Republicans: continued

[Sean Hayden]

--taught yet Joe. It's wishful thinking to consider it not an issue just because it's happening elsewhere. It's not like elsewhere they aren't working to bring it to you.

Officially the Democrats support all Americans. But they were happy to play dumb about any concerns behind the confusion surrounding CRT. It only takes a second to find what these voters are actually worried about. It's just easier all around to pretend not to see it. You don't have to expose yourself to public scrutiny about a difficult subject and you can feign frustration at your opponents hopeless ignorance --what can you do, what can you do?

[JimC]

Here is an example of the kind of thing parents are worried about. Even if you disagree with them, it's not what Democrats are telling you it is.

She argues that, at the earliest possible age, white kids should be taught to identify whiteness as the root of racial injustice so that they can reject the pervasive racism that they would otherwise embody. I think her account of what causes police killings is too monocausal and that her zeal for uprooting racism sometimes strays into overgeneralization based in racial stereotyping. Regardless, her message that kids can choose to reject racism is laudable, and many school districts find it valuable. What follows is an edited and condensed version of our discussion.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619087/

I think it's possible to have school programs which help to reduce or eliminate racism without pushing a rather extreme agenda, exemplified by "white kids should be taught to identify whiteness as the root of racial injustice" if that is a correct summary of that person's position...

[Brian Peacock]

That depends on who you ask.

The point is that if Republicans are conflating CRT with nonsense like the book above, the Democrats are happy to focus on that, rather than any reasonable concerns in favor of portraying their opponents as hopelessly ignorant racists.

This got me pondering...

The point of these kind of faux culture war conflicts is to control and maintain a set of public narratives that define the demarcation zone between political parties. Whether it's masks and vaccines, or guns, babies and Jesus, or pronouns, campus toilet arrangements, snowflakeism, wokism, pornography, rap, multiculturalism, CRT, antifa, safe spaces, colouring books, stop the steal, Mr Potato Head, BLM, statues, blah blah blah etc etc, the topics are designed to encourage people to engage emotionally with perceived social slights, injustices and threats to their freedon and/or way of life - in order to give them reasons to i) vote for political entities which identify such threats and promise to oppose them, and/or ii) to vote against political entities who are said to embody those threats. Who wouldn't have 'reasonable concerns' about any of this if they'd been drip-fed a never-ending lists if stories designed to to prime and trigger outrage in this way?

When one has reasons to vote this or that way, even if those reasons are not based in actual factual reality, then surely one must have some reasonable concerns?

When you know something to be true, or just believe something is true, or is likely to be true, or should probably be true, it's very difficult not to act on that 'truth'. Politics bods call these things wedge issues because they highlight an apparent clear difference between 'us' and 'them'. Herman and Chomsky called this political process 'manufacturing consent' - a game as old as time.

The question is, how do you identify and address the real, factual, material issues that face, say, the state education system today (resources, pay, retention, ethos, discipline, achievement, improvement ...) if every time you hear someone important discussing schools and colleges they're talking about CRT, student mask mandates, institutional Marxism or gender neutral toilets? I guess the other question is, from which political direction does most of this stuff waft in from?

Anyway, here's a message from the past...



Can you imagine politics and policy based on that kind of outlook in the current climate? No, me neither.

[Tero]

All those items are just dressing on the platform for the GOP. They are happy to gave CRT, BLM, race etc being discussed. But it's still the tea party, out to reduce the fed gov't. But that small gov't thing is now so old it's not exciting material for Youtubers.

Democrats would do well to ignore all that and push for voting rights. Focus on fairness, not race.

[Tero]

Waking up from 'wokeness'
By Eric Utter
Wokeness, wokespeak, and utterly fabricated ideology such as “critical race theory” has, tragically, permeated our society and institutions. And done irreparable harm to our republic. (Let’s hope the recent election results are signs that the American people are waking up to wokeness and starting to realize how disingenuous-- and dangerous—these ideologies are to any ostensibly free and functional civilization.)

How thoroughly has this divisive, overtly racist, anti-American rot penetrated our core institutions?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... eness.html

[Tero]

Real news:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2021-e ... or-results

fake news that says the race is still undecided

https://petition-central.com/wow-a-voti ... nors-race/

[Joe]

--taught yet Joe. It's wishful thinking to consider it not an issue just because it's happening elsewhere. It's not like elsewhere they aren't working to bring it to you.

Officially the Democrats support all Americans. But they were happy to play dumb about any concerns behind the confusion surrounding CRT. It only takes a second to find what these voters are actually worried about. It's just easier all around to pretend not to see it. You don't have to expose yourself to public scrutiny about a difficult subject and you can feign frustration at your opponents hopeless ignorance --what can you do, what can you do?

Given that I live here and am in touch with my community, and I'll trust our take on things. No offense Sean, Colorado Springs ain't Houston. The reaction to a mere rumor was intense opposition. The actual thing won't fare any better.

As for the Democrats, it's always possible they weren't playing dumb. I'm always amazed at their ability to do dumb things.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm glad to hear it Joe. But we were discussing what Republicans opposed, and that was the possibility of such ideas spreading beyond places like California. The possibility is real and so is the Democrat denial and misinformation surrounding it. According to Democrats, worrying about this issue is equivalent to "whites not wanting to teach about race". Who can honestly look at examples like what I gave and come away with that impression? It's hopelessly immature in my opinion.

I agree they may not be playing dumb. That reminded me of Hitchens speaking to Sean Hannity:

"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever."

--//--

You may not be Houston, but everybody worries about what Texas education gets up to...

[Sean Hayden]

Waking up from 'wokeness'
By Eric Utter
Wokeness, wokespeak, and utterly fabricated ideology such as “critical race theory” has, tragically, permeated our society and institutions. And done irreparable harm to our republic. (Let’s hope the recent election results are signs that the American people are waking up to wokeness and starting to realize how disingenuous-- and dangerous—these ideologies are to any ostensibly free and functional civilization.)

How thoroughly has this divisive, overtly racist, anti-American rot penetrated our core institutions?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... eness.html

“facing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear.”

--amen

I remember when I brought up the possibility that developing an authentic sense of whiteness might be important, many wondered wth an authentic sense of whiteness could even mean. Will anyone wonder what the hell "whiteness" this is?

[Sean Hayden]

All those items are just dressing on the platform for the GOP. They are happy to gave CRT, BLM, race etc being discussed. But it's still the tea party, out to reduce the fed gov't. But that small gov't thing is now so old it's not exciting material for Youtubers.

Democrats would do well to ignore all that and push for voting rights. Focus on fairness, not race.

But we've wed ourselves to it Tero. If you vote Trump, you ain't black.

[Sean Hayden]

That depends on who you ask.

The point is that if Republicans are conflating CRT with nonsense like the book above, the Democrats are happy to focus on that, rather than any reasonable concerns in favor of portraying their opponents as hopelessly ignorant racists.

This got me pondering...

The point of these kind of faux culture war conflicts is to control and maintain a set of public narratives that define the demarcation zone between political parties. Whether it's masks and vaccines, or guns, babies and Jesus, or pronouns, campus toilet arrangements, snowflakeism, wokism, pornography, rap, multiculturalism, CRT, antifa, safe spaces, colouring books, stop the steal, Mr Potato Head, BLM, statues, blah blah blah etc etc, the topics are designed to encourage people to engage emotionally with perceived social slights, injustices and threats to their freedon and/or way of life - in order to give them reasons to i) vote for political entities which identify such threats and promise to oppose them, and/or ii) to vote against political entities who are said to embody those threats. Who wouldn't have 'reasonable concerns' about any of this if they'd been drip-fed a never-ending lists if stories designed to to prime and trigger outrage in this way?

When one has reasons to vote this or that way, even if those reasons are not based in actual factual reality, then surely one must have some reasonable concerns?

When you know something to be true, or just believe something is true, or is likely to be true, or should probably be true, it's very difficult not to act on that 'truth'. Politics bods call these things wedge issues because they highlight an apparent clear difference between 'us' and 'them'. Herman and Chomsky called this political process 'manufacturing consent' - a game as old as time.

The question is, how do you identify and address the real, factual, material issues that face, say, the state education system today (resources, pay, retention, ethos, discipline, achievement, improvement ...) if every time you hear someone important discussing schools and colleges they're talking about CRT, student mask mandates, institutional Marxism or gender neutral toilets? I guess the other question is, from which political direction does most of this stuff waft in from?

Anyway, here's a message from the past...



Can you imagine politics and policy based on that kind of outlook in the current climate? No, me neither.

I think it's less this than an ecosystem of conflicts. Where you see design I see natural processes and interactions. We aren't attempting to draw a line between parties but witnessing actual differences across multiple fronts play out. It is not a fake conflict.

--//--

Sorry for the short reply, I just wanted to throw something out there quickly. I will return to this later to do it more justice.

[Joe]

I'm glad to hear it Joe. But we were discussing what Republicans opposed, and that was the possibility of such ideas spreading beyond places like California. The possibility is real and so is the Democrat denial and misinformation surrounding it. According to Democrats, worrying about this issue is equivalent to "whites not wanting to teach about race". Who can honestly look at examples like what I gave and come away with that impression? It's hopelessly immature in my opinion.

I agree they may not be playing dumb. That reminded me of Hitchens speaking to Sean Hannity:

"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever."

--//--

You may not be Houston, but everybody worries about what Texas education gets up to...

Ah, but don't forget that we were also discussing the possibility that this is another in a long line of GOP red herrings that will fall down the memory hole once it's served it's purpose. Remember the migrant caravans, Hunter Biden's laptop(s), and Obama's birth certificate?

How about poor Terri Schiavo and Joe The Plumber?

There's just too much of that sort of misdirection in the GOP past for me to dismiss the chance they're at it again.

[Brian Peacock]

That depends on who you ask.

The point is that if Republicans are conflating CRT with nonsense like the book above, the Democrats are happy to focus on that, rather than any reasonable concerns in favor of portraying their opponents as hopelessly ignorant racists.

This got me pondering...

The point of these kind of faux culture war conflicts is to control and maintain a set of public narratives that define the demarcation zone between political parties. Whether it's masks and vaccines, or guns, babies and Jesus, or pronouns, campus toilet arrangements, snowflakeism, wokism, pornography, rap, multiculturalism, CRT, antifa, safe spaces, colouring books, stop the steal, Mr Potato Head, BLM, statues, blah blah blah etc etc, the topics are designed to encourage people to engage emotionally with perceived social slights, injustices and threats to their freedon and/or way of life - in order to give them reasons to i) vote for political entities which identify such threats and promise to oppose them, and/or ii) to vote against political entities who are said to embody those threats. Who wouldn't have 'reasonable concerns' about any of this if they'd been drip-fed a never-ending lists if stories designed to to prime and trigger outrage in this way?

When one has reasons to vote this or that way, even if those reasons are not based in actual factual reality, then surely one must have some reasonable concerns?

When you know something to be true, or just believe something is true, or is likely to be true, or should probably be true, it's very difficult not to act on that 'truth'. Politics bods call these things wedge issues because they highlight an apparent clear difference between 'us' and 'them'. Herman and Chomsky called this political process 'manufacturing consent' - a game as old as time.

The question is, how do you identify and address the real, factual, material issues that face, say, the state education system today (resources, pay, retention, ethos, discipline, achievement, improvement ...) if every time you hear someone important discussing schools and colleges they're talking about CRT, student mask mandates, institutional Marxism or gender neutral toilets? I guess the other question is, from which political direction does most of this stuff waft in from?

Anyway, here's a message from the past...



Can you imagine politics and policy based on that kind of outlook in the current climate? No, me neither.

I think it's less this than an ecosystem of conflicts. Where you see design I see natural processes and interactions. We aren't attempting to draw a line between parties but witnessing actual differences across multiple fronts play out. It is not a fake conflict.

--//--

Sorry for the short reply, I just wanted to throw something out there quickly. I will return to this later to do it more justice.

Don't sweat about the short reply. You know me - I'm on a short fuse most of the time anyway

One might argue that all personal interactions are political - at least in some way. I'm sure we all know of assholes who seem rather overly invested in 'office politics' for example; family politics can be a nightmare too; don't get me started on politics as an aspect of intimate relations. Different people want different things from certain situations and, being a social species, we often try to create conditions around us that give us, or increase the chances of us getting, the things we want. So yeah, we can frame the culture wars as 'natural processes and interactions' if you like, but at the same time political operators put in a lot of effort and filthy lucre into focus groups, and ad campaigns, and PR companies, media consultants, political strategists, etc etc, a lot of it outsourced for convenience.

Similarly we could frame that toothpaste ad we've all seen 100 times as part of 'natural processes and interactions', you know, the one with that reassuring person in a white lab coat in a bright, vaguely sciencey room talking to camera and telling us that there's something dangerous going on in our mouths that we're no aware of, the one that tries so hard to make us feel a bit unsettled or jittery before swinging in with the solution to a threat we weren't even aware of: splash the brand logo, splash the stinger, splash the slogan.

We know advertising works because there just so damn much of it. The culture wars are like those kind of toothpaste ads - designed with intent and purpose to attach an emotional response to a perceived threat before presenting the solution to that threat. As the title of my next book has it - Political Advertising and the Culture Wars: strawmanning for profit and gain! Like the toothpaste ad this kind of political chicanery may piggyback regular social synergies but they're not merely 'natural processes and interactions', they're abstracted beyond that, and they do form a part of an ecosystem, one rooted in money, power, control, and status.

[Tero]

Why can't w get those toothpaste people to work for the democrats? Throw out the party platform and sell the people what they want.

[Brian Peacock]

Because people have had enough of experts.