Critical race theory teaches black children they are permanently oppressed, and if they believe this, it robs them of their agency and capacity. They will grow up on the dole thinking that they have no potential and cannot make anything out of their life. Critical race theory teaches white children they are permanent oppressors. If they believe this, they will have a guilt complex based on the amount of melanin in their skin. To teach innocent children that one is a permanent victim and one is a permanent persecutor when you know nothing about these children other than their skin color is a faulty generalization and thus a logical fallacy. This teaching is one hundred percent gaslighting and child abuse.
Proof that some laws affect certain races more because of poverty or demographics doesn't necessarily make the law racist. However, if the law is racist, we need to change it. We do not need to brainwash children into thinking they are racist as children do not make the laws. I subscribe to Oxford's classic definition of racism as a noun which says that: racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people based on their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically (but not only) one that is a minority or marginalized. The new definition of racism that the critical theorists have offered up to society is hot garbage. You can eat it, but it tastes like shit.
My son came back from school, reporting that a 13 year old kid had a knife and was threatening people in the school yard. Police was called and the police officer wrestled with the kid, while other kids wanted to protect their comrade. He said, they were saying the kids attacked the officer. He was no witness to the incident, so it's all hear-say. With the result, that all students were given a lesson about it. I asked my son: "And, what is your conclusion of all of this?" He shrugged his shoulders and told me "I don't know. I feel the extra given lesson was a waste of time."
I once in a while ask my son about his opinion of all what is happening. He is not engaging. Smart kid, I think :) Of course, the constant drip will form his later or present actions and thoughts, I also have no doubt. But what I can see, is, that kids are not dumb. All he wants is to have a good place where he is left in peace. He needs adults who stay calm. I admit, that I am not always this type of an adult. But I want him as much as possible to be able to make his choices. And where this is not possible (obviously) not to take over to him my despair of the currents.
No doubt, raising children is one of the biggest challenges and the most important duty of parents, and there is no cookie-cutter way of doing this. So many decisions get made. A lot of the time, people will have to go with their gut instinct on various matters. If you give children too large a dose about the reality of the world they're growing up in—I can see how that might be doing them a disservice. Yet, at the same time, if you don't give them enough, they won't be prepared for that post-graduation reality.
I guess maybe half the battle of parenting is how to convey a positive way of viewing the world and solving problems. Teaching children to see the silver-linings or opportunities amidst the dark clouds might be a recipe for surviving the stormy weather of tyranny that seems to be enveloping the globe. And you can trick people into thinking critically on any matter simply by asking them questions that force them to think. If their answers show they are not using their thoughts, you can follow up with another question.
The positive side is there is no way the school can prevent you from teaching your child how to think critically. The downside of critical thinking is that a mad world drives sane people crazy. As an aside, seeing as I did bring up critical thinking. I should specify that it has nothing to do with critical theory. If anything, critical thinking debunks critical theory by exposing how illogical and destructive it is to developing minds.
I agree.
Just wanted to ad that children do not follow so much theories, even don't understand them in the way we adults think and talk about theories. They observe their environment and realize when school offers nothing but theories. Which is mostly the case. I think I myself was born into a world where theory was more important than practice, but for some reason I kept feeling that this can not be all. Also, the different behaviors of adults gave me reason to doubt them or to be skeptical. Or, trust them. It really depends which adults a kid encounters during his or her early lifetime, and their relationship to each other.
To ignore ones other madness and talk to him/her in a way which brings reason and interest into the dialogue can build a bridge. When the world seems to become mad its even more important to find and accentuate sanity in those, one meets. I admit, that this is very difficult.
What's your counter-position ?
Citation please.
The systems teaching this are poisoning the well to discredit party A based on their skin color and to credit party B based on their skin color. These caste-like credits and debits (or merits and demerits) ultimately divide people based on skin color, and that makes the practice racist in and of itself. To treat people differently because of their skin color is the textbook definition of racism. I realize that critical theorists want to replace the curriculum with one of their devising, but we must think critically about what their design aims to achieve. America has made great strides towards improvement and should continue to do so in reasonable ways.
If America outlawed the for-profit prison industry, that alone would go a long way towards disincentivizing recidivism and stupid laws. The war on marijuana is worse than prohibition. That's another thing that needs to get relegated to the dustbin of history. The Harrison Bergeron approach is a dystopic one and unhelpful at that. We don't need a future that resembles our new post-modern educayshun. These are my thoughts on the matter. Jordan Peterson speaks to it further with intense clarity, considering that equity & equality are in the same wheelhouse.
do you really believe we live in a "meritocracy" now ?
Not with regards to government. If you see a competent business or business person, that is evidence of a meritocracy. If someone has built a successful business and it has not failed, generally, this means the style in which they made their business decisions were meritorious. If it was not, their business would not have thrived.
In political science, the term banana republic describes a politically unstable country with an economy dependent upon the exportation of a limited-resource product, such as bananas or minerals. In 1904, the American author O. Henry coined the term to describe Honduras and neighbouring countries under economic exploitation by U.S. corporations, such as the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita Brands International).[1] Typically, a banana republic has a society of extremely stratified social classes, usually a large impoverished working class and a ruling class plutocracy, composed of the business, political, and military elites of that society.[2] The ruling class controls the primary sector of the economy by way of the exploitation of labor;[3] thus, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation.[3]
A banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, whereby the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies, in which the profit, derived from the private exploitation of public lands, is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury. Such an imbalanced economy remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country and usually reduces the national currency into devalued banknotes (paper money), rendering the country ineligible for international development credit.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
See, there is a difference between the country and everything else. The less healthy the people and corporations, the more the government has to feed off them to maintain its survival, and the government itself is nothing but a corporation.
the government itself is nothing but a corporation
and corporations are NOT MERITOCRACIES
i wish we had "hierarchies of competence"
John Ehrlichman was a scumbag, no doubt.
You can't just throw competence out because
TPTB use blackmailed pawns to do their bidding.
The world still needs competence if we are to have
any merit as a species and avoid extinction overall.
Sure, some skill and competence and "conscientiousness" might move you from the bottom to the middle, maybe, if you're lucky, it's still a roll of the dice.
(IFF) CEOs ARE SO FUCKING SMART (THEN) WHY DID THEY NEED A BAILOUT ??
AND IF YOU THINK THEY WERE SMART BECAUSE THEY PREDICTED THE BAILOUT, THEN THEY ARE PSYCHOPATHS.
See, you are focusing on the very top CEOs that government keeps artificially afloat with corporate welfare. And this is a prime example of an entity that is not meritorious. In "realityville," the unmeritorious companies go bankrupt.
[/fullstop]That right there, realityville is a wise idea as it separates the wheat from the chaff. However, politicians are weak and for sale.And the people are idiots that don't know better who were raise on Keynesian economics, which creates much more space for failure than Austrian economics. In Keynesian economics, we keep fixing the bad-business practices of poor business decisions with more new money instead of the types of real-world consequences that would see low (and many times unmeritorious) men out of a job.
When you move from the Keynesian model to the Austrian model, successful people and corporations did it by themselves, and the market sorts out the winners and the losers without help from "free money." If a nation-state keeps crutching on free money and market manipulations of that sort, sooner or later, the world loses faith in their trade instruments, just as the world has lost faith in the dollar and our gross expansion of it.
Idiot CEOs that need a bailout, what they needed was a pink slip. And their customers who trusted them needed a taste of failure. They needed to eat shit to learn why it's a bad idea to fail. If you keep bailing them out, then nobody evolves and gets good.
If you ride a bike and fail, but instead of skinning your knee, a magical burst of wind blows up from the sewers and keeps you afloat, it doesn't make a better bike rider. The magic shit wind stops you from learning how to ride a bike. The same is true with businesses and the notion of free money that keeps getting replaced at the taxpayer's expense without consequences.
That's the thing about success in the marketplace. It's not about luck at all. There is good business that meets the market's demands, and then there are poor businesses that do not. The poor business decisions that are unmeritorious deserve to fail and not receive free and magical money.
The private/public partnership that the FED has with the U.S. government keeps it in funny money regardless of its merit, and this is why we have a shit government. We would do well to pretend that magical $ does not exist, and this is because for all practical purposes, it does not, and everything comes at a price.
Merit and hard work and skill can (sometimes) help you build a reputation and can (sometimes) help you gain wealth and power.
and can (sometimes) get your thumbs cut off.
a true genius rigs the game so they always win