Ben Shapiro and Malcolm Nance on Critical Race Theory

Can the OP define what CRT is?

So far, critics have invented their own definition which has nothing to do with CRT. You're basically arguing with your own made-up definition. Similar to a homeless schizophrenic arguing with himself in the street!

Can the OP define white fragility?

The Indian in The Simpsons was a racist stereotype which is why they discontinued that character. It reinforces racism.

If you support stereotypes in TV shows, then you are supporting racism. Why are you supporting racism? What benefit do you gain?

https://www.newstribune.com/news/opinion/story/2021/jun/14/the-lies-that-exist-in-critical-race-theory/874838/

Commentary: The lies that exist in critical race theory

Those who are trying to inject critical race theory (CRT) in our schools are lying about a number of things, including what CRT consists of and the goals and motives of those opposing it.

With respect to the latter, the claim is made that opponents don't want the history of slavery taught to children; that they wish to keep them ignorant of the legacy of racism in American life more generally.

This is not just false, but offensively so. Those opposing CRT don't want to "erase" slavery from what's taught in American classrooms. To the contrary, any reasonable person would argue it should receive coverage commensurate with the important role it has played in our nation's history, from the failure to address it at the founding (despite the way it contradicted "all men are created equal") and the bloodiest war in our history fought to abolish it, up through Jim Crow and the civil rights movement.

The problem for CRT supporters is that they haven't bothered to notice that all of this already is taught in our schools, and has been for decades; that just as it would be impossible to find any influential opponent of CRT who opposes teaching about slavery, it would also be impossible to identify a textbook that is widely used in American history courses that fails to extensively cover it.

A challenge can thus be issued to those who claim to support CRT because of the dire need to educate American children about slavery: Identify a single lesson plan or textbook used in any public junior or senior high school history course that leaves the subject out (or Jim Crow, segregation and other manifestations of racism as well).

It's no longer a theory. The principles are being applied in schools and government.

Therefore, we must call it by its new designation... Critical Race Applied Principles, or C.R.A.P. for short.

Nance wiped the floor with Shapiro, even though Bill Maher kept trying to defend and protect Shapiro.

Then Shapiro basically had to resort to the "I am right because I'm rich argument". He looked like an idiot ... which is only natural because he is an idiot.

Did you at all notice how Shapiro had to jump in about CRT and frame the debate in terms of what he read from one guy. That is a typical bullshit right-wing tactic - make a ridiculous assertion and narrow the debate to that stupid comment. That is what Shapiro and Carlson and all the rest of them do ... rhetoric bullshit tricks.

Plus Shapiro's voice is about as annoying as fingernails on a chalkboard ... if anyone even knows that that is anymore.

Having worked in the defense industry and specifically contracted in the South, I know the BS little games and micro-aggressions they use against black people. I couldn't believe it in the 20th and now the 21st century this childish but vicious crap goes on.

Nance was right in all his comments - CRT is perfectly reasonable to teach history with a point to point out the past injustices and how they affect people today.

The argument again - creating a BS straw man, CRT, and then arguing against that, not just saying what the Right wants, which is to continue to teach the mythic nonsense as American history.

Ben Shapiro Embarrasses Himself on Real Time with Bill Maher
https://news.yahoo.com/ben-shapiro-embarrasses-himself-real-031926058.html

...
Cue Shapiro, who employed his usual strawman: briefly acknowledging that that was indeed “alarming,” before arguing that Trump’s attempts to subvert democracy weren’t so authoritarian because Democratic institutions prevented him from doing so, before somehow drawing a line between 1/6 and the Black Lives Matter movement.

“It’s a nice title for his book, and I think a lot of people who would assume that he’s talking about real authoritarianism could be trapped into giving you $28.99,” offered guest Malcolm Nance, a former Navy officer and current MSNBC contributor, who again brought up how Donald Trump commanded an insurrection, which he argued is far more authoritarian than “Twitter gossip.”

When Maher brought up how Fox News host Tucker Carlson was hobnobbing with fascist leader Viktor Orban in Hungary, Shapiro ignored the question and instead countered with the time then-President Obama sat with then-Cuban President Raul Castro at an exhibition baseball game and CDC mask mandates (?).

Once the subject got to critical race theory, with Shapiro falsely arguing that it is being taught to children across America (you can really only find it in law school), Nance had had enough, telling him, “Is this what you do on your show? Because it sucks.”

That quip prompted a visibly irritated Shapiro to say, “You know, Malcolm, I… I appreciate that, but I will comfort myself tonight by sleeping on my bed made of money.”

Yes, he really said that.

It's just a set of tools for interpreting the US's past. Don't pay attention to all that right wing disinformation. They don't even know what it is, much like they don't know the definition of gain of function research. They are only interested in using these things to scare people, for their political benefit. It's just another right wing boogeyman!

CRT is the latest right-wing boogeyman. It's just another lens for looking at the world -- specifically, that racism is baked into the system. Even if people are not personally racist, the claim goes, there are systemic barriers for people based on skin color.

In International Relations, we review realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism. Each theory has something to offer, though I certainly think some provide a much better view of the way the world works than others. I don't think libertarians, communitarians, or Marxists have great solutions when it comes to political theory, but familiarizing ourselves with these modes of thinking can help diagnose problems and clarify how we see things. A member on this forum accused me of "brainwashing" students, which is pretty fantastic considering I can't get most of them to read the syllabus.

Maher is supposed to be an advocate of free speech and an opponent of cancel culture, so draconian laws restricting educators from, well, educating, should draw heated blowback.

On some level, supply-side economics rings true. At some point, if you cut taxes, revenues WILL go up. Supply-siders are absolutely ridiculous -- aggressively anti-empirical, really -- about where that sweet spot sits, but there's an element of truth. There's no reason why conservatives could not take a similar stance with respect to CRT. It's so simple. Concede that in marginal cases, yes, something resembling CRT could be at work, but, no, it does not animate and explain everything.