The All Things Political Topic - Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one

[Hurlshort]

Dolly Parton is awesome. I took the family to the Dixie Stampede many years ago.

[alanschu]

She seems like one of those just unabashedly good/wonderful people. Keanu Reeves is another one.

[Gromnir]

9 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

Dolly Parton is awesome. I took the family to the Dixie Stampede many years ago.

national treasure gets thrown around a bit too much, but she is one o' the few entertainers we would argue who deserves the appellation. 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, alanschu said:

It is not haha. More backend-y type of stuff that I can't speak too much about at the moment

Can I ask you a question that maybe you cant share. Its about Bioware and its future. I have always supported the studio and I have enjoyed and play most of the new games. I haven't played DA:I yet but its on  my Steam list 

I particularly appreciated Biowares efforts at more inclusivity in the normal optional Romance arcs. And in DA2 I romanced the beautiful, liberated Isabella and I did enjoy DA2  despite some obvious design laziness. Now people think I  am trolling when I say I enjoyed DA2 but I did and the narrative had some great feature likes the war Magi Circle war vs Templars. And the fact you progressed in Hawkes  life was something different and fun 

So I have been a little worried about rumors the studio is closing and I hope it is not and is DA4 a real project?

Because if you can  share some news I would like to use that on Codex but just address the " Bioware is shutting down and DA4 is vaporware " but I wont use your name but say something like " an ex-Bioware employer has said the game is coming along "  or something similar 

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, alanschu said:

It is not haha. More backend-y type of stuff that I can't speak too much about at the moment

I'm just going to assume that you're working on the Epic side of 'Witcher 4' then, because that would be cool.

(was going to say please be adding a shopping cart to Epic Store so everyone would shut up about it, but apparently one was added some time ago)

[ComradeYellow]

I'm way away from the southern states yet I see a lot of idiots sporting Confederate Flags, I think it's a rural thing now and poor/lower middle pickup driving whites are just fed up with rich cosmopolitan liberals so they figured they go the troll route.

Eh, whatever, I'm not fond of liberals either so I wouldn't mind a Marxist and Conservative alliance against liberals but something tells me North American conservatives don't even know what Marxism is or anything left of Democrats so it's probably a waste of time bothering.

B3st advice if you want to live in Amerikka is to just make money and STFU, tbh.

[Malcador]

Clearly, Sherman didn't burn enough.

[alanschu]

43 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Clearly, Sherman didn't burn enough.

I have heard that the reconstruction stuff def ended up waffling a lot and most (seriousish) history types I know point at that being pretty impactful!

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

Clearly, Sherman didn't burn enough.

Thats right Malc, more civilian deaths and destruction of property would have helped with reconcilliation and healing after the terrible carnage of the civil war 

[Malcador]

14 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Thats right Malc, more civilian deaths and destruction of property would have helped with reconcilliation and healing after the terrible carnage of the civil war 

Easy to reconcile with corpses.

[BruceVC]

28 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Easy to reconcile with corpses.

Malc, thats it !!!  You learn to stop learning Russian, its rubbing off on you in the wrong way 

 

 

[BruceVC]

On 4/5/2022 at 2:49 PM, Chairchucker said:

I'm assuming you don't genuinely think they would do any of those things, and are just using hyperbole.

 

If CRT were taught at schools, (which there is no evidence has ever been a thought, save for the scare tactics of ignorant Republican politicians) I'm not yet convinced that would be a bad thing. Same with open borders, unless you subscribe to Trump's racist 'they're rapists and criminals' nonsense, I just don't see what the issue would be. And, predictably being the Australian that I am, I definitely think gun control is something the US should have a crack at.

I meant to ask you this at the time but I got distracted, I appreciate your honest views but it also highlights the problem with the view  " if CRT were taught at schools " yet can you find a legitimate example of the school curriculum ?

Gromnirs 12 year old 120 page .PDF or the actual Harvard course I doubt would be the school curriculum and I am battling to find a normal reference to the attempt  to bring this into schools. I have found links like this and its paints a grim picture if this true. Its long but go through it to understand my concern

https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2021/05/critical-race-theory-in-wisconsin-k12-education/

But this doesnt support the view that says " CRT is just fearmongering and no schools are teaching it "  because its only not taught because its been prudently banned and if their was no curriculum for schools then why would teachers be talking about things like "CRT  has been banned in schools " if their was no real course? Surly liberal teachers wouldn't be so uninformed to complain about something that they dont know if its true?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/01/aclu-fights-state-bans-teaching-critical-race-theory

So I would like us to move away from suggesting " its not real, nothing to see here " and rather I would just like to find one link that highlights an official school curriculum 

Its a pity @Hurlshot generally doesnt respond to my posts or these types of debates because I think he is uniquely qualified as a history teacher to shares his views on CRT and the attempts to teach it at schools ?

 

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by BruceVC

[alanschu]

There's the official CRT which is a framework in law school to look at legal events particularly through the lens of minority races to try to gain some insights for how the justice system impacts other races.

There's the more colloquial use of the term which is about doing similar stuff with more than just a high level college course... basically trying to empathize with other viewpoints when looking at events to understand why differences may be present. A bit more generally, looking back at history and things like Manifest Destiny and suggesting maybe that wasn't a great motivator for colonizing the western part of the continent.

People like Chris Rufo use it as a catch all term for almost anything that could be seen as "critical" of the United States/white people (he has literally admitted this on his twitter) and twist it into this idea that schools are teaching white children to be ashamed and that it is making said white children depressed and ashamed of being an American etc.

 

As an interesting anecdote to this though, a friend of mine is a history PhD at Kansas University, made an interesting observation with his students he teaches as a TA. Part of the conservative fear is white children being all depressed and feeling shame etc and we need to protect children from that. He notes that to some degree they are telling on themselves, because there is the assumption that if we teach some of the horrors of slavery in US history, that the white kids will identify with the slave owners and not the non-trivial amount of white abolitionists that existed at the time and recognized that slavery was wrong. His experience is that the students tend to not side with the slave owners.

Dr. Ibram X Kendi gave a brief talk for us at EA one day where he mentioned the same thing. By refusing to discuss realities of slavery in the US history, it means that the abolition movement is not taught and that white people were very involved in that as well.

I speculate that there's a hefty degree of projection going with some of the people in power advocating against "CRT" and whom they likely identify with in some way.

[Gromnir]

am believing the technical description o' flexible and self-serving "definitions" is malarkey. call us provincial, be we got a suspicion o' any definition which is fluid, changing to fit the individual speaker/writer's biases and point o' view.

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, alanschu said:

There's the official CRT which is a framework in law school to look at legal events particularly through the lens of minority races to try to gain some insights for how the justice system impacts other races.

There's the more colloquial use of the term which is about doing similar stuff with more than just a high level college course... basically trying to empathize with other viewpoints when looking at events to understand why differences may be present. A bit more generally, looking back at history and things like Manifest Destiny and suggesting maybe that wasn't a great motivator for colonizing the western part of the continent.

People like Chris Rufo use it as a catch all term for almost anything that could be seen as "critical" of the United States/white people (he has literally admitted this on his twitter) and twist it into this idea that schools are teaching white children to be ashamed and that it is making said white children depressed and ashamed of being an American etc.

 

As an interesting anecdote to this though, a friend of mine is a history PhD at Kansas University, made an interesting observation with his students he teaches as a TA. Part of the conservative fear is white children being all depressed and feeling shame etc and we need to protect children from that. He notes that to some degree they are telling on themselves, because there is the assumption that if we teach some of the horrors of slavery in US history, that the white kids will identify with the slave owners and not the non-trivial amount of white abolitionists that existed at the time and recognized that slavery was wrong. His experience is that the students tend to not side with the slave owners.

Dr. Ibram X Kendi gave a brief talk for us at EA one day where he mentioned the same thing. By refusing to discuss realities of slavery in the US history, it means that the abolition movement is not taught and that white people were very involved in that as well.

I speculate that there's a hefty degree of projection going with some of the people in power advocating against "CRT" and whom they likely identify with in some way.

This is exactly the type of response I have been looking for around this topic and I think because most people arent really interested in the CRT debates we never really get into them on this level. So thanks for commenting because I want to go a bit deeper on my view

This topic does get hijacked in the US by some on the left and right, Ted Cruz openly says  " CRT is racist  and its wrong " and he adds to the irrational but well meaning fear of white American parents who I can guarantee dont know exactly  what CRT is about but demand that its not taught because they fear their kids will be forced to admit " Im white and that means Im racist " or something else that is equally inaccurate and silly. 

Then on the left I have heard  activists say things like "CRT is about the truth of the US, and the truth is about admitting the US was built on slavery and racism" or something similar and I dont agree  with that either because the US was not just built on those things and the suggestion that any country in the world would expect their citizens to somehow be taught  that country was built only the negative realities of their is history is absurd 

And your anecdotal story is something else that confuses me, I would assume that it  is intrinsically part of the normal history at all US schools that slavery existed and also that Northern states were opposed to it and stories of abolishment are recorded . But thats how normal history is taught and when you taught history no one gets blamed, its an accurate account of the history. In SA it  is common historical knowledge that Apartheid was implemented in 1948 by white, Afrikaners. I am white, English South African and my grandparents voted for the English political party. So historically my ancestors were not responsible for the implementation of Apartheid and even if I was Afrikaans Im still not my grandparents. But many white people in SA understand we have a real responsibility to  do what we can to address the Apartheid legacy issues 

And this history of the creation of Apartheid is part of our school history but white Afrikaners dont get blamed but they are obviously mentioned as supporting the National Party that implemented it 

So going back CRT in the US, do you have a school curriculum that at least shows what at the school level has been suggested, I cant find it but they must  exist ? Because the best solution to this debate is for us to see exactly what they saying on the school level to see how reasonable or accurate it is. And their will be no more unnecessary confusion and parents overreacting  

And then one last issue, all school subjects I have ever studied are based on proven and almost globally recognized areas of knowledge. I find it strange that their is a desire to bring in a subject that is University designed into the school level. Is that that how new subjects get created in the US? 

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by BruceVC

[Chairchucker]

40 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Then on the left I have heard  activists say things like "CRT is about the truth of the US, and the truth is about admitting the US was built on slavery and racism" or something similar and I dont agree  with that either because the US was not just built on those things and the suggestion that any country in the world would expect their citizens to somehow be taught  that country was built only the negative realities of their is history is absurd

You've added a 'just' and an 'only' there where they previously weren't. I'm aware of very few proposed history topics that include, as part of their subject, an explicit (or implicit for that matter) 'and these bad things are the sum total of what happened.'

 

BUT

 

In my opinion it is WAY MORE IMPORTANT to talk about the bad parts of history, ie the bits we need to not repeat.

[BruceVC]

9 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

You've added a 'just' and an 'only' there where they previously weren't. I'm aware of very few proposed history topics that include, as part of their subject, an explicit (or implicit for that matter) 'and these bad things are the sum total of what happened.'

 

BUT

 

In my opinion it is WAY MORE IMPORTANT to talk about the bad parts of history, ie the bits we need to not repeat.

No thats not the reason people are taught history, history is about the events that created things we use or know about nowadays and its unbiased and inclusive of all relevant parts that contributed towards that event 

You definitely dont want to focus on the bad parts because it will create an inaccurate view of that event which defeats the point of learning history. History is not a selective ideological  tool to create or  suit a certain narrative 

Because what would be  the point and benefit of teaching history like you suggested and can you give an example ?

Edited April 9, 2022 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

I am 100% opposed to CRT. QLED/LCD gives a much brighter picture, is lighter, cheaper, more environmentally friendly to make and uses less than 30% of the power. The max practical resolution a CRT can give is 1024 x 768 at 120 Hz and that screen would have to be at least 36".

Edited April 9, 2022 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

12 hours ago, alanschu said:

I have heard that the reconstruction stuff def ended up waffling a lot and most (seriousish) history types I know point at that being pretty impactful!

Reconstruction following the US Civil War had it's positives and negatives. Far more of the latter though. It ended up being an object lesson of well intentioned but badly managed government.  It a shame Lincoln was murdered. Johnson was not a capable President and held no influence over the Congress which was demanding a much more punitive post war plan than the one originally envisioned. Grant, for all of his leadership and popularity could not control the people in his own administration and was extremely inconsistent in dealing the the problems in the southern states. The Congress wanted  it too heavy handed. Grant wasn't heavy handed enough. Johnson was useless. I suspect Lincoln could have struck the right tone had things well on the way before he left office. It's hard to say. 

One good thing that did come of it was the lessons learned that were eventually applied to the Marshall Plan.

[alanschu]

7 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I am 100% opposed to CRT. QLED/LCD gives a much brighter picture, is lighter, cheaper, more environmentally friendly to make and uses less than 30% of the power. The max practical resolution a CRT can give is 1024 x 768 at 120 Hz and that screen would have to be at least 36".

This is giving me nightmares of my 19" CRT monitor I moved 3 times in 3 years........

Been happy with 24" monitors every since BioWare gave me one. I have heard from other friends that Epic will likely be sending me some 27" monitors which means... I will no longer be content with 24" monitors and will definitely need a bigger desk lol.

[Azdeus]

3 minutes ago, alanschu said:

This is giving me nightmares of my 19" CRT monitor I moved 3 times in 3 years........

Been happy with 24" monitors every since BioWare gave me one. I have heard from other friends that Epic will likely be sending me some 27" monitors which means... I will no longer be content with 24" monitors and will definitely need a bigger desk lol.

I miss my 21" CRT

[alanschu]

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

And your anecdotal story is something else that confuses me, I would assume that it  is intrinsically part of the normal history at all US schools that slavery existed and also that Northern states were opposed to it and stories of abolishment are recorded . But thats how normal history is taught and when you taught history no one gets blamed, its an accurate account of the history.

There is a complicated history and (IMO) unpleasantly motivated reasonings to obfuscate some of the darker parts and motivations. For example there's a very genuine belief among a lot of people that the US Civil War was not fought over the institution of slavery but that that was just one part of it. Except there's a lot of primary sources (i.e. newspapers, letters, and other correspondence written at the time) that challenges these claims. Many of the declarations of secession that states issues explicitly talk about the threat that Lincoln's election to President was seen to have over the South's right to own slaves. There was articles put out in newspapers warning of the Northern states wanting to get rid of slavery to help ensure that poorer white people in the South would then become wage slaves. There was even on General, General Cleburne (a white immigrant to the US), who suggested that the South consider emancipating slaves to help with army recruitment. This suggestion was suppressed/covered up to prevent public outcry and some considered it an Abolitionist Conspiracy. Even when someone like General Lee was open to it in the later part of the war, as most definitely a Man of the South he was still interested in preserving the racial hierarchy and even posited that it'd be in the black man's best interest to preserve slavery. But also that even in the South the votes to secede were not unanimous and there were indeed people in the South that did not feel like seceding was a good idea.

This is pretty common in other aspects of history, like the idea that someone like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was universally loved for his messages, or the selective quotation of his "I have a Dream" speech while overlooking writings he had like the Letter from a Birmingham Jail. And there's no shortage of modern day centrist/moderate Democrats that gloss over facts that the North did not fight to free the slaves but to preserve the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation came during the war. Or that Lincoln, not supporting slavery, was not a radical abolitionist and didn't believe in equality between whites and black. But this NPR (ostensibly classified as "left wing" media) article shows, I feel, how we really need to step back and reevaluate what racism in our society means because they suggest that if we consider that Lincoln may have been racist in some ways himself, "then that is the end of the story because he was no different from the proslavery Douglas, for example, and there is no point in investigating the matter any further." I find this a ridiculous perspective because I feel it's easy to recognize that someone (even myself!) can still have racist perspectives that need unpacking that are milder than "I hate black people and we should enslave them."

US Politics is itself a weird revisionist where you'll see Republicans point out that they can't be the racist party, because in the 1860s Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats dominated the South... yet those same Republicans get very defensive towards a bunch of "Democrats" when criticism gets tossed their way. It's surreal at times. There are members of Congress suggesting if you support trans, or even other LGBTQ people, then you're a groomer... all the while supporting lowering age that children can get married. Feels like one of those "the accusation is a confession" type of moments.

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

So going back CRT in the US, do you have a school curriculum that at least shows what at the school level has been suggested, I cant find it but they must  exist ? Because the best solution to this debate is for us to see exactly what they saying on the school level to see how reasonable or accurate it is.

I don't have any examples unfortunately. The best I have is my wife and inlaw family experience, who all agree that their rural high school didn't just teach that Manifest Destiny was a thing in the 19th Century, but that it was a good thing. But a "Critical Race Theory" perspective would explore looking at this through the lens of indigenous peoples, Spanish/Mexicans, and whatnot.

 

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

And their will be no more unnecessary confusion and parents overreacting

It's hard to not just be overly cynical but unfortunately I do not see this as an end to confusion and parents overreacting because, I feel, there are enough people with enough power that greatly benefit by sowing seeds that benefit from the confusion and overreactions. I frankly wish I had more concrete solutions to addressing this but I do not.

 

EDIT: I should add that this is definitely not US alone. My provincial Premier effectively saying "we are getting rid of critical race theory, wokeness, activist teachers, and inappropriate sexual content."

Edited April 9, 2022 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

9 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I am 100% opposed to CRT. QLED/LCD gives a much brighter picture, is lighter, cheaper, more environmentally friendly to make and uses less than 30% of the power. The max practical resolution a CRT can give is 1024 x 768 at 120 Hz and that screen would have to be at least 36".

Ah yes, the glories of the 90s era Silicon Graphics workstation monitor (Onyx?) that felt like it was literally made from neutronium.

When they were phased out I bought an SGI Indy for $50 on the proviso that I also had to take its monitor because the tech guy didn't want to bother with them, and they took up so much space.

(Kind of wish I'd managed to snag an Indigo2 when they were discontinued to see if its case could be rigged for a PC. Lot more charisma than the standard beige/ white/ black/ windowed box)

[ComradeYellow]

I think Lincoln was against slavery but remember he was a politician first and foremost, and their job is to tell people what they want to hear to get elected and enact policies that ensure re-election.  It wasn't until late in the war when it became politically feasible to gear towards abolitionism due to the war dragging on longer and bloodier than literally anyone in the country anticipated (The American mindset being "All this death and carnage has to have some kind of moral meaning to it is well in line with American Christianity at the time).

Interesting time and I find it fascinating and disturbing that renewed interest in both the American Civil War and WW2 has generated lots of renewed interest lately.  Another big war soon?  What are the dividing lines?  Time will tell!

[Gromnir]

6 hours ago, alanschu said:

I don't have any examples unfortunately. The best I have is my wife and inlaw family experience, who all agree that their rural high school didn't just teach that Manifest Destiny was a thing in the 19th Century, but that it was a good thing. But a "Critical Race Theory" perspective would explore looking at this through the lens of indigenous peoples, Spanish/Mexicans, and whatnot.

at best this description is wrong. a critical race theory perspective would purposeful avoid trying to account for the perspective of indigenous peoples and minorities such as chinese immigrants. one o' the fundamental aspects o' crt is to allow for a dispassionate examination o' laws, rules, banking and government institutions. in a crt seminar one is gonna consider laws and institutions broad sans all the tendency to attribute blame based on the degree o' moral turpitude resulting from racial animus. lending and immigration laws may have been written with the intent to exploit minorities, or perhaps not. don't much matter from the pov o' a crt examination. disparate impact is all but presumed and no attempt to assign appropriate blame occurs with a crt analysis. more important is to explore how and why the laws and institutions with their inequitable impact change, or do not. what pressures, whether social, religious or economic, bring about changes? 

crt is not a fluid definition anymore than is the general theory of relativity.

however, keep in mind, we already had this exercise, reviewing what the current gop identifies as crt being taught in public schools.

again, ro the umpteenth time, crt is not being taught in public schools in the US.

numerous states has banned teaching which might make students feel bad 'bout their race, supposed 'cause o' crt, which is nuts and actual a bit disheartening as a signifficant goal o' crt were to come up with a scheme for future lawyers to consider the impact and inertia o' systemic racism w/o all the race-based baggage. in point o' fact, is only a couple state legislatures which decided to use the crt language in their bans, which kinda makes sense as is not genuine crt which is being banned. 

elements o' the gop, mostly conservative radio hosts and bloggers, recognizing the resurgence o' fear and intolerance in their party, realized how truth and reality is less important than the capacity for a particular complaint to go viral. gop is current focused on grievance and outrage. those elements o' the gop, much like the former President, were willing to say ridiculous and unfounded just to see how The Base would respond.

crt, through the inexplicable alchemy o' social media, conservative radio and fox news managed to get a foothold in the gop psyche. crt is an obscure theory created by lib academics and it is complex and obscure enough such that only a small number o' folks is knowledgeable enough to pushback on mischaracterizations o' the graduate level material, and those folks pushing back is gonna be the so-called liberal intellectual elites the current gop reflexive decries as socialists, communists and purveyors o' fake news. also, as idiotic as it may sound, am suspecting Critical Race Theory became a gop bogeyman as much 'cause it were including a memorable abbreviation and it sounded just sinister enough in conservative ears regardless o' what it actual represented. 

people keep looking at crt bassakwards. crt, the thing the gop is fighting against, were never the issue. the name stuck as kinda a catchall description o' white outrage at being perceived blamed for every misfortune which befalls a minority while simultaneous accused o' white privilege no matter how dismal their own circumstances might be. the current  gop is telling The Base that the real victims o' 2020s racism is whites, just as they sold the base on the idea foreigners flooding in from across the southern border is why they can longer have a decent working class jobs, etc. is all bs and trying to explain gop crt complaints rational and reasonable is a mistake which has, unfortunate, led to many liberals and democrats adopting the the stoopid talking point and thus magnifying the problem. democrats with no more idea o' what crt is nevertheless feel compelled to pushback 'gainst republican crt misinformation, which is exact what the tucker carlsons and alex jones want. gop is about grievance and outrage, and is a mistake to legitimize that kinda stoopid.

HA! Good Fun!