Cultural Marxism and the Birth of Thought Crime

[Vol8188]

I consider canceling it cancel culture.

Here you go doing mental gymnastics to argue semantically that canceling something is not canceling it because, of all things, it didn't get canceled on Amazon.

Are they trying to suppress speech? Yes or no? There is no way anybody with an ounce of fairness in their body can look at an entire topic being banned from all discussion in schools and say it's not suppression of speech. JFC.

Yeah, it’s not a suppression of speech. Unless your argument is that any topic excluded from curriculum is suppressed/canceled.

It’s obvious that children aren’t ready for all ideas and education is incapable of presenting all ideas due to both time constraints and the emotionally/mental capacity of their population.

So to be clear your stance is that if you remove a topic from education (a new topic is this scenario that was not previously included), then you have suppressed free speech and canceled that topic?

We all know that’s an absurd stance and that not all topics are fit for the classroom (especially lower levels).

There’s also the issue of truth. To proclaim that not allowing people to lie to kids (teaching that individualism, punctuality, work ethic, and perfectionism are attributes of white supremacy or whiteness) is an act of cancel culture or an attack on free speech, is the ultimate form of the mental gymnastics you accuse me of committing

 

[n_huffhines]

And honestly, a majority making it illegal to teach a topic in public schools is way more concerning than a minority group putting social pressure on entertainment companies and publishers. It's crazy that this even has to be said.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yeah, it’s not a suppression of speech. Unless your argument is that any topic excluded from curriculum is suppressed/canceled.

It’s obvious that children aren’t ready for all ideas and education is incapable of presenting all ideas due to both time constraints and the emotionally/mental capacity of their population.

So to be clear your stance is that if you remove a topic from education (a new topic is this scenario that was not previously included), then you have suppressed free speech and canceled that topic?

We all know that’s an absurd stance and that not all topics are fit for the classroom (especially lower levels).

There’s also the issue of truth. To proclaim that not allowing people to lie to kids (teaching that individualism, punctuality, work ethic, and perfectionism are attributes of white supremacy or whiteness) is an act of cancel culture or an attack on free speech, is the ultimate form of the mental gymnastics you accuse me of committing

Not excluded. Banned. Say it with me real loud for the people in the back because they are not getting it. Banned.

You're a waste of time.

 

[Vol8188]

Not excluded. Banned. Say it with me real loud for the people in the back because they are not getting it. Banned.

You're a waste of time.

So you believe it’s wrong to ban teachers from openly lying to students? That’s your stance?

Where is the issue here? How is this concerning? Should parents not the have say in their children being taught nonsense?

 

[n_huffhines]

So you believe it’s wrong to ban teachers from openly lying to students? That’s your stance?

I feel like that's already covered in the teacher codes of conduct.

This is a completely BS, straw man argument to make to me, and it's just more evidence that you are a waste of time.

 

[Vol8188]

I feel like that's already covered in the teacher codes of conduct.

This is a completely BS, straw man argument to make to me, and it's just more evidence that you are a waste of time.

Not attempting to strawman. Anytime I’m incorrect in my opinion of what you’re saying, feel free to correct me.

The teacher codes of conduct are enforced by the admin and the school board. Typically those are the people who put this in the standards to begin with. So you can’t say “you don’t have to worry about teachers lying, they have a code of conduct” if we both know it won’t be enforced.

What this comes down to is the outright lies so many have seen their children taught in the name of CRT. If you disagree that’s occurring I can provide additional examples. If you agree it’s occurring then how am I not to take your stance as a defense of lies?

 

[ButchPlz]

 

[n_huffhines]

Not attempting to strawman. Anytime I’m incorrect in my opinion of what you’re saying, feel free to correct me.

The teacher codes of conduct are enforced by the admin and the school board. Typically those are the people who put this in the standards to begin with. So you can’t say “you don’t have to worry about teachers lying, they have a code of conduct” if we both know it won’t be enforced.

What this comes down to is the outright lies so many have seen their children taught in the name of CRT. If you disagree that’s occurring I can provide additional examples. If you agree it’s occurring then how am I not to take your stance as a defense of lies?

OK, so when did I say or imply it's OK for teachers to openly lie to students? You think everything about CRT is a lie? Is that your thesis?

Why do you think new rules will be enforced if the problem isn't the rules, it's enforcement? Doesn't make much sense.

Kids are being taught lies but I'm not going to advocate banning the whole topic of the Civil War just because some/many teachers aren't getting it right.

 

[Vol8188]

OK, so when did I say or imply it's OK for teachers to openly lie to students? You think everything about CRT is a lie? Is that your thesis?

Why do you think new rules will be enforced if the problem isn't the rules, it's enforcement? Doesn't make much sense.

Kids are being taught lies in all areas of school. I'm not going to advocate banning the whole topic of the Civil War just because they aren't getting it right.

I think the most important question to address first is why the outrage? The outrage comes from parents who have seen their kids taught absurd and blatantly false things in regards to race. And the gaslighting of the outrage by the media has been disgusting. They've done that in a few ways. One is to just lie and pretend none of this is occurring. The second is the not a real Scottsman argument where they stick to the strictest definition of CRT and ignore any of its contributions or changes since its inception (it would be equal to only arguing the term "intersectionality" means what it did in 1989 when Crenshaw coined it).

So the first question is are the parents right? And the answer is an emphatic yes. Is CRT 100% responsible for the issues they're seeing and will banning it actually make much difference? No to both. But are they correct that something is wrong in terms of public education and what children are being taught in race, 100%.

What lies do you believe currently exist in education? I can say I taught 0 lies in 9 years as a math teacher, but I can also say that advocates of CRT were pushing me to do so (I received pamplets on how to CRT in math with statements like "the 3/5ths compromise is math").

I don't think banning CRT is the answer, but its also not suppression of free speech (no one has a right to forcefully indoctrinate your children against your will) nor is it cancel culture to remove inappropriate material from a classroom.

To fully answer your question about is CRT a lie, I'll address the 5 tenants:

(1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational-I agree

(2) the idea of an interest convergence-openly states that white people will only support racial progress if it is in their personal interest, not only incorrect, but a disgusting view in general. It is openly cynical of any/all racial progress and argues it only occurs to promote whiteness

(3) the social construction of race-This seems to be contradicting the first. They're claiming racism is normal (I would say natural) but race is a social construct? If so than racism would not be normal, only normal within certain societies. But this still isn't where it starts to get bad. I don't think anyone objects to this specifically being taught.

(4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling-this is where the idea that you cannot understand others comes from, it bleeds into ideas from other critical theorist such as the mailability of truth and the idea that it's impossible to have an understanding of others. It also promotes narrative over objective fact (something they believe in).

(5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation.-This is another obviously absurd claim. They take any civil rights legislation to have ever occurred and then cynically argue that it only occurred to aid white America. Delgado specifically attacks affirmative action as being a program that benefits whites, not blacks.

I know this lengthy but I think this topic deserves it. From these 5 statements (3 are the real issues) you find a lot of the insanity in current left wing dialogue.

 

[n_huffhines]

I think the most important question to address first is why the outrage? The outrage comes from parents who have seen their kids taught absurd and blatantly false things in regards to race. And the gaslighting of the outrage by the media has been disgusting. They've done that in a few ways. One is to just lie and pretend none of this is occurring. The second is the not a real Scottsman argument where they stick to the strictest definition of CRT and ignore any of its contributions or changes since its inception (it would be equal to only arguing the term "intersectionality" means what it did in 1989 when Crenshaw coined it).

So the first question is are the parents right? And the answer is an emphatic yes. Is CRT 100% responsible for the issues they're seeing and will banning it actually make much difference? No to both. But are they correct that something is wrong in terms of public education and what children are being taught in race, 100%.

What lies do you believe currently exist in education? I can say I taught 0 lies in 9 years as a math teacher, but I can also say that advocates of CRT were pushing me to do so (I received pamplets on how to CRT in math with statements like "the 3/5ths compromise is math").

I don't think banning CRT is the answer, but its also not suppression of free speech (no one has a right to forcefully indoctrinate your children against your will) nor is it cancel culture to remove inappropriate material from a classroom.

To fully answer your question about is CRT a lie, I'll address the 5 tenants:

(1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational-I agree

(2) the idea of an interest convergence-openly states that white people will only support racial progress if it is in their personal interest, not only incorrect, but a disgusting view in general. It is openly cynical of any/all racial progress and argues it only occurs to promote whiteness

(3) the social construction of race-This seems to be contradicting the first. They're claiming racism is normal (I would say natural) but race is a social construct? If so than racism would not be normal, only normal within certain societies. But this still isn't where it starts to get bad. I don't think anyone objects to this specifically being taught.

(4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling-this is where the idea that you cannot understand others comes from, it bleeds into ideas from other critical theorist such as the mailability of truth and the idea that it's impossible to have an understanding of others. It also promotes narrative over objective fact (something they believe in).

(5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation.-This is another obviously absurd claim. They take any civil rights legislation to have ever occurred and then cynically argue that it only occurred to aid white America. Delgado specifically attacks affirmative action as being a program that benefits whites, not blacks.

I know this lengthy but I think this topic deserves it. From these 5 statements (3 are the real issues) you find a lot of the insanity in current left wing dialogue.

You're still trying to justify the idea that CRT shouldn't be taught in schools, but that has never been the point. The point has always been that it's suppression of speech to ban it. None of those 500 words changes any of this.

Also, the idea that it shouldn't be taught because we disagree with tenants/aspects of the theory or think they are flat out wrong...in the social sciences we talk about all kinds of theories that are wrong or problematic in some way. We discuss completely opposing theories. What about Locke's inalienable rights? The foundation for everything he says falls apart if there is no God. I'd say that's a pretty big hole in his ideas, but they're still worth discussing and critiquing.

Pretend the left is trying to ban any discussion of American exceptionalism. They can write 10 paragraphs about how this topic is controversial, and can be harmful in the wrong hands. Justifying it does not change the fact that it would be suppression of speech.

 

[Vol8188]

You're still trying to justify the idea that CRT shouldn't be taught in schools, but that has never been the point. The point has always been that it's suppression of speech to ban it. None of those 500 words changes any of this.

Also, the idea that it shouldn't be taught because we disagree with tenants/aspects of the theory or think they are flat out wrong...in the social sciences we talk about all kinds of theories that are wrong or problematic in some way. We discuss completely opposing theories. What about Locke's inalienable rights? The foundation for everything he says falls apart if there is no God. I'd say that's a pretty big hole in his ideas, but they're still worth discussing and critiquing.

Pretend the left is trying to ban any discussion of American exceptionalism. They can write 10 paragraphs about how this topic is controversial, and can be harmful in the wrong hands. Justifying it does not change the fact that it would be suppression of speech.

Yeah, it's not suppression of speech. CRT advocates can still speak at any university and sell their books on Amazon (things many conservatives with mainstream views are banned from). But the idea that kids should be protected from certain things is not suppression. Do you disagree with "suppressing" any thought from public schools? Is it suppression that 1st graders are not taught all the negative aspects of integration or that they're not given graphic sexual education? Or can we agree not all thoughts, ideas, theories, etc are age appropriate?

If schools decide not to teach 1st graders about the negative aspects of integration, no one's speech has been suppressed. That's not suppression. If you believe it is, please explain how. Please tell me how not allowing 5 year olds to be taught about safe sex is "suppression".

You asked what I thought about CRT was false. So I elaborated. In regards to teaching things that are false, that is part of the issue. It's not taught as false or just a theory. This is equal to teaching paganism but teaching it as absolute fact. When you tell 6th graders that individualism is an aspect of white supremacy according to CRT, do you believe they truly understand and are capable of engaging with that idea? Or do they accept it as a statement of fact?

 

[Vol8188]

You're still trying to justify the idea that CRT shouldn't be taught in schools, but that has never been the point. The point has always been that it's suppression of speech to ban it. None of those 500 words changes any of this.

Also, the idea that it shouldn't be taught because we disagree with tenants/aspects of the theory or think they are flat out wrong...in the social sciences we talk about all kinds of theories that are wrong or problematic in some way. We discuss completely opposing theories. What about Locke's inalienable rights? The foundation for everything he says falls apart if there is no God. I'd say that's a pretty big hole in his ideas, but they're still worth discussing and critiquing.

Pretend the left is trying to ban any discussion of American exceptionalism. They can write 10 paragraphs about how this topic is controversial, and can be harmful in the wrong hands. Justifying it does not change the fact that it would be suppression of speech.

To sum up what I said in 1 sentence:

Do you believe any/everything is fair game in public education or should some topics be avoided?

And do you believe that anything that is not taught is suppressed and/canceled?

Edit: decided 2 sentences was needed

 

[n_huffhines]

To sum up what I said in 1 sentence:

Do you believe any/everything is fair game in public education or should some topics be avoided?

Some topics should be avoided, sometimes. Avoiding CRT in math class and banning any discussion of it in social studies are two completely different things.

And do you believe that anything that is not taught is suppressed and/canceled?

Of course not. I have only ever been talking about bans.

 

[AM64]

I consider canceling it cancel culture.

Here you go doing mental gymnastics to argue semantically that canceling something is not canceling it because, of all things, it didn't get canceled on Amazon.

Are they trying to suppress speech? Yes or no? There is no way anybody with an ounce of fairness in their body can look at an entire topic being banned from all discussion in schools and say it's not suppression of speech. JFC.

Again, you can justify it however you want, but it's still cancel culture and it's still suppression of speech. You just think it's the good kind.

Not every new trendy dogma needs to make it into the classroom. Stick to the damn basics and leave the latest pull tab psychobabble for elsewhere. You're always free to have Hitler Youth after school hours.

 

[n_huffhines]

Not every new trendy dogma needs to make it into the classroom. Stick to the damn basics and leave the latest pull tab psychobabble for elsewhere. You're always free to have Hitler Youth after school hours.

You're talking about the merits of canceling it, not whether or not this is suppression of speech. Clearly, Hitler would be on the side of banning the topic. Can't believe you walked into that one.

 

[AM64]

You're still trying to justify the idea that CRT shouldn't be taught in schools, but that has never been the point. The point has always been that it's suppression of speech to ban it. None of those 500 words changes any of this.

Also, the idea that it shouldn't be taught because we disagree with tenants/aspects of the theory or think they are flat out wrong...in the social sciences we talk about all kinds of theories that are wrong or problematic in some way. We discuss completely opposing theories. What about Locke's inalienable rights? The foundation for everything he says falls apart if there is no God. I'd say that's a pretty big hole in his ideas, but they're still worth discussing and critiquing.

Pretend the left is trying to ban any discussion of American exceptionalism. They can write 10 paragraphs about how this topic is controversial, and can be harmful in the wrong hands. Justifying it does not change the fact that it would be suppression of speech.

This is no different from the part about removing prayer from schools because it could be offensive to minority views. There are plenty of dissenting parents who disagree with CRT BS, so it should be prohibited from public schools for precisely the same reason. It sure sounds like a lot of the left is concerned that 81M isn't going to cut it in future elections, so they need to set the hook early.

 

[Vol8188]

Some topics should be avoided, sometimes. Avoiding CRT in math class and banning any discussion of it in social studies are two completely different things.



Of course not. I have only ever been talking about bans.

1. There's a lot of topics that should be avoided, especially in younger groups. As students progress, I'm okay with that list of things they're exposed to also progressing. The issue isn't the discussion. Social Theories are often presented in the same light as Biological theories. Kids are taught CRT as if it an absolute fact. Where in that teacher resource did you see I provided to begin the conversation did you see anything about this is "a theory" or "what some people believe"? There were no qualifiers. It was just stated as a fact. Individuals=white supremacy. Surely we both see that as a major problem. Do you really think the average or a majority of 6th graders see those things and think "this is just one social science theory and that theory is not equivalent to a scientific theory in terms of its veracity"? This is where the issue arises.

Do you disagree that this is a problem or do you simply believe even if it is a problem, it should be allowed?

2. The term ban doesn't change anything from my perspective. Not all things can/should be taught. If you ban things that should not be taught, I don't see that as suppression. If you don't allow NAMBLA day at your local pre-school, I wouldn't argue you've suppressed NAMBLA. Some ideas are inappropriate for public schools and all content should be age appropriate.

 

[n_huffhines]

This is no different from the part about removing prayer from schools because it could be offensive to minority views. There are plenty of dissenting parents who disagree with CRT BS, so it should be prohibited from public schools for precisely the same reason. It sure sounds like a lot of the left is concerned that 81M isn't going to cut it in future elections, so they need to set the hook early.

Prayer in school wasn't banned because voters/reps found it offensive. It was banned because of a supreme court ruling that found it unconstitutional.

 

[Vol8188]

Prayer in school wasn't banned because voters/reps found it offensive. It was banned because of a supreme court ruling that found it unconstitutional.

I'm curious here. Slightly off-topic but do you consider that a misrepresentation of the 1st amendment?

 

[AM64]

You're talking about the merits of canceling it, not whether or not this is suppression of speech. Clearly, Hitler would be on the side of banning the topic. Can't believe you walked into that one.

No, my viewpoint is different. I have no problem with introducing new fact in schools if it is a proven fact. Teaching as fact something new just because it is a trendy fad introduced by one side of the political spectrum is never appropriate. If something is hard science - fine; if it's the latest from the social sciences, it's probably garbage thinking. It has nothing to do with whether you may or may not teach real fact; this is all about keeping biased dogma out of the educational process when the concept is to brainwash kids who have no system of reference to balance the drivel.

 

[AM64]

Prayer in school wasn't banned because voters/reps found it offensive. It was banned because of a supreme court ruling that found it unconstitutional.

So in effect you are arguing that one thing can be banned from schools because it isn't universally accepted, but another can't for the same reason? If we are going to push political/social dogma that only professes to be true but isn't fact, then we have just flipped education to political reeducation camps and trashed the concept of education.

 

[n_huffhines]

No, my viewpoint is different. I have no problem with introducing new fact in schools if it is a proven fact. Teaching as fact something new just because it is a trendy fad introduced by one side of the political spectrum is never appropriate. If something is hard science - fine; if it's the latest from the social sciences, it's probably garbage thinking. It has nothing to do with whether you may or may not teach real fact; this is all about keeping biased dogma out of the educational process when the concept is to brainwash kids who have no system of reference to balance the drivel.

So if a social studies teacher wanted to introduce into the curriculum the modern concept of cancel culture, you would say "no" because the viewpoints backing it are a trendy fad introduced by one side of the political spectrum, right? We're just going to act like nothing new is ever happening in our world for fear that our kids will get biased information surrounding the topic? I for one, want my kids to be able to discuss difficult topics in school. I definitely do not want them to grow up in a society that thinks it's OK to ban entire topics for all children because some of them may not be ready for it, or because they don't have a system of reference to balance it.

Just cancel school altogether, if this is your justification. The old stuff is biased, too.

 

[n_huffhines]

So in effect you are arguing that one thing can be banned from schools because it isn't universally accepted, but another can't for the same reason? If we are going to push political/social dogma that only professes to be true but isn't fact, then we have just flipped education to political reeducation camps and trashed the concept of education.

Dude, what are you talking about? All I said is that prayer wasn't banned because it was offensive. You said that. You had your facts wrong. I corrected them. I made no judgment about the merits of the ban, I simply gave you the reason for it.

 

[AM64]

So if a social studies teacher wanted to introduce into the curriculum the modern concept of cancel culture, you would say "no" because the viewpoints backing it are a trendy fad introduced by one side of the political spectrum, right? We're just going to act like nothing new is ever happening in our world for fear that our kids will get biased information surrounding the topic? I for one, want my kids to be able to discuss difficult topics in school. I definitely do not want them to grow up in a society that thinks it's OK to ban entire topics for all children because some of them may not be ready for it, or because they don't have a system of reference to balance it.

Just cancel school altogether, if this is your justification. The old stuff is biased, too.

If a current school of thought is brought up in social studies as a current thought rather than taught as factual then it's fine as a discussion topic. It shouldn't be presented as "accepted" or glorified in any way. Then students can address it in discussion or debate. The point is that it needs to be introduced at a grade level when the kids have enough experience to fully understand the intent and have enough life experience to understand balance. Failure to do that makes it simple indoctrination of a political stance.

 

[AM64]

Dude, what are you talking about? All I said is that prayer wasn't banned because it was offensive. You said that. You had your facts wrong. I corrected them. I made no judgment about the merits of the ban, I simply gave you the reason for it.

Christianity is a long term belief of some people; CRT is a much shorter term belief of some people. If one in the classroom is inappropriate, then so is the other. If you without pushing any agenda want to discuss various religions in the classroom, that's fine. I would equate teaching CRT not as one of multiple views deserving equal weight the same as requiring students to participate in prayer. I believe that if you bounced CRT against the belief that change in a minority community must come from within the minority community which is also a common theme that you'd have a really interesting discussion. The interesting thing in those two beliefs is that CRT is like providing a meal and pulling yourself up after being given ample opportunity is like learning to fish for your own food. One is self sustaining, and the other is an excuse for not achieving.

Cultural change works as evolutionary rather than revolutionary change ... it takes time or creates more problems than it solves. CRT in schools is simple an attempt to push revolutionary change.