Hm, so much for those 500 miles.
Read any CRT, lately?
Lol somebody threw this guy into the deep end of irrational race-paranoia, and now he’s drowning in it. To the extent that he sees “hate” in a simple bullet point list of historical facts.
Conservative whites in particular hate it that liberal African Americans, liberal Asian Americans, liberal Native Americans, liberal Latinos, liberal Middle Easterners, and normal, regular-people liberal whites are the people who made this country into an actual democracy, and a destination for people from all over the world. They/we did this despite their massive machine of discrimination and disenfranchisement.Drak wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:04 am The GOP attacks free and fair elections, attempted to overturn a free and fair election, incited an attack on The Capital, and has members in office who constantly tweet out threats to other members of congress or create videos showing them blowing away “socialists.” But it’s liberals who hate America.
Today in Irrational Conservative Logic:
She: apples/oranges comparison. Socialists have never held any power here. Racists have.
carmenjonze wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:39 am
Okay sure, Chris. :problem:
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 1239928835
Caught this last night. viewtopic.php?p=4634#p4634
Wow looks like somebody at FAIR has been reading my posts!carmenjonze wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:28 pm ^another late-discoveree of a word the Black kids stopped using five years ago, now that it’s been in the rightwing press every day for the past month. :problem:
Give it another two years, he’ll be referring to his significant other as “bae.”
Much more in link.“Woke” is the label the aggrieved conservative suburbanite puts on the indignity of having to call their Starbucks barista “they” and finding Ibram X. Kendi on their child’s school reading list. But as the Democrats prepare for the midterm election cycle, anti-wokeness has become a key theme about the party’s future. Woke activists have been chief culprits in Terry McAuliffe’s loss in the Virginia governor’s race, correspondents tell us, and the electoral ground loss generally by the Democrats (The Hill, 11/7/21).
The meaning of this ubiquitous term often shifts with context. Originating in Black vernacular English, according to Merriam-Webster, to “stay woke” means to question “the dominant paradigm,” and to carry awareness of racial and other forms of oppression. The phrase became a Black Lives Matter call to action in the Ferguson uprising of 2014, but as that revolutionary spirit ebbed, “wokeness” has become a stand-in for what the right once decried as “political correctness” (Extra!, 5–6/91).
It’s a buzzword that can indict liberals as the speech police, or denounce anything from diversity initiatives (Newsweek, 10/15/21), criticisms of aggressive policing in Black communities (Fox News, 8/7/21) and LGBTQ complaints about Dave Chappelle’s Netflix comedy special (New York Daily News, 10/28/21).
“Karl Marx called his system ‘scientific socialism,’” Paul Rubin wrote in the Wall Street Journal (10/5/21). “Modern leftists advocate a similar ideology and call themselves ‘woke’ to indicate that they understand the world better than the rest of us.”
In the wake of Black Lives Matter uprisings and the rise in awareness of white nationalist organizing, corporate media have taken up the term, often in a pejorative or sarcastic context. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has featured the word in dozens of headlines, in pieces defending opting out of Covid-19 vaccines (10/29/21), transphobia (10/14/21), anti–teachers union positions (7/7/21), free-market capitalism (10/5/21) and voter suppression (4/28/21). The Journal has even used it to attack the Chinese Communist Party (3/7/21; FAIR.org, 3/17/21).
This parade of anti-woke pieces is part of an ongoing crisis of legitimacy at the Journal. As the Columbia Journalism Review (Fall/21) noted, nearly 300 news-side employers in July 2020 signed a letter to the paper’s publisher “complaining about a ‘lack of fact-checking and transparency’ on the editorial page,” which “was undercutting the paper’s credibility and making it difficult to recruit and retain journalists of color.” The “anti-woke” backlash serves as a prime illustration: The editors are eager to attach a current buzzword about race and gender anxiety to any issue they can, no matter how much a stretch, to defend corporate America and the Republican Party from any form of politics anchored in addressing economic inequality.
More in link.Last week, a school board member in Flagler County, Fla., urged the local sheriff to open a criminal investigation over four copies on school library shelves of George M. Johnson's queer YA memoir All Boys Aren't Blue. And while just months ago that kind of move would have been regarded as a shocking but isolated incident, it is now all too common. A similar criminal complaint against librarians in Wyoming garnered national headlines this summer, although the district attorney last month declined to pursue charges.
New headlines virtually every day tell the story: across the country, there is an unprecedented spike in attempts to ban books from schools and libraries. And while efforts to remove books from schools and library collections are not uncommon, librarians and freedom to read advocates warn that this current spike in challenges is different, as it appears to be part of a broader political strategy.
In recent years this country has been
subjected to an onslaught of so-called
civil rights activity. These ,modern con-
ceptions of civil rights do not refer
to the basic freedoms enumerated in
the Bill of Rights of our Federal
Constitution such as freedom of reli-
gion and freedom of the press, but are
concerned rather with a relentless
drive to wipe out "discrimination" and
"bias" based on race and religion,
mainly the former.
While no decent person will defend racial or religious
hate, it does not follow that every pos-
sible action taken to eliminate them is
either good or necessary. Prohibition
was termed a "noble experiment" but
it did more harm than good, for the
simple reason that it abridged personal
freedom without sufficient justification.
The same basic error permeates much
of the civil rights activity now in
vogue. To condemn these activities no
more makes one a proponent of bias
than to oppose prohibition made one
a bootlegger or a drunkard.
This drive to eliminate "discrimina-
tion" is largely a product of the years
following the close of World War II.
Generally it consists of litigation, legis-
lation and other actions, lawful and
otherwise, all purporting to have the
same basic objective: the wiping out of
"bias". In the legislative field the typi-
cal pattern has been enactment of a
statute with an enforcing agency. Al-
though these "antibias" laws vary in
detail from one jurisdiction to another,
they usually declare illegal "discrimi-
nation" in such areas as employment,
housing, public accommodations and
resorts, public transportation and
sometimes education.
About half our states, and some municipalities,
now have such laws, many with enforcing
agencies. In New York, for example,
the basic statute was passed in 1945
and created as the enforcing agency the
State Commission Against Discrimina-
tion, which came to be called simply
"SCAD". Recently its name was
changed to the State Commission for
Human Rights.
Invariably these agencies begin their
work in an unobtrusive manner but
with the passage of time they often be-
come increasingly aggressive, seeking
Inore powers, asking broader areas in
which to operate and harsher punitive
Ineasures for alleged offenders. Some
have stated very candidly that if
enough complaints are not filed to keep
them busy, they will go out searching
for examples of bias.
Frequently they query employers as to
the proportions of races and creeds
in their employ; they scrutinize employment applica-
tions to see if there are any questions
deemed discriminatory; they scan
advertising by hotels and resorts to
ferret out language that might be a
subtle cloak for bias. These commis-
sions, in short, seem to view their
scope as ever-widening. For example,
in 1961 Ogden R. Reid, the then chair-
man of SCAD, said that he desired
legislation to give his agency power to
deal with bias in promotions as well as
in initial hiring procedures.
The trend is, unmistakably, in the direction of
more and more power for these agen-
cies. As SCAD said in one of its recent
publications: "While no complaint has
been too minor, no objective has been
too large"2 (italics added).
Sometimes the activities of these
agencies verge on the absurd. In one
instance the owner of a little harber-
shop on Long Island placed a sign in
his window reading "Kinky Haircuts
$5.00". SCAD, neither amused by his
crude attempt at subtlety nor deterred
by the ancient maxim de minimis non
curat lex, took immediate steps to
punish him. Several years ago the
State of New York deleted the item
"color" from the various details of
personal description on drivers' licen-
ses on the ground that that information
was discriminatory.
While such non-sense hardly merits comment,
I cite it as an example of how far such notions
can be carried.
In general, however, the activities
of the antidiscrimination agencies are
more ominous than amusing. In 1961
the press reported that the Philadelphia
Commission on Human Rights had
warned 17,000 employers in that city
that they must not follow merely the
letter of the antibias statutes but be
prepared to show that they "really be-
lieved in the spirit" of such laws. Re-
cently a civil rights committee of the
New York County Lawyers Association
advocated strengthening local laws
against bias in housing by publicizing
proceedings to embarrass the accused;
should this not suffice, the committee
concluded, "consideration might be
given to the traditional criminal sane-
tions"3.
Plenty more in link.Teachers Are Told
Words To Avoid
In 1961 the New York City Board
of Education issued a directive to
teachers in its system to stop using
certain words and expressions which
might prove offensive to minority
groups. Among the proscribed expres-
sions were "low socioeconomic", "fear
of walking" [in certain neighbor-
hoods], "complete apathy of parents"
and-believe it or not the expression
"dedicated teacher"!
Thus, in about two decades, we have
passed in rapid succession from the
novel to the startling and from the
startling to the grotesque. Into our
repository of Anglo-Saxon jurispru-
dence, whose very foundation stones
are the maximum freedom of thought
and action for individuals with mini-
mum restraint and interference by gov-
ernment, some new and strange con-
cepts are being infused. What is more
alarming is that they are being ac-
cepted, passively and unquestioningly,
by most of our populace.
Liberty is being subordinated to "equality". A
type of absolute egalitarianism, riding
roughshod over personal privacy and
individual freedom, has become the
order of the day. Matters that formerly
were well within the realm of personal
Civil Rights and Civil Wrongs
choice and decision are now branded
as criminal or tortious, with the puni-
tive police power of government stand.
ing by. Private business and social
dealings now must contend with the
government as an uninvited third
party, overseeing and checking what
private citizens do and even how and
what they think.
When bureaucrats not chosen by the
people can warn us to obey the "spirit"
of laws or face penalties; when a fed-
eral district judge can sit as the abso-
lute overseer of a local community's
affairs; when school teachers are
muzzled and coerced; when our citi-
zens cease to be free individuals and
become merely "ethnic groups" to be
manipulated according to some socio-
logical dictum; when our law and our
courts become merely the extensions of
the sociologists' workshops; when gov-
ernment can invade the hearts and
minds of men to search out their
subtlest motivations and innerlnost
thoughts; when all of these things
come to pass in our land of the free,
it is high time we asked ourselves just
where we are headed.
The most significant recent devel-
opments center on. proposed federal
legislation in this field. If such laws
were to be enacted, the national gov-
ernment would be given jurisdiction
and powers in areas never previously
regarded as coming within its ambit.
The erosion of state and local author-
ity would be tremendously accelerated.
The hour already is late. We ~ay be,
even now, in the twilight of our liberty,
standing on the very threshold of the
type of era envisioned by Orwell. When
liberty is taken from some, it tends ulti-
mately to fade for all. When that dread-
ful day arrives, there no longer will be
any need to argue about discrimina-
tion for we shall all be joined together
in the terrible equality that is slavery.
In the section for words teachers were to avoid I came across this. I hadn't seen that mentioned in a while. At least not directly mentioned:carmenjonze wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:40 am For anyone who thinks this anti-education behavior from conservative whites is new, it's actually something they've never stopped doing. This pamphlet from the White Citizen's Councils in 1964 contains an awful lot of familiar language and gripes.
Civil Rights and Civil Wrongs - Ole Miss Libraries, pdf
Plenty more in link.
If only the cons realize the free education they are getting here if they were to just stop being stubborn obstinate children and read what you write and provide, they could learn so much, I know I do.carmenjonze wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:59 am Wow looks like somebody at FAIR has been reading my posts!
Media’s Anti-‘Woke’ Mania Moves Social Justice to the Fringe
Much more in link.
Maybe. Thanks! But really, it's for our reference. F' them.
There you go again, using the Broad Brush that you had said you would not use.
That is where they came from.marindem01 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:29 am There you go again, using the Broad Brush that you had said you would not use.
Who in the fuck are YOU Glenn to demand a member of this forum to "Name 3 Things Positive About The U.S.A."?
And who the fuck are YOU decide for yourself you have a right to make such a demand?
YOU, have continue to refuse to answer Carmen's question on CRT, YOU demand of her to list what she as an individual was is great about our country, while ignoring her question to you. That is classic deflection on your part.
YOU as a Conservative have no right to demand anyone declare what great our Country, as if by making such declaration somehow imbues Patriotism. You would most certainly take a part any statement by Carmen because what she may or may not write would not conform to your own version of what is great.
We do not live in Nazi Germany or Communist China (which the Traitor praised). Being a "Good American" does not mean conforming to your version of a great country.
Your demand of Carmen is strongly UN-AMERICAN. You have no right to decide what does not does not make our Country the nation that it is.
There is no AMERICAN LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. Carmen does not have to list single solitary goddamn thing.
The freedoms we enjoy are NOT god given. No American can called upon to declare they believe makes the United States great.
You, as a Conservative have your beliefs on what the United States a great country, but those are yours. Just my beliefs are mine.
For you to question those beliefs and/or require another person to list their beliefs smacks of Fascism based solely on your construct is wrong.
Take your demands and shove them up your butt Glenn. That is where they belong.
Konservative kancel kulture
The US defends its friends and allies.
I'd like to be clear about why I didn't answer Glennfs' interrogation, and never will.Toonces wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:48 pm The US defends its friends and allies.
The US is one of the first to sign up when a disaster strikes somewhere in the world.
The US is often at the forefront of invention and innovation
Most Americans are decent, friendly people
Most Americans won't care that I gave more than 3.
Most children wouldn't even understand CRT.
He's never even read any CRT. Neither have any of these karen parents repeating AEI and Heritage Foundation, Koch brothers astroturf. They don't want actual history taught that deviates from "george washington and the cherry tree/we won WW2/Reagan brought us prosperity," because they don't want their and their parents' 1950s-1980s counterprotest pictures in the news coming up in class. :problem:But it's not about CRT itself, is it? It's about being taught that there was a time when people were treated differently simply because of the color of their skin, or where they came from, or just who they were. It was a time when white people were cruel and inhumane. That is what white parents don't want their children learning and it is dangerous to sugarcoat history to appease those who don't wish to feel uncomfortable.
Yes it's like my current sig:We can only fix the unjust if we know it exists.