Comments by "Kerry Jacoby" (@kerryjacoby9438) on "Ryan Chapman" channel.

This isn't good information.
1
@conorpodonoghue why are you willing to believe a guy in a video who admits he doesn't know anything about the subject except for doing "research" to make a video and NOT people who say they actually HAVE studied it and believe the video to be wrong. This is like believing that 10-year old Johnny's book report on Moby Dick is the definitive word on the subject and all the Literary Criticism articles and thematic analyses written over the past 150 years should be ignored because Johnny didn't read them and you wouldn't understand them.
1
@conorpodonoghue but it doesn't help. It's just fed you a bunch of bad information that leads you to follow a destructive, anti-intellectual political agenda whether you realize it or not. Not teaching the history of slavery doesn't help anyone. Pretending pronoun usage is some subversive CRT trick to undermine the ego stability of straight white people is just a ridiculous manipulation of ignorant people to attack people that aren't like them. The agenda behind the anti-CRT hysteria is to pile everything Republican voters don't like about education (which isn't what CRT is even about) and call it "CRT," then tell them it all has something to do with teacher's unions so you should vote for Republicans to save Western civilization. It's all nonsense, which depends on the voters believing lies about a jurisprudential theory virtually no one had ever mentioned outside academic discussions until Rufo discovered it a few years ago and projected everything he fears and hates into it. It's a trick. A sleight of hand. It's a con job, a grift. Like the "think system" in the Music Man. It depends on people believing that there will be instruments eventually. It's not entirely a fiction, because instruments do exist. But the pretense of learning to play without them is a con that allows the grifter to take the money for nothing. CRT exists. But it's not what the right says it is, and the "think system" of Youtube isn't teaching it to you. You will never learn it because the point of the con isn't to teach it to you. The point of the con is to take your money and your votes and pretend to teach it to you. As long as you keep believing you're learning, you'll stay with the con, and you'll do what the maestro says. But you'll never actually learn anything because the con man can't play the instruments either.
1
@conorpodonoghue Just because you don't know who Christopher Rufo is doesn't mean everything you think you know about CRT doesn't come from him. It does.
1
@conorpodonoghue tell me when and where you first heard of CRT.
1
@bxp_bass if you wanted to repair a rocket, would you watch a video about it by someone who didn't know anything about science? That is what is happening here. Not only that, but in the analogy, you don't have a rocket and never will. You are "learning" something from someone who knows nothing about it, but read parts of a few books they've heard rocket scientists sometimes read. And based on that, you believe you have spotted a broken rocket in your kids' classroom, but it's not a rocket. It's just a picture book about space. Nevertheless, you want to remove the space book because it might lead to rocket science, which you don't want your child to study. The entire "debate" is ridiculous, because no one is teaching rocket science to your children. And no one is teaching them CRT, either.
1
@bxp_bass it doesn't say that. And you don't need to read any further (you didn't "read" anything to begin with) because none of this has any relevance to you whatsoever.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket you don't have to "agree with" things you study. I studied Nazi women of the Third Reich, Evangelicals, and Political Economy, among other things, in graduate school, and no one ever expected me to "agree with" anything. I don't think you understand how graduate education or professional conferences work. And there's a difference between being told you don't understand something because you don't agree with it (which would be nonsensical) and being told you don't understand something because you literally don't understand what you are learning (which I'm pretty sure is what has often happened to you.)
1
@UCAAPDgrBhxHoEGR4B1lQYkA ooh, five books. That qualifies him to write a 500 word essay, not tell a huge audience what he thinks about a subject he know nothing about. Youtube isn't cheap graduate school; it's a 4th grade book report. And it's barely worth a D.
1
You don't get to "make your own decisions" about factual information. What "decision" do you think you're making about CRT? CRT is jurisprudential theory. You can discuss it. You can ignore it. Unless you're a law student writing about it or a law professor grading that paper, it has nothing to do with you.
1
@Spinbassflipbassfly there's no such thing as a "CRT believer." It's not a belief. It's an analytical framework, a jurisprudential theory. And a boogeyman for people with no idea what it is. A closet for storing everything conservatives are afraid of; just stuff it in there, whether it belongs there or not.
1
@canilernproto3018 Exactly.
1
@faveology I think you've hit on part of the problem. "Anecdotal" evidence pertains to scientific analysis. "Eye witness testimony" is a legal concept. The two have nothing to do with each other. And, in fact, eye witness testimony as evidence is just as good as any other form of evidence, because there is no "scale" or "level" of evidence; the jury gets to weigh all the evidence however it wants. People taking sides for or against CRT misunderstand the conversation. You don't use CRT as evidence. It's a way of asking questions about evidence. And this video doesn't explain it at all, because it has no sense of what jurisprudence even is.
1
@Spinbassflipbassfly "marginally brainwashed by repetitive confirmation bias" is a nonsensical phrase. Brainwashing has no margins. It is or it isn't. "Repetitive" doesn't apply to "confirmation bias" because confirmation bias is an assessment of a specific event and is not applicable to multiple or simultaneous events in a collective sense.
1
@conorpodonoghue Are you willing to pay them for that? Youtubers have monetization. A person trying to correct your false impression that this Youtuber did a good job explaining something to you that neither you nor he know anything about has no such incentive. This Youtuber admits this is all he knows about this and it is new to him. If someone else says "no, I actually know what this is, and he's wrong," you should at least consider that maybe the person who admits he just now looked this up in order to make a video hasn't really understood the material.
1
@conorpodonoghue Youtube is not "research." A very big problem now is that people who have never learned how to do actual research keep saying "do your own research," by which they mean Google stuff. That's not research.
1
@Cheekibreeki02 CRT is not in K-12 schools. CRT is not in the military. CRT is nowhere you are likely to encounter it in real life, except in the mouths of conservative activists using those 3 letters to label everything they want to run out of public life. It's like "woke"--it has a meaning, but it is almost never used with that meaning, and the only people now using it are using it as a synonym for "something I don't like."
1
@jamilhneini1002 ChatGPT actually isn't objective; it takes on the biases of the claims it is fed. It also makes up things based on its programmed assumptions.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket No one asks you to personally believe theories in actual graduate school, only to apply the tenets of those theories to analyze the material. In fact, most classes involving theories will teach you multiple ways of looking at the same question. Leave the classroom and you can magically believe whatever you want. Give me an example of being punished for not "believing" a theory taught that does not involve being asked to analyze something a certain way, rather than "believing" something.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket jurisprudence isn't science. It's philosophy.
1
@zzz-nu2re Then it did its job. And you should ignore the video because it's not helping you understand the thing you fear; it is feeding the ignorance that feeds the fear.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket Pay. Me.
1
@zzz-nu2re And it's as useful a trusted source as any guy on the bus telling you his conspiracy theory about the government sending signals through his teeth to prevent him saving the world from the lizard people. "Public discourse" is not a good source of factual information, unless the facts you are looking for are opinion or attitude statistics.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket No, they aren't, and no, they don't. Most K-12 teachers are too busy learning how to do bulletin boards to learn an obscure jurisprudential theory.
1
@bradvandyke3301 No, they don't say that. People who have an agenda say they say that. Oh, and congratulations on finding a book about rhetoric.
1
@bradvandyke3301 And what exactly is it you think that means?
1
@MrWhiskeycricket i'm saying it doesn't mean what he or you think it means.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket I'm not here to educate people. No one's paying me to spend that time. I'm just making the objection. If people decide to ignore me and believe the guy who doesn't know anything about the subject, that's their choice to stay ignorant.
1
@bradvandyke3301 it's a "movement" within jurisprudence and how lawyers think about things. It's not a movement to march down the street or take over K-12. It's a movement like abstract art, or Bauhaus, or farm-to-table. It's not a totalistic or universalist notion. It's aimed at changing the way law is conceptualized with consideration of race. Law. Theories of law. If your 5th grader can understand it, put her in college now.
1
@zzz-nu2re No, it didn't.
1
@zzz-nu2re sorry, this isn't threading right. What's scientifically proven?
1
@darbodrake89 where did I ever say I was "opposed" to CRT? It's a jurisprudence--it's not a support/oppose thing. It's a use-in-analysis/don't use-in-analysis thing.
1
@darbodrake89 when it didn't apply.
1
@darbodrake89 Are you asking me to produce a research design for a paper I have no intention of writing? No, thanks.
1
@darbodrake89 It would not apply when I choose not to use it.
1
@darbodrake89 when I'm doing a project without using it.
1
@brokenrecord3523 No, it doesn't.
1
No, it's not. It's a guy making videos about things he does a slight amount of research about and presents as expertise to people who know even less. It's no better than a high-school book report.
1
@anecologistspeaks6422 No, it's not a useful service. It's a means of both confusing people about a thing and giving them the false impression that they know what it is when they're done watching the video. Which would only be a minor problem, if people with a deceitful political agenda hadn't already convinced a large segment of society that this obscure and undefined series of jurisprudential musings is somehow relevant to their lives (which it's not.)
1