The narrator states, "those who wrote the (anti-CRT) legislation don't understand what CRT is." No evidence was provided for this assertion. It seems that it's a way to portray dissent as a result of ignorance and not a form of legitimate disagreement. In other words, dehumanizing the opposition.
I disagree. Evidence for that assertion is provided throughout the video. The fact that much of the anti-CRT legislation is focused on banning CRT in k-12 schools where it is NOT taught, suggests that those proposing it don't understand what it is. The fact that the legislation is often vague and confusing is further evidence. I am all for legitimate disagreement and dissent. What I am suggesting here is that the form this particular dissent has taken is not fully rational and not based on any actual facts or occurrences, but rather on fear. The word "ignorance" is yours, and not one I have used in this video.
@grouprelationstheoryandpra2395 You support legitimate disagreement and dissent. One clarification before I respond to your message: on what basis could someone legitimately oppose CRT?
@@andrewpirr your question as to how one might legitimately oppose CRT seems bogus to me. Academics disagree all the time about theories and attempt to offer data to refute it. What I find disturbing about the anti-CRT groups I discussed in my video, is not their dissent, but their hypocrisy and radicalism. They do not aim to counter the ideas expressed in CRT, but aim to ban discussion of it, or books about it altogether. It is a very anti-democratic approach.
@grouprelationstheoryandpra2395 The question is valid. Asserting that it is "bogus" without evidence is not an argument. If a person can not respond to a valid question, he or she demonstrates the weakness of his or her position. I'll repeat the question once, on what basis would you consider opposition to CRT legitimate?
Doesn't matter what else CRT is; as long as it is a propaganda tool for a nationwide movement blaming their troubles on an entire race, it has no place in government; including government schools. If you want to teach militant racial chauvinism; you'll have to do it outside government institutions and without government agents.
@MichaelCoffee It seems pretty clear to me from your comment (and from my analytics) that you have not actually watched the video. I'm happy to engage with people who take the time to watch the video in its entirety and then want to explore what it means. I am less inclined to engage in debate with those who can't be bothered to actually listen to what I am saying or learn anything about the topic beyond the "talking points" of politicians who also have little to no understanding of the subject, and only wish to fire up the base, and sew divisiveness.
@@grouprelationstheoryandpra2395 So; I forced you to refuse. I am powerful, indeed! The operative question is: Do you support using government force to implement racial discrimination? All the rest is academic.
@@michaelpcoffee Thank you for your responses. They actually prove many of the points that I make in my video. If you watched the video, you might understand what they are. To answer your question--no, I do not support using government force to implement racial discrimination--this is why I made the video. CRT also challenges the use of government force to implement racial discrimination. Racial discrimination has been embedded in our legal and governmental institutions from the start. That is what CRT is saying. I challenge you to watch the video and learn something.
The narrator states, "those who wrote the (anti-CRT) legislation don't understand what CRT is."
No evidence was provided for this assertion. It seems that it's a way to portray dissent as a result of ignorance and not a form of legitimate disagreement. In other words, dehumanizing the opposition.
I disagree. Evidence for that assertion is provided throughout the video. The fact that much of the anti-CRT legislation is focused on banning CRT in k-12 schools where it is NOT taught, suggests that those proposing it don't understand what it is. The fact that the legislation is often vague and confusing is further evidence. I am all for legitimate disagreement and dissent. What I am suggesting here is that the form this particular dissent has taken is not fully rational and not based on any actual facts or occurrences, but rather on fear. The word "ignorance" is yours, and not one I have used in this video.
@grouprelationstheoryandpra2395 You support legitimate disagreement and dissent. One clarification before I respond to your message: on what basis could someone legitimately oppose CRT?
@@andrewpirr your question as to how one might legitimately oppose CRT seems bogus to me. Academics disagree all the time about theories and attempt to offer data to refute it. What I find disturbing about the anti-CRT groups I discussed in my video, is not their dissent, but their hypocrisy and radicalism. They do not aim to counter the ideas expressed in CRT, but aim to ban discussion of it, or books about it altogether. It is a very anti-democratic approach.
@grouprelationstheoryandpra2395 The question is valid. Asserting that it is "bogus" without evidence is not an argument. If a person can not respond to a valid question, he or she demonstrates the weakness of his or her position. I'll repeat the question once, on what basis would you consider opposition to CRT legitimate?
🌹 p̲r̲o̲m̲o̲s̲m̲
Doesn't matter what else CRT is; as long as it is a propaganda tool for a nationwide movement blaming their troubles on an entire race, it has no place in government; including government schools.
If you want to teach militant racial chauvinism; you'll have to do it outside government institutions and without government agents.
@MichaelCoffee It seems pretty clear to me from your comment (and from my analytics) that you have not actually watched the video. I'm happy to engage with people who take the time to watch the video in its entirety and then want to explore what it means.
I am less inclined to engage in debate with those who can't be bothered to actually listen to what I am saying or learn anything about the topic beyond the "talking points" of politicians who also have little to no understanding of the subject, and only wish to fire up the base, and sew divisiveness.
@@grouprelationstheoryandpra2395
Okydoky.
You refuse discourse.
Noted.
Thanks.
@@michaelpcoffee that is a projection. Discourse requires listening, and you have not listened to my video or reply.
@@grouprelationstheoryandpra2395
So; I forced you to refuse.
I am powerful, indeed!
The operative question is:
Do you support using government force to implement racial discrimination?
All the rest is academic.
@@michaelpcoffee Thank you for your responses. They actually prove many of the points that I make in my video. If you watched the video, you might understand what they are. To answer your question--no, I do not support using government force to implement racial discrimination--this is why I made the video. CRT also challenges the use of government force to implement racial discrimination. Racial discrimination has been embedded in our legal and governmental institutions from the start. That is what CRT is saying. I challenge you to watch the video and learn something.