Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[Agema]

For example, the systemic college process of having lower tester score requirements for admittance from Black students. This was to help black students who often didn't come from great school districts or perhaps didn't bother to pay attention, still get into college. Now is this racist? Sure if you look at it under the assumption that Black people are I guess supposed to be dumber than everyone else therefore they can't possibly match the test scores of other people therefore you lower it just for them and essentially hold them to a lower standard because they can't meet the normal ones, thus labeling them as inferior. You could look at it that way. The other side of that is the higher test score requirement for Asian students, because they are often much higher in academic scores that the normal would be too easy for them so the requirement is raised so that the whole college isn't just Asian kids.

There is at core a problem here. In my country, an elite course would probably be asking for about 120 points at school-end exams, moderate ~90, and low ~60. But we also know from research that a student who pays for an independent school education scores on average ~16 points more than a student of equal talent from from the state education system. Basically just because their expensive school is better. So we know perfectly well that there is a fundamental bias in university admissions due to differences in school quality. Particularly when we look at courses with high entry requirements (thus elite universities with high requirements for any course at all), students from bad schools are disadvantaged - and of course the worst schools tend to be in the poorest areas. This means that poorer students (and de facto most middle class too, also being in state schools) are systemically disadvantaged in higher education access.

To translate this to the context of race in the USA, black people are on average much poorer than white people. Thus a rule that grants black people easier admission is not quite so unjustifiable as you might think. It is however very clumsy, because it benefits a substantial number of black people who don't need it and provides no assistance to white students who should have some. On the other hand, this sort of correction is very difficult, and perhaps given the racial complications the USA's history has created, it is not a surprise this has been an angle often chosen.

To give an idea of how hard it can be, again let's go back to the UK. Some universities trying to record how many students are from disadvantaged backgrounds have tried using a "postcode" system. Take the average wealth of a locality, and if it is one of high deprivation, classify all students from there as from a deprived background. But now imagine a rural location with high poverty containing many poor agricultural workers, a few wealthy farmers, and an aristocrat in a country mansion. The aristocrat and the farmers send their kids to uni and non of the agricultural workers do, but all of those students classify on the statistics as "deprived", even though none of them are anything like.

 

[Schadrach]

...

A better tack is to question why they use the specific social justice lens they do for a given topic and not a different one.

For example, if you ask why view criminal justice through a racial lens? They'll typically tell you it's because people of color (this is one of those cases where Asians count as white), especially black folks end up with disproportionately negative outcomes. And they're right about that.

But there are other lenses you could view the same issue through, why is it we don't ever look through those and apply the same reasoning we do to the racial lens, for example a gender lens? Because interestingly enough, if you view criminal justice through a gender lens virtually any measure by which a racial gap exists and is treated as a clear sign of oppression and discrimination also has a gender gap and generally those gender gaps are as large or worse. But they're "inconvenient" gender gaps, because they favor women. So suddenly they are either to be ignored, or justified away.

And then it typically gets ugly, and then you get called racist when you ask why the reasons they give why those gaps might favor women that definitely aren't about discrimination or sexism can't be applied to the racial lens.

Just to be clear, it’s 50 years old. It’s not new.

It is new in the specific context of K-12 education. But then, I also keep getting told that the specific things prohibited by laws "banning CRT" aren't part of or even really related to CRT, but that somehow the law in question still bans teaching actual CRT despite giving an explicit list of what they prohibit that definitely aren't really part of CRT.

Scott hasn't been cancelled. He retired before a lot of the ruckus really began.

aka he saw the storm brewing and minimized the damage after merely being doxed and threatened and just a bit of targeted harassment. This is of course acceptable because he donated money to Republican candidates as well as Tulsi Gabbard who Hillary Clinton accused of being a Russian asset (to be fair she seemed to accuse basically anyone who harmed her chances of winning her ordained seat as being tied to Russians).

There is at core a problem here. In my country, an elite course would probably be asking for about 120 points at school-end exams, moderate ~90, and low ~60. But we also know from research that a student who pays for an independent school education scores on average ~16 points more than a student of equal talent from from the state education system. Basically just because their expensive school is better. So we know perfectly well that there is a fundamental bias in university admissions due to differences in school quality. Particularly when we look at courses with high entry requirements (thus elite universities with high requirements for any course at all), students from bad schools are disadvantaged - and of course the worst schools tend to be in the poorest areas. This means that poorer students (and de facto most middle class too, also being in state schools) are systemically disadvantaged in higher education access.

To translate this to the context of race in the USA, black people are on average much poorer than white people. Thus a rule that grants black people easier admission is not quite so unjustifiable as you might think. It is however very clumsy, because it benefits a substantial number of black people who don't need it and provides no assistance to white students who should have some. On the other hand, this sort of correction is very difficult, and perhaps given the racial complications the USA's history has created, it is not a surprise this has been an angle often chosen.

To give an idea of how hard it can be, again let's go back to the UK. Some universities trying to record how many students are from disadvantaged backgrounds have tried using a "postcode" system. Take the average wealth of a locality, and if it is one of high deprivation, classify all students from there as from a deprived background. But now imagine a rural location with high poverty containing many poor agricultural workers, a few wealthy farmers, and an aristocrat in a country mansion. The aristocrat and the farmers send their kids to uni and non of the agricultural workers do, but all of those students classify on the statistics as "deprived", even though none of them are anything like.

University admissions has student applications and transcripts, right? Why couldn't they just filter on what school the student previously attended and apply a bias that way - assuming that "attended a better school" doesn't actually have any meaningful impact on how one will perform in university? Why base it on post codes or race when you already have the relevant data you are using race or post code as a proxy for available?

 

[CriticalGaming]

Basically just because their expensive school is better.

As it should. You absolutely should be getting more for what you pay for. I think that is fair can we agree?

Now it happens to be low income areas tend to be more minority based, but that is only really true in urban areas. There are plenty of poor white folks throughout the country that also are stuck with mediocre education.

Also let's be perfectly honest here you can still pay attention, study, and go your homework even if you are going to a "bad" school. Being poor, or from a bad neighborhood, or whatever does not stop those that want it from become educated. What really prevents education is the culture around these kids in which other kids think school isn't "cool and hip" and as a group they don't pay attention or care much about it because they want to be "cool and hip". Being good at school is usually a one way ticket to getting bullied, which makes it harder from a peer pressure standpoint to stay a good student.

To translate this to the context of race in the USA, black people are on average much poorer than white people. Thus a rule that grants black people easier admission is not quite so unjustifiable as you might think. It is however very clumsy, because it benefits a substantial number of black people who don't need it and provides no assistance to white students who should have some. On the other hand, this sort of correction is very difficult, and perhaps given the racial complications the USA's history has created, it is not a surprise this has been an angle often chosen.

I disagree, it is a very easy fix. All they have to do is change the system to normalize required test scores by zip codes. That way people who live in any zip code regardless of race are judged on the same system. If a zip code in one area (say Compton for instance)is mostly Black, doesn't mean that another weak zip code in another place wouldn't be mostly white (like Alabama).

The problem is is that people want to see it as racist. They don't actually want the racist systems to go away because if they did, then they would lose the excuses for their lack of success. And the problem that I think a lot of people have when it comes to success is that they only measure the visibly public successful people. Professional Athletes, Political figures, Actors, CEO's, etc etc. But what they don't factor is all the PoC's who've become lawyers, doctors, small business owners, fitness experts, any number of highly successful lives. But the view is, if you aren't at the top then you're oppressed and can't possibly succeed.

But there are other lenses you could view the same issue through, why is it we don't ever look through those and apply the same reasoning we do to the racial lens, for example a gender lens? Because interestingly enough, if you view criminal justice through a gender lens virtually any measure by which a racial gap exists and is treated as a clear sign of oppression and discrimination also has a gender gap and generally those gender gaps are as large or worse. But they're "inconvenient" gender gaps, because they favor women. So suddenly they are either to be ignored, or justified away.

Of course. That's what rubs me so wrong about this. Is that it's all manipulated information. The Gender Pay gap was one such issue which has largely gone away as too many reports of it being bullshit came out when people actually started digging. It is professional victimhood that has scaled itself to a mass media level. It has escalated into such a force that it is now blinding people and has clouded society as it attempts to brainwash people. And at the root of it, is the same evil as everything else......cash. These people make boatloads of cash being "gender advisors" and giving speeches to companies or conventions all of it based off a lie.

And when you point out that these inequities aren't in favor of their "team", then you are just labeled a bigot and screamed out of a room. There is no compromise, there is no discussion, there is no admittance to fact, because they don't care about the facts and they don't care about the truth. They only care about their narrative and how much money they can make being professional victims until that well runs eventually dry.

 

[Agema]

As it should. You absolutely should be getting more for what you pay for. I think that is fair can we agree?

You mean, kids should have an advantage over other kids because their parents are rich? It's certainly the way of the world, but how "fair" it is is controversial. After all, one might defend monarchy on the same basis: why shouldn't they rule? Daddy was king and passed the crown on, after all. In my mind it's not really about whether you should be getting more for paying more, it's a question of whether your earned the money you spent. As far as I am concerned, what you achieved off what mummy and daddy paid for is no credit to you at all. You would be better classified as lucky than deserving.

It also of course introduces the factor about whether society doesn't end up run by mediocre scions of the rich who bought themselves a rocket booster to the top but are just a mediocrity there, where those more talented get stuck behind them toiling in middle management.

Now it happens to be low income areas tend to be more minority based, but that is only really true in urban areas. There are plenty of poor white folks throughout the country that also are stuck with mediocre education.

Also let's be perfectly honest here you can still pay attention, study, and go your homework even if you are going to a "bad" school. Being poor, or from a bad neighborhood, or whatever does not stop those that want it from become educated. What really prevents education is the culture around these kids in which other kids think school isn't "cool and hip" and as a group they don't pay attention or care much about it because they want to be "cool and hip". Being good at school is usually a one way ticket to getting bullied, which makes it harder from a peer pressure standpoint to stay a good student.

Yes, but a "bad school" is in large part the wider social milieu rather than the school itself. The only realistic way to measure a school's quality is the results output, and if some of the kids wreck the educations of the other ones despite the hard work of the school, the school still has bad results. But again, let's think about "fairness"? Do you think the Olympic 110m hurdles would be a fair competition if competitors could pay $10 million to have their hurdles removed?

I disagree, it is a very easy fix. All they have to do is change the system to normalize required test scores by zip codes. That way people who live in any zip code regardless of race are judged on the same system. If a zip code in one area (say Compton for instance)is mostly Black, doesn't mean that another weak zip code in another place wouldn't be mostly white (like Alabama).

It would still be open to abuse (see my previous post; a postcode is the UK equivalent of a zipcode), but I would agree it to be fairer. Although, ironically, it might also be illegal, because certain laws specifically exist to advance racial minorities, but not poor people.

But what they don't factor is all the PoC's who've become lawyers, doctors, small business owners, fitness experts, any number of highly successful lives. But the view is, if you aren't at the top then you're oppressed and can't possibly succeed.

Well, imagine 1% of white people can make it big and 0.1% of black people, bascially because a lot more of them come from rich families. Pointing to the fact that 0.1% of black people made it big doesn't really cut it. It still suggests ten times as should can't.

And when you point out that these inequities aren't in favor of their "team", then you are just labeled a bigot and screamed out of a room. There is no compromise, there is no discussion, there is no admittance to fact, because they don't care about the facts and they don't care about the truth. They only care about their narrative and how much money they can make being professional victims until that well runs eventually dry.

See above. I would be fine with this in theory, if it's legal.

As long as the people complaining about other people claiming they are victims aren't hypocrites busy making all their own claims about what a victim they themselves are. And by my experience, they frequently are hypocrites. They stole the election did they? Sure, bud...

 

[CriticalGaming]

You mean, kids should have an advantage over other kids because their parents are rich? It's certainly the way of the world, but how "fair" it is is controversial.

The only people who don't think it's fair are the chronically unsuccessful. The whole goal of a normal person should be to pass on a life to their children that is better than the one they had. So you work hard and if you happen to make a lot of money and can provide great education, and such for your kids then yes that is absolutely fair. Now the cycle should in theory repeat, that great education should push that child into better positions then even their already well off parents. This is why you have families that come from money, it's just how it happens and there isn't anything wrong with being rich as a baseline. Of course there are some entitlement issues that can arise from that, because money doesn't mean you don't also have to be parents and teach your kids not to be dipshits.

It is not the fault of somebody like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates who came up with a brilliant tech idea and put in the work to create it, that he became uber rich because of that creation. Just like it isn't the fault of someone being super talented and becoming a movie star. Because 99% of people can't do that, doesn't mean there is some unfair oppression that prevents people from being wealthy.

And again there are more metrics of success that being a multi-millionaire. In fact the vast majority of people live full, comfortable lives without ever seeing a million dollar in their lifetime. It's a false disparity brought on by jealous people who likely don't come from super poor families themselves.

. But again, let's think about "fairness"? Do you think the Olympic 110m hurdles would be a fair competition if competitors could pay $10 million to have their hurdles removed?

Obviously no. And there are I'm sure some very rich people who just pay their kids into college even when their kid is a moron. But how many students is that realistically? I imagine the number is very small. You're argument there doesn't fit even still because kids can go to great schools and still not put in the effort and come out the otherside morons. There is still work that must be put in on the effort of the student, because farting your way through a good high school does not automatically mean you get to go to law school or medical school and come out the other side. Work, study, and massive fucking effort still needs to be put upon the individual.

Look people come from all walks of life. This idea that we can make it equal for everyone just isn't feasible. People are different, people have natural aspects to them that prevent true equality from being possible. Some are born athletic, some or born stupid, or smart, or unrealistically good at music somehow. There are countless ways the human mind can develop that prevent anything from being equal.

It's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. What most progressives want is equality of outcome, they want everyone making the same money, have the same jobs, and the same social standing across the board without exception or fail. Which is impossible.

The ideal should be equality of opportunity, which society in the West is currently pretty close to achieving. Everyone can put in the work to get what they want, with a few limitations in terms of personal potential. Someone might be passionate about music for example but just not capable of creating anything that sounds good, a fundamental inability to grasp music in a creative way and no amount of equality will fix that, and this applies to all arts really. We don't any systems in place that actively stop someone from achieving whatever place in life they want. Some people do have to work harder, because we all come from different places, but there is no system that outright prevents someone from getting somewhere. Nothing says, "you can't be a train builder because you are Jewish" or "You can't legally be a doctor because you are not Japanese" whatever it is.

Now that being said, can work be done to bring the baseline starting point for everyone up a bit higher? Sure, but a lot of that starts within the community. If Billy Buckeye is making Meth in the garage, the community doesn't have to do the meth, nor do they have to tolerate Billy making the meth because he's uncle Bobby's only kid and it would break his momma's heart to send him to jail. No don't do the meth and call the cops to take Billy's dumbass away. You'd be amazed at what getting rid of the methhead will do for a communities property value.

Although, ironically, it might also be illegal, because certain laws specifically exist to advance racial minorities, but not poor people.

Which is interesting, because a lot of this "systemic racism" is specifically designed to try and make shit easier on the people. But the problem with that is when you make it too easy for people to not improve themselves then they will never try to improve themselves. Self-improvement is very difficult.

Well, imagine 1% of white people can make it big and 0.1% of black people, bascially because a lot more of them come from rich families. Pointing to the fact that 0.1% of black people made it big doesn't really cut it. It still suggests ten times as should can't.

Making it big isn't the only metric of success that is the point I was trying to make. You are still focused on the people who manage to become top .1% money makers, and that's a horrible way to view things because it's unrealistic.

 

[Buyetyen]

The only people who don't think it's fair are the chronically unsuccessful. The whole goal of a normal person should be to pass on a life to their children that is better than the one they had. So you work hard and if you happen to make a lot of money and can provide great education, and such for your kids then yes that is absolutely fair. Now the cycle should in theory repeat, that great education should push that child into better positions then even their already well off parents. This is why you have families that come from money, it's just how it happens and there isn't anything wrong with being rich as a baseline. Of course there are some entitlement issues that can arise from that, because money doesn't mean you don't also have to be parents and teach your kids not to be dipshits.

This is charmingly naive on your part in that you still believe we live in a meritocracy. We most certainly do not. And can you give me a valid reason why education should not be more egalitarian?

What most progressives want is equality of outcome, they want everyone making the same money, have the same jobs, and the same social standing across the board without exception or fail. Which is impossible.

If you actually talked to progressives, you might have more of a clue of what it is we believe.

You'd be amazed at what getting rid of the methhead will do for a communities property value.

You really think it's that simple?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

A better tack is to question why they use the specific social justice lens they do for a given topic and not a different one.

For example, if you ask why view criminal justice through a racial lens? They'll typically tell you it's because people of color (this is one of those cases where Asians count as white), especially black folks end up with disproportionately negative outcomes. And they're right about that.

But there are other lenses you could view the same issue through, why is it we don't ever look through those and apply the same reasoning we do to the racial lens, for example a gender lens?

No, we do that too. It's just not the *current* conservative reason why Everything Is Going Wrong, it's an older conservative boogeyman.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_literature/literary_theory_and_schools_of_criticism/gender_studies_and_queer_theory.html

 

[Schadrach]

See above. I would be fine with this in theory, if it's legal.

As long as the people complaining about other people claiming they are victims aren't hypocrites busy making all their own claims about what a victim they themselves are. And by my experience, they frequently are hypocrites. They stole the election did they? Sure, bud...

You aren't quoting me there...

You are still focused on the people who manage to become top .1% money makers, and that's a horrible way to view things because it's unrealistic.

It's typical though. Again looking at gender is illustrative. There's a lot of emphasis on the distribution of either the very top or very bottom and then treating it as illustrative of the broader populace, with whether it's the top or bottom being dependent on which end makes the issue at hand best fit the intended narrative. For example, looking at socioeconomic outcomes, feminism will focus on the very top performers and what their sex distribution looks like and suggest that that top 1% says something about how the sexes are treated by society, and carefully avoid looking at rough sleeping homeless (the other extreme) or at best pretend as though the sex distribution there is meaningless despite it being a bigger cohort.

You really think it's that simple?

In the broader context, of course not. But the methhead is an illustrative hypothetical. I do find the idea that communities can do nothing at all to improve themselves and definitely need race based special benefits kinda ridiculous though.

No, we do that too. It's just not the *current* conservative reason why Everything Is Going Wrong, it's an older conservative boogeyman.

So, how do you think social justice-y types would broadly respond if someone were to start pushing on the fact that by most measures of criminal justice inequality men are are worse off than women, often by a larger margin than the racial one (the two notably "stack" - that is both apply meaning that specifically black men get screwed the worst by the system while white women [especially young and/or pretty ones] get handled with kid gloves). And that accordingly maybe we should be looking at how the system treats men, given they're a much larger cohort subject to similar or worse treatment in most cases? Give you a hint, from experience the result is a whole lot of arguing how any given criminal justice statistic split by race is absolute proof of prejudice, discrimination and oppression while that same statistic split by gender is either the fault of those men or masculinity as a whole.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It's typical though. Again looking at gender is illustrative. There's a lot of emphasis on the distribution of either the very top or very bottom and then treating it as illustrative of the broader populace, with whether it's the top or bottom being dependent on which end makes the issue at hand best fit the intended narrative. For example, looking at socioeconomic outcomes, feminism will focus on the very top performers and what their sex distribution looks like and suggest that that top 1% says something about how the sexes are treated by society, and carefully avoid looking at rough sleeping homeless (the other extreme) or at best pretend as though the sex distribution there is meaningless despite it being a bigger cohort.

Yeah for sure, people only look at the extremes of the bell curve and call it representative of the problems. There is no consideration for potential outliers because if they looked at the top of the curve then their arguments would hold no water.

 

[Buyetyen]

I do find the idea that communities can do nothing at all to improve themselves

Has anybody in this thread actually said that or is that one of those things you just want me to take on faith?

 

[Agema]

You aren't quoting me there...

No, just to be clear, I was not. I merely point out that victim culture is now completely endemic to society. Although "snowflake" and related terms are thrown at progressives by the right, much of the narrative of the right now portrays themselves as the "real" victims.

 

[tstorm823]

Although "snowflake" and related terms are thrown at progressives by the right, much of the narrative of the right now portrays themselves as the "real" victims.

Snowflake meaning weak or fragile never made sense. Snowflake the insult was made for people who see themselves as extra special and unique who need to announce all the ways they are different then regular people so you know how special they are, because every snowflake is completely unique but also perfect. That the insult transformed somehow to mean "easily offended" is a great loss to the English language.

 

[Agema]

Snowflake meaning weak or fragile never made sense. Snowflake the insult was made for people who see themselves as extra special and unique who need to announce all the ways they are different then regular people so you know how special they are, because every snowflake is completely unique but also perfect. That the insult transformed somehow to mean "easily offended" is a great loss to the English language.

Well, to be fair, snowflake meaning weak and fragile does makes sense

But yes, I agree. I preferred the old use for people who thought they were special and unique. Meanings shift fast these days.

 

[Trunkage]

It is new in the specific context of K-12 education. But then, I also keep getting told that the specific things prohibited by laws "banning CRT" aren't part of or even really related to CRT, but that somehow the law in question still bans teaching actual CRT despite giving an explicit list of what they prohibit that definitely aren't really part of CRT.

Yeah, they pretty much just called some random teaching 'CRT' and then used that to vilify and ban it

 

[Trunkage]

You mean Obama's camps, or more likely Bush's camps. Also there was a concerted effort somewhat to help Jewish people in World War II once things were escalating. Also there's a difference between people actually seeking asylum, people who are legal migrants and people who are illegal migrants doing so for economic reasons. The latter being a problem as they slow down asylum processing for actual asylum seekers who need it. E.G. I don't think people fleeing war would be really so picky with their food

Refugees get Pakistani chef because they’re sick of bad Italian

A Pakistani chef has been brought in to feed refugees housed in a region of Italy renowned for its grub — which they blasted as “no good” and “cooked badly.” Thirty of the a…

nypost.com

Also illegal immigration can and does lead to exploitation of said workers. Hell uncontrolled migration actually harms developing countries due to things like "Brain Drain". etc.

It would be a nice idea to have totally free movement but that's not the state of the world and it's not in a state where that would be any good in the end.

It's funny how illegal immigrants is such an abused term. Yes there are illegal immigrants. Also, not all refugees are illegal immigrants. In fact its hardly any. If you would like to see what happens when you pretend something is an illegal immigrants when, in reality, it isn't, might I suggest you look up the detention centres I just spoke of. There is a reason why Australia cant shut down it's detention centres. And it's not from new 'illegal immigrant' arrivals, as we havent had any in 7 years. It's because they were never illegal. See also the camps at the US border. Most of those people are refugees and cant be turned away.

I mean MLK would probably be Anti-CRT because it places an emphasis on race from what I've heard. MLK at one point was on about a person being judged on their character not the colour of their skin.

Are you pretending he never talked about race? Maybe look up some of what he said? MLK was still far more hated than what CRT ever has been. Also, what has that got to do with CRT? Judging character based on the colour of their skin is the opposite of what they preach

 

[Trunkage]

Except there's Ethnic Studies?

So... the solution is to excise anything non-white out of history and give it its own subject?

 

[AnxietyProne]

His rationale for "voting conservative is GOOD for LGBTQ's!" was pretty stupid, but other than that, I got no beef with the guy. His money, his business. He's not some evil bigot.

 

[AnxietyProne]

Making it big isn't the only metric of success that is the point I was trying to make. You are still focused on the people who manage to become top .1% money makers, and that's a horrible way to view things because it's unrealistic.

We're in a capitalist society. That's the ONLY metric in a capitalist society.

 

[Hawki]

So... the solution is to excise anything non-white out of history and give it its own subject?

First of all, that's a rediculous argument, and I'm going to credit you with knowing that.

Second, CRT has nothing to do with history. Whatever historical tidbits you or anyone else may have picked up from it is incidental. There's no shortage of history that I picked up when studying non-history subjects at school, that doesn't make them historical subjects.

Third, if you're discussing what history should and shouldn't cover, that's an entirely different discussion. Most countries are going to study history from their own perspective - for instance, at school, I took "Asian Studies" as an elective, whereas in places like Singapore and China, "American/Australian Studies" are electives. That doesn't rule out outside history from being incorporated in a core curiculum to some extent, but there's only so many hours available in history, so teachers are going to make a choice as to what to include, and on how much time to spend on it. Yes, there might be overlap (for instance, Asian Studies covered China up to the 19th century, whereas Modern History covered China in the 20th century), but the overlap may be incidental (I learnt some Roman history via Latin, but didn't choose Ancient History as a subject, and again, see the Animal Farm comparison).

Point is, CRT has nothing to do with history.

 

[Buyetyen]

Are you pretending he never talked about race? Maybe look up some of what he said? MLK was still far more hated than what CRT ever has been. Also, what has that got to do with CRT? Judging character based on the colour of their skin is the opposite of what they preach

Conservatives like to pretend they and they alone know what MLK would think because he's their favorite kind of black person: dead. That way he can't talk back or contradict them.