Democrats had record turnout in 2020 – more than anyone ever before, and it wasn’t even close. The problem is that it turned out there were 10 million more Americans that wanted racism and hatred (i.e. Trump) but didn’t vote in 2016. The Democrats aren’t awful (though they certainly have lots of flaws) – America just has tons of people who want exactly what Trump delivered. There’s not much Democrats can do to get the votes of the Americans who WANTED deliberate cruelty to migrants, anti-trans hatred, and the like. Luckily there’s more of us, but not by the margin I had hoped.
Judging from her posts yesterday, @Kimstu would disagree with you that it can be falsified.
Of course CRT is not remotely comparable to natural selection in terms of evidence - no social science can be. And unlike natural selection, it is something most people will only have heard of in the last 10 years, if at all. Some of what it says is well known and well evidenced, I agree, but I already mentioned two points that I haven’t seen evidence for.
I think it’s the ideas that perhaps were influenced by CRT but are not actually part of it, like Kendi’s claim that any difference between groups must be caused by racism, that are most clearly lacking in evidence.
You really hate them, don’t you? Half your own country. Is this how civil wars begin? (Guess that’s a topic for another thread…)
Where did I say anything about hatred? Or anything about my emotions? If you disagree with my post, tell me what you disagree with. This personal crap just reflects on you; it says nothing about me.
Trolling iiandyiiii with “Why the hate? You’re the cause of lack of civil discourse / civil war/ etc”
You can’t be so blind as to accuse an American of “hating half the country” because he pointed out Trump’s gross malice.
You’ll have to start a new thread if you want to talk about that, I shouldn’t have said anything.
Let’s you and him fight!
But seriously, do you really think that there is disagreement here? I think that you are simply misunderstanding one, or more likely both, of what they actually said.
I don’t know someone else’s mind, but I think we could have avoided a long and tiresome digression if @Kimstu had replied with the same thing LHoD did.
This is the second time I ask: where does Kendi put that on a CRT paper? Again if it was an opinion piece that was just that, an opinion. Unless you can post the cite from a paper that was published, you are still in the “not even wrong” territory. This is because if you do want to insist on “falsification” in an academic or a science setting, you at least have to cite the journal and paper where that was proposed.
You brought it up; you start a thread about it if you want to talk about it.
It would have been even better avoided if you had understood what @Kimstu had said as well as @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness did.
It’s kinda like @Kimstu was describing general relativity, and @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness came along and summed it up as, “Things fall down.” I assume that being a grade school teacher, he’s better at explaining things in simple fashion.
Wow. If you think that’s a suitable summary of general relativity…!
Sometimes you have to lower things to the level of your audience.
On another board, I was discussing an issue, let’s say, the merits of the prosecution’s closing statement in the second impeachment trial. This poster DevilShrub popped in and asked, “Was it really any good? Like, what musical notes did Schiff’s speech include?”
Another poster, JenDru, very patiently explained that you shouldn’t analyze political speeches using the tools of musical theory, that was a very silly approach. But Devilshrub just kept insisting that Schiff’s proponents were ignoring this issue and dodging the question, and really, how hard could it be to identify the musical notes in his speech?
Finally I got irritated. I pointed out that, even though the question was silly, it was trivially answered: Schiff’s voice hit B2, C#2, D2, and several other notes on multiple occasions. But that didn’t really mean anything.
Devilshrub was like, “Why was this so difficult? Obviously JenDru disagrees with you that he hit any musical notes at all!”
At that point I abandoned the conversation as having any value beyond a thinly-veiled analogy for another future thread.
Seems to be that DemonTree does not bother to check published science and rely just on what bloglessors from the right are telling her.
Again, if one is insisting about fallibility in a scientific setting, one needs to cite the published papers from journals where the controversial conclusions are allegedly posted.
Well, what I have learned here is that you are a better explainer than I.
And what I have learned is that people here are uninterested in whether the ideas they believe and want to base government policy on are actually correct.
Also, @k9bfriender apparently thinks Einstein discovered General Relativity when an apple fell on his head.
Before I abandon this thead where false analogies have taken the place of rational arguments, can you tell me what the heck a bloglessor is please?
You can lead a horse to water…
See, it’s assertions like this that make the conclusions you state on other topics seem rather… suspect.
No you haven’t, because that’s patently false. You also apparently haven’t learned the real thing, which is that “falsifiability” is entirely the wrong lens through which a idea like critical race theory should be evaluated. It can be done, but it’s a silly exercise. It would be great if you’d learn that, and then start trying to figure out what is a reasonable lens through which to evaluate CRT.