Yes, it should be better, if universities stop funding it because they think it is useless than that lawmakers do. While it certainly politics where public research money goes, what research is promising should be decided at university level.
Don't a bunch of states forces schools to teach biblical creationism as a accepted theory. I can squint and make CRT make sense but not that
Yeah, so, you're basically describing the Untied States as it is. Hell, a couple years ago the Great Conservative Communist boogeyman was the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Which, again, not implemented terribly well and subject to criticism, but was not the cultural Marxist federal takeover a lot of idiots claimed it was
Well that's not what "conservative" means.
Which people were "avowed ultra-conservative"s? Best I can tell, the only uniting factor in that crowd was disdain for Democrats. Calling the group of people who support Trump "ultra-conservatives" is just about as laughable as calling Democrats "ultra-progressives".
Yeah, I linked it, quoted the full text of section I in a spoiler, and then summarized it in my previous post. The only thing section II does is prevent the schools from spending money on things they aren't allowed to push due to section I.
There are sort of levels of understanding.
Refusing to recognize epistemologies that don't suit you doesn't make those epistemologies any less useful.
Beyond the absolutely giant need to unpack that statement, so what? Are you saying we should ban students from studying those lines of thought that lead to the French revolution because you judge the results to be politically inconvenient?
How do you know that?
While that certainly does happen, most of the criticism for CRT comes from its roots in Critical Theory and certain postmodernist ideas. Sure, mixing a dividing topic like race into it only makes it even more controversial and liable to be misused in other disagreements, but that should not be seen as primary reason for rejection. (It might be the primary reason for the Idaho decision though)
See just about everything I said about critical race theory, and just replace CRT with "postmodernism". Hardly any laypeople have the faintest idea what postmodernism is or represents, they just know some that some guys they like slagged it off, and cherry-picked some anecdotes about absurd extremes to help rationalise it.
No it's about accurate, and follows the normal pattern of conservative revolutions. A desire to return to old social norms driving a violent reaction to overturn a democratic election and install an autocrat of some kind. Trump's people think he's one man against a treasonous government and needs to sweep them all out, rule from the top down.
My opinion on something never makes it more or less useful, but also I don't think anything could make critical theory less useful. And sort of comically, the inverse of your statement is very accurate. Epistemologies that prove themselves useful get my recognition. I subscribe to a pretty utilitarian form of epistemology. I freely acknowledge this is a statement of faith, but I believe the truth leads to good results, so any method of investigating what is truth that leads to bad results is likely very flawed. Critical race theory, if useful, would help us reach better understandings of racial issues that ultimately allow us to take better actions (the way you described critical theories real consequences, but that applies to all knowledge, and is not the direct activism pushed by the Frankfurt school that you don't care about even though that's entirely what's controversial here). Critical race theory instead stokes greater racial tensions and leads to spurious conclusions like "being on time is white" and "interstate roads are racial oppression". (Side note: both those statements are real things said by real people. Really white people at that.)
The Reign of Terror is not "politically inconvenient". Regardless, I don't think we should ban students from studying anything, which this bill doesn't do. I also don't think we should ban schools from teaching the thought processes in an academic sense, which this bill also doesn't do. I think it reasonable to ban schools from having students have to personally affirm those perspectives though. You can still teach what critical race theory is, you can still teach conclusions reach by people employing critical race theory, you just can't make a student answer that racism is power plus prejudice and therefore non-white people in America are never racist. And like, we teach the enlightenment perspectives, we teach the conclusions and outcomes drawn from the enlightenment, but we don't make students say that people outside of societies corrupting influence are "noble savages".
The limits are practical limits. I'm not talking about things we can see but cannot comprehend. I'm talking about things we can't see. You're imagining an objective view of human society, but all humans are in society, and more importantly all humans are human. The practical limitation is that we can't not be human. The implication of that is that attempting to have an outside perspective is purely imaginary. If your theory requires such a perspective, you must acknowledge that your theory is purely imagined, and any connection to reality is coincidental.
I don't think you even have any definition of "conservative" you're applying here.
Oh I know, they can't be right-wing if you disagree with them. But for everyone else who doesn't have to defend their ideology, they were an ultra-conservative right-wing mob at the capital. And certainly no communists anywhere in sight.
"MAGA" is writ large an age-old conservative appeal, to a period of past glories somehow lost by newfangled modernity. The anger at immigration is about changing the nature of the country, demographically and maybe ideologically. Bring back manufacturing - build stuff they used to like cars and steel. Get energy by traditional methods of burning coal and gas. Trump was touting arch-conservatism, and that's what hooked his supporters.
Well y'all get mad when we call them reactionaries or fascists, so pick a fourth politically correct term please.
Well clearly Trump is a democrat, they supported Trump, thus they are democrats.
