(08-25-2021 02:33 PM)91Alum Wrote: (08-24-2021 04:30 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote: (08-24-2021 04:00 PM)91Alum Wrote: More importantly, we need to ask ourselves what the end game is for all this. What possible good comes from pitting people against each other who otherwise get along just fine? And most do get along just fine despite these efforts to drive wedges.
There is a goal to all this. I don't know what it is, but "othering" entire classes of people based on junk science (or religion) has never been a first step for anything positive.
Has anyone heard any rumors coming out of today's impromptu BOV meeting? Can only hope significant changes are coming.
I don't understand the bold. What is "all this" and how does it pit people against each other?
Sorry in advance for the lengthy response. Want to be sure I make myself clear. I thought it was pretty straightforward, but I'll take your question as being in good faith and try to explain what I meant a bit more clearly. This training video, and the mindset behind it, is just the most recent (and direct for me, being JMU) example of a much larger effort nationwide to press this idea of systemic racism, institutional racism and Critical Race Theory - prioritizing victimhood above all else and pinning blame on an entire race of people. It's going on (as others note here) to varying degrees across most college campuses and (sadly) even in our K-12 schools as well. This video is by no means the beginning or end of this larger push. That is the "all this".
My second point/question is a simple one: what good can this possibly do, and why are people on the left pressing it so hard and so doggedly? In my daily life, a come across a wide variety of very diverse people and I [u]never[/u] have anything even approaching a negative interaction. But the effort to drive these wedges in society has a purpose. What is it?
The left have become masters of framing wording - abortion is "choice", Antifa(cists) routinely beat the cr*p out of people they disagree with (including journalists), attack police and public buildings and generally riot, but the other side are the fascists apparently. Cities getting burned to the ground by BLM are "mostly peaceful protests". A bunch of unarmed whackos tresspassing the Capitol is "insurrection". It goes on and on - the left are masters of controlling the language, and therefore (to some extent) the narrative.
I think much of this CRT / oppressor thing employs much of the same tactic. Administrators and Humanities "academics" with too much time on their hands invent this stuff, make up words and labels, apply them to whomever they agree or disagree with on any given day, and move on to the next one. Again - I just don't understand the "why". I can guarantee you that any white person who is not already self-loathing is unswayed by it (as you see here). It's just divisive "othering" of people based on the race, color, creed, sex, or national origin - something I thought was frowned upon by people not too long ago.
Anyway, hope that makes things clearer and if anyone can explain what good this does, I'm all ears (eyes actually).
It was a sincere question, and as you pointed out "all of this," is quite a lot so I appreciate you explaining it in more detail. Despite what Purple may say I don't think anyone thought "all of this" had a link to antifia and abortion.
I'll knock out the tangent first - I think your framing point completely depends on what side one leans politically and I think it's foolish to say only one side engages in wordsmithing. I think there is a difference between looting a CVS with insured inventory and property versus entering a government building with the goal of disrupting the government. I mean you pointed out that Jan 6th was "unarmed whackos," clearly that was framing your statement when you could have just said "whackos" or you could have said "violence causing whackos" or you could have said "armed whackos" since people are being charged with having guns in the building. So yeah, it is silly to criticize one side while literally doing that exact thing.
For the actual topic - You are likely a good person. You were likely raised by good people. You likely associate yourself with good people. As such, you likely have blind spots. You say you NEVER had a negative interaction, but I doubt that is true when you consider the other side of the interaction. You don't think of yourself as a racist, so you just assume you haven't acted in a manner that could appear racist to someone else. Since you and other good people don't see that potential bad because of the good nature at the heart, I think a lot can come from educating people about people and educating people about history. Whether this specific training was effective or not, or specific CRT lessons are or not, can be argued, but whether education needs to happen or not is not a debate. It needs to happen. Too many people don't know what redlining is. Too many people don't understand generational impact of wealth building and the wealth gap. Too many people don't know about Wells Fargo ghetto loans from literally only like 10 years ago. Too many people don't care about underlying racism of judicial system, payday loans, school funding, etc. So I think a LOT can come from people learning about history and other people's experiences. I mean, does't "those who don't learn from history will repeat it" have any bearing here?
And honestly, I think there is a lot of dunning kruger type effect on the topic, in that the ones screaming they don't need diversity training are probably the ones that need it most. Because like I said, I very very seriously doubt you have NEVER had an interaction that wasn't negative for someone. The fact you believe it has NEVER happened, shows you have blind spots. The fact you believe a college full of ~17-23 year olds learning about themself and how to be an adult doesn't need someone that has an actual education around "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression" shows you have blind spots.
I'll go back to the initial bolded statement you said "most do get along just fine." You are right, most can get along just fine. But there are super f'ing simple things to get from just fine, to good, to great. Some diversity trainings are better than others, some conversations are better than others, but I have no issue trying to get from fine to good to great; even it means that I have to go through a bad training or awkward conversation every so often.
As for the point about words or labels - When I'm watching Criminal Minds and there is some pedofile on the loose and Spencer Reid comes up to the group and says they are looking for a middle class, middle aged, white male..... I don't think he is calling me a pedofile. I don't call up A&E and tell them to yank the show off the air. When JMU shows a slide that shows that whites are/were the oppressor within race, or males are/were within gender, I don't think they are calling me an oppressor. I just think JMU is giving me (or Spencer Reid giving cops) data and facts that can make me more aware and allow me to make better decisions. I don't see it as them trying to drive a wedge anywhere and instead see it as trying to spur meaning actions.
/
Off Topic
