Ann Althouse isn't following my advice. So why should anyone follow hers?

Truly lousy argument there, I confess.  So I negate the sin by admitting it, and chalking it up to a using a literary device.  Headlines.  You can try to grab attention by making them tricksy.  Anyway . . . 

Althouse isn't following my advice to shut the fuck up about anything racial, and posted about an essay about Critical Race Theory.  She did not go long on analysis, as per usual.  So honestly, I really am not sure yet where she really falls on the issue of the validity of CRT.   All I can say is I never see her at the annual Derrick Bell lecture at her law school alma mater.  But I confess yet again.  That is not a fair metric.  And if I ever ran into her at the post lecture reception, I might spill my cup of wine a little out of the shock of seeing her there.  Although the line is there in my head, I would be presumptuous to say I could after that introduce her to Professor Bell's widow.  Because for all I know they have met already, multiple times.  I assume that she has at least met Professor Bell, as law professors run in law professor circles.  Sometimes they bring their spouses for the trip.  So let's not go there!

But here is the weird part she says:

"I challenge proponents of Critical Race Theory to speak to ordinary people in terms they can understand and explain the theory, why it's a theory, and what is meant by "critical." "

Speaking of tricksy literary devices. The challenge part is weak.  Her  merely saying it makes it as likely to cause it to happen as for me to get her to shut the fuck up about race related issues!  But I really don't expect my wise counsel to be followed.  Anyway, here is the  "critical" part.  If you were to google Critical Race Theory, or even better, plug it directly into the Youtube search bar a year ago?  Specifically  if  Youtube, your first few hits would have been academics  explaining  CRT.  Whether or not any of those academic lessons would meet her mark for sufficiently tailored for "ordinary people in terms they can understand," is a subjective value for her.  For my part, the theory is as easy to get as feudalism.  

This small group of people with state of the art weapons and combat skills had more power over the larger group who didn't have state of the art weapons and combat skills.  Class dismissed.

But if you were to type "Critical Race Theory" into Youtube now  (I will, I shall,) it turns out to be a mixed bag of hits.   Top is a clip of a news report about the Florida ban.  Next is a FNC clip of a black lady who is against CRT.  And because of the way they fold the page, you will see a vid from Education Week.  And if that vid is like the article I read on their website over the past few days, it is fair and objective.  Seems to me you will get the hit from bigoted, white supremacy loving Heritage Foundation before any actual CRT adherent.

And that leads to my point. Once the right wing, white supremacist noise machine decided to adopt the issue as part of their looney tunes culture war, the market place of ideas and multi media publication was swamped with anti CRT propaganda.  And now I reference what  the essay writer said about how most people don't really have an idea what CRT objectively is.  I am not shy about talking down "people."  And even the experts who research this shit say.  If the first someone learns about a matter or issue is bullshit or flat out false? Good luck actually changing their minds with facts!  Odds are against it. 

So Ms. Althouse. Yes it would be great if we  could distil even further the essence of CRT, even if only as a matter of housekeeping  (start a settlement, colony, nation with race based slavery and that will infect every possible nook and cranny of that society.)   But good luck changing anyone's mind who has already chosen to oppose it.  Because a large chunk of the American people are already predisposed to that kind of thinking.

And that basically, and disturbingly proves the core premise of  Critical Race Theory.  How did Professor  Bell say it? Racism is persistent if not permanent in America.  And adding my brutal nuance, swap out the word racism and insert the phrase white supremacy.

As a matter of literary tricks, I would have liked ending on that note.  But one more point.  Critics of CRT and related ideas call out the alleged circular logic.  Now on one end of the scale we have ipse dixit logic, and on the other end, essentialism; water is wet. Wetness is a quintessential quality of water.  And we CRT campers say white supremacy is still a quintessential quality of a society and nation that was founded and greatly dependent on lawfully and socially defended race based slavery.  And that still is far too greatly the case, 160 or so years after that was specifically outlawed.  It doesn't have to be though.  All we need to do is eradicate every list vestige of white supremacy.

Who's side are you on?