Capco

A bit early to be talking about Dingus Day.

As far as I can tell, the only direct connection between CRT and public schools is the 1619 Project, which, in certain districts, is allowed to be taught in some (non-radical) form as supplementary material if the teachers/districts desire.

Overall this is a pretty decent take, except for two things. First, I'd throw the very first sentence out: Critical theories are the lens through which K-12 is being taught. I have yet to see evidence that this is happening. The entirety of K-12? Every single class? In every single district? It's unfortunate because this sentence immediately derails the rest of the commentary. Second, this sentence paints with extremely broad brush strokes: Critical theories ignore these icons & so does the left because they disprove the thesis. Like, I could have accepted far left or extreme left, but not just left. Granted, it's Twitter but they also didn't mind writing this over 8 tweets. Also, I'm not sure why you left the last sentence out: Gen Z is the most tolerant generation in history according to social science research, a testament to our success. Since I think it drives home the author's point very well. And that is that you can't have the most tolerant generation in the nation's history if the system is designed to encourage less tolerance. In fact, the ones who seemingly espouse less tolerance (CRT) are also the ones decrying the system that allowed the most tolerant generation in the nation's history to come about. It's just not a good look...

I spent a pretty decent chunk of time writing this and I can't even get a response or reaction from one person? Instead it's just 2 more pages of poo flinging.

I meant to expand on this but I got tired and never actually touched on the specifics that trouble me. I'm just gonna copy/paste from the Wiki page on CRT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), but this page has been watched like a hawk by Wiki's editors lately so I'm pretty sure most of the information on here is accurate. The sources, which I will list at the end, seem legit. First, let's get this "liberal/ism" thing out of the way for the people that see the word and immediately cry foul. In this context it is not a reference to modern day political party ideology, so leave that at the door please. Anyway, my reservations with CRT begin with scholars that question concepts like rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality. These are, imo, extremely important concepts. The implementation of these concepts is necessary for democracy to function at a high level. Furthermore, critiquing ideas like color blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle leave me scratching my head. For example, I don't understand how one can attack the concept of colorblindness. Every single child is born colorblind. If you put 10 toddlers in a room with toys and observe them, they will all start to play with each other irrespective of skin color. They haven't learned about race yet. And rational thought is exactly what brought me to this conclusion. But this is also where the food for thought part of CRT can come into play. For example, if the above reasoning is true, and race isn't a "real" thing, then someone else might come along and say "racism cannot be a real thing if race itself isn't a real thing." Yet we all know that racism is very much a real phenomenon. Criticize Brown v. Board of Education... okay. That doesn't exactly put you in good company. But the underlined part is... well, tbh it sounds like quite a stretch. Reparations is something I have no problem with. But separation? Black nationalism? Are these not divisive stances to take? If black nationalism is okay, then is white nationalism okay too? If not, then there is inherent hypocrisy. And if so, then that ultimately sounds kinda... well, racist, doesn't it? Also note that these quotes are from Views/Common Themes section, and not the Criticism section of the article. Another view CRT holds is the use of storytelling to "name one's own reality." Critics argue that this view, combined with a rejection of merit and rational thought, ends up elevating storytelling over reason and evidence. The following quotes are from the Criticism section, which I believe are pretty self-explanatory. Sources: [9] "The Skin Trade", Richard Posner, 1997 [13] "Critical race theory: An Introduction", Delgado and Stefancic, 2017 [29, 30, 32] "Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography", Delgado and Stefancic, 1993 [51] "Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory's Attack on the Promises of Liberalism", Jeffrey Pyle, 1999 [52] "Bending the Law", Alex Kozinski, 1997

I see what you're saying but it's more nuanced than that. Different branches of social science can be used as tools that help people directly, like psychology for example (well, psychology isn't exactly a social science but it can be considered one). And I think you're presenting a false premise when you compare CRT to the Lost Cause narrative. I've been able to put that sh*t down hard in the past without ever bringing up CRT, or before I even knew of CRT.

No one ever notices the Polish-American cohort until it's too late.

I'm disgusted by the selfishness I've seen today in this thread. I need a break. And a drink.

It. Is. Not. About. Them. It. Is. About. People. Who. Cannot. Get. Vaccinated. It. Is. About. A. Rapid. And. Comprehensive. Response. NOW. That. Mitigates. Future. Outbreaks.

I'm not attempting to predict the future. All I'm saying is that if the states wanted to compel vaccination, they have the power to do so for every single person that does not have a genuine medical excuse.

Oh ho ho, I've been waiting for this one. First, let me point you to these two posts: Finally, the states that do not allow religious exemptions are: California, Maine, Mississippi, New York, West Virginia, and Connecticut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy_in_the_United_States

There are several states that require compulsory vaccinations without exemption unless it's a genuine medical reason. And it is entirely within their power to do so. The states that allow non-medical exemptions do so because they have chosen to, not because they lack the power to do so. If they changed their laws to compel vaccination, it would be entirely Constitutional.

I don't believe I said that nothing bad ever comes from the government. Unless the people themselves are infallible then a government of the people will never be infallible, either. The people of that era wanted eugenics, and so they exercised their popular sovereignty to make it happen. It's easy for us in hindsight to judge their (admittedly gross) misconceptions, but unless you have a better alternative to democratic government, then you're going to have to accept this reality that government can still be beneficial without being perfect in every instance. Imagine the flipside from the perspective of a pro-eugenics American of that era. Imagine if the government told them that they knew better than the populace when it came to the horrors of eugenics, and so decided to disregard the will of the people. In that instance, would you support the government doing the "right" thing (and what is "right" is subjective with the times), or would you support the will of the people?

I want people to stop being obstinate, selfish know-it-alls. I want them to be willing to get vaccinated. But if the government decided it was in the best interest of the welfare of its citizens to compel vaccinations, I would have no qualms about it. It shouldn't have to even get to that point in the first place though.

Yep. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

American exceptionalism at its worst, unfortunately.

Yes, but there are occasionally clever ways for the federal government to coax the states into uniform application of a law across all 50 states, such as judicious use of the Spending Clause. There's one example involving federal transportation funding for highways that I thought had to do with seatbelt wearing laws (something reserved for the states) but I cannot find any evidence for that right now, so it might have been for something else. EDIT: I think I remember now. It was for alcohol intoxication laws across all 50 states.

I think it's also worth pointing out that science is falsifiable (particularly the hard sciences but also the social ones). Scientists and experts are constantly challenging the claims of others in their fields. The entire peer-review process and the scientific method is centered around that. Accountability is built into the system itself. In fact, scientists love being wrong when new information becomes available that invalidates something prior, because it means they have expanded our knowledge about the universe. That's another reason why I have so much faith in the expertise of others. A true expert is never satisfied with the status quo and always pushing the limits of what we know.

My point is that Beasley does not have a Constitutional right to decline a state-mandated compulsory vaccination in lieu of a medical reason. I figured it was pretty clear.

There is currently no state-mandated compulsory vaccination for COVID, but if there were then he, nor anyone else, has any Constitutional right to refuse absent a genuine medical reason to do so. American jurisprudence on this topic is over 100 years old and fairly settled. Individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state. Per Justice Harlan: "[I]n every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and... "Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others." and finally... "[In] extreme cases [for certain individuals] in a particular condition of . . . health, [the requirement of vaccination would be] cruel and inhuman[e], [in which case, courts would be empowered to interfere in order to] prevent wrong and oppression." Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

I've just had an epiphany. People today wouldn't be so quick to condemn the expertise of others with decades of experience in their fields if they actually had to go to the library and check out a book. Easy access to information via the internet is a double-edged sword.

Where did you get opioid addiction from? Fwiw, the reason why I posted that was to exemplify the sad state of affairs with regards to some people refusing to trust the information, experts, and institutions that allow society to exist in the first place.

Cole illustrated the problem perfectly with this tweet:

Friendly reminder: please refrain from injecting political discourse into this discussion. It makes life easier on the moderators.

I'm very pleasantly surprised to see such widespread agreement on what comrade Kay wrote. These conversations give me hope that we can become less divisive and start getting sh*t done again.