Submitted by AttorneyTime4601 t3_ypb7ui in springfieldMO
I am genuinely confused by the crt angle in amendment 3. Could someone explain it to me? As far as I can tell people are afraid their kids will learn that black and brown people were incarcerated at higher rates than white people. It can’t be that stupid can it?
Opponents of the amendment are trying to claim it is a CRT Trojan horse by focusing on the language about the establishment of a “Chief Equity Officer” for the program. The reality is that that position would be responsible for making the licensing process more equitable. It has nothing to do with CRT (big surprise). They are probably doing this bc they know opposing it from an anti-legalization position would be a lost cause — even here in the Bible Belt.
Some on the right oppose it bc of a moral position, but I think the real reason there is money behind it is that it would result in less control and a lost revenue stream for police departments. Law enforcement leaders oppose the amendment, so right wing strategists can simultaneously ingratiate themselves to those actors while continuing to stoke fear about CRT.
What’s interesting is that there is a more progressive opposition to the amendment as well. The NAACP does not believe historically underrepresented groups will be genuinely enfranchised by the program. St. Louis mayor Tishaura Jones believes the amendment doesn’t go far enough, that it should include true decriminalization.
CRT has been weaponized very effectively. But, I've not been able to find anyone that can actually tell me what it is.
I mean, I know what it is, because I actually read things and don't just watch OAN. But, the superintendent of Springfield schools had to make a public statement that they have never taught CRT and never intended to after some of the pants-on-head city council meetings.
I can tell you exactly what it is. CRT is a subset of legal theory that focuses on how people of different racial groups are treated differently under the same set of laws. That’s literally all it is. Any mention of CRT outside of the context of law school can be dismissed as part of a racist moral panic.
When I first heard about it I read a lot of actual course material. That cemented my opposition. The idea that first and foremost we are an ethnic group and that should have major influence over how society treats you is nothing but racist to me.
Right, so you did your due diligence and actually looked into it and formed an opinion. The T in CRT stands for "theory", so you're allowed to disagree with it.
But, listen to any political commercial on TV in Missouri. "Democrats want to teach your kids that white people are all evil and racist, just by being born white."
It never had anything to do with that, it was always an elective college-level course around race relations, and it's actually pretty interesting.
I'm just saying that the Great Replacement has become the tool of the day, as stupid as it is, but it works to scare people.
>But, listen to any political commercial on TV in Missouri. "Democrats want to teach your kids that white people are all evil and racist, just by being born white."
Let me start off by saying I'm very much voting Democrat, and writing in where the only option is a Republican... but this isn't 100% out of thin air.
There are extremist factions within any movement that always push things past the point of sensibility, which the opposition will then hold up as representative of the entire movement in order to demonize and discredit them.
Just like you have radfems that go beyond gender equality into active misandry, you have black supremacists that are using racial equality as a smokescreen for their own racism.
I don’t get this logic. The issue at hand is basically whether or not to teach kids that racism happened. It did happen a few times here and there in the past few hundred years. Pretty undeniable. To be afraid that extremists would take over the curriculum makes sense but the only threat in this situation is the white ones. They’re the ones actually proposing an alternate history in classrooms.
My 72 y/o mother sees my 5 y/o nephew playing peacefully with a black kid and asks me " why do they even have to teach kids about racism at all? Kids are inherently not racist". Because mom, 5 year old children have no fucking idea what's happening on any level...
It doesn't have anything to do with actual CRT at all. They ignorantly believe racism exists solely because kids are taught that it used to be waaaay worse, as though it can't exist in a vacuum and that there's no way any existing framework could support racism at all...
I'm not arguing in favor of these idiots trying to 1984 the history books. I'm just saying there are already people who think whites are evil for being white, which is as much an overreaction as this is.
In 2020, during the height of the protests, black rights advocates pushed hard to redefine racism, with their new definition essentially making it so only white people could be racist because it defines systemic racism as the only possible form of racism.
The pressure was great enough it was officially added as an additional definition, but I constantly meet people who think it's the only definition.
We absolutely need to teach kids about racism... but we need more effort to teach that anyone can be racist, not just that it's a thing white people do to black people.
Systemic racism is based on who controls the systems that are built to intentionally or unintentionally repress an ethnic group. That doesn't mean only whites are racist. It just happens to be our reality.
It also doesn't mean individual-scale racism ceases to exist, or that black people are incapable of it, which is a disappointingly common sentiment.
Maybe, but it's also not the point. The point is by focusing on large systems those interactions become less and less frequent due to large scale true integration and equity.
It's like how huge systemic changes in several industries are the only thing that will mitigate the risks of global warming crises. One guy's smelly pickup is not the problem. His pickup is just a consequence of the system that produced it.
Comparing equality to the environment is a false equivalence.
People can discriminate and be discriminated against at the same time, and things only become less common when properly addressed.
Focusing the narrative solely on the evils of whites and men while glossing over the sexism of women and the racism of PoC, which is the current environment, doesn't create integration or equity. It just creates pushback from people who feel unjustly persecuted.
It's a metaphor for how to address a large scale problem on a large scale. No one is saying individuals can't act with individualized racially motivated actions. I told you the point behind the shift in focus, which is what most people who are doing the work believe IS properly addressing the problem. So your opinion on terminology isn't really up to speed yet.
No one here is disagreeing with you on the fact that there are overly extreme messages like the "evils of whites" narrative, but you're conflating that with good progress because you don't want to shift your understanding.
>No one is saying individuals can't act with individualized racially motivated actions.
That's not the same thing as claiming nobody says black people can't be racist.
In fact, the way you squirm and wriggle to use a term other than racism to describe blacks being racist just reinforces my point about the narrative being racism is a white thing.
Want to prove me wrong, then humor me. Actually say/type "Black people can be racist."
No prevarication, no qualifications, no dancing around the terminology, no backpedaling immediately afterwards. Just state clearly and simply that you acknowledge black people are capable of racism.
Because I bet you won't, and are going to try to deflect it on to me being "behind" just like you're doing now.
EDIT: Also, your pollution metaphor comes out as "get rid of the sources of pollution = get rid of white people," which is why I'm saying it's a false equivalence.
You want to bait me and others into an argument that Black people can be racist. Why? Because you have received or seen some vitriol from Black people? Do you think retaliation by Black people against a culture partly created from Black slavery is racism?
Racial bias and racism are not the same. You're looking for a false equivalency, there it is.
Called it!
Racism is treating someone differently based on their race. That is the legal, practical, and dictionary definition. No more, no less.
The "racial bias" bullshit you're peddling is a double standard trying to move the goal posts so that racism is a white-only phenomenon and black racists get their racism soft-sold.
You should also look up the definition of confirmation bias.
Weird hill to die on. ‘If we stop oppressing people they might try to oppress us like we did to them for several hundred years’ is pretty weak. That’s not a real concern that is comparable to any real issue at hand. Killmonger was a fictional character.
>‘If we stop oppressing people they might try to oppress us like we did to them for several hundred years’ is pretty weak.
Dude, work on your reading comprehension, because that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that it's possible to oppress someone while being oppressed at the same time, and black people routinely get away with saying shit that would get a white person lynched because any time someone tries to bring up black racism they get shouted down.
>Killmonger was a fictional character.
And yet he represents a trend I've seen developing since well before Black Panther was released. If you're going to claim he didn't have a basis in shit that actually gets said, you're either lying or hopelessly naive.
Keep on trying to argue the merits of "black on white racism", or perhaps you prefer the phrase "reverse racism". Ask a black person working on diversity, equity, and inclusion in this town and see what they say about it.
You claim to vote all Democrat, but I've literally had this same conversation with staunch Fox News and Qanon conservatives. The difference is they weren't pretending to care, they were obvious about it.
Further reading:
https://www.theroot.com/if-a-white-person-said-that-the-false-equivalency-of-r-1828373496
https://racism.org/articles/defining-racism/2073-top-10-ways-black-people-keep?showall=1
No, I wouldn't prefer the term "reverse racism," because that implies the natural order of racism is whites being racist against blacks. Which is fucking racist.
Also, nice job at deciding that I'm a racist qtard just because I'm not completely guzzling the kool-aid and pretending "racial bias" is somehow not racism with a prettier name to downplay it.
If only the town knew what a hidden gem they have here, a true scholar of racism and race relations. I suppose the actual people doing real work in this field don't matter to you. After all, this conversation is just an attempt for you to try and insert your will on what you think about the terminology, not to learn something or contribute anything of value. All while completely distracting from the important points. Score one for anti-racism.
You'd certainly find any number of bigots here who would share your opinion. That alone should give you pause.
Good luck to you on your journey, I'm done trying to help you.
Being done implies you were ever interested in helping me to begin with.
You being completely unwilling to admit black people are even capable of racism and accusing me of being racist for daring to hold them to the same standards as white people is hilariously hypocritical.
You also have no idea of my background, the reading I've done, or the personal connections I have but, sure, go ahead and write me off as ignorant because it makes you feel better.
Get away with saying things? People say things all the time. You’re getting away with saying some real dumb shit right now. Things were actually DONE to black and brown folks for a long time. You wanna police what they can SAY about it? You’re obviously trying to keep them in a certain position. The opposition to their ideas continues to say things and do things to oppress them. You included.
From the way you and the other dude are jumping down my throat, I'm not getting away with shit.
You're trying to shout me down and silence me for disagreeing with the party line, and I'm not letting you.
I can see now that you make no sense and are afraid of black people
The fact you think me daring to say black people are as capable of racism as white people means I'm afraid of black people is hilarious.
So is the fact you can't grasp just how much you're acting like the oppressor you claim I am.
There will always be extremists. It is crazy to point to them when explaining why mainstream opposition gets so crazy. If the standard is “We can’t have our way until there are no extremists that partially agree with us.” Nothing will get done. Ever. Because they will always be there.
That isn't what I'm saying, and the fact everyone seems to think it says a lot of bad things.
I'm simply pointing out that the Right points to the extremists on the Left to justify themselves just the same way the Left points to the extremists on the Right. Becauseboth sides tend to think their own shit doesn't stink.
Just because I don't agree with the most recent wave of rhetorical bullshit of people twisting the meaning of racism so whites are racist and blacks are "exhibiting racially biased behavior," doesn't mean I'm in favor of racism.
The problem is that the right MAINSTREAM is comparing itself to the fringe left. We say something that Trump did is crazy and they point to the fringe parts of twitter left. It’s not equal. It’s not even close.
>The problem is that the right MAINSTREAM is comparing itself to the fringe left.
That's a significant part of my point.
We need to acknowledge the Fringe Left exists and try to talk some goddamn sense into them instead of trying to pretend we can separate ourselves from them, because the Right sure as hell won't separate them from us any more than we separate the Qtards and MAGAts from moderate, sensible conservatives when we think of "the Right."
CRT is the idea that we should acknowledge that the legal system has a disproportionately negative impact on minority groups because the laws were written by entrenched powers who held the racist attitudes that were common when the laws were written.
But conservatives refuse to accept anything negative or problematic about systems that serve them, so that they don't have to accept responsibility for anything other than the way their actions affect the people immediately around them in the short term.
It's just like how they ignore it when youth pastors molest kids in their churches.
A simple way to explain it to people is to just say CRT talks about how our laws are racist.
Yeah I’ll be holding my nose voting for it because it doesn’t expunge the records of those convicted of marijuana offenses. But at least we can stop the bleeding a bit.
It does include expungment.
IIRC it’s not automatic, it’s an “appeals process.” Which given who’s in charge and who will probably remain in charge for the foreseeable future, I can’t trust that as far as I can throw it.
Most cannabis legalization laws don't even have any expungement provisions, Issue 3 does. Issue 3 is better than Colorado's law.
I don't know if it was automatic or not but that process wasn't some decision made for the bill. From what I've read elsewhere, there are other things preventing it from being automatic - not the bill writers.
It is automatic
It is automatic for those not currently in jail. For those now in jail for marijuana charges ONLY, they have to appeal to get out of jail and have their record expunged. One needs a lawyer for that and lawyers cost money. So, poor folks currently in jail for marijuana charges ONLY are likely just stuck there. That IS the Republican way....only rich (White) people deserve real justice.
St Louis NAACP endorsed as well as Kansas City mayor.
The Missouri NAACP itself advocated against it going against St Louis NAACP chapters.
CRT is a law school curriculum that has never been used in public schools republicans just use it as an excuse to ban the parts of history they don’t like
This is just the most recent use of racism to promote prohibition. The tactic is older than indoor plumbing. It's classic catchphrase/buzzword fear mongering.
"SOMEBODY DONE CRT'd THE WATERHOLE!"
"THERE'S A WOKE LIBERAL AGENDA IN MY BOOT!"
These are some classic examples of catchphrase/Woodyword fear mongering.
Bro, everyone needs to quit worrying about CRT. It is outdated. All my friends have OLED TVs now.
CRT TVs are out, OLED is in. That's what's up
This is my favorite response
But without crt TV's, how can I go play some retro gaming? :(
I side loaded an emulator on my firestick tonight. Retro gaming on a 70" TV, and the game selection, one you figure out where to get ROMS, is pretty much endless.
I think they're talking about the fact that old games were designed to run on CRTs. In particular, they took advantage of the way pixels bleed together on a CRT screen to make art look substantially smoother than it does on a crisp LCD/OLED. There's a bunch of videos and articles that go into detail about it, but it's a real thing you can see for yourself with side-by-side comparisons, not just nostalgia goggles.
> There's a bunch of videos and articles that go into detail
Meh, I think this is vastly overstated. 90% of those videos and articles are like "BattleToads The Way It Was Meant to Be Played!!!!" and then they're showing it on some super high-end sony trinitron from like 2008.
In the 80s, NES was really played on some old wood-paneled monstrosity from the 70s with fucked up color balance, because CRTs lasted forever back then and were too expensive to replace often. It did not look better.
I mean, I was there... but I'm not saying that they looked better overall at the time. Our game TV all the way up to like 2000 was fuzzy as fuck, and certainly from at least the early 80's. An LCD is an improvement from that. But so was my $100 college TV from BestBuy.
But the pixel artists of the day really were optimizing around the geometry and physics of TV pixels, and I do think it looks smoother when viewed on a nicely-calibrated CRT than on a similarly-calibrated LCD. Again, this isn't about nostalgia. The artists had high-end CRTs on their desks when they were making the games.
You also get into stuff like the Nintendo Zapper not working on LCDs because of the way it depends on CRT scanlines.
/uj
How difficult was this to set up? and can one connect Bluetooth controllers to the Firestick?
lots of emulators have CRT settings :) I believe even the Switch retro consoles have the setting!
It is. Some white people don’t want actual history taught to their kids. They prefer the white washed version where it all start with the “hero” Columbus.
The weed one?
For no reason whatsoever.
Explanation: Fear-Mongering
[deleted]
Ill be voting for it.
I can't tell completely, but it doesnt seem to have the same issue as Illinois did where you had to pay like 200k and make the case that your business partners are more oppressed/more marginalized than some other applicant so you should get the license instead. (Basically the oppression Olympics)
They seem to have dodged that bullet which is why some of the most social justice "muh equity" groups dont support it because they dont get first dibs on it because of prior historical grievances. (Get in line is my view on that.)
I will admit the "Chief Equity Officer" stuff made me do a double take because anything with "Equity" inserted into it usually means you will be further back in line depending on who can compete better for you in having less privilege.
[deleted]
It’s a very poorly written almost 40 page bill. https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/2022-059.pdf
It gives preference to already existing MMJ facilities and lotteries in high weed conviction areas.
I’ve seen the left and the right both say no to it for diff reasons and if you get that to happen nowadays you know it’s bad.
Unfortunately the public only sees the ballot language and not the text of the amendment.
I would be ok with grow all you want at home under a personal use amount, a minimum of one storefront per county and a population based expander such as if more than 10k of people live within a county you get one more store per every 10k people or whatever. No high net worth, no already in the biz, no disenfranchised. You show up with a plan that meets general requirements, welcome to the lottery.
I think it will pass based on ballot language alone, but it’s a very unfair bill for all sorts of reasons. No on Tuesday doesn’t mean no forever….but a diff approach.
dannyjbixby t1_ivietfh wrote
It can be that stupid.
It is that stupid.
You nailed it.