Capco

Honestly the bolded is exemplary of Allen's savviness, on or off the field.

Someone needs to throw New England a bone...

Here are the relevant snippets for those who don't/can't click the link: Gregory Rousseau, DE, Rd 1, Pick 30, Bills. “To me, he’s totally a measurables guy. I don’t know how you can look at the film and see a top-30 pick. You’d see times where he’d wind up with a sack because someone ran right into him. There wasn’t a sense that his opponents were worried about him.” Carlos Basham, DL, Rd 2, Pick 29, Bills. “I’m going to have some people mad at me, huh? I’m not picking on Buffalo. Actually, I’m not picking on anyone; I want them all to be successful. But I have to say that Basham might be the ultimate boom or bust project in the whole draft. He’s strong. He’s quick. Then you turn on the film and say, ‘What’s going on? You’re too big and strong to be blocked by some of the guys who are blocking you.’ The film doesn’t say that he’s a great player. But Buffalo has good coaches. Maybe they’ll figure out a way to use him that I can’t see.”

I find it interesting that roughly the same policy could have been delivered (and hence received) in a much better way. For example: "Homelessness is a huge problem in California and we need to come together to find a solution. As governor, I would propose setting up designated facilities where the homeless can not only have access to basic necessities, but where employers can also find potential labor. I believe such a program would revitalize areas like Venice Beach and help local small businesses thrive. The tax revenue from increased tourism and commerce will help offset the initial costs of the project, and hopefully the career services provided will make an additional impact on the bottom line by decreasing the resources required and enlarging the tax base."

... International diplomacy is far more delicate and nuanced than an all-or-nothing approach.

Someone else with inside information?

Let me just focus on one specific part then. Why does an accurate, thorough accounting of history require examining it through a lens that challenges and critiques concepts like legal equality, colorblindness, role modeling, and the merit principle? I ask because that is (part of) CRT.

@Over 29 years of fanhood This one is particularly pertinent to the discussion we are having in this thread about CRT:

Tbh, I don't really listen too much to the talking heads. I used to be a big watcher of the Sunday morning news shows but I usually prefer sleeping in lol. While he isn't really on the same level/does the same line of work, one commentator I enjoy listening to is Bill Maher as well as the people he interviews on his show. I don't have HBO, but he provides clips of key commentary on his YouTube page (and probably other social media as well). If you can get past his a-hole-ish demeanor, the reason why I like him is because he is a liberal and he generally doesn't ignore common sense. He ends his New Rule segment with a monologue and these clips are where you will often see him call out the left when he sees something as unreasonable. Here's a recent one that's a pretty decent example:

Ben is a smart cookie and I have agreed with him before. But overall, I think he has a gross misconception of reality. However, in this case, unless I can be provided with a rational argument otherwise, I have to agree with him (on most points with regards to CRT). But as you said, the bottom line is: When someone has something rational to say, LISTEN. That doesn't mean take it as ***** GOSPEL. Ben is smart, but he's just one commentator in a world of sound bites. And that's what I'm trying to offer here my friends. Just another bit of commentary with a rational basis. Talk to each other. LISTEN to each other. STOP the ***** Twitter posting. TRUST the acumen of your business/academic/scientific institutions! Like FFS I am trying my best guys. Please. Be civil. Be kind. Love America and every American. I'm so, so tired of this nonsense. I will keep trying... but I can only do so much. I want us all to succeed and we can make that happen as one! That is what America means, does it not?

... Oh hey look. Another 2 pages of Rah-Rah shouting (I'm too tired to go into specifics rn but I have been watching this thread). ... @Tiberius I tried to give you a quick run-down of what I objectively thought were serious flaws in the structure of Critical Race Theory (CRT) while avoiding a full-flung description of the entire thing (since idk, you seem to be on a major time crunch maybe?). Considering that we are typically on the same side of things, I figured that you would give me the benefit of the doubt when it came to the parts of CRT that I did not comment on (i.e., the parts that are worthy of merit). But that is specifically why I quoted you at the very beginning of my statement, after you said you didn't know anything about CRT. I was trying to loosely educate you (within the realm of what I myself know), while also challenging your rational thought. Like, I'm begging for someone to actually provide a rational response to my post earlier. I want to learn more. So far, the best, most well-written commentary provided after my post was provided by Ben ***** Shapiro. Do you have any idea what that makes me feel like as someone who is routinely called a communist?

A bit early to be talking about Dingus Day.

As far as I can tell, the only direct connection between CRT and public schools is the 1619 Project, which, in certain districts, is allowed to be taught in some (non-radical) form as supplementary material if the teachers/districts desire.

Overall this is a pretty decent take, except for two things. First, I'd throw the very first sentence out: Critical theories are the lens through which K-12 is being taught. I have yet to see evidence that this is happening. The entirety of K-12? Every single class? In every single district? It's unfortunate because this sentence immediately derails the rest of the commentary. Second, this sentence paints with extremely broad brush strokes: Critical theories ignore these icons & so does the left because they disprove the thesis. Like, I could have accepted far left or extreme left, but not just left. Granted, it's Twitter but they also didn't mind writing this over 8 tweets. Also, I'm not sure why you left the last sentence out: Gen Z is the most tolerant generation in history according to social science research, a testament to our success. Since I think it drives home the author's point very well. And that is that you can't have the most tolerant generation in the nation's history if the system is designed to encourage less tolerance. In fact, the ones who seemingly espouse less tolerance (CRT) are also the ones decrying the system that allowed the most tolerant generation in the nation's history to come about. It's just not a good look...

I spent a pretty decent chunk of time writing this and I can't even get a response or reaction from one person? Instead it's just 2 more pages of poo flinging.

I meant to expand on this but I got tired and never actually touched on the specifics that trouble me. I'm just gonna copy/paste from the Wiki page on CRT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), but this page has been watched like a hawk by Wiki's editors lately so I'm pretty sure most of the information on here is accurate. The sources, which I will list at the end, seem legit. First, let's get this "liberal/ism" thing out of the way for the people that see the word and immediately cry foul. In this context it is not a reference to modern day political party ideology, so leave that at the door please. Anyway, my reservations with CRT begin with scholars that question concepts like rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality. These are, imo, extremely important concepts. The implementation of these concepts is necessary for democracy to function at a high level. Furthermore, critiquing ideas like color blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle leave me scratching my head. For example, I don't understand how one can attack the concept of colorblindness. Every single child is born colorblind. If you put 10 toddlers in a room with toys and observe them, they will all start to play with each other irrespective of skin color. They haven't learned about race yet. And rational thought is exactly what brought me to this conclusion. But this is also where the food for thought part of CRT can come into play. For example, if the above reasoning is true, and race isn't a "real" thing, then someone else might come along and say "racism cannot be a real thing if race itself isn't a real thing." Yet we all know that racism is very much a real phenomenon. Criticize Brown v. Board of Education... okay. That doesn't exactly put you in good company. But the underlined part is... well, tbh it sounds like quite a stretch. Reparations is something I have no problem with. But separation? Black nationalism? Are these not divisive stances to take? If black nationalism is okay, then is white nationalism okay too? If not, then there is inherent hypocrisy. And if so, then that ultimately sounds kinda... well, racist, doesn't it? Also note that these quotes are from Views/Common Themes section, and not the Criticism section of the article. Another view CRT holds is the use of storytelling to "name one's own reality." Critics argue that this view, combined with a rejection of merit and rational thought, ends up elevating storytelling over reason and evidence. The following quotes are from the Criticism section, which I believe are pretty self-explanatory. Sources: [9] "The Skin Trade", Richard Posner, 1997 [13] "Critical race theory: An Introduction", Delgado and Stefancic, 2017 [29, 30, 32] "Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography", Delgado and Stefancic, 1993 [51] "Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory's Attack on the Promises of Liberalism", Jeffrey Pyle, 1999 [52] "Bending the Law", Alex Kozinski, 1997

I see what you're saying but it's more nuanced than that. Different branches of social science can be used as tools that help people directly, like psychology for example (well, psychology isn't exactly a social science but it can be considered one). And I think you're presenting a false premise when you compare CRT to the Lost Cause narrative. I've been able to put that sh*t down hard in the past without ever bringing up CRT, or before I even knew of CRT.

No one ever notices the Polish-American cohort until it's too late.

I'm disgusted by the selfishness I've seen today in this thread. I need a break. And a drink.

It. Is. Not. About. Them. It. Is. About. People. Who. Cannot. Get. Vaccinated. It. Is. About. A. Rapid. And. Comprehensive. Response. NOW. That. Mitigates. Future. Outbreaks.

I'm not attempting to predict the future. All I'm saying is that if the states wanted to compel vaccination, they have the power to do so for every single person that does not have a genuine medical excuse.

Oh ho ho, I've been waiting for this one. First, let me point you to these two posts: Finally, the states that do not allow religious exemptions are: California, Maine, Mississippi, New York, West Virginia, and Connecticut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy_in_the_United_States

There are several states that require compulsory vaccinations without exemption unless it's a genuine medical reason. And it is entirely within their power to do so. The states that allow non-medical exemptions do so because they have chosen to, not because they lack the power to do so. If they changed their laws to compel vaccination, it would be entirely Constitutional.

I don't believe I said that nothing bad ever comes from the government. Unless the people themselves are infallible then a government of the people will never be infallible, either. The people of that era wanted eugenics, and so they exercised their popular sovereignty to make it happen. It's easy for us in hindsight to judge their (admittedly gross) misconceptions, but unless you have a better alternative to democratic government, then you're going to have to accept this reality that government can still be beneficial without being perfect in every instance. Imagine the flipside from the perspective of a pro-eugenics American of that era. Imagine if the government told them that they knew better than the populace when it came to the horrors of eugenics, and so decided to disregard the will of the people. In that instance, would you support the government doing the "right" thing (and what is "right" is subjective with the times), or would you support the will of the people?