Opinion piece on schools and CRT

Post Reply New Topic

He's not the best, he's an old neo-con who changed his spots a few years ago when he figured out there was more money to be made working the other side of the aisle, basically a con man. I'm all for changing your opinion as new information comes to light, or you come to see things differently, but this guy literally repudiated his entire political life overnight as if it were a religious conversion (he wasn't the only one, Jen Rubin is another good example), and that's just not something that occurs naturally, it's more a signal that he never really had any principles to begin with.

Like him or not, give him credit for phrasing that whole "true it isn't CRT but Democrats know what they mean and have to let go" thing in a way I found convincing. I still hate it; terms shouldn't have their true meaning undermined in that way, but I'm working on the letting go part.

Well, if he changes back to an a$$hole after Trump is just a distant image in the rearview mirror, then I'll concede you're right. Till then, I'll verbally continue to slap him on the back.

You know personally I’ve been achingly specific about my critiques of social justice politics, but fine - no woke, it’s a “dogwhistle” for racism. (The term “dogwhistle” is a way for people to simply impute attitudes you don’t hold onto you, to make it easier to dismiss criticism, for the record.) But the same people say there’s no such thing as political correctness, and they also say identity politics is a bigoted term. So I’m kind of at a loss. Also, they propose sweeping changes to K-12 curricula, but you can’t call it CRT, even though the curricular documents specifically reference CRT, and if you do you’re an idiot and also you’re a racist cryptofascist. Also nobody (nobody!) ever advocated for defunding the police, and if they did it didn’t actually mean defunding the police. Seems to be a real resistance to simple, comprehensible terms around here. Serwer is a guy who constantly demands that he and his allies be allowed to do politics on easy mode, but he’s just part of a broader communal rejection of basic self-definition and comprehensible terms for this political tendency. Also if you say things they don’t like they might try to beat you up. Emphasis on try.

If you ask these people, are you part of a social revolution?, they’ll loudly tell you yes! Yes they are! They’re going to shake society at its very foundations. Well, OK then -what do I call your movement? You reject every name that organically develops! I’ll use the name you pick, but you have to actually pick one. You can’t just b***h on Twitter every time someone tries to describe your political cohort, which again you yourself say intends to change the world. Name yourself or you will be named.

The basic stance of the social justice set, for a long time now, has been that they are 100% exempt from ordinary politics. BlackLivesMatter proponents have spent a year and a half acting as though their demand for justice is so transcendently, obviously correct that they don’t have to care about politics. When someone like David Shor gently says that they in fact do have to care about politics, and points out that they’ve accomplished nothing, they attack him rather than do the work of making their positions popular. Well, sooner or later, guys, you have to actually give a s**t about what people who aren’t a part of your movement think. Sorry. That’s life. The universe is indifferent to your demand for justice, and will remain so until you bother to try to change minds. Nobody gives you what you want. That’s not how it works. Do politics. Think and speak strategically. Be disciplined. Work harder. And for f**k’s sake, give me a simple term to use to address you. Please? Because right now it sure looks like you don’t want to be named because you don’t want to be criticized.

Edit: I might not have underlined this point enough - I sincerely am asking for a better term and would happily use one if offered. If woke, political correctness, identity politics, etc, are inflammatory terms, I'd be happy to substitute something that's not. But surely something is happening in our politics, and we have to be able to talk about it. So I'm asking for a name.

Good piece on the CRT name shell-game:

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/pl ... ll-me-what

There's that proud double standard, you don't care that the guy is a scumbag as long as he's telling you what you want to hear.

No, you think he's a scumbag for deserting the right wing banner. He's made the conscientious choice not to blindly follow the GOP up Trump's pooper as so many others are, and I see that as admirable.

As I've made very clear, I think he's a grifter because he changed all of his opinions overnight, a.

As I've made very clear, I think he's a grifter because he changed all of his opinions overnight, at no point did I critique him for the opinions themselves, only the quick change in response to a market shift. Really, don't try and pin opinions on me, that's rude, and it never ends well for you.

As I've made very clear, I think he's a grifter because he changed all of his opinions overnight, at no point did I critique him for the opinions themselves, only the quick change in response to a market shift. Really, don't try and pin opinions on me, that's rude, and it never ends well for you.

So, Boot had a "Paul on the road to Damascus" conversion. That doesn't make him wrong or bad. It certainly doesn't make him wrong or bad just because he disagrees with you.

I think it's pretty clear that Dox47 already knows that. But he's allowed to have his opinions on the character of a public figure, and it looks to me like sharing it was simply a counterbalance to your opinion, and a reminder to readers like me that focusing on content not authors is usually a good thing. I don't see anything positive coming from you two fighting over the man.

NO! Boot's my man, not Dox's!

He never was my man, as I'm not and have never been a Neo-Con.

You're really going out of your way to prove my point by the way, that as long as someone tells you what you want to hear, you don't scrutinize them in any way, you save that for people who say things you don't like.

Bill was trying to be funny, playing off “fighting over the man.” Or is there a joke on a joke I’m missing here?

Bill was trying to be funny, playing off “fighting over the man.” Or is there a joke on a joke I’m missing here?