It’s not CRT and I honestly don’t believe he understands that. And discussing that wouldn’t be banned by any of the anti-CRT laws. If you think it would, say which one and why.
-
-
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @HeerJeet and
If you aren't going to believe Jeet when he says he understands that, in so many words, what can I possibly say to make you believe me when I say that I believe Jeet when he says so in so many words? What would count as evidence?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
He hasn’t said that he understands that even yet. So far I’ve seen only your words. I’d like to see a clean answer that he understands CRT well enough to understand that is civil right era analysis not CRT.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @jholbo1 and
And I’ll reiterate, that a huge number of compatriots don’t appear to understand that this is a ‘joke’. At some point you’re just adding to the misinformation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @HeerJeet and
It's not a joke. It's a proof. (That it's a proof by reduction to absurdity makes it also a joke, OK. But the fact that it's a sound proof is important and should not be overlooked on the grounds that it's a joke.)
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
It’s not a proof because it wouldn’t actually be banned by any of the laws I’ve seen. And certainly not the milder or mid range ones. So either your mistaken about the laws or it’s spreading false propaganda about them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @HeerJeet and
Consider what you are saying: we are considering in what states it would be barely legal, in school, even to countenance in fact very cogent reasons why the SC decision is bad. And you are immediately qualifying down to the 'mild or mid range' of the anti-CRT laws.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Ive only studied most of them. Im none of the one I’ve studied would it be even close to banned. I’m hedging only because it is possible that one of them might. But certainly not all/many/most. I haven’t studied the Florida one which is reputed to be especially bad.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @HeerJeet and
But you agree it should not be outright illegal to raise, in a school setting, perfectly cogent and reasonable objections to a Supreme Court decision? If so, then you agree with Jeet's reductio ad absurdum point.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
That point is a) not obvious b) not how his supporters interpreted it and c) not applicable to most of the laws which list specifics without using CRT by name.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Narrowly focusing on the laws is absurd since these are incoherent messaging bills backed by a demagogic astroturf propaganda campaign. The intent is to chill speech & the speech being chilled includes where CRT overlaps with mainstream civil rights.
-
-
So in response you’re spreading propaganda about would count I. True laws? That how your supporters throughout the replies here took it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @HeerJeet and
There is no way to discuss propaganda - the absurd implications of propaganda - without taking it hypothetically seriously. What-if we were to take anti-CRT seriously, at its word? What would that imply? That is, in a sense, spreading propaganda, but how else to combat it?
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.