Uh, nope, the point was that the ones complaining are often exaggerating their pain, if pain is what you look for, look at what blacks and other minorities did go through and now.
That’s not any different from saying that your pain is invalid unless it’s greater than others’. If your pain is still valid then there’s no reason to bring up the pain olympics.
Uh, did you check the cites? Most of the parents and others giving testimony about CRT at FOX and other right wing sources of info, are not reliable narrators.
Not to mention that using feelings to counter research is very underwhelming. More so when it is coming from biased sources.
That still isn’t a reason to bring up the Little Rock Nine. So what if they are not reliable narrators? It doesn’t even matter if their complaints are invalid. If they are, you should dismiss them on their merits, not by bringing up irrelevant stuff.
Uh, if you had read the thread, you would have realized that the ones you are defending here are the ones bringing meritless stuff. Most of what FOX and others reported are made up things against CRT. Made up things that then later conservative governors used to justify bans on the teaching of CRT.
It is the blind guiding the blind.
I’m not defending them. I’m saying that claiming that you’re not trying to make anyone feel bad and then immediately insinuate that their feelings are invalid because of some greater injustice is, if not the most ironic thing in the world, at least Alanis-Morrisette ironish. It’s trying to make them feel bad about the smallness of their perceived injustice.
I think she was being more polite anyhow, IMHO the feelings you are trying to make valid here are the feelings of the AstroTurf movement.
.
.
.
I still remember how it was a big deal when some claimed that plants could have feelings.. Astroturf has even less detectable chances for that. 
ISTM that an accusation of “trying to make kids feel bad because they’re white,” besides being a canard, is an attempt at deflection/misdirection. The goal of bringing this to people’s attention (AIUI) is to educate them on facts related to systemic racism in American culture, institutions, and policies, and NOT to make anyone “feel bad.” If “feeling bad” happens, that’s on the person that finds themself dealing with having been confronted with their own privilege.
Conservatives Radical reactionaries need to stop trying to make CRT proponents feel bad about right-wingers’ personal problems. 
Okay.
OMG, I finally get it. I was thinking of interest convergence in accusatory terms. This is a much more positive explanation.
Also, this is coming from the “fuck your feelings” crowd.
No, you’re just attacking the person attacking them 
There is a very small point about how examining racial injustice in a classroom can make kids feel bad about their race. It’s absolutely true. BUT:
- How do you think it makes Black kids feel? Learning about centuries of oppression is a lot more traumatic when you’re learning about what happened to your ancestors than by your ancestors. The focus on the feelings of White kids is telling.
- This stuff is crucial to learn about, even if it’s painful. Accurate history is a vaccine against future social ills, and you don’t reject the vaccine just because the shot hurts.
- When kids feel bad, don’t tell them not to feel bad. Tell them that racism makes people feel bad, and that they can help stop the bad feelings by helping end racism. Acknowledge that there’s discomfort in the discussions. Reiterate that they shouldn’t feel guilty or ashamed because of their race, but that they should acknowledge how, traditionally, their racial identity means that a lot of people will treat them differently and unfairly. Emphasize that an injustice that benefits you is still an injustice (in my experience, about half of the kids I teach intuit this and the other half don’t), and that you don’t feel guilty about it but you do work against it–and that fighting injustices like racism is a singularly lovely American tradition.
I think UV’s main issue is that he is context-unaware, and that replies that try to make him aware of the context he couldn’t be bothered to acquire seem to him to miss the point that he was trying to make.
He instantly builds up a strawman, and then continues to reiterate the “very good argument” he made against that strawman. He seems to be putting thought and time into his argument, and additional arguments against the strawman, so people will spend time pointing out the context he missed, but he sees his job to be defending his “very good argument” and is unable to recognize that he might have started off misunderstanding the poster he replied to.
No, you reject it because the “malady” is a hoax. /s
This is totally off topic for the original thread, so I figured I’d take it here, but I really love this argument:
I wonder if there’s any other part of our illegal code that was written based on specific assumptions as to what was possible with available technology at the time, and which, even if it was a good idea at the time (which is debatable), is absolutely no longer applicable today?
Yeah, I got arrested for violating an old Sexting via Telegraph statute, and it was a tough charge to argue against.
(I got off. Once we showed the elderly judge big foamcore displays of all the dots and dashes, he got hot and bothered, almost had a stroke, and dismissed the case so he could rush back to his chambers…)
You’re saying he tapped out?
Were you remorseful?
Illegal code?