caleb1633

Great article! I can't disagree with much of anything she said, and also share her unpopular opinion that our presence there the last few years has been a good return at a relatively low cost, part of which is having an air base on that side of China (Can't wait to be flamed by the LOLbertarians for that one).

Who lost Afghanistan? Any country that's ever tried to invade it lol.

No worries. As a true liberal, I believe in open and honest debate. Truth is the north star to me, so I'm not here as a tribalist that's unwilling to be swayed by logic and reason. As far as your last statement, I generally agree when it comes to most topics. I think what makes CRT different is what occurs every time this type of ideology takes root. Plenty of serious atheists are extremely pro-religion on empirical grounds. It might be irrational, but people aren't rational and religion certainly can help (though it can also obviously be destructive itself). The ideas that Lindsay is selling the church aren't atheist ideas or ideas rooted in atheism. He's simply educating the church on what all of the Woke stuff means, not selling them in an ideology based in atheism; whereas to pull ideas from CRT is to pull ideas derived from Marxism. I also have never seen atheism destroy cultures like Marxism pretty much always does. No one would ever suggest the church should pull material from the writings of Kevin Strom (white nationalist, neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier, and white separatist) or ideas from "Mein Kampf." Marxism has been every bit as destructive as those ideologies. My bottom line is, of all the secular ideas you can pull from, this is one of the worst that the church or any organization could choose. MLK Jr. made probably the most eloquent defense anyone has ever made about the right way in which to treat other human beings, and those ideas allowed arguably the greatest—albeit imperfect and sometimes ugly—progress in race relations the world has ever seen. His intent was to empty the social significance of racial categories, and instead said "I am a man." CRT fundamentally rejects this notion and instead places social significance back into racial categories. If CRT is the antithesis of the principles that led to the greatest racial progress in human history (Civil Rights Movement and the liberal order), then does it suffice to say that it could very well lead to a rapid regression in race relations?

Like many current Christian traditions, it actually emerged from adoption of Roman mythology (kind of like Easter adopting eggs, Christmas adopting another pagan holiday, etc.). One of the earliest adaptations was "The Good Shepherd", which portrayed him as beardless and in the likeness of Orpheus, Hermes, or Apollo. They were less concerned about capturing his actual likeness than they were about clarifying his role as ruler and savior, which is why they made him in the image of gods that the culture could already relate to. Others portrayed him as more mature, with shoulder length brown hair and a beard, kind of a "Syrian Style." The Renaissance was when we started seeing more of the blonde hair, blue eyed Jesus; and that was due mostly to the anti-semitism of the time. Those images kind of stuck and were also carried throughout the rest of the world during the colonial period, and it did carry with it a hierarchical theme (whites were at the top of the food chain and non-white were subordinate), especially in Latin America. As far as why it persists today, well, I'd say it's mostly tradition, though the most modern and influential churches aren't commonly displaying that old school white Jesus art anyway. I don't say this in defense of the church, as I've become quite disaffected towards it myself. I don't think church members even give that kind of stuff much thought, though I don't doubt there are some clergy out there beating their chest on believing in the revisionist history of Christ.

Well, consider the following: 1) The virus came from a city that has one of only several labs in the world that study bat Coronaviruses. 2) Multiple workers from that lab were hospitalized right before cases began popping up in the general population. 3) Multiple people in the scientific community have observed potential human engineering in the genetic make-up of the virus. Any of those things by themselves doesn't make a strong case, but the compounding odds of all those things make it more difficult to believe it came from anywhere else. I don't believe it was a bio-weapon, as I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that hypothesis other than "Look how China benefited from it" (motive =/= evidence), but it's hardly an unreasonable hypothesis that negligence in protocol led to an accidental release. It deserves investigation, and people shouldn't be considered "deranged conspiracy theorists" for suggesting such. People have believed JFK was killed by the CIA for decades and have been shunned less.

First I will give you kudos for making by far the best argument I've seen in favor of CRT. It far surpassed anything that the MSM has stated since the discussion on this topic began a few months ago. However, I still disagree. I could spend some time on the technicalities of what "endorse" actually means, or Lindsay's qualifications, the value of satire, etc. But I think that doesn't really get down to the brass tax of this issue, which is: What does the SBC, any institution, or society as a whole stand to gain from using CRT as a form of education? This never just stops with using a few of the tools to aid in addressing an issue. Social Justice scholarship began with good intentions in universities. Black Studies, Queer Studies, Women's Studies, etc. all started in an effort to highlight the contributions of these groups to society and to de-stigmatize the members of those groups. However, once the same tools that formed CRT were applied to these studies, they quickly turned from celebrating women to vilifying men, and from celebrating black people to demonizing whites. Disciplines intended to de-stigmatize suddenly began to re-stigmatize. Applying the tools of Marxism, Critical Theory, and Post-Modernism to any sociological issue will always inevitably metastasize and create a pit of vipers. CRT's ideological precursors are clear and its goals are equivalent to that of those precursors: to deconstruct and dismantle everything it touches. A wake of destruction occurs virtually everywhere that these ideas take hold, all in search of an elusive utopia; a search which has never and will never end without a descent into dispair and authoritarianism. Even if CRT were true—that all white people are racist and all people of color, LGBT, and women are oppressed—it is still profoundly unhelpful. It is not an ideology in pursuit of reform, unification, or progress. It isn’t a solution for justice. It’s a solution for endless ongoing division. So even if there are "good" aspects that we can glean from it, there is still no claim Critical Race Theory can make that cannot be made better by approaching it in some other way than Critical Race Theory. Marxism and its derivatives have an abysmal track record of helping societies, and a tremendous track record of destroying them. I fail to see how this could play out any different. Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate the intellect behind your opinion, even if I disagree.

Haha would love to hear your inputs, @tomcat! War Eagle!

The assessment of James Lindsay as a general hoaxster is specious. He contrived a hoax that was purposeful and brought to light something that needed to be exposed. Stetson Kennedy pranked the KKK in the 1940s and played a significant role in marginalizing their influence. To stonewall the merits of Lindsay's work because he's an atheist, a mathematician, former massage therapist, or because he a played a hoax on academic journals to convey a point is a weak attempt at defamation. If anything, it shows how shoddy the academics who write for these journals are; that a mathematician could produce papers that were better than many of those who are trained Critical Theorists. As far as the SBC, the resolution specifically states, "Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences." So they endorse using CRT, so long as there is no "misuse of the insights gained from critical race theory, intersectionality, and any unbiblical ideologies that can emerge from their use when absolutized as a worldview." Okay, I will be fair in this. The SBC is not endorsing all of CRT, just the "good" parts of it; however, that doesn't provide a lot of CRT that can actually be utilized. There are *some* kernels of truth and valuable insights that can be gleaned from CRT—particularly in its original form when some of the problems it identified were more accurate of the state of society in the 1970s—but those insights run out pretty quickly before becoming a destructive tool; and the school of thought certainly doesn't match up with Andre E. Johnson's statement in the article that there are "no contradictions between the study of critical theory and Christianity, despite claims by critics that CRT conflicts with the Christian gospel." Antonio Gramsci, a prominent Critical Theorist himself wrote, “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” Yeah.... Not anti-Christian at all. Critical Theory in general does not hold the church or Christianity in high regard. There are a million things that are anti-Christian about Critical Theory and CRT. The rest of the stuff Johnson said in that article about Critical Theory and CRT was either dishonest or distorted. The author is also guilty of appealing to authority by automatically crediting Christian scholars who study Critical Theory as the beacons of truth on this topic. There are a lot better means of secular analysis available to the church than CRT. Critical Theory and Christianity do not merely exist in tension towards one another: they are directly at odds in almost every facet possible. Endorsing the use of CRT at all by the SBC is essentially playing with fire.

Bringing some of the CRT debate over here? Mainstream religion has declined globally, not just in the U.S. It isn't just "whitewashed" (eye role) Christianity that's declining. Per Ronald Inglehart, who wrote a book about this issue: "An analysis of religious trends from 1981 to 2007 in 49 countries containing 60% of the world’s population did not find a global resurgence of religion—most high-income countries were becoming less religious—however, it did show that in 33 of the 49 countries studied, people had become more religious (Norris and Inglehart, 2011). But since 2007, things have changed with surprising speed. From 2007 to 2020, an overwhelming majority (43 out of 49) of these same countries became less religious. This decline in belief is strongest in high-income countries but it is evident across most of the world. (Inglehart, 2021)" So, nice way of twisting things as another screech moment by the author about the GOP and the church's stance against CRT. I do agree with some of it, such a total lack of understanding for why Christians had such an infatuation with Trump. Funny story: My friends and I got a kick out of visiting the Trump Store in Gatlinburg where they had "Jesus is my Savior and Trump is My President" shirts as merchandise, right next to "Buck Fiden" bumper stickers lol. But, this isn't really accurate of a lot of churches and Christians. A lot are getting steam rolled by the Social Justice movement and many Christians have become Woke (see the Southern Baptist Convention). They've replaced their faith in a metaphysical higher power with their "Critical Consciousness" and ability to see all the pervasive systems of power that are so prevalent through their eyes. Humans have an innate desire for religion that has to be filled with something.

I think a lot of people have failed to understand that there's a very distinct difference "black lives matter" and "Black Lives Matter." The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the statement "black lives matter", and are thereby sucked into agreeing with the efforts of the organization that is "Black Lives Matter." But that's a different can of worms.

Pretty sure the fact checkers at Washington Post rated this story as "Three Pinocchios", which is pretty bad, especially considering how biased the WaPo can be towards the Democratic Party. Fact is, Democratic leadership from cities across America did call for a defunding of the police last year, and it was often done in combination with not allowing the police to enforce any laws. 17 Walgreens stores are shutting down in San Francisco due to rampant shoplifting. Apparently people can shoplift legally so long as it's less than $950. Buckhead is trying to secede from Atlanta due to the rapid increase in crime, and Brookhaven already left the city. The city cut their corrections budget by 60% and converted the Atlanta jail into a "center of equity, health, and wellness." I can't believe this is even an argument. Talk about Gaslighting. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/murders-surge-as-police-are-defunded-up-64percent-in-minneapolis/ar-BB1fEEib

I'll just go ahead and dispel that myth as well. Bureau of Justice Statistics: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf Scroll to Table 14 and you'll see the following information: 24.5% of crimes against Asian Americans are by whites, 27.5% are by blacks, 7.0% are by Hispanics, 24.1% are by other Asian-Americans, and 14% are by other ethnic groups. The dude just lies. To be fair, he does say, "and during the pandemic", but it's dubious to think that it went from 24% to over 75% in two years.

Yeah, we can really expect a fair analysis on this from one of the great grifters of our time. Let's trust the guy who said, "In order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist…. And in order to truly be anti-capitalist, you have to be antiracist, because they’re interrelated.” —Angela Davis said something like this almost verbatim. Let's trust the guy who said, "The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Let's trust the guy who, in this article, talks about accepting constructive criticism, but refuses to engage in any sort of debate about his ideas—John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, and Bret Weinstein have tried to debate him on this multiple times, but he refuses to even answer. Let's trust the guy whose world view is so simplistic that he thinks racism is literally at the heart of everything (sounds like the first principle of CRT to me), and that you're either a racist or an anti-racist. How about sometimes things happen that have literally nothing to do with race? Or it might play only a meniscule factor and society is far more complex than this black and white paradigm of "racist or anti-racist." Let's trust the guy who can't even define racism. His definition of racism is literally, "Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities." (p. 17-18, How to Be an Antiracist). You can't use a term in order to define a term. I'm sorry, but this article is just full of lies. It could power downtown San Diego for over a year with all the Gaslighting. CRT is being taught in schools, even if it doesn't go by that name. It is the praxis (theory in practice) of CRT. It didn't just stay in law school. The literature even says so itself. CRT is divisive and it is rooted in Marxism. Name one country in history that has benefited from Marxism and its derivatives.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/californianewstimes.com/national-geographic-tweets-that-july-4-fireworks-are-racist-smoke-targets-communities-of-color/426732/%3famp And now fireworks are racist. Thanks Nat Geo for more explemplary journalism. "An asteroid is headed towards earth! Here's why women and minorities will be impacted the most! #AsteroidsAreRacist" It all goes back to CRT and the belief that racism is in everything, like the force in Star Wars or something. The Iron Law of Woke Projection remains unbroken.

I've yet to see any reliable evidence to support the hypothesis of an intentional release. If you're looking to intentionally leak a virus on the world, you don't do it right on the doorsteps of your own country at one of the only virology institutes in the world that studies Coronaviruses. Logically, the way it occurred makes me believe it was an accidental leak, and the growing evidence emerging suggests that as well. CRT is part of our own culture war and has distracted us from focusing on China, though we do need to resolve our own internal conflicts if we want to effectively fight one that is external.

Agreed completely. It wouldn't surprise me if they've infiltrated much of our institutions, and I know of instances where they have infiltrated our institutions, but to say it's as deep as he says is a strong assertion; and strong statements require strong evidence.

Some very bold statements, and I'd like to see what evidence he has to support it. I do know he's not the first person to say this, and I can speak from experience that the CCP are launching an assault on pretty much every non-kinetic front in order to undermine our position in the world. For instance, when I was stationed in Okinawa, some of the bases had protests by locals in front of the gates on a daily basis. It was a well known fact that they were paid by the Chinese to do this. While I haven't been fully sold on Loudon's claims, the Neo-Marxist influence associated with CRT is absolutely undeniable. The ideology is heavily rooted in Critical Theory (essentially "Cultural Marxism" for lack of a better term) and many of the individuals surrounding it are self-proclaimed Marxists and Communists. I hate that the Republicans cried wolf about socialism/communism/Marxism for so long, because I think it's made many hesitant to believe it now.

https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/ The nation's largest teachers union has approved a plan to promote Critical Race Theory in all 50 states and in 14,000 local school districts. Can we stop denying the fact that CRT is being taught in K-12?

This whole theology (a more appropriate term than "theory") may label itself as "anti-racist", but it's actually incredibly racist towards everyone. For instance, the Smithsonian put out a poster last year stating various aspects that encompass "White culture." Things such as: self reliance, objective and rational linear thinking, hard work, progress is always best, and being on time. As if though these things are bad and other races aren't capable of doing such things. Then we have other instances where segregation is making a comeback. Example: Columbia University had segregated graduations based on race. The irony of calling yourself "anti-racist" by advocating for a return to segregation and infantilizing minorities.

Skynet certainly saw it as a viable means of dealing with John Connor! Lol

I agree, which is why I'd advocate for the sentiment of "safe, legal, but also rare." Meaning that women can safely access it if they need to, but that it isn't the go-to whenever a pregnancy arises.

I used to be a Republican and was against abortion. Now I'm just politically homeless and try to judge every topic on its own merit. This study changed my mind on the topic of abortion: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pdf

The originating documents of CRT do express such sentiments. Derek Bell (who is considered the father of CRT) wrote that he essentially believed that white people would never allow blacks to achieve equality and that it was hopeless to assume that the liberal ideal of judging people as individuals rather than their racial category was hopeless. Kimberlé Crenshaw's solution (developer of intersectionality and considered kind of the mother of CRT) was outlined in her essay, "Mapping the Margins" where she proposed that instead of emptying the social significance of racial categories (as proposed by Civil Rights activists such as MLK), that group identity should be emphasized above all else as a "statement of resistance" against the system that is propped up in order to maintain white dominance and oppress everyone else. She also mentions Angela Davis in this essay as an influencer of her work. Angela Davis was a staunch communist in the 1960s and was radicalized by Herbert Marcuse, a prominent Critical Theorist out of the Frankfurt School. I could go on about the two of them, but that's another can of worms. To question if these statements by scholarship activists can be supported by the founding papers in the 1970s is a good question, but upon further examination is irrelevant since CRT expanded far beyond its origins in Harvard Law School. Richard Delgado said himself, "Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline." He specifically stated that CRT is a movement of scholars and activitists interested in studying and transforming the relationship between race, racism, and power. It continues, "Today, many in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists who use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy." Nicola Rollock and David Gill Borne (CRT activists themselves) wrote in “Critical Race Theory (CRT)” “Although critical race Theory arose in the United States in response to a very specific historical racial context, it has not remained in the United States. The British Educational Research Association has formed its own list of tenets of critical race Theory. Centrality of racism White supremacy Voices of people of color Interest convergence Intersectionality" It concludes, “CRT has developed rapidly into a major branch of social theory and has been taken up beyond the United States to include work in Europe, South America, Australia and Africa.” As far as all of the authors who essentially labeled the white race as evil, they all have ties that can be traced back directly to CRT in its original form, or their frame of study is undeniably derived from CRT. Barbara Applebaum's bio from Syracuse University: "Barbara Applebaum is trained in philosophy of education. Professor Applebaum's scholarly interests are currently focused on the point where ethics, education, and commitments to diversity converge. Her research is heavily informed by feminist ethics, feminist philosophy, and CRITICAL RACE THEORY." Noel Ignatiev was an American author and historian. He was best known for his work on race and social class and for his call to abolish "whiteness". Ignatiev was the co-founder of the New Abolitionist Society and co-editor of the journal "Race Traitor", which promoted the idea that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity". Under the name Noel Ignatin, he joined the Communist Party USA in January 1958, but in August left (along with Theodore W. Allen and Harry Haywood) to help form the Provisional Organizing Committee to Reconstitute the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party (POC). His book "How the Irish Became White" is a suggested reading in"Critical Race Theory: An Introduction" on Page 85. Derald Sue is a professor of counseling psychology at Columbia University. He has authored several books, including Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice, Overcoming our Racism, and Understanding Abnormal Behavior. He has written over 150 publications on various topics such as multicultural counseling and psychotherapy, psychology of racism and antiracism, cultural diversity, cultural competence, and multicultural organizational development, but more specifically, multicultural competencies and the concept of microaggression (a term specifically mentioned in page 106 of the Intro to CRT). Johnny Williams is a Professor of Sociology at Trinity College in Hartford, CN. He is the author of numerous articles examining culture’s role in politics, social movement mobilization and scientific knowledge production. He is also currently writing "The Persistence of White Sociology" (Palgrave Macmillan) which explores how conventional sociology as a theory, method and ideology functions to ensure the viability of systemic racism. All things in line with the central tenants of CRT. Robin DiAngelo - Critical White Studies is a specifically mentioned spin-off of CRT. She is a consultant, and facilitator working in the fields of critical discourse analysis and whiteness studies (I'd find it hard to argue that Critical White Studies and "Whiteness studies" vary in any way). DiAngelo has published a number of academic articles on race, privilege, and education and written several books. Her first book was co-written with Ozlem Sensoy, "Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Critical Social Justice Education." Ozlem Sensory's primary field of research is social justice education. Social justice education seeks to reveal how social inequities become embedded in the fabric of society, and to identify strategies for socially just change. Her research examines the opportunities and barriers inherent in advancing a more equitable society, through social justice education. In doing so, she studied a dual track: analyzing how inequities are reproduced in social institutions (such as schools, media, policing), and identifying constructive interventions to interrupt them (such as thinking critically about knowledge, pedagogical approaches, and political activism). I will agree with you that of all the places it has spread, K-12 education is not the most prominent, particularly in red states. While it isn't part of the curriculum in those states, teachers have still been teaching many of the central themes as outlined by CRT scholars and their derivatives. I think the reason it is becoming so heavily contested in K-12 is because of how impressionable children in that age group are. Social Justice Theory has turned many college campuses into a pit of vipers, and Republican legislators are trying to prevent the same thing from happening in their public education systems. It is undeniable how Woke-ified our institutions have become, and there should be pushback because at its core, CRT is an enemy of liberalism. The advocates of CRT try and put lipstick on the pig by saying, "Oh it's just diversity training and making everyone feel welcome! It's just trying to fight racism." If all you do is post a bunch of BS articles coming from the leftist media that are either lying about it or delusional, then of course it's not going to look so bad. But read the actual material and it becomes apparent that this is a white washed tomb. It's pretty on the outside, but full of decay on the inside. I feel like there is no amount of evidence that will ever convince you that CRT is being pushed on our society and that it's a bad thing. I think your anti-conservative tribalism is going to make it nearly impossible to convince you otherwise, but let me ask you: What would convince you that many of us on here are correct in our stance on CRT?

If you believe that racism is evil, as we all should, then telling white people that they're all racist is essentially calling an entire group of people "evil." They do this: “All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce.” Barbara Applebaum, Being White, Being Good. “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Noel Ignatiev in the film "Indoctrinate U" “If you abolish slavery, you abolish slaveholders. If you want to abolish racial oppression, you do away with whiteness.” Noel Ignatiev in the film "Indoctrinate U" “White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility “White people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions." Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility. “Whiteness is an invisible veil that cloaks its racist deleterious effects through individuals, organizations, and society. The result is that White people are allowed to enjoy the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their skin color. Thus, Whiteness, White supremacy, and White privilege are three interlocking forces that disguise racism so it may allow White people to oppress and harm persons of color while maintaining their individual and collective advantage and innocence.” Derald Sue, “The Invisible Whiteness of Being.” “Whiteness by its very definition and operation as a key element of white supremacy kills; it is mental and physical terrorism. To end the white terrorism that is directed at racially oppressed people here and in other nations, it is essential that self-identified whites and their whiteness collaborators among the racially oppressed confront their white problem head-on, unencumbered by racial comfort.” Johnny Williams in the Hartford Courant. Still gonna try and keep defending this crap?