CRT Part II: Defunding the Military

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-29-2021, 01:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I have a hard time trusting the word of someone that openly bigoted. 

What about the words of the other women who are both seen and heard in the video? 

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2021, 06:46 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: What about the words of the other women who are both seen and heard in the video? 

I rewatched it. I didn't hear any allegations of misconduct other than the fact that a trans woman was using the spa. I just heard the woman repeat that the trans woman was in there, that transgender isn't real, and suggest that the guy who asked if the person was trans must be gay, "out of alignment", and "not a real man". 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-29-2021, 06:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I rewatched it. I didn't hear any allegations of misconduct other than the fact that a trans woman was using the spa. I just heard the woman repeat that the trans woman was in there, that transgender isn't real, and suggest that the guy who asked if the person was trans must be gay, "out of alignment", and "not a real man". 

You didn't see and hear the women that appears to the left  of the person filming say (paraphrased) "This is our first time here and with this shit happening we're not going to come back.  We want a refund.  Give me our money back."  -----Timestamp 1:15

At 1:47 you can hear another women say "yes" twice, seemingly in agreement with the woman who is filming after she said "As a woman I have the right to feel comfortable without a man exposing himself."

At 1:57 you can hear another woman say something to effect of "No, he's not a transgender. It's not ok. It's not ok."

At 2:08 you can hear someone in the background saying "little girls, little girls" which seems to be uttered to help the woman make her case.

At 2:30 you can hear another woman chime in with "If we went into the men's section with our anatomy... that would be bad."

At 3:18 you can a woman walk up and say "he should not have been allowed in there."  and another reply "Exactly, we know that. Thank you."

So I'm not sure how you could have watched this video twice and come to the conclusion that the woman filming is the only one who alleging there was misconduct.  You can clearly hear at least 3 other different women either supporting her claims, or are voicing their own disgust.

So I ask you, are you dismissing all of these women because of a single sentence the woman filming said (in a much larger rant)?

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-29-2021, 06:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't hear any allegations of misconduct other than the fact that a trans woman was using the spa.

The misconduct is clearly stated; A person who has male anatomy exposed themselves to women (and little girls) in the locker room.  You can try to clean that up all you like (a trans woman was simply using the spa) but those were the allegations. 

Now we can all be open and honest and say whether or not we think this appropriate.  I'll go first:  I don't think women should be subjected to looking at dicks while they're changing, or using the shower, or using the sauna, or anywhere else that is designated strictly for females.  This is absolutely absurd behavior.

Now you go...

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2021, 07:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The misconduct is clearly stated; A person who has male anatomy exposed themselves to women (and little girls) in the locker room.  You can try to clean that up all you like (a trans woman was simply using the spa) but those were the allegations. 

Now we can all be open and honest and say whether or not we think this appropriate.  I'll go first:  I don't think women should be subjected to looking at dicks while they're changing, or using the shower, or using the sauna, or anywhere else that is designated strictly for females.  This is absolutely absurd behavior.

Now you go...

I won't disagree with you, but I think we as a society are giving dicks way too much power.  A dick is like a gun, a love gun, if you will.  It doesn't do anything evil or traumatic on its own, does it?  Our society is bizarre...I was a 6 year old boy in the YMCA showers/locker room and having strange men naked with their dicks at eye level was normal, but seeing a woman's nipples would have been wrong.  So I can be a boy and see dicks but not buy a penthouse because it will warp my mind?  Well, I guess I couldn't buy a playgirl and look at dicks either, technically...hmm...

It's also odd that the notion that seeing a penis is traumatic for women is being pushed by the political party that is fighting back against the left wing's cries of "rape culture."  Are dicks dangerous?  It's acceptable for women and girls to petition the law/courts about seeing dicks but if I went to the YMCA now or as a kid and screamed that I was being offended by all the dicks I would have looked even crazier than usual.

Dickity dickity dick.

[Dill]

(06-29-2021, 11:38 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote:



There's more examples, but I'm sure you get the point.  Now, someone might say this isn't CRT and maybe it's not.  But that doesn't refute the fact this stuff is being taught, or that exploring these subjects without a strict federal guideline isn't a slippery slope.

Take some time trying to seek out some in-practice examples of CRT/Diversity Training, and you may shocked at what you actually find.  At the very least, you'll come away knowing that some people are railing against some of these school boards for things that aren't as simple as being opposed to history.

The article does not make clear who got these guidelines--were these sent home to parents or presented in a classroom? According to the tweet included, they were sent to parents to raise awareness. So maybe not an example of "what's taught in schools," but rather of some school officials acting on individual initiative? 

As someone tending towards "White Critical," still short of "White traitor," I would challenge some of the labels though, as they don't seem to clearly identify and distinguish what they are describing. 1-4 are all "White Benefit" it seems to me. I guess maybe examples are needed.

[Dill]

(06-29-2021, 10:15 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: People are more than welcome to agree or disagree about whether or not CRT belongs in the classroom.  I just don't think it's fair to intentionally paint the opposing side as something it's not, only to make them appear irrational or to make their argument seem flawed.  Since he can't see this, I'll just say it; This is a FredToast move that is occuring from some on the Pro-CRT side.

I think this links to the original thread topic--

what's your take on defunding the military until they stop teaching "Marxist, racist ideology"? 

Also, what is a "Fredtoast move"? Can you cite an example? 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-30-2021, 10:09 AM)Dill Wrote: what's your take on defunding the military until they stop teaching "Marxist, racist ideology"? 

First of all, I absolutely hate the term defund when used in this context.  I understand many claim it to essentially mean to pay less, but I don't find the definition suitable for what they're calling for.  I think it's intentionally divisive.

Do I think we should spend less, or to not pay as much for the military?  Actually, yes I do.  Big time.  But not just because they're teaching "Marxist, racist ideology".

While I think it's incredibly important for us to have a strong military, and I know that many of the talking points (world presence, troops abroad, outspending other nations) are more complex than meets the eye, I also understand that the amount of money is absurd.  More importantly, I know with these amounts comes shadiness and individuals getting rich off of taxpayer dollars.

I believe only a fool would think all of this money is well-spent and needed.  It's not.  There's people getting rich off of contracts, there's people using this system of spending to essentially launder money, and there's politicking and dishonest abound.

So I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.  But if it were just asked on the basis of the racial training/diversity training/CRT training/insert bs term for bs then yeah that's a waste of money.  "Defund" that portion of spending.  These subjects are counterproductive to forming a brotherhood/sisterhood and they accomplish nothing of note that helps us militarily.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-30-2021, 10:09 AM)Dill Wrote: Also, what is a "Fredtoast move"? Can you cite an example? 

A Fred Toast move is when you either twist someone's argument, or downright ignore the actual points trying to be made, only in order to win a debate.

Here's a couple of silly and exaggerated examples off the top of my head...

Me:  I actually really like Jersey Mike's.  It's close to my work so it convenient, and it's not terribly expensive.

Fred: This guy actually thinks Jersey Mike's is better than buying meat from the butcher and making it at home.
--------
Me: Kyler Murray is better than you think.  His numbers in 2020 were somewhat similar to Lamar Jackson in 2019.  I know the passing TD's weren't as high and TD/INT ratio needs to improve but he did throw for more yards.  He also rushed for more TD's, while only finishing a 100 or so yards less in rushing.  He's a pretty interesting player to keep an eye on.

Fred:  You really think Kyler Murray is an MVP QB?  If you think this guy is a top 5 QB like Lamar Jackson was in 2019 then you're nuts.  You clearly know nothing about QB's if you have him in the same tier as Rogers.

[Dill]

(06-30-2021, 10:57 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: A Fred Toast move is when you either twist someone's argument, or downright ignore the actual points trying to be made, only in order to win a debate.

Here's a couple of silly and exaggerated examples off the top of my head...

Me:  I actually really like Jersey Mike's.  It's close to my work so it convenient, and it's not terribly expensive.

Fred: This guy actually thinks Jersey Mike's is better than buying meat from the butcher and making it at home.
--------
Me: Kyler Murray is better than you think.  His numbers in 2020 were somewhat similar to Lamar Jackson in 2019.  I know the passing TD's weren't as high and TD/INT ratio needs to improve but he did throw for more yards.  He also rushed for more TD's, while only finishing a 100 or so yards less in rushing.  He's a pretty interesting player to keep an eye on.

Fred:  You really think Kyler Murray is an MVP QB?  If you think this guy is a top 5 QB like Lamar Jackson was in 2019 then you're nuts.  You clearly know nothing about QB's if you have him in the same tier as Rogers.

Well, this is a bit confusing (though I do appreciate the effort to define).  If you are going to call this a "Fredtoast move" then I would expect an actual Fred toast example.

What you seem to be describing here is what's generally known as a strawman fallacy. We do see this sort of thing in this forum, when people substitute their own statements or terms for another poster's, and then "refute" the changed statements/terms as if they were the original poster's. But Fred was hardly the worst offender in this regard, not by a long shot. 

Also, probably 50-60% of this substitution arises through misreading/misunderstanding, and not ill will. 

No one wins a debate by ignoring points actually being made, at least substantive ones. If that occurs then, again, there is always possibility of misunderstanding, and a poster can restate the ignored point and ask that it be addressed. The tricky part comes when people ignoring points accuse others of doing so, or people twisting arguments accusing others of doing that--and without offering any explanation or example. 

It's the follow up--or disruption of that--which really tells us whether ignoring/twisting has occurred, and whether it is intentional. 
People genuinely interested good faith dialogue will take time to sort out misunderstandings, re-examine terms, ask and answer questions, and generally hear the other side out. People acting in bad faith, seeking simply to obfuscate or otherwise disrupt dialogue, will shift to ad hominem or otherwise work to disrupt/dismiss/disqualify any clarification, re-statement or other efforts to clear up misunderstanding. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-30-2021, 11:31 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, this is a bit confusing (though I do appreciate the effort to define).  If you are going to call this a "Fredtoast move" then I would expect an actual Fred toast example.

Well, if you're expecting me go in and dig though Fred's 40k posts then that's presenting quite the challenge.  I'm not sure I have the time nor the patience to sift though pages and pages of posts to provide with you with a clear example.  It's not as if there's a magic keyword I can use in the search function to sort these out.

You can take my word for it or not, I don't really care either way.  Fred is notorious for doing this on Jungle Noise.  When I called it a "Fred Toast move" I was expecting the person I specifically replied to, Nately, to understand exactly what I meant.  I did not expect a homework assignment.

Sorry to disappoint.

[Dill]

(06-30-2021, 10:42 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: First of all, I absolutely hate the term defund when used in this context.  I understand many claim it to essentially mean to pay less, but I don't find the definition suitable for what they're calling for.  I think it's intentionally divisive.

Do I think we should spend less, or to not pay as much for the military?  Actually, yes I do.  Big time.  But not just because they're teaching "Marxist, racist ideology".

While I think it's incredibly important for us to have a strong military, and I know that many of the talking points (world presence, troops abroad, outspending other nations) are more complex than meets the eye, I also understand that the amount of money is absurd.  More importantly, I know with these amounts comes shadiness and individuals getting rich off of taxpayer dollars.

I believe only a fool would think all of this money is well-spent and needed.  It's not.  There's people getting rich off of contracts, there's people using this system of spending to essentially launder money, and there's politicking and dishonest abound.

So I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.  But if it were just asked on the basis of the racial training/diversity training/CRT training/insert bs term for bs then yeah that's a waste of money.  "Defund" that portion of spending.  These subjects are counterproductive to forming a brotherhood/sisterhood and they accomplish nothing of note that helps us militarily.

My question was not about military spending in general, e.g., whether it should have a larger or smaller budget based upon defense needs.

Rather, my question concerned the bolded:   I just don't think it's fair to intentionally paint the opposing side as something it's not, only to make them appear irrational or to make their argument seem flawed

So it's a question about whether one side is being unfairly "painted as something it is not," to make them "appear irrational" and deploying a "flawed argument" -- as opposed to being "fairly painted," e.g. by copiously quoting them, and then judging the "rationality" and descriptive accuracy of their arguments based upon their own words. 

Is it accurate to say, as Laura Ingraham claims, that the U.S. military is teaching a "Marxist, racist ideology"?  I don't think so, so it appears to me that she is using distortive, hot-button words, not in the interest of accurate description, but to rile up her listeners to oppose something that really isn't going on. 

The Oxford Languages Dictionary defines "demagoguery" as political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

Laura's description of CRT in the military seems to fit that definition quite well. Does she merely "appear" irrational in suggesting we defund the military until it stops "teaching Marxism"? I don't believe she was serious about defunding the military, but was using that extreme proposal to gain attention, gin up emotion, not unlike whipping up Sharia panic.

Just taking the JCS side of this for a moment, I'd like to hear why they think it is important to understand "white rage" as something with potential to affect military readiness, as they apparently do. Could there be legitimate concern on their part about how "diverse" personnel work together?
 https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2021/Garrett-Military-Diversity/

Trump banned CRT and "diversity training" from the military "to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating,"  https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/08/military-resuming-diversity-training-trump-banned.html

Has Trump always combatted "race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating, or am I wrong to wonder if "rationality" is what he expressed in his opposition to CRT, and whether his argument is "flawed"?

[Dill]

(06-29-2021, 10:15 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, I do find the argument that CRT is strictly teaching history just a tad bit bit disingenous.  It's much more sociology based.

I see this argument made over and over.  "Republicans don't want history taught in schools."  But is that really what they're opposed to?  Because I don't think it is.

I've seen a number of people who are opposed to CRT come out and clearly state they have absolutely no issues with spending more time on historical events that relate to race. (Ex: The Tulsa Race Riots) 

What they're opposing is language like:  opressor, opressed, systemic, institutional, fragility, privilege, rage, implicit bias, appropriation, microagression, whiteness etc.  (None of these are terms commonly found in historical teachings)

I don't think Nately said that CRT was "strictly teaching history." Did someone else somewhere?

But I can see why opposing language like "opressor, opressed, systemic, institutional, fragility, privilege, rage, implicit bias, appropriation, microagression, whiteness etc" could obscure/revise history. You won't disagree that U.S. history includes "oppressors and oppressed," will you? And that this oppression was not simply person-to-person by a few "bad apples," but had institutional, legal, governmental support, right?  And while there might have been a few black slave owners, slavery and segregation were largely white-dominated institutions which benefited whites, weren't they? I ask these questions to determine where we are in agreement and where not regarding the actual history of the U.S.

It used to be that terms like "slavery" and "segregation" were not commonly found in historical teachings at the public school level--though they have long been at college level. And their inclusion was opposed as "leftist indoctrination" which denigrated heroic Founders and taught students to "hate" America. 

We agree that there has been considerable Trump-led movement among Republicans to ban funding to schools that incorporate the 1619 project into their curricula, right?  

I am guessing where we will disagree is on the question of whether history can be taught without adopting some perspective, as if current/past teaching has somehow been race neutral and now the CRTers want to "slant" or bias it in one direction. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2021, 12:17 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Nately said that CRT was "strictly teaching history." Did someone else somewhere?

But I can see why opposing language like "opressor, opressed, systemic, institutional, fragility, privilege, rage, implicit bias, appropriation, microagression, whiteness etc" could obscure/revise history. You won't disagree that U.S. history includes "oppressors and oppressed," will you? And that this oppression was not simply person-to-person by a few "bad apples," but had institutional, legal, governmental support, right?  And while there might have been a few black slave owners, slavery and segregation were largely a white-dominated institutions which benefited whites, weren't they? I ask these questions to determine where we are in agreement and where not regarding the actual history of the U.S.

It used to be that terms like "slavery" and "segregation" were not commonly found in historical teachings at the public school level--though they have long been at college level. And their inclusion was opposed as "leftist indoctrination" which denigrated heroic Founders and taught students to "hate" America. 

We agree that there has been considerable Trump-led movement among Republicans to ban funding to schools that incorporate the 1619 project into their curricula, right?  


I am guessing where we will disagree is on the question of whether history can be taught without adopting some perspective, as if current/past teaching has somehow been race neutral and now the CRTers want to "slant" or bias it in one direction. 

I knee jerk posted a lazy ass response of that sort, yes.  I admitted I initially lumped crt protests with the glut of misleading gripes coming from the right, as of late.  

I've been a fool. A mostly justified, and fully sexy fool. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2021, 07:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The misconduct is clearly stated; A person who has male anatomy exposed themselves to women (and little girls) in the locker room.  You can try to clean that up all you like (a trans woman was simply using the spa) but those were the allegations. 

Now we can all be open and honest and say whether or not we think this appropriate.  I'll go first:  I don't think women should be subjected to looking at dicks while they're changing, or using the shower, or using the sauna, or anywhere else that is designated strictly for females.  This is absolutely absurd behavior.

Now you go...

If the spa's policy is to allow trans women to use the women's facility then it's not misconduct. There's no room for debate on that. If this happened in a state that didn't have a law surrounding that and where the spa did not allow it, then sure you could try to argue that, but that's not the case here. This is just an example of a woman who does not like the policies of a business. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2021, 07:34 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You didn't see and hear the women that appears to the left  of the person filming say (paraphrased) "This is our first time here and with this shit happening we're not going to come back.  We want a refund.  Give me our money back."  -----Timestamp 1:15

At 1:47 you can hear another women say "yes" twice, seemingly in agreement with the woman who is filming after she said "As a woman I have the right to feel comfortable without a man exposing himself."

At 1:57 you can hear another woman say something to effect of "No, he's not a transgender. It's not ok. It's not ok."

At 2:08 you can hear someone in the background saying "little girls, little girls" which seems to be uttered to help the woman make her case.

At 2:30 you can hear another woman chime in with "If we went into the men's section with our anatomy... that would be bad."

At 3:18 you can a woman walk up and say "he should not have been allowed in there."  and another reply "Exactly, we know that. Thank you."

So I'm not sure how you could have watched this video twice and come to the conclusion that the woman filming is the only one who alleging there was misconduct.  You can clearly hear at least 3 other different women either supporting her claims, or are voicing their own disgust.

So I ask you, are you dismissing all of these women because of a single sentence the woman filming said (in a much larger rant)?

My response to the other post applies to this as well. 

[Dill]

(06-30-2021, 11:50 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Well, if you're expecting me go in and dig though Fred's 40k posts then that's presenting quite the challenge.  I'm not sure I have the time nor the patience to sift though pages and pages of posts to provide with you with a clear example.  It's not as if there's a magic keyword I can use in the search function to sort these out.

You can take my word for it or not, I don't really care either way.  Fred is notorious for doing this on Jungle Noise.  When I called it a "Fred Toast move" I was expecting the person I specifically replied to, Nately, to understand exactly what I meant.  I did not expect a homework assignment.

Sorry to disappoint.

Understood.  Your examples made your point clearly, in any case.

All is forgiven.  Come home, Wes. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2021, 11:31 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, this is a bit confusing (though I do appreciate the effort to define).  If you are going to call this a "Fredtoast move" then I would expect an actual Fred toast example.

I've had this discussion with you hundreds of times.  You've been provided with examples, but "Dill doesn't see it".  This is yet another example of you ignoring unacceptable behavior by people you like.  Fred is solely known for this exact type of conduct.  But don't take my word for it, Bel or Hollo will tell you the exact same thing.  Not that it matters, as "Dill doesn't see it".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2021, 01:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If the spa's policy is to allow trans women to use the women's facility then it's not misconduct. There's no room for debate on that. If this happened in a state that didn't have a law surrounding that and where the spa did not allow it, then sure you could try to argue that, but that's not the case here. This is just an example of a woman who does not like the policies of a business. 

I worked at a group home with 300 WIC dependents (children removed from homes due to abuse and declared dependents of the court) prior to joining my department.  We used to take them to the public pool all the time.  Being a male staff, and supervising all male children, I was, naturally, assigned to supervise them in the changing area.  It always bothered me that some guys in there would just drop trou and expose themselves.  Wrap a goddamned towel around your waist while you change.  You accomplish the same task but no one has to see your junk.  The kids would comment on it all the time, and some were clearly unnerved by it and this is in a men's changing room occupied solely by biological males.  So, I can absolutely see women in a woman's changing room being displeased by a person with a penis doing the exact same thing in the woman's changing room.

I get that this is a delicate subject, but I think there are some, maybe many, people who engage in this type of activity just to make a point.  I don't have a daughter or nieces, but if I did I'd probably share the same concerns and it wouldn't have anything to do with hating transgendered people.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2021, 09:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I worked at a group home with 300 WIC dependents (children removed from homes due to abuse and declared dependents of the court) prior to joining my department.  We used to take them to the public pool all the time.  Being a male staff, and supervising all male children, I was, naturally, assigned to supervise them in the changing area.  It always bothered me that some guys in there would just drop trou and expose themselves.  Wrap a goddamned towel around your waist while you change.  You accomplish the same task but no one has to see your junk.  The kids would comment on it all the time, and some were clearly unnerved by it and this is in a men's changing room occupied solely by biological males.  So, I can absolutely see women in a woman's changing room being displeased by a person with a penis doing the exact same thing in the woman's changing room.

I get that this is a delicate subject, but I think there are some, maybe many, people who engage in this type of activity just to make a point.  I don't have a daughter or nieces, but if I did I'd probably share the same concerns and it wouldn't have anything to do with hating transgendered people.

I understand the position at a public pool or gym, but this is a traditional Korean spa where you are required to be nude in those areas. I also understand not knowing the policy and not agreeing with it, but the solution isn't to go on a transphobic and homophobic rant nor is the person following policy engaged in "misconduct".