[skissane]

Let's forget the slides for now. In hindsight I think I made a mistake in bringing them into the conversation, since I was just trying to use them to demonstrate something which you agree with anyway–but I didn't realise that when I brought them up.

This is your comment to which I was responding:

> I'd be much more amenable to that if the people "appropriating" terms like CRT weren't doing so to tar actual CRT theorists, but they are, so I'm not at all amenable to it in this case.

And then you said (my emphasis):

> I don't dispute that there are misguided K-8 schools that have been teaching CRT, or what they think CRT is

Doesn't your statement support the idea that "CRT" has evolved in popular usage to mean something different from the original academic theory, and that evolution hasn't purely been due to CRT critics, people who promote/teach "what they think CRT is" have also played a role in that evolution? And hence, that evolution can't be solely blamed on people trying to "tar actual CRT theorists"? Which undermines your argument for resisting it.

[tptacek]

No, because, again, you haven't shown that schools are teaching something that isn't CRT while appropriating the term "CRT" to describe it. In fact, we have no idea what these schools are teaching, so we have not all that much to discuss.