afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I look forward to the day when people collectively realize that trying to shoehorn a document from the late 1700s and apply it to life in 2020+ probably isn’t the greatest idea

Fortunately many Americans still disagree with you.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

I see we won’t be exploring any of what Publius had to say just 12 years later.

afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I look forward to the day when people collectively realize that trying to shoehorn a document from the late 1700s and apply it to life in 2020+ probably isn’t the greatest idea

Fortunately many Americans still disagree with you.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

I mean...hundreds of years of history prove that to be false, no matter how nice it sounds. No wonder republicans hate people learning history.

afcjets wrote:

The 3/5s clause was to give slave states less power, not more.

And why was that? C'mon you can say it. You can accurately state reality and white Jesus won't cry. You just told us all men were created equal but 3/5ths doesn't sound super equal, no?

MaverickM11 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

I mean...hundreds of years of history prove that to be false, no matter how nice it sounds. No wonder republicans hate people learning history.

afcjets wrote:

The 3/5s clause was to give slave states less power, not more.

And why was that? C'mon you can say it. You can accurately state reality and white Jesus won't cry. You just told us all men were created equal but 3/5ths doesn't sound super equal, no?

You're making the exact point Texas is proposing be taught in schools from your opening post, so we finally agree on something.

afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I look forward to the day when people collectively realize that trying to shoehorn a document from the late 1700s and apply it to life in 2020+ probably isn’t the greatest idea

Fortunately many Americans still disagree with you.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

They disagree until they want something unconstitutional like having Trump win an election he actually lost, then they don't care about the constitution anymore.

afcjets wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

I mean...hundreds of years of history prove that to be false, no matter how nice it sounds. No wonder republicans hate people learning history.

afcjets wrote:

The 3/5s clause was to give slave states less power, not more.

And why was that? C'mon you can say it. You can accurately state reality and white Jesus won't cry. You just told us all men were created equal but 3/5ths doesn't sound super equal, no?

You're making the exact point Texas is proposing be taught in schools from your opening post, so we finally agree on something.

You're both trying to erase slavery from history because it hurts your feelings? I'm not familiar with how conservatives square the three fifths clause and "all men are created equal" but I'm sure you've got it lined up and ready to go.

Aesma wrote:

afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I look forward to the day when people collectively realize that trying to shoehorn a document from the late 1700s and apply it to life in 2020+ probably isn’t the greatest idea

Fortunately many Americans still disagree with you.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

They disagree until they want something unconstitutional like having Trump win an election he actually lost, then they don't care about the constitution anymore.

Flag. God. Country. It's always been virtue signaling and nothing more.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Flag. God. Country. It's always been virtue signaling and nothing more.

Yep, patriotism for show. It’s a singular brand of self delusion.

MaverickM11 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

You just told us all men were created equal but 3/5ths doesn't sound super equal, no?

You're making the exact point Texas is proposing be taught in schools from your opening post, so we finally agree on something.

You're both trying to erase slavery from history because it hurts your feelings? I'm not familiar with how conservatives square the three fifths clause and "all men are created equal" but I'm sure you've got it lined up and ready to go.

Your attempt at conflation is nothing more than a straw man argument. I'm not familiar with that either and neither is Texas apparently because we're both making the same point you did. It's right there in you're opening post, no need for me to copy/paste it.

LCDFlight wrote:

Democrats have done their share of city burnings and mass school closings in the past year. They are not angels.

Moralizing to kids about social justice while we celebrate clear, proud racial quotas at Harvard. Super impressive.

LCD, some people have become intolerant of the intolerant and are beginning to call them out. No one ever said there will not be consequences for what you say. What you dislike is getting called out or cancelled for being discriminatory, ignorant, intolerant and so on.

afcjets wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

You're making the exact point Texas is proposing be taught in schools from your opening post, so we finally agree on something.

You're both trying to erase slavery from history because it hurts your feelings? I'm not familiar with how conservatives square the three fifths clause and "all men are created equal" but I'm sure you've got it lined up and ready to go.

Your attempt at conflation is nothing more than a straw man argument. I'm not familiar with that either and neither is Texas apparently because we're both making the same point you did. It's right there in you're opening post, no need for me to copy/paste it.

So…just straight up lying. Got it.

MaverickM11 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

You're both trying to erase slavery from history because it hurts your feelings? I'm not familiar with how conservatives square the three fifths clause and "all men are created equal" but I'm sure you've got it lined up and ready to go.

Your attempt at conflation is nothing more than a straw man argument. I'm not familiar with that either and neither is Texas apparently because we're both making the same point you did. It's right there in you're opening post, no need for me to copy/paste it.

So…just straight up lying. Got it.

To be honest, when I read the Texas bill, it is so watered down that they are telling teachers to teach these subjects dispassionately, and they have created a mess.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/26 ... gislature/

A new version of the bill, which was substituted on the Senate floor late Friday night and approved, says teachers can’t be compelled to discuss current events and if they do, they must explore it from multiple positions without giving “deference to any one perspective.” The bill also has already passed out of the House.

It bars students from getting course credit for civic engagement efforts, including lobbying for legislation or other types of political activism. It also added a civics training for teachers to be developed by the state and a list of founding documents students must be required to be taught.

So here we have the senate taking away credit for students taking part in the civics around them, while also saying that they don't want deference to "any one perspective"

“Do you want our Texas kids to be taught that the system of government in Texas, in the United States, is nothing but a cover-up for white supremacy?” asked state Rep. Steve Toth ,as he laid out HB 3979, which he sponsored, on the House floor in early May. “Do you want them to be taught a souped-up version of Marxism?”

This quote right here is why the Texas bill is exceedingly bad. They don't want teachers telling kids something that is not even a part of CRT, bur at the same time, they are also telling teachers not to call out items such as the holocaust, or KKK as particularly horrible.

This bill destroys critical exercises in the classroom surrounding what did and didn't happen, and why people made other decisions later in history. These bills are there to protect those that want to destroy educational discussions on how to improve this great experiment that the US is.

FGITD wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

I can't, because the word slave and slavery is nowhere to be found in the original document.

What do you think the Three Fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, and importation of persons clause refer to? Tiddlywinks? The level of willful ignorance you're displaying here is near flat earth levels.

The beauty of the US Constitution. Depending on which side you’re arguing, you either take it literally or interpret it however you want.

I look forward to the day when people collectively realize that trying to shoehorn a document from the late 1700s and apply it to life in 2020+ probably isn’t the greatest idea

Many people have yet to catch up to circa 1500BC, so if shoehorning some stone tablets from 3000 years ago (the literalism prevalent in Abrahamic religions at this time), is still not universally a poor idea, I don't have much hope for documents that are only 250 years old.

And I don't want to suggest the Constitution is obsolete or even losing relevance. But certain sections of any such document that attempts to govern men will inevitably and logically fall behind the times, particularly when technology and progress go at even higher speeds than in the past. To deny it for purely ideological or dogmatic purposes is nonsense but precisely what is shackling the USA at this time.

If Marxism is so bad surely it should be taught too, so kids can recognize it ?

ltbewr wrote:

One of the factors of Republicans objections to the 1619 Project is the fear of of its lessons encouraging Repatriations to Black Americans for enslavement and that an overwhelming number of White voters refuse to have money taken and a transfer of wealth from them to go to Black persons. This also plays on the idea that most White voters believe that as they or their ancestors didn't own slaves, why should they pay generations later. One current example of that is the objections by Republicans and White voters to special allocations of Pandemic relief funds to Black owned family farms and ranches to make sure they get some share of those funds as they should and to make up for generations of racist access to Federal farm loans, treatment by Federal and State agricultural agencies.

I think the fear of "reparations" are more geared towards the native Americans who all and sundry can say were done in by the USA government versus the
"Blacks" who they can say the world over was doing the same thing, the number of broken treaties and their consequences to how various states presently exist is mindboggling in the size of territory and thus economic impact.
Just a thought.

par13del wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One of the factors of Republicans objections to the 1619 Project is the fear of of its lessons encouraging Repatriations to Black Americans for enslavement and that an overwhelming number of White voters refuse to have money taken and a transfer of wealth from them to go to Black persons. This also plays on the idea that most White voters believe that as they or their ancestors didn't own slaves, why should they pay generations later. One current example of that is the objections by Republicans and White voters to special allocations of Pandemic relief funds to Black owned family farms and ranches to make sure they get some share of those funds as they should and to make up for generations of racist access to Federal farm loans, treatment by Federal and State agricultural agencies.

I think the fear of "reparations" are more geared towards the native Americans who all and sundry can say were done in by the USA government versus the
"Blacks" who they can say the world over was doing the same thing, the number of broken treaties and their consequences to how various states presently exist is mindboggling in the size of territory and thus economic impact.
Just a thought.

Many tribal nations in the US (not all) are not interested in reparations - they want to be left alone and preserve what of their culture still remains before its lost forever.

Aesma wrote:

If Marxism is so bad surely it should be taught too, so kids can recognize it ?

Heavens no! We can't teach children history--that's socialism! Conservatives can't learn history if there's no statue of the bad guy

Aaron747 wrote:

par13del wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One of the factors of Republicans objections to the 1619 Project is the fear of of its lessons encouraging Repatriations to Black Americans for enslavement and that an overwhelming number of White voters refuse to have money taken and a transfer of wealth from them to go to Black persons. This also plays on the idea that most White voters believe that as they or their ancestors didn't own slaves, why should they pay generations later. One current example of that is the objections by Republicans and White voters to special allocations of Pandemic relief funds to Black owned family farms and ranches to make sure they get some share of those funds as they should and to make up for generations of racist access to Federal farm loans, treatment by Federal and State agricultural agencies.

I think the fear of "reparations" are more geared towards the native Americans who all and sundry can say were done in by the USA government versus the
"Blacks" who they can say the world over was doing the same thing, the number of broken treaties and their consequences to how various states presently exist is mindboggling in the size of territory and thus economic impact.
Just a thought.

Many tribal nations in the US (not all) are not interested in reparations - they want to be left alone and preserve what of their culture still remains before its lost forever.

May well be, unfortunately for many of them the lands where they have been placed does not support their cultural way of life in terms of food, which still does not have much to do with those who have a fear of them claiming reparations and the effect that would cause.

Let me Guess, Karen, Kevin and Ken approved this bill?

Should we like pretend to be shocked by this uneducated, uncivilized and unlogical behavior?

From somebody who is as uneducated about Race and everything American (apart from pop-culture that is), I saw this several years ago and found it highly illuminating -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NXC4Q_4JVg

1. For instance, I didn't know that it was in 1400 onwards that slaves were taken from Africa to U.S. as well as other nations -

2. The loss of men for Africa made sure that African countries would forever remain behind. The recurrpersions of those actions are still being felt today in Africa.

The last bit coincidentally also fits in what what the Chinese did -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLsdI7MXhdo

While in the latter, it was the Chinese Govt. being cruel to their own citizens and the result is just from a 20 year old experiment, the one above goes back hundreds. I find it both repulsive and fascinating what happened in both places.

The Georgia Board of Education passed a resolution to stop CRT teaching after Governor Kemp sent a letter to the board urging them to stop such lessons.

Georgia Board of Education asserts America is not racist, will limit discussions about race

Source: Fox News

phatfarmlines wrote:

The Georgia Board of Education passed a resolution to stop CRT teaching after Governor Kemp sent a letter to the board urging them to stop such lessons.

Georgia Board of Education asserts America is not racist, will limit discussions about race

Source: Fox News

And another state totally whiffs on what CRT is and destroys academic freedom.

You got to love their resolution. Item's 3 and 4

3. Affirms that Education in Georgia should reflect our fundamental values as a state and
nation – freedom, equality, and the God-given potential of every individual,

"4. Affirms that we will not support, or impart, any K-12 public education resources or
standards which (i) indoctrinate students in social, or political, ideology or theory, or (ii)
promote one race or sex above another,
"

The school board can't even do what they are asking for .

https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meet ... &MID=93474

They have a point (minus the sensationalistic headline)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P56rUszBPKs

PixelPilot wrote:

They have a point (minus the sensationalistic headline)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P56rUszBPKs

This has zilch to do with critical race theory, other than saying the words out loud.

casinterest wrote:

"4. Affirms that we will not support, or impart, any K-12 public education resources or
standards which (i) indoctrinate students in social, or political, ideology or theory, or (ii)
promote one race or sex above another,

Can we talk about a time when we did "promote one race or sex above another" explicitly and legally until very recently or nah? Bet I can guess!

MaverickM11 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

They have a point (minus the sensationalistic headline)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P56rUszBPKs

This has zilch to do with critical race theory, other than saying the words out loud.

What?
Enlighten me what it means then, please.
in words that a *6-year-old will understand when taught about it.

PixelPilot wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

They have a point (minus the sensationalistic headline)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P56rUszBPKs

This has zilch to do with critical race theory, other than saying the words out loud.

What?
Enlighten me what it means then, please.
in words that a *6-year-old will understand when taught about it.

A six year old wouldn't be taught about. Nor would most k-12 students. It requires the intellectual maturity to understand how much of this nation's development was built on the back of slavery and unequal rights such as the Jim Crow Laws.
Even through the 80's and 90's real estate agents practiced red lining in subdivision searches. It has still affected how town and city populations are segregated to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

To sit down and complain that it makes folks feel quilty for the color of their skin is a misleading trope. It ignores the fact that in over 200 years from the founding documents that were so "perfect" People were guilty just by the color of their skin.

Those that are fighting against CRT are fighting against the first Amendment and are attempting to stop valid discussions about what is a very white washed history of the United states.

PixelPilot wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

They have a point (minus the sensationalistic headline)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P56rUszBPKs

This has zilch to do with critical race theory, other than saying the words out loud.

What?
Enlighten me what it means then, please.
in words that a *6-year-old will understand when taught about it.

Read through the first page of the thread - there are a few posts dealing with what CRT really is/isn’t.

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

This has zilch to do with critical race theory, other than saying the words out loud.

What?
Enlighten me what it means then, please.
in words that a *6-year-old will understand when taught about it.

A six year old wouldn't be taught about. Nor would most k-12 students. It requires the intellectual maturity to understand how much of this nation's development was built on the back of slavery and unequal rights such as the Jim Crow Laws.
Even through the 80's and 90's real estate agents practiced red lining in subdivision searches. It has still affected how town and city populations are segregated to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

To sit down and complain that it makes folks feel quilty for the color of their skin is a misleading trope. It ignores the fact that in over 200 years from the founding documents that were so "perfect" People were guilty just by the color of their skin.

Those that are fighting against CRT are fighting against the first Amendment and are attempting to stop valid discussions about what is a very white-washed history of the United states.

What is the intellectual maturity threshold for this subject to be understood without prejudice?
Is the father wrong then by simply stating that any racially charged subject should not be taught to kids especially at that young age?

From Britannica:
Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

Could you name 1 law, institution that falls into its category in 2021?

Aaron747 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

This has zilch to do with critical race theory, other than saying the words out loud.

What?
Enlighten me what it means then, please.
in words that a *6-year-old will understand when taught about it.

Read through the first page of the thread - there are a few posts dealing with what CRT really is/isn’t.

I think the problem here is that it's not used in the manner that was intended and my previous post kinda puts it there.
A lot of academics are using this term to advance their racial agendas and that's what is triggering many people off without understanding that their outrage might be focused on the wrong subject.
Instead of dealing with a racially charged curriculum, they are trying to eliminate something that actually has merit.

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

What?
Enlighten me what it means then, please.
in words that a *6-year-old will understand when taught about it.

A six year old wouldn't be taught about. Nor would most k-12 students. It requires the intellectual maturity to understand how much of this nation's development was built on the back of slavery and unequal rights such as the Jim Crow Laws.
Even through the 80's and 90's real estate agents practiced red lining in subdivision searches. It has still affected how town and city populations are segregated to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

To sit down and complain that it makes folks feel quilty for the color of their skin is a misleading trope. It ignores the fact that in over 200 years from the founding documents that were so "perfect" People were guilty just by the color of their skin.

Those that are fighting against CRT are fighting against the first Amendment and are attempting to stop valid discussions about what is a very white-washed history of the United states.

What is the intellectual maturity threshold for this subject to be understood without prejudice?
Is the father wrong then by simply stating that any racially charged subject should not be taught to kids especially at that young age?

From Britannica:
Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

Could you name 1 law, institution that falls into its category in 2021?

Easy: finance. Study after study demonstrate black people with the right numbers on paper are less likely to receive fair home appraisals and mortgage loans. That’s a clear gap in enforcement of standing law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders ... hites.html

https://amp.indystar.com/amp/4936571001

And let’s face it, ‘successful’ middle class black families have worries that we simply don’t:

When Black parents worry about their straight-A student’s traffic encounters with the police more than they do a potential accident, this is because of experiences with racism. When a Black couple is about to have a baby and has to think consciously about what hospital to deliver in so they can obtain equitable care, this is racism. When a Black parent worries about their child attending a prestigious university outside of an urban area, this is often because of the racism they worry about them encountering driving to the school and even once physically on the campus of the school.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-r ... untry/amp/

Aaron747 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

A six year old wouldn't be taught about. Nor would most k-12 students. It requires the intellectual maturity to understand how much of this nation's development was built on the back of slavery and unequal rights such as the Jim Crow Laws.
Even through the 80's and 90's real estate agents practiced red lining in subdivision searches. It has still affected how town and city populations are segregated to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

To sit down and complain that it makes folks feel quilty for the color of their skin is a misleading trope. It ignores the fact that in over 200 years from the founding documents that were so "perfect" People were guilty just by the color of their skin.

Those that are fighting against CRT are fighting against the first Amendment and are attempting to stop valid discussions about what is a very white-washed history of the United states.

What is the intellectual maturity threshold for this subject to be understood without prejudice?
Is the father wrong then by simply stating that any racially charged subject should not be taught to kids especially at that young age?

From Britannica:
Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

Could you name 1 law, institution that falls into its category in 2021?

Easy: finance. Study after study demonstrate black people are less likely to receive fair home appraisals and mortgage loans. That’s a clear gap in enforcement of standing law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders ... hites.html

https://amp.indystar.com/amp/4936571001

I know this subject quite well cause I have few friends that were dealing with lowered appraisals and they are living in good neighborhoods.
But not every one of them did so I ask my question again.
Are there any actual LAWS that would make this legal. Do you know any?
If there are none then it becomes an issue based on some individual's choice/prejudice/racism/exploiting economic opportunity, not the entire system.

And the way i see it the more you bring color to the table the more people will look at it.
Like why you say African Americans? Why can't it just be Americans? Isn't that divisive by definition?

PixelPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

What is the intellectual maturity threshold for this subject to be understood without prejudice?
Is the father wrong then by simply stating that any racially charged subject should not be taught to kids especially at that young age?

From Britannica:
Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

Could you name 1 law, institution that falls into its category in 2021?

Easy: finance. Study after study demonstrate black people are less likely to receive fair home appraisals and mortgage loans. That’s a clear gap in enforcement of standing law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders ... hites.html

https://amp.indystar.com/amp/4936571001

I know this subject quite well cause I have few friends that were dealing with lowered appraisals and they are living in good neighborhoods.
But not every one of them did so I ask my question again.
Are there any actual LAWS that would make this legal. Do you know any?
If there are none then it becomes an issue based on some individual's choice/prejudice/racism/exploiting economic opportunity, not the entire system.

And the way i see it the more you bring color to the table the more people will look at it.
Like why you say African Americans? Why can't it just be Americans? Isn't that divisive by definition?

I believe your question was laws/institutions, not only laws

As I stated in page 1 of the thread, the issue with CRT academically is its legal analysis focuses on people’s experience. To properly analyze systemic issues, it should focus on identifying and closing gaps in enforcement of law. The 1965 CRA and VRA make race-based discrimination of all kinds illegal. So the question is: why does it still occur? Why does it take lawsuits to stop/rectify it? How do we get to a place where all cases in all institutions are handled on merit? Obviously nobody has the golden solution to that yet.

One of the key things to remember is people can have racist institutional experiences even without encountering overtly racist people or policies. That’s a huge source of stress for America’s minorities still - like the examples I gave for what successful blacks worry about where we don’t have to.

PixelPilot wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

They have a point (minus the sensationalistic headline)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P56rUszBPKs

This has zilch to do with critical race theory, other than saying the words out loud.

What?
Enlighten me what it means then, please.
in words that a *6-year-old will understand when taught about it.

This video would still be cute and nice in 1960, or 1860, or 1760, but objectively false from just about any standpoint in the USA.

PixelPilot wrote:

A lot of academics are using this term to advance their racial agendas and that's what is triggering many people off without understanding that their outrage might be focused on the wrong subject.

Other way 'round. A lot of conservatives are easily triggered by any frank discussion of race, no matter how academic.

PixelPilot wrote:

And the way i see it the more you bring color to the table the more people will look at it.
Like why you say African Americans? Why can't it just be Americans? Isn't that divisive by definition?

One group of people was marginalized and economically eviscerated for centuries to the *direct* benefit of another group of people who built wealth, institutions, and capital, entirely based on skin color. Untangling those effects is impossible without talking about color.

PixelPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

What is the intellectual maturity threshold for this subject to be understood without prejudice?
Is the father wrong then by simply stating that any racially charged subject should not be taught to kids especially at that young age?

From Britannica:
Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

Could you name 1 law, institution that falls into its category in 2021?

Easy: finance. Study after study demonstrate black people are less likely to receive fair home appraisals and mortgage loans. That’s a clear gap in enforcement of standing law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders ... hites.html

https://amp.indystar.com/amp/4936571001

I know this subject quite well cause I have few friends that were dealing with lowered appraisals and they are living in good neighborhoods.
But not every one of them did so I ask my question again.
Are there any actual LAWS that would make this legal. Do you know any?
If there are none then it becomes an issue based on some individual's choice/prejudice/racism/exploiting economic opportunity, not the entire system.

And the way i see it the more you bring color to the table the more people will look at it.
Like why you say African Americans? Why can't it just be Americans? Isn't that divisive by definition?

Ah, yes.... "I have a friend" which is just another "both sides do it". Meaningless

Anyway, here are links about homes owned by African Americans... er.... Americans valued at less than White Ameri.... er.... Americans....

https://www.brookings.edu/research/deva ... hborhoods/
https://www.indystar.com/story/money/20 ... 936571001/
https://abc7news.com/black-homeowner-pr ... /10331076/

So, maybe it is just because the appraiser wants to go home early and just punches in some numbers and those just happen to be for very specific families? After all, racism does not exist because we had a president and a vice president both minorities, so that closes the case, right?

seb146 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Easy: finance. Study after study demonstrate black people are less likely to receive fair home appraisals and mortgage loans. That’s a clear gap in enforcement of standing law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders ... hites.html

https://amp.indystar.com/amp/4936571001

I know this subject quite well cause I have few friends that were dealing with lowered appraisals and they are living in good neighborhoods.
But not every one of them did so I ask my question again.
Are there any actual LAWS that would make this legal. Do you know any?
If there are none then it becomes an issue based on some individual's choice/prejudice/racism/exploiting economic opportunity, not the entire system.

And the way i see it the more you bring color to the table the more people will look at it.
Like why you say African Americans? Why can't it just be Americans? Isn't that divisive by definition?

Ah, yes.... "I have a friend" which is just another "both sides do it". Meaningless

Anyway, here are links about homes owned by African Americans... er.... Americans valued at less than White Ameri.... er.... Americans....

https://www.brookings.edu/research/deva ... hborhoods/
https://www.indystar.com/story/money/20 ... 936571001/
https://abc7news.com/black-homeowner-pr ... /10331076/

So, maybe it is just because the appraiser wants to go home early and just punches in some numbers and those just happen to be for very specific families? After all, racism does not exist because we had a president and a vice president both minorities, so that closes the case, right?

How I read this...
Some person on the internet is telling me, how my long time friends are supposed to feel because they are black.
Also since they are "my friends", facts and their life experiences are meaningless. Sounds racist if you ask me.

I'm not denying that the issue exists. On the contrary and I was pretty clear about it.
You on the other hand can't comprehend that not everybody does this crap and it's not a rule nor law which makes your point moot.

MaverickM11 wrote:

This video would still be cute and nice in 1960, or 1860, or 1760, but objectively false from just about any standpoint in the USA.

So what you are saying is that black persons point of view on racial issues regarding specifically black minorities is false even though he LIVES that life?
Explain the logic. I'm really interested.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Other way 'round. A lot of conservatives are easily triggered by any frank discussion of race, no matter how academic.

I can give you plenty of examples to prove my point. Can you prove that the only people upset about it are conservatives?
Of course not. Your point is based on prejudice. Not valid.

MaverickM11 wrote:

One group of people was marginalized and economically eviscerated for centuries to the *direct* benefit of another group of people who built wealth, institutions, and capital, entirely based on skin color. Untangling those effects is impossible without talking about color.

Affirmative action is pretty good example of actual actions that are supposed to level the gap. Funny enough not always in best interest of the entity (corporate to be precise) that implemented it simply because the criteria is based on color/race and color/race is not exactly a precise indicator of skill/knowledge/performance. It's a fact. YET people do it because they understand the importance. You rarely hear anybody complaining about it and hopefully most companies do it. BUT keep ramming color into everything and guess what. It is all that people will see and it is all they will focus on. NOBODY will benefit from this.

Aaron747 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Easy: finance. Study after study demonstrate black people are less likely to receive fair home appraisals and mortgage loans. That’s a clear gap in enforcement of standing law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders ... hites.html

https://amp.indystar.com/amp/4936571001

I know this subject quite well cause I have few friends that were dealing with lowered appraisals and they are living in good neighborhoods.
But not every one of them did so I ask my question again.
Are there any actual LAWS that would make this legal. Do you know any?
If there are none then it becomes an issue based on some individual's choice/prejudice/racism/exploiting economic opportunity, not the entire system.

And the way i see it the more you bring color to the table the more people will look at it.
Like why you say African Americans? Why can't it just be Americans? Isn't that divisive by definition?

I believe your question was laws/institutions, not only laws

As I stated in page 1 of the thread, the issue with CRT academically is its legal analysis focuses on people’s experience. To properly analyze systemic issues, it should focus on identifying and closing gaps in enforcement of law. The 1965 CRA and VRA make race-based discrimination of all kinds illegal. So the question is: why does it still occur? Why does it take lawsuits to stop/rectify it? How do we get to a place where all cases in all institutions are handled on merit? Obviously nobody has the golden solution to that yet.

One of the key things to remember is people can have racist institutional experiences even without encountering overtly racist people or policies. That’s a huge source of stress for America’s minorities still - like the examples I gave for what successful blacks worry about where we don’t have to.

Fair enough

My opinion on "...How do we get to a place where all cases in all institutions are handled on merit?..."
You treat people equally but it is impossible to do so. Look around. Divisions are growing instead of disappearing and we live in times with historically lowest institutional racism in existence. Look how many people genuinely support BLM but then Asians and Jews are being hammered on the streets and vocally there's little (in comparison) collective outrage happening to condemn it. Isn't that a prime example of how selective and divisive the US is today? Right or wrong is ceasing to exist.
This I believe is why it still occurs and it will never stop. It's not just black and white.

PixelPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

I know this subject quite well cause I have few friends that were dealing with lowered appraisals and they are living in good neighborhoods.
But not every one of them did so I ask my question again.
Are there any actual LAWS that would make this legal. Do you know any?
If there are none then it becomes an issue based on some individual's choice/prejudice/racism/exploiting economic opportunity, not the entire system.

And the way i see it the more you bring color to the table the more people will look at it.
Like why you say African Americans? Why can't it just be Americans? Isn't that divisive by definition?

I believe your question was laws/institutions, not only laws

As I stated in page 1 of the thread, the issue with CRT academically is its legal analysis focuses on people’s experience. To properly analyze systemic issues, it should focus on identifying and closing gaps in enforcement of law. The 1965 CRA and VRA make race-based discrimination of all kinds illegal. So the question is: why does it still occur? Why does it take lawsuits to stop/rectify it? How do we get to a place where all cases in all institutions are handled on merit? Obviously nobody has the golden solution to that yet.

One of the key things to remember is people can have racist institutional experiences even without encountering overtly racist people or policies. That’s a huge source of stress for America’s minorities still - like the examples I gave for what successful blacks worry about where we don’t have to.

Fair enough

My opinion on "...How do we get to a place where all cases in all institutions are handled on merit?..."
You treat people equally but it is impossible to do so. Look around. Divisions are growing instead of disappearing and we live in times with historically lowest institutional racism in existence. Look how many people genuinely support BLM but then Asians and Jews are being hammered on the streets and vocally there's little (in comparison) collective outrage happening to condemn it. Isn't that a prime example of how selective and divisive the US is today? Right or wrong is ceasing to exist.
This I believe is why it still occurs and it will never stop. It's not just black and white.

I don’t know if that’s necessarily an example of anything - geographic distribution explains it. There are wide swaths of the country and multiple significant city areas where black mistreatment have both recent and historical context. 1/3 of Asians in the US live in California metro areas, and their most populous states after that are NY, TX, NJ, and WA. In those places there is highly vocal outcry against their treatment since COVID began. American Jews are overwhelmingly in metro areas of CA, FL, IL, and the northeast. In the case of urban/suburban liberals in these areas, the people talking about what’s happening to them are the same who were out supporting BLM last summer.

If you are not in such areas that may explain your perception. As a Jew my bone to pick with the right is that Fox News was very quiet about supremacist attacks on Jews at the outset of the Trump presidency, but as soon as there were attacks over the resent flareup in Israel, they suddenly cared to cover antisemitism again.

PixelPilot wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

This video would still be cute and nice in 1960, or 1860, or 1760, but objectively false from just about any standpoint in the USA.

So what you are saying is that black persons point of view on racial issues regarding specifically black minorities is false even though he LIVES that life?
Explain the logic. I'm really interested.

In those 58 seconds he says he tells his daughter she can be whatever she wants to be regardless of gender or color. So does every parent.

Then he says critical race theory wants "to end that", which is a lie, regardless of his color, her color, your color, or my color.

PixelPilot wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Other way 'round. A lot of conservatives are easily triggered by any frank discussion of race, no matter how academic.

I can give you plenty of examples to prove my point. Can you prove that the only people upset about it are conservatives?
Of course not. Your point is based on prejudice. Not valid.

Honey this isn't our first rodeo of conservatives losing their collective bowel control because a minority they've marginalized has some thoughts, demands, or the barest of minimums of requests for equality. Anyone who blows their lid because of uncomfortable historical realities is included in this group, which is heavily biased toward conservatives. Just look at who loses their pea brain every time a conservative statue is removed. It ain't liberals.

PixelPilot wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

One group of people was marginalized and economically eviscerated for centuries to the *direct* benefit of another group of people who built wealth, institutions, and capital, entirely based on skin color. Untangling those effects is impossible without talking about color.

Affirmative action is pretty good example of actual actions that are supposed to level the gap. Funny enough not always in best interest of the entity (corporate to be precise) that implemented it simply because the criteria is based on color/race and color/race is not exactly a precise indicator of skill/knowledge/performance. It's a fact. YET people do it because they understand the importance. You rarely hear anybody complaining about it and hopefully most companies do it. BUT keep ramming color into everything and guess what. It is all that people will see and it is all they will focus on. NOBODY will benefit from this.

What is your solution to ameliorate the MASSIVE transfer of wealth, labor, and capital from black bodies over centuries to white coffers? I wouldn't even defend affirmative action frankly, but I also know the conservative solution is banning the conversation of it--ie the undergarment twisting over critical race theory. We can't even discuss it because a certain demographic of snowflake disposition is too sensitive to handle it.

PixelPilot wrote:

seb146 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

I know this subject quite well cause I have few friends that were dealing with lowered appraisals and they are living in good neighborhoods.
But not every one of them did so I ask my question again.
Are there any actual LAWS that would make this legal. Do you know any?
If there are none then it becomes an issue based on some individual's choice/prejudice/racism/exploiting economic opportunity, not the entire system.

And the way i see it the more you bring color to the table the more people will look at it.
Like why you say African Americans? Why can't it just be Americans? Isn't that divisive by definition?

Ah, yes.... "I have a friend" which is just another "both sides do it". Meaningless

Anyway, here are links about homes owned by African Americans... er.... Americans valued at less than White Ameri.... er.... Americans....

https://www.brookings.edu/research/deva ... hborhoods/
https://www.indystar.com/story/money/20 ... 936571001/
https://abc7news.com/black-homeowner-pr ... /10331076/

So, maybe it is just because the appraiser wants to go home early and just punches in some numbers and those just happen to be for very specific families? After all, racism does not exist because we had a president and a vice president both minorities, so that closes the case, right?

How I read this...
Some person on the internet is telling me, how my long time friends are supposed to feel because they are black.
Also since they are "my friends", facts and their life experiences are meaningless. Sounds racist if you ask me.

I'm not denying that the issue exists. On the contrary and I was pretty clear about it.
You on the other hand can't comprehend that not everybody does this crap and it's not a rule nor law which makes your point moot.

This stuff still happens in 21st Century America. Just because your friend says they have never experienced it does not mean it didn't happen and does not mean that something similar didn't happen to them. I am glad your friend says they never went through anything like this.

With the advent of social media and the internet, we can see these things happen in real time, now. Just because it is not happening life in front of you does not mean it didn't happen. Just because "a few" people report incidents does not mean anything. It still happens way more than it should.

And, yes, we must learn about the non-white side of history in this country. We have learned the Nazi side of World War 2 but we also know about the Jewish, Roma, mentally ill, and LGBTQ side of it. Why is that so wrong and bad with learning our own history that way?

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

What?
Enlighten me what it means then, please.
in words that a *6-year-old will understand when taught about it.

A six year old wouldn't be taught about. Nor would most k-12 students. It requires the intellectual maturity to understand how much of this nation's development was built on the back of slavery and unequal rights such as the Jim Crow Laws.
Even through the 80's and 90's real estate agents practiced red lining in subdivision searches. It has still affected how town and city populations are segregated to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

To sit down and complain that it makes folks feel quilty for the color of their skin is a misleading trope. It ignores the fact that in over 200 years from the founding documents that were so "perfect" People were guilty just by the color of their skin.

Those that are fighting against CRT are fighting against the first Amendment and are attempting to stop valid discussions about what is a very white-washed history of the United states.

What is the intellectual maturity threshold for this subject to be understood without prejudice?
Is the father wrong then by simply stating that any racially charged subject should not be taught to kids especially at that young age?

From Britannica:
Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

Could you name 1 law, institution that falls into its category in 2021?

It is the ability to understand that there are people in power that still hold serious racial grudges and prejudices. It is the same thing that keeps home values low, women earning less, and police enforcement differentials. Years of issues in this country have lead to where we are now. CRT acknowledges those issues.

Why else do we still have folks walking through my neighborhood asking young people of color that are only visiting to go back to their "hood"

There are serious institutional and social grooming that has not been undone by laws.

Now we the 1836 project: "patriotic education". If you're thinking "that sounds super racist and North Korean", then you are correct!

What Is the 1836 Project? Texas To Promote 'Patriotic Education'
https://www.newsweek.com/what-1836-proj ... on-1598616

""To keep Texas the best state in the nation, we can never forget WHY our state is so exceptional," the Republican governor tweeted after signing the bill into law. "I signed a law establishing the 1836 project, which promotes patriotic education & ensures future generations understand TX values. Together, we'll keep our rich history alive.""

Guaranteed none of these white good ol' boys ever read a history book.

Fun fact about 1836:
"Texas could have gotten behind an 1865 Project and the importance of #Juneteenth to its state history. Instead, it chose 1836 and the adoption of a constitution that established slavery and prohibited "Africans" from living freely in the country. "

https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1 ... 93283?s=20

I'm sure the dozens killed in the winter power outage disaster of 2021 will be whitewashed from the 1836 project too.

If you have to make a law saying you're the best...you're probably not it !

I hope business starts to leave Texas! We need them to stand against all the discriminatory rhetoric and policy coming out of Texas. I will do my part my part by not visiting states like Texas. It was great to see MLB leave GA over their policies. We need to see the same happen in Texas.

Pi7472000 wrote:

I hope business starts to leave Texas! We need them to stand against all the discriminatory rhetoric and policy coming out of Texas. I will do my part my part by not visiting states like Texas. It was great to see MLB leave GA over their policies. We need to see the same happen in Texas.

MLB didn't 'leave' GA, they simply didn't hold an event there. The Atlanta Braves are alive and well.

Pi7472000 wrote:

I hope business starts to leave Texas! We need them to stand against all the discriminatory rhetoric and policy coming out of Texas. I will do my part my part by not visiting states like Texas. It was great to see MLB leave GA over their policies. We need to see the same happen in Texas.

The four largest airlines in the US have major hubs in Texas and Georgia. Will your taking a stand include boycotting them altogether, or will you still fly on their routes that avoid those two states?

Pi7472000 wrote:

I hope business starts to leave Texas! We need them to stand against all the discriminatory rhetoric and policy coming out of Texas. I will do my part my part by not visiting states like Texas. It was great to see MLB leave GA over their policies. We need to see the same happen in Texas.

Texas and other states will lose the 1st Amendment court cases. This is red meat to the uneducated and racist base that are confusing heritage with history. In a rush for donations many politicians are just highlighting their own ignorance.

Here is a good article on what CRT is per the American Bar system .

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... ce-theory/

here is a good discussion from NPR about the history vs heritage argument .
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/05/10035336 ... in-schools

HAYTER: Right. And I think in education or the teaching of history, we've moved away from heritage toward history. And many people don't know the difference, right? History is an attempt to reconstruct and interpret actual events and lived experiences. It follows rules of evidence and is peer-reviewed and debated. I think what a lot of Americans understand is heritage, which is a romanticized version of the past, usually devoid of the darker chapters. You know, these are the feel-good stories and, in some cases, stories that don't really deal with historical evidence, which isn't to say, by the way, that things don't happen in history. Of course, there are historical facts. The interpretation of those facts, however, is precisely what historians do. And I think a lot of people aren't necessarily familiar with that process.

casinterest wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

I hope business starts to leave Texas! We need them to stand against all the discriminatory rhetoric and policy coming out of Texas. I will do my part my part by not visiting states like Texas. It was great to see MLB leave GA over their policies. We need to see the same happen in Texas.

Texas and other states will lose the 1st Amendment court cases. This is red meat to the uneducated and racist base that are confusing heritage with history. In a rush for donations many politicians are just highlighting their own ignorance.

With all of the right wing activist judges seated under the MAGA regime, I am not sure these states wanting to white wash history would lose. I am not holding out much hope.

casinterest wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

I hope business starts to leave Texas! We need them to stand against all the discriminatory rhetoric and policy coming out of Texas. I will do my part my part by not visiting states like Texas. It was great to see MLB leave GA over their policies. We need to see the same happen in Texas.

Texas and other states will lose the 1st Amendment court cases. This is red meat to the uneducated and racist base that are confusing heritage with history. In a rush for donations many politicians are just highlighting their own ignorance.

Here is a good article on what CRT is per the American Bar system .

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... ce-theory/

here is a good discussion from NPR about the history vs heritage argument .
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/05/10035336 ... in-schools

HAYTER: Right. And I think in education or the teaching of history, we've moved away from heritage toward history. And many people don't know the difference, right? History is an attempt to reconstruct and interpret actual events and lived experiences. It follows rules of evidence and is peer-reviewed and debated. I think what a lot of Americans understand is heritage, which is a romanticized version of the past, usually devoid of the darker chapters. You know, these are the feel-good stories and, in some cases, stories that don't really deal with historical evidence, which isn't to say, by the way, that things don't happen in history. Of course, there are historical facts. The interpretation of those facts, however, is precisely what historians do. And I think a lot of people aren't necessarily familiar with that process.

Some people aren't familiar with that process, and don't care. They only want to feel good. Looking at history objectively requires a lot of nuance, and that means having to think, and that's just too much effort for the kind of people we're talking about.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

I hope business starts to leave Texas! We need them to stand against all the discriminatory rhetoric and policy coming out of Texas. I will do my part my part by not visiting states like Texas. It was great to see MLB leave GA over their policies. We need to see the same happen in Texas.

Texas and other states will lose the 1st Amendment court cases. This is red meat to the uneducated and racist base that are confusing heritage with history. In a rush for donations many politicians are just highlighting their own ignorance.

Here is a good article on what CRT is per the American Bar system .

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... ce-theory/

here is a good discussion from NPR about the history vs heritage argument .
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/05/10035336 ... in-schools

HAYTER: Right. And I think in education or the teaching of history, we've moved away from heritage toward history. And many people don't know the difference, right? History is an attempt to reconstruct and interpret actual events and lived experiences. It follows rules of evidence and is peer-reviewed and debated. I think what a lot of Americans understand is heritage, which is a romanticized version of the past, usually devoid of the darker chapters. You know, these are the feel-good stories and, in some cases, stories that don't really deal with historical evidence, which isn't to say, by the way, that things don't happen in history. Of course, there are historical facts. The interpretation of those facts, however, is precisely what historians do. And I think a lot of people aren't necessarily familiar with that process.

Some people aren't familiar with that process, and don't care. They only want to feel good. Looking at history objectively requires a lot of nuance, and that means having to think, and that's just too much effort for the kind of people we're talking about.

it is a lot of effort to want to understand history, and that is why we have Historians.
Unfortunately we also have politicians, fox news, OAN, Newsmax, Right wing radio that make so much money. They prey on the weak minded, and then capitalize on the profits.

The legal system will have a field day working to undo this mess.

In a related matter, General Milley, JCS chairman, gave an impassioned defense today of why it’s important to learn about our country. He was slapping down Rep. Gaetz a bit, but he obviously thinks criticism of ‘wokeness’ is ignorant and misguided.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/23/ ... rsity/amp/

https://www.axios.com/gen-milley-milita ... 8038e.html

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Texas and other states will lose the 1st Amendment court cases. This is red meat to the uneducated and racist base that are confusing heritage with history. In a rush for donations many politicians are just highlighting their own ignorance.

Here is a good article on what CRT is per the American Bar system .

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... ce-theory/

here is a good discussion from NPR about the history vs heritage argument .
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/05/10035336 ... in-schools

Some people aren't familiar with that process, and don't care. They only want to feel good. Looking at history objectively requires a lot of nuance, and that means having to think, and that's just too much effort for the kind of people we're talking about.

it is a lot of effort to want to understand history, and that is why we have Historians.
Unfortunately we also have politicians, fox news, OAN, Newsmax, Right wing radio that make so much money. They prey on the weak minded, and then capitalize on the profits.

The legal system will have a field day working to undo this mess.

I was listening to some talk show the other day and the host mentioned that Rafael "Ted" Cruz went to law school at Harvard where he had to take a class on Critical Race Theory. There was a discussion about how CRT is not something that would be talked about or discussed in grade school or high school. Probably not even civics in junior college.

CRT is yet another attempt by the right to fake outrage over something. Like "cancel culture" or voting rights.