Playing With My Food

Things are absurd. A thread.

Them: Teaching radical race/gender theories to young children is bad, and young kids shouldn't be exposed to instruction about sex.

Me: I agree!

Them: Then you'll back this law? /1

— David French (@DavidAFrench) April 4, 2022

David French makes it too easy.

Let’s start with “radical race/gender theories.” Define, please. Be specific. Vague and glittering generalities are not allowed.

*Reads law*

Me: Wait. This thing is incredibly broad and vague, doesn't grant meaningful guidance to educators, encompasses far more than young children, and will invariably lead to complaints against innocent teachers.

Them: Surrender caucus! Groomer! Woke! /2

— David French (@DavidAFrench) April 4, 2022

Yeah, generalities are not allowed for pretty much that first reason. But let’s stay on topic.  Next: “young children.” Again: define please. Same for “young kids.” Same issue. I’m 67. My daughter is 30. She’s still a “young kid.” Well, to me, anyway. Who is a “young kid” to you?

And what do you mean by “instruction about sex”? Biology? Reproduction? The principle of sexual reproduction? Positions? Preferred genders? Gender at all?

I’m really curious what “radical race/gender theories” are. The work of bell hooks? Critical Race Theory? As far as I know neither are accessible to anyone reasonably categorized as “young children.” 

And you do understand there’s a logical fallacy (or several) in going from broad statements to expecting support for a specific law? Even CRT is not interested in creating law. It’s a posture for analyzing the use of law; the actual use, not the tender Ideal. Do you really think  “young children” would be able to understand that?

When I was a child I was taught white supremacy, simply by the exclusion of the stories/interests of non-whites in American history, or in studying literature. I studied literature through to a Master’s degree. Race never entered into it, as if race didn’t exist. Whiteness was normative only because it was the only perspective considered. Am I being “radical” to say that? If by the word you mean I’m getting to the root, the radix, then I agree.

Definitions are so important.

So is history:

The American right, once so confident and optimistic that Moynihan called the GOP the "party of ideas" in 1980, are now just a vessel for a grieveance-addled and resentful coalition led by clever grifters who will even support America's enemies if it harvests votes and dollars. https://t.co/0U22MyGQzc

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 5, 2022

Newt Gingrich, 1979. The worm was in the bud from the beginning. The people supporting Reagan and the “intellectuals” supporting Reagan were never supporting the same person. I mean, Rick Wilson is still appealing to lizard brains,

I have it on a shelf in the upstairs library, and yes...that's true. https://t.co/exXGeuJk3g

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 4, 2022

yet still surprised the GOP is not dominated by high-minded racists like William F. Buckley (spoiler: it never was).

“Trumpian” and “conservative” are mutually exclusive. These are parasitic insects that ate conservatism from the inside and now steer its hollow shell in fitful and fruitless motion.

“Trumpian Conservatives Hold an ‘Emergency’ Meeting Over Russia” https://t.co/J7VLFb2A2Z

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 4, 2022

"No true Scotsman" won’t save you, either.

I look at what’s happening in Ukraine and at the massacre in Bucha and I am seized with an urge to talk about critical race theory and whether Ketanji Brown Jackson can define “woman.”

— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) April 4, 2022

Same.