Because it gets oh so defined to fit your precepts

The problem with this crooksandliars waving against Republican strategist on “critical race theory”: Is it possible that the opposition to critical race theory is… Both?  (just as it is a melange of sensical and nonsensical).

So, on this warning sire with comparison to Lee Atwater and Willie Horton, a call to action for progressive democrats to defeat this racist political tactic–  and defining the political wages of concepts into a frame that is very much agreeable but oddly exposes the problem, (some contradictions with multiple opinions, you say?) it is worth dipping into just what some complaints are, and let us now go to the National Review defining its problem, as praising the Washington Post for putting the terms of opposition ” correctly for once” –– whether or not the terms are so narrowly defined by the shouting mob at a Virginia townhouse —

Uma Menon is a 17-year-old writer and student at Princeton University who attended public schools in Florida, where the state Board of Education just banned public schools from teaching that racism is “embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons.”

The good news is that this frame is not definitionally within the frame that the Washington Monthly article has it.  The problem here is there was a retroactive rewriting of what the 1619 Project is — “US founded for express purpose of upholding slavery” but once we get past the inaccuracy of that, there is better room to teach the effects of slavery.

The bad news is, well… Just what is the GOP up to with this?  And how can anyone argue with this sensible “just want to play sports”?

So, what does the G.O.P. do? Conjure up normative threats by attacking CRT, ltransgender girls who want to play sports, and Black Lives Matter.

We make a pretty good full spectrum “grand unified theory” to crush any “Oppression Olympics” by way of intersectional and allyship politics.  Presuming that the Washington Monthly article has it right — “normative threat” of seeing a transgendered athlete running rings around her competition — it has to be understandable that someone will feel stifled if they can’t point this one out.  I suppose the good news is all the transgender ed people I know want nothing to do with sports.  I imagine opinions will vary a smidge on the “Heather Swanson Effect”, a smidgeon to the idea that most people’s sports career stops before anything gets terribly competitive anyways — the world of participation trophies handed out at end of season pizza parlors.

On the future of battles over or against the normative normative, and perceptions of shoving new norms on the populace, I can imagine a future argument that we need to value sports where traditionally females do better than males — The Sports page gotta cover more figure skating, damnedit — which has a corollary argument that football needs less coverage.  

And underscoring the woke troubles with the world of mma — Is “Joe Rogan makes anti Biden comment typical of Joe Rogan” a legiltimate news article? To be sure, if it is decided “Dog Bites Man” is never a real story, we will lose out on some real news as the contrarian “Man Bites Dog” headline gets over emphasized against actual real items, but then again if we see Joe Rogan making pro Biden commentary I find it puzzling why it too ought be headlined.

Leave a Reply