teaching_it.md 8.8 KB
Anxious wannabes of high society accept sales pitch to fashionably work from home and feel dramatic pity for themselves at the expense of untold horror across the world Teaching CRT is just teaching history? That the description of the world through the eyes of the most intolerant and uncharitable perception ever humanly possible can just be broadly accepted as being or making factual historical references without bias is an insane idea, or an idea that hasn't been given much thought It's easier to avoid thinking about hte issue and just say that "well, there's been a historical problem" so we might as well just allow for some sort of solution to eb proposed, and if it' snot the perfect solution, that's fine because in time we will have a better solution, because things improve, or at least ,it seems that things improve over tiem, because societies improve. But isn't that interesting, then, because we speak of how we need to fix society, that the state is insufficient, lacking, unsatisfactory, unacceptable, and therefore it must be addressed now, we need to have this solution because otherwise things are not to be accepted. But the state of affairs is one which we also presume is better, because we expect that as time goe son, society is improving, thus our imperfect solutions are ones to be admitted because they are instantiated within a process which keeps improving. I don't think that's enough to qualify that the problem is so great that we need a new solution. Isn't the fact of society having been improving one which can be demonstrated with respect to the lives of those whom we deem as being, in this case, those that are insufficiently served by society? If their situation is improving, do we want to break that process and hope that it improves things even more, or faster, because of the instantiation of something new which is said to be for that more specific purpose? It would seem that this makes sense at the surface, but what if the solution itself also contributes values which are antithetical to the optimal solution? What if they don't serve to improve the situation whatsoever, but just allow us to believe that we have added an additional feature which makes improvement in the name of something which we believe needs to be addressed? It would seem that we can look at this very many ways, but because of the nature of the topic, the conversation, the subject at hand, and teh implications of morality, many have an increased incentive to not talk about those details, but to just accept it at the surface, without having to really do the work of understanding what this produces, what it means, what the logical conclusions being produced and sought are going to be if we utilize it, and so on. This is intellectual laziness, and it's not replaced by posing oneself as intellectually astute solely on the stipulation that one accepts this new solutions, a new solution which means a new idea, something not previously known and now something which is being given attention, but only by those who hvae the mind that is able to recognize value in something new before others are taught how to understand it. There are so many reasons to be intellectually lazy here. But how about to actually take a stand against it and demand that it not be utilized, because one is certain that it does harm. That it is detrimental and destructive, antihuman, and anti existence. That it demands we value the notion that existence is not good enough, and that we must seek even symbolic gestures which focus on the misery while denying the progress being made. If, in fact, we are to deny the progress as it currently stands, and demand this new apparatus without giving it a rigorous analysis, then it's because the state of things, as they are, are unacceptable. Or it's because one is willing to allow for great harm to be produced, even for the aesthetic of a new artifact, because it serves one in some way. For most, it doesn't serve them much at all, or it serves them casually in some limited way, which doesn't seem to incur much cost. But this is simply laziness, and nothing more. For others, it serves them so greatly that they choose to make it part of their purpose, and they pursue it while it makes them miserable. The pursue it while it destroys the world, and causes them to believe that they are gaining power. In this regard, it is evil, and it is somethign which needs to be identified and stopped.
how yes it's nothing to teach CRT in schools teaching CRT is just teaching history the description of the world through the eyes of the most intolerant and uncharitable perception ever humanly imaginable can just be broadly accepted as being of making factual historical references without bias surely learning that flavour of elucidated conception of our selves will lead to us making the best possible decisions and will teach us true morality because surely the critical theorists are the ones best equipped to tell us what our thoughts are in every situation involving human interaction and why we have those thoughts and surely a critical theorist will be best to explain to us why certain out comes occur based on the races of the participants in a scenario, and their racist or antiracist perspectives they were either contributing to hte situation in ar acist or an antiracist manner and the outcome of that situation will also demonstrate which one the participants had chosen and only a Critical Theorist can actually assess the outcome and declare it for us to realize The idea that we can somehow decide that everyone fits a given descriptor while trying to ignore the fact that the manner in which we associate them with that descriptor is through their physical characteristics that we use those to qualify them as being associated with that descriptor and then look towards more details to either confirm the association, or paradoxically decide that they are either an exception or are somehow mentally programmed in a way where they refuse the descriptor, to their own detriment that, in that exceptional circumstance, in spite of their claim that their position is of their own volition, and a position that they have arrived at through logic and reason a position that they believe to be beneficial for them, one which confers their values, and one which they believe will make the world a better place that all of that is to be ignored that their perspective is to be ignored and instead replaced with a subsequently applied explanation by the critical theorist effectively attempts to erase them from the world because it provides the excuse for others to deny him the dignity of his mind, of his position and treat them as though their mind is an unfortunate circumstance that they have no control over and that their actual means of rationalization, their actual perspective, their actual process of decision making, of makign sense of reality, is smoething which has been planted by others a process which is controlle dby others and that we must treat their behaviour and their contribution to our shared systems as being an expression of others an expression which is itself unwanted, unfortunate, destructive and a testament to immorality so this entire apparatus does nothing except instill the same spirit which is normally associated with white supremacy it insists that all oppressive classes have a specific mindset and set of beliefs that the exceptions to this have no control over their minds, and are acting in such a way which indicates they are compromised and, at the very least, acting to the detriment of themselves, but possibly to the detriment of everything and those who are historically considered as being the oppressors can raise their moral standing by participating in this apparatus thus reinforcing their own white supremacy, so to speak it's an obviously doomed means of resolving issues which htemselves cannot be proven and cannot be ordered in an agreed upon manner because even the most naive of participants are contributing to a false representation of peoples which can never be proven to truly represent the perspective of any one person but can certainly be proven to demand that we deny the perspective of some people even those whom we deem the oppressed and those who are not naive, are wielding an apparatus which insists that we ascribe different levels of morality to persons based on their race and for us to believe that this can be wielded in a pure and loving way, free of bias, is something tha tno one would believe but the system which provides this apparatus describes reality in such a way that we must believe that those who decribe this system are the only ones who are able to wield it in a pure and unbiased manner so we basically create an apparatus of control over humans which decides who is good and who si evil and then we submit to the idea that a small group of people can have control over this process it's obviously flawed and evil exit