and most important and influential voice in right media currently.

Yet, the two people you've argued with extensively in this thread haven't cited him once.

Still didn't answer my question. How does one instill a connection to current events from historical events without running afoul of this "making a student feel guilty" clause that's going to end up getting me fired as a teacher? Can that be done while mentioning race in a historical or current context? Or will mentioning race at all make the "made me feel guilty for being white" much easier for a school board to terminate me to avoid some state rep from breathing down their throats?

My statement was not about the two people in this thread.

My statement was generalist statement that 'GOP politicians and the right media are ginning this topic up NOW as an election tool using the latest 'racial bogeyman' (brown menace) scare tactic.'


Who you or Lucky have cited in this thread in NO WAY impacts what I stated and what Lucky replied to. You guys do not have to cite or anyone specifically nor even talk about the GOP or Right Media for what I said to be true and accurate, which it was.

I get the feeling Pat's pulling the definition of critical race theory from perhaps some things he's heard in some other context.

Huh, worried about Black people taking over? What? I thought America's laws would guarantee equality no matter which race was in power.

CRT isnt a history class. I don't understand why you have to personalize history. We don't personalize science, math, or any other subject.

For context.


Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education
edited by Marvin Lynn, Adrienne D. Dixson

The context is a whole bunch of explaining why critical race theory is marxism, and that Marxism is incomplete because it doesn't take race into account as much.

The good news is if someone does try to impart some moral lesson from history they can just be fired

High end high school used to have their admissions programs be an entrance fee and the results of a standardized test. They dropped the entrance fee and moved towards a Texas like admitting policy admitting the top X percent from all middle schools.

This reduced the amount of white and Asians and increased the amount of other minorities, but also increased the amount of poor kids from 1% to 25%.

The parents of white and Asians kids are now saying critical race theory is to blame

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ed...uctural-racism

I guess in a way it would be. If it could be shown that the administration knew that it would help minority students that would be taking into account race and therefor would be racist and be un-American

Doesn't seem like you need critical race theory to teach that

yup, as I always say, if the GOP had instead re-invented itself along lines of 'conservative principles' (law and order, religious matters, etc) that are shared amongst conservative whites and conservative POC I think they may well have been able to remain a party of relevance and holding power (at least in proportion to Dems) for a long, long time.

Remember that the way the GOP has gerrymandered voting they can win power even when they massively lose the popular vote. If they could get that popular vote a bit closer they would dominate.

And the GOP was, in fact moving towards that.

But that put SOME in the republican base to a choice. A choice to embrace POC and welcome them in under the tent, which would also require giving them somewhat of an equal voice and participation.

It would require them to share power and the halls with POC and that was too much to ask them to swallow to maintain a hold on power.

For too many the entire point of having power was to subvert the 'others' and not uplift them. So doing that to gain power was anathema.

So instead the GOP embarked on a path many of its top leaders over the decades had opinioned would be toxic and the death of the party when this strategy, utilized to its full extent (Southern Strategy) was being pushed prior.

With Trump at the helm and the leadership going there, all the rest had little choice but to go all-in on the 'brown menace' platform or the party would fracture and not see power for a long time.

Trump put them to the test. He called everyone in the GOPs bluff and he proved right.

The allure of trying for one last hurray to subjugate, diminish and disenfranchise POC votes and power for decades to come was just too much. It was a gamble worth taking, in their view.

Ya it is not even shocking anymore as I have posted so many examples like that.

The various departments of the govt have all admitted to these things being policy (stated or not) and been sanctioned (whatever that means when govt sanctions itself).

IHIV hand waves it all away though as not race based or systemic racism as he would cite in the article 'see a bunch of white homeowners would suffer too based on the very articles you posted, thus not racist' just as he says all the Red States voting suppression are not systemically racist as some whites get caught up in them too.

Meritocracy sounds neat but many people just don't really buy into it. Even if they've deluded themselves into believing they do.

Well the article makes the point that this is critical race theory, policies that never mention race have racial implications, but in this case it's going the other way. Instead of policies holding minorities back this increased their educational attainment. And it shows how people read racial consequences into seemingly non racial things.

But it's a lesson learned that people could advocate for universal programs or non racial programs that would disproportionately help minorities and the poor.

In theory this would disarm the whole "helping one race is racism no matter if it's helping the dominate one or a minority" and, in theory, would disarm objections to it.

And i know you would know this but its worth saying anyway.

Lucky's reflexive denial of my correct assertion that 'this is being elevated as a talking point by the GOP and right Media as the next iteration of the 'racial bogeyman' (brown menace) to try and gain votes and raise money for this MT election cycle' is based on him realizing if true, that it means he has been manipulated by those two groups.

Probably the most significant part of Lucky's self image is a (wrongheaded) belief that he operates at a level of awareness to gov't and media manipulation the rest of us just don't recognize or see.

So accepting my point would cause a recognition in him that he was not only the dupe, but guys like him and IHIV for very different reasons are the deliberate target dupes. Lucky due to his (admitted) lack of educating himself on the source info (will offer a strong opinion on right media while admitting he does not follow it). IHIV due to his strong desire to 'side against' anything he sees as supportive of issue of POC.

For Lucky that type of admission that not only was he duped but he is a target as they know he is easily duped is anathema.

He will do everything to instead try and pretend he was not arguing what he clearly did and everyone can still read.

Cuepee trying to do psychoanalysis is fun.
Can you explain how I've been duped though exactly?