Utopia Talk / Politics / Critical Race Theory

murder Member	Thu Oct 21 20:25:41 I don't know wtf it is, and I don't care. That is all.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Oct 21 20:58:18 Christopher Rufo, with help from the fraudosphere, has convinced Republican voters that children as young as kindergarteners are being taught that being white is bad
Y2A Member	Fri Oct 22 00:48:41 a made up issue designed to piss off angry karens and darrens.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 22 04:37:38 Murder: It's simply the academic term for a analytical framework used in jurisprudence that suggests that racial outcomes are the result of complicated social and institutional dynamics (intersectionality), not just explicit and purposeful laws/actions with the intent of discrimination. In highly simplistic terms, say a city has all of it's blacks living in a few high population density poor districts, which also consequently have poor education because the school funding is allocated on a per district rather than per-student basis; then that is considered a form of racism that needs to be addressed. This is hard but not impossible for some classical liberals to reconcile with a worldview that is strongly centred on principles of individualism , but particularly triggers people who are in fact a bit racist and think they should only be prevevented from actievely and maliciously persecuting black people or other minotrities but should be free to create as discriminatory and disadvantaging and disempowering environetm f or people they don't like as they can ppossiblyget away with as long as it is indirect.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 22 04:37:57 appologies for the typos, got that weird cursor bug.
Rugian Member	Fri Oct 22 06:31:23 tumbleweed the wanderer Thu Oct 21 20:58:18 Christopher Rufo, with help from the fraudosphere, has convinced Republican voters that children as young as kindergarteners are being taught that being white is bad Pretty much every part of this post is false misinformation. By tw's own pro-censorship standard, he should be suspended from this platform for this false post.
Habebe Member	Fri Oct 22 09:22:29 I would like to receive oral sex from jacinda Arden.large mouth.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 22 09:28:58 children as young as kindergarteners are being taught that being white is bad This is 100% what is happening.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 22 09:39:35 "It's simply the academic term for a analytical framework " When a bureaucrat uses the term framework, you can be 100% sure that everything that follows will be randomly arranged buzzword gobbledygook that means nothing.
Y2A Member	Fri Oct 22 10:28:59 sam has fallen for the scam too. Sad!
Seb Member	Fri Oct 22 10:49:16 So, Sam believes that races have meaningful intrinsic differences across multiple characteristics, and that any claims contrary to this amount to a denial that genetics is real. But then he also thinks it can never be the case that being white is worse on any measure. Interesting set of axioms with only one possible conclusion. Sam believes whites are superior in every way to other ethnic groups. What would we call this philosophy?
Seb Member	Fri Oct 22 10:49:20
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 22 12:15:36 "But then he also thinks it can never be the case that being white is worse on any measure." Completely wrong seb. You just made that up because it fits within your stereotype. Prejudiced and incompetent.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 22 17:55:18 Sam: 1. a bit rich coming from you. 2. so you admit it is correct in your world view that you could be taught that by some measure it is bad to be white?
Seb Member	Fri Oct 22 17:56:15 Or do you think kids shouldn't be taught what you consider to be science?
Habebe Member	Fri Oct 22 18:20:55 It seems odd to use something generally taught to, I would presume law students to young children.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 22 18:33:16 "so you admit it is correct in your world view that you could be taught that by some measure it is bad to be white?" Sure Too bad for you your far left wokies are teaching kids its always bad to white.
murder Member	Fri Oct 22 19:44:32 Kids are also taught that it's always good to be white. And they've been taught that since kids have been taught in this country. When you put yourself in position to govern everything, own everything, control everything, achieve everything ... all the credit for the bad stuff comes hand in hand with all the blame for the good stuff.
Rugian Member	Fri Oct 22 20:00:18 "Kids are also taught that it's always good to be white." What sort of sick, fucked up school system are you advocating for where kids should be shamed for the color of their skin? Also, no, there isn't a single public education system in the country that teaches that. That's a straight lie. "When you put yourself in position to govern everything" Another lie. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but white people don't do anything as a bloc in this country. "We" don't govern shit. When you make these sort of accusations about Jews, it's considered an act of anti-Semitism. Your post here is easily just as bigoted.
murder Member	Fri Oct 22 20:06:08 "Also, no, there isn't a single public education system in the country that teaches that. That's a straight lie." They all do. You just don't notice because it seems normal to you.
Rugian Member	Fri Oct 22 20:10:10 It makes me sad that this country has given you so much and yet you have such a hatred for it.
murder Member	Fri Oct 22 20:10:55 "When you make these sort of accusations about Jews, it's considered an act of anti-Semitism. Your post here is easily just as bigoted." 1. Fuck Jews. 2. That may be the dumbest thing ever posted here, and that would be saying something. The foundation of this country was 100% pro-whiteness and the victimization and exploitation of people of color. The fact that you feel attacked by that truth just proves my previous point.
murder Member	Fri Oct 22 20:11:55 "It makes me sad that this country has given you so much and yet you have such a hatred for it." I don't hate this country. I hate the people that make it suck. Past, present, and future.
Rugian Member	Fri Oct 22 20:14:35 "The foundation of this country was 100% pro-whiteness" That may be the dumbest thing ever posted here, and that would be saying something. Where did you get your education from, Che Guevara University?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 23 02:18:27 Rugian +1 ”Whites” are not a unified polity. As for critcal race theory being a framework for jurisprudence. Sharia is also a framework for jurisprudence. That sidelines the questions about the various axioms you have to accept, the logic of the framework and the conclusions that follow.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 03:41:12 Habebe: It isn't being taught to kids. But right wing nut jobs have rebranded any discussion of race as "critical race theory" - beceause that sounds less reasonable and is easier to demonise, and thus trying to remove any discussion of race and racism from schools. I wonder why they might want to do that?
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 03:41:41 Very newspeak. So memory hole. Much Orwellian.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 03:51:06 Nim: "As for critcal race theory being a framework for jurisprudence. Sharia is also a framework for jurisprudence." What exactly is your point in saying this? It is, objectively, an analytical framework used in jurisprudence. That was raised specifically to categorise the thing, not to apply any normative judgement. So why are you juxtaposing it with Sharia as opposed to any other jurisprudence, particularly one that might have relevance to US or common law? Leaving this odd choice aside, and the tautological explanation that analytical Frameworks need to be evaluated based on the principles and axioms they are dependent on, the key point here is: 1. Critical race theory isn't being taught in schools 2. What legislators have passed rules against is broadly "any discussion of race" 3. It seems likely the moral panic about "critical race theory" and "teaching people to be ashamed" is actually something between an outbreak of mass hysteria and a confected strawman to justify rolling back any discussion of race in schools because it's politically unwelcome, conflicting as it does with the republicans core political strategy of voter suppression and soft disenfranchisement of demographics that statistically won't support them at the ballot box.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 23 04:12:20 "not to apply any normative judgement." I disagree that your description wasn't a normative judgment. You tried to turn a deeply political question into "simply" an academic venture. Academic insinuates objectivity and some robust process for determining facts. "juxtaposing it with Sharia" Because Sharia, is by the same token, merely a framework for jurisprudence, there are hundreds academies devoted to teaching the stuff. It is objectively an analytical framework used in the jurisprudence of Islamic societies. There is no judgment in that. Why do you object to my comparison? Because you understand just as well as I that this isn't some inert categorizing of things and stuff. If someone doesn't know what Sharia or critical race theory is at all, I would think it is grossly misleading to leave out the axioms one needs to accept for ANY of the logic to make sense and instead describe it as some "academic" venture. Especially since those axioms are the basis for politically contested social issues.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 23 04:14:21 "Academic insinuates objectivity and some robust process for determining facts." I don't think this needs any more explanation, but there are a lot of people out there you and I included, that give more weight to things that come from academia. Because science works. Allegedly.
Habebe Member	Sat Oct 23 04:31:17 Seb, I have no doubt that Fox and radio hosts have taken things and blown them out of proportion etc., on that we agree.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 05:20:29 Nim: Murder - "I don't know wtf it is, and I don't care." Seb - "It's simply the academic term for a analytical framework used in jurisprudence that suggests that racial outcomes are the result of complicated social and institutional dynamics (intersectionality), not just explicit and purposeful laws/actions with the intent of discrimination." If you look up critical race theory, that's the definition you'll find. That's not a normative statement, it's an objective, factual one. The fact it is in political dispute doesn't alter the definition of the thing. It is what it is. Now what might make it appear to be a normative statement is the creeping Orwellian tendency of a political faction to redefine the term, several decades old and with an established definition, to man something else. Typically however, we would call that "straw man fallacy" and dismiss it out of hand as a bad faith argument. Strangely you seem to be embracing this redefinition and internalising it, to such a degree you cannot recognise a simple statement of fact about what it is as anything other than an implied normative statement. To accept that it is simply an analytical framework in jurisprudence is, apparently, a normative judgement in itself. Crazy talk!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 23 05:44:13 I have already looked several up, in summary it is a critical view of the current legal and social order. It isn’t _simply_ anything and the definition of what it is differs depending on who you ask. I am sure the critical race theorists and those that have accepted the axioms, especially those sporting a fine academic background, knowing the value of describing things as an ”academic” pursuit, would describe it as such. But I mean proponents of intelligent design think what they do is science. I wouldn’t call it science because they define it as such. You can’t just slap on a sticker and call it science. It is silly if you to even ask what makes it sound as a normative judgment, holding a PhD. You know fully well that slapping on the academic sticker gives things value. You understand the framing things in different ways can convey additional facts and values? Then you understand what I am saying. It is an objective fact according to the same logic that Sharia is what I described it as. It is simply an academic framework for jurisprudence. Why object to my framing? Oh right because the axioms are where the rubber meets the road and not the fact that there are entire academies devoted to sharia. It is simply a deceptive framing meant to pull strings on people who value Academia.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 23 05:50:06 The follow up is thus that you can dismiss the people critical of CRT as anti-scientific racists and whatever else as bad faith actors. It’s the same anti scientific undesirables that mistrust vaccines, global warming science and believe in creationism. Tsk..Bitch. I have been around the block, I know how this shit goes. The only thing you are doing is further erode trust in institutions and academia.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 05:52:24 Nim: "Why do you object to my comparison?" Two reasons: 1. It implied that you consider even the definition of critical race theory a normative choice - which is batshit crazy and demonstrative of the frankly deranged approach to discourse that exemplifies the culture wars, where each side attempts to demonise each other. You often rail against innapropriate comparisons to Nazis, yet here you are. 2. It was about as irrelevant as a contrasting point as possible. Sharia does not exist in US or common law. I doubt there are any legal systems where Sharia and critical race theory are contrasting Frameworks for analysing the same issue. 3. It was entirely gratuitous: the definition I provided stated clearly some of the key axioms and principles and the points of contest. You could have built on that if you wanted to, or disputed the definition. Instead you decided to embark on an entirely unnecessary point about axioms which is implicit: that's what an analytical framework is, and a highly charged and inappropriate comparison to Sharia. "I would think it is grossly misleading to leave out the axioms one needs to accept" Nim, literally, it's in the first sentence I wrote: "racial outcomes are the result of complicated social and institutional dynamics (intersectionality), not just explicit and purposeful laws/actions with the intent of discrimination" Those are the axioms.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 05:54:29 Nim: "The follow up is thus that you can dismiss the people critical of CRT" No. Only the ones that are falsely claiming things about CRT that are simply not factually true. In much the same way criticising Sam's shonky understanding of genetics isn't a refutation of genetics
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 23 05:59:49 You are far too animated and using alot of language to display that. I am not doing this again. Bye.
Forwyn Member	Sat Oct 23 08:08:57 Far-left teachers push the same Tumblr idiocy that we mocked ten years ago on children. Boomers mislabel this, and the far-left sneers, replying they don't know what it means.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 23 08:48:46 Seb Sorry can't let this slide: "No. Only the ones that are falsely claiming things about CRT that are simply not factually true." You explicitly said that liberals may have a difficult time to reconcile this, but mostly it is people who are in fact racists. No value judgment in what you said, not at all dismissing those critical of CRT as racists. Nope. The problem is that you explicitly did that in the opening post. A false dichotomy btw, because there are other positions than "liberals that eventually reconcile" and "racists". You shut the door on any disagreement that does not eventually fall into either of those camps. I honestly do not think you at all understand how what you are saying is perceived outside of your liberal bubble of smert people who all put up #BLM in their twitter bios and do not question these things or if they do, eventually come to reconcile it. Sad. "In much the same way criticising Sam's shonky understanding of genetics isn't a refutation of genetics" Criticizing CRT is more like criticizing Lamarckism. It was not wrong about everything and even managed to predict some evolutionary mechanisms, but as a theory describing the world and predicting things and stuff, not even close.
murder Member	Sat Oct 23 09:19:53 "Where did you get your education from, Che Guevara University?" What was I thinking? They clearly meant to offer equal rights and opportunities to the blacks they were enslaving and the natives they were robbing blind.
Forwyn Member	Sat Oct 23 09:51:26 What natives?
Pillz Member	Sat Oct 23 10:25:34 "Far-left teachers push the same Tumblr idiocy that we mocked ten years ago on children. Boomers mislabel this, and the far-left sneers, replying they don't know what it means." I didn't see this coming in 2012 arguing with SJWs about retconning Iceman's sexuality. Things really spiraled
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 10:27:34 Nim: I'm not at all animated, and I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is making absurd and unfounded claims and absurd comparisons. "but mostly it is people" That's incorrect. What I said was "but particularly triggers people who are in fact a bit racist" English is not your first language, so I'll assume it is an honest error that you have conflated sensitivity with frequency. However you have done so.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 14:58:16 To be explicit, the fact that racists are particularly triggered by CRT isn't the same thing at all as saying anyone who is critical of CRT must be racist. Most swans are white birds does not imply that most white birds are swans. I hope you will have the decency to retract the subsequent criticisms you have made that are based entirely on wrongful inferences made from your misreading.
Habebe Member	Sat Oct 23 15:33:05 "To be explicit, the fact that racists are particularly triggered by CRT isn't the same thing at all as saying anyone who is critical of CRT must be racist" To that I'd add there is a lot of confusion going around. Some of these people may not be so anti CRT as much as they dont want their kids being taught these theories being pushed on there kids as fact. **Whether percived wrongfully or real they beleive that to be true.**
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 16:01:53 I'm pretty sure critical race theory isn't being taught in school period. And I'm not sure how you'd teach it as a fact. Basically I'm 99% sure that most of the people complaining about CRT getting taught in school don't really know what CRT is, but are really really upset that their idea that their relative success is anything further than fully meritocratic, and others comparative lack of success can be explained in terms of anything other than those people's moral failings.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Oct 23 16:11:50 “most of the people complaining about CRT getting taught in school don't really know what CRT is” this is a certainty they aren’t going to mislead about Dr Seuss, hamburgers, goon squads invading homes to vaccinate people, yet be honest about CRT. It’s a big issue in the tight VA governor race and it’s not even taught in those schools... and not taught in the school of that viral crying mother saying ‘being against CRT doesn’t make her a racist, damnit’
Habebe Member	Sat Oct 23 16:17:04 "I'm pretty sure critical race theory isn't being taught in school period." I have no idea. I do know that a lot of people think it is and more than that as you mentioned before other things are being snowballed into it. So many parents have the perception that the 1619 project/BLM/CRT etc. Are being pushed on young kids. If someone actually beleives that, it makes more sense why they would be upset. Im not arguing if it is or isn't, IDK, Im just saying many people beleive it.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Oct 23 23:20:37 many people believing things that aren't actually happening is a hyuge problem
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Oct 24 07:34:39 Having actually studied extensively critical theory and the critical tradition for years (probably the only person here who actually has, especially with WilliamTheBastard gone): yes, Critical Race Theory (CRT) is, in fact, being taught in K–12 schools and has been for years. I have a 2000-page book specifically on Critical Theory that I've read cover-to-cover and have used as a reference guide for 9 years, and I have book-shelves full of critical theory (and the opposition to it.. and a lot of other text books on different subjects) in the modern age. This is not a new subject, it's just newly introduced to the public because people have started paying attention to the mass indoctrination and weaponization of critical theory, probably because the pandemic gave people time to look around and wonder about the sources of the mass psychosis. Some of the people in this thread are spreading outright media misinformation by pretending that it has not and is not being taught in schools. Naturally, Seb is at the forefront: a misinformation super-spreader, who should be outright ignored for absolutely carrying water for the lies — lies which he probably "learned" (learned to regurgitate) after recent, surface-level Google searches and taking the word of his corporate overlords. It is not just some boogeyman to scare the right-wing. It is not a "made up issue". It was even recently formalized and accepted — by name — during the U.S. Conference of Mayors, empowering teachers to talk about it in the open as part of lesson plans, whereas, before the conference, its ideas were slightly more indirect to disguise its aims (e.g., Kindergarten teachers needed to find CRT authors who were writing CRT's larger lessons into picture-books — and yes, indeed, these CRT books were taught to Kindergartners; the same people writing theory for colleges were writing picture-books for children, summarizing their beliefs for the coming generations). There exist entire catalogues of books containing CRT messages that have been in-use in schools which incorporated the messages into coloring books, children's books, middle-school work-books, and high school [a]history books, giving students full academic coverage all the way into and through college. So if you were one of the useful idiots who thought that it wasn't taught in school, get ready to move your goal post to, "Well, sure, it's taught in schools, but it's not [next lie that turns out to be true after finally catching up to the reality that's beyond the walls of state propaganda]." To explain what it is (beyond the Wiki, which focuses mainly on the Civil Rights era, limits the scope, and does not mention from where the Wiki-listed thinkers got their ideas): The extremely short version is that it has a direct route back to the ideology of Nietzsche (particularly slave morality, which I've been citing and warning about in UP for fucking years), except CRT is the culmination of postmodernism's *revisionism* of Nietzsche and the entire critical tradition for the aims of gaining power over the strong. Culmination moments include.. • Nietzsche, particularly "On the Genealogy of Morality", where he talks about slave morality and the reversal of virtues as a means of slaves gaining power over their betters. This includes proto-doublespeak (Orwellian language), where definitions are changed to mean their opposites in order for the "slaves" to be seen as virtuous in their own propaganda. • Karl Marx, obviously — and only the good stuff ("Alienation of Labor", "Consciousness Derived from Material Conditions...", "On Greek Art ... Critique of Political Economy"; workers having rights above those of the people who gained skills and capital).. not the genocides that his ideology caused every time it was adopted, of course. • The Frankfurt School (in particular, "Dialectic of Enlightenment"): reflections on how the Nazis manipulated Nietzsche to their success and how Nazi ideology could be reformatted and re-utilized to condition populations into self-destruction at the behest of minority movements; the seizing of cultural institutions for propaganda; controlling labor and reward to distract the "right" people while infiltrating organizations to change laws to become asymmetric in application (in favor of a protected minority above all others). • Foucault (lots of Foucault) and, in particular, the weaponization of the Panopticon prison ("Discipline and Punish"). Foucault talks about how the psychic apparatus of the Panopticon (a sense of constant surveillance and chilling effects) could be used to make a subservient population. If you have not read this, now is the most relevant time; the introductory theme of Foucault's book is about how the logic of the Black Plague could be used to format populations into "docile bodies" ready to be filled with the state's new directives (e.g., citizens watching other citizens for compliance, guards (seemingly) posted everywhere, the state knocking on doors for health compliance, people insulated from their own thoughts or from open discourse with other people — totally pliable). One of the great successes of cultural infiltration post-WWII was making Britain into a Panoptic surveillance state and tyrannizing its own citizens on behalf of state powers, but this infiltration has been seeing success in the States as well, particularly in cities. • Simone de Beauvoir — her separation of mind from body as a modern repeat of Descartes' ontological error ("One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman"). This speaks also of Orwellian doublespeak, where "woman" itself is meant to be read as a social construct. Works like this introduce the metaphoric capital of reversed meanings (also via slave morality) as a way for the upper discourse to infiltrate the lower discourse. In upper discourse, readers know that "woman" is supposed to mean "cultural presentations of 'femininity' (itself another construct)", but when "woman" reaches the lower discourses, you have useful idiots who believe that a physical woman is virtuous by default and that class-oriented structures must be toppled to recognize this "truth" and place women in charge (slave morality again). It is Lysenkoism ("sciencey" pseudo-science) which was developed also by Jacques Derrida to get people with poor scientific backgrounds to except physical non-realities ("Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences"). • Edward Said ("Orientalism") — the "othering" of bodies — development of slave morality as a mechanism of making a new lower-caste. By "othering" the dominant class, the old structures can be undermined. • Jean François Lyotard — he explains the tenants of postmodernism (its weapons): foundations, unity, perspectival discourse, and ahistory. Undermining the foundations of a society by questioning its origins and attempting to re-center those origins onto the pitiful story of the conquered (portray the conquered as heroes), presenting "unity" as false in order to atomize people into distinct groups (in racial discourse, this means dividing based on race/intersectionality), emphasizing individual/subjective experiences as the most pertinent (another manipulation of Nietzsche, where, for postmodernism's re-write, the subjective is taken as primary regardless of its errors when given peer review), and making all histories "open wounds" on consciousness which must be re-written in fact-denying ahistory. • Cornel West ("Postmodernism in Black America"): applying postmodernism as racial practice: reversing "slavery" upon the "oppressor". Re-writing U.S. history to make the country appear to be founded on racism or genocide (see, of course, "1619 Project" — total Orwellian doublethink, fact-denial, and slave morality — CRT opus){see also Gloria Watkins's ("bell hooks") "Postmodern Blackness", wherein Watkins hopes to distract black Americans from the realities of their class mobility and get them to focus instead on oppression — collectivism and self-oppressing logic which maintains slave morality logic}. • Saul Alinsky ("Rules for Radicals"): derived directly and openly from Nietzsche and Marx (they are directly quoted), it is a guide book for using slave morality to overthrow the power structure in the U.S. It is a direct connection from high discourse to low practice. It is all the immorality of postmodernism's least intellectually honest thinkers rolled into one manual on system destabilization. It's even more absurd/extreme than the parts of Malcolm X's biography from before Malcolm went to Mecca and realized that racial discourse in the U.S. was backwards and idiotic. And those were the highlights. As a critical tradition, CRT has the same review of the Greek and Roman philosophers, it's just that it specifically selects works which make white people out to be the oppressors and any they opposed/conquered/defended against to be the oppressed. So you'll read about Plato's "Republic", but the focus will be not on philosopher kings and the idea of leaders needing to be wise, virtuous, well-meaning, and thoughtful of the improvement of citizens. No. Instead, the focus of lectures turns to how Plato was a white supremacist who wanted to make sure that he and his rich friends could keep their slaves. Everything is re-centered, and academic scholarship becomes a question of "How can I re-interpret [this historical figure] to make them racist?" Recent race hustlers and hacks such as Ibram Rogers ("Ibram X. Kendi") have only brought these revisionist thinkers back with lazy plagiarism, selling CRT in a cohesive package for mainstream consumption. It is because of them consolidating the language of slave morality into obvious practice (Critical Race Applied Practice (CRAP)) that opposing people have seen how toxic it is. It has graduated from illogical idiocy not robust enough to convince any classically trained scholar (relegated to token departments that placated university guilt) to overt measures to gain power at all costs. It is this "any means necessary" logic which has produced the outcry against it. It is not principled scholarship, it is not concerned with truth, and it is not concerned with any vestige of the scientific method of finding information. It is a means of distributing power to people who have otherwise demonstrated a persistent inability to accomplish the basic works of society which would allow them class mobility. Hence its love of loaded words such as "equity" and "privilege", its rejection of equal justice or equality, its want to redistribute wealth which is not its own but which it feels entitled to, its asymmetric value system which makes itself immune to critique while making absolute enemies of the "oppressor", its rejection of meritocracy and objectivity, and its absurd labeling as "racist" any situation which just happens to produce unequal outcomes — itself a forgoing of culture, responsibility, and causality. TLDR: CRT is Nietzschean slave morality designed to ignore features such as individual accountability, work and reward, virtue, and justice in favor of a nihilistic self-destruction and "the end justifies the means" seizing of power. It carries all of the symptoms of Marxist vanguardism, complete with a discourse on science-denial and a labeling and chilling of opposition intellectuals. It is indeed taught in schools. It is propagandized via Reddit and Twitter. It owns Hollywood. If you think it's just a scare crow for the right, you might want to get out of your media echo chamber and read what these people are actually writing and see how they actually mean to practice their horrors.
murder Member	Sun Oct 24 09:10:18 "I'm pretty sure critical race theory isn't being taught in school period." Of course not. It's hard enough teaching American kids how to reed and rite. 90% of American kids are confounded by the basics of US government. That's why most Americans understanding of how our government works comes from a SchoolHouse Rock video. That's why the US history they are taught is so dumbed down. They can't handle complex theories.
nhill Member	Sun Oct 24 12:03:43 That's why you should never send your kids to a government school, fools. Homeschool them.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 09:11:43 Seb "English is not your first language, so I'll assume it is an honest error that you have conflated sensitivity with frequency. However you have done so." It is still wrong regardless of if you meant frequency or sensitivity. That is just another trap to silence critics, based on how easily triggered they are. "To be explicit, the fact that racists are particularly triggered by CRT isn't the same thing at all as saying anyone who is critical of CRT must be racist." This isn't being "explicit", this changes what you said from a dichotomy to a slightly more nuanced view on the critics of CRT. Great. "Those are the axioms." Those are not the axioms, that is the entire theory albeit vaguely condensed. CC did an exceptionally good wall of words on it, the entire geneology of it. There are your axioms. Perhaps one of the most fundamental principles (although not exclusive to CRT) is that it is completely void of anything other than social constructionist arguments and analysis. You have to accept on faith and in the face of an ever growing body of evidence that genetics are not a major factor in social outcomes, everything is social and cultural.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 09:24:48 Nim: "It is still wrong regardless of if you meant frequency or sensitivity." No, it's not. "That is just another trap to silence critics, based on how easily triggered they are." Nonsense - the first example I give clearly allows for accepting criticism of CRT. "this changes what you said from a dichotomy" Nowhere in my sentence is it implied these are the only two basis of objection - they are given as two contrasting examples - the purpose of providing the first is to explicitly allow for the basis of reasonable criticism. You have chosen, apropos of nothing save perhaps your own certainty that I am engaging in bad faith, to read this as allowing two and only two basis for criticising CRT. There is no objective basis for you to make that choice. You could have chosen to address the argument (whether you deem my summary the axioms or condensation of the entire theory is not meaningful here); instead you decided to address the character of your interlocutor based entirely on your own flawed reading of the argument advanced. You have no basis for doing so, you should retract.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 10:57:33 "No, it's not." Totally is. False dichotomy regardless of the flavor. "the first example I give clearly allows for accepting criticism of CRT." The first example you give implies an eventual reconciliation. But let's skip the BS, give me your top 3 criticism of CRT. "that I am engaging in bad faith" Not at all I think you are sincere in your beliefs, but mistaken, emotional and make mistakes that you correct, but refuse to acknowledge as mistakes or at the very least see how what you say can very easily, without ill intention, be interpreted in a certain way. Hence the animated response in all these racism threads. You are really wearing this bad faith stuff thin and useless. "You have no basis for doing so, you should retract." lol just stop, I have no qualms attacking your character, have done so repeatedly and explained to you repeatedly why that matters when it matters. "is not meaningful here" It is, because this validates what I wrote above, about you being mistaken. The deceptive framing, isn't yours, you just lifted it from CRT sources uncritically, because you are emotionally involved in this topic and walked in void of reason and critical thinking. You seriously still do not understand how apt the Sharia comparison is? In the exact same terms, Sharia is simply a legal framework. I can do the same speil about how it may be hard for liberals, but not impossible to reconcile (tell me if you need evidence of liberals defending and relativizing Sharia), but it particularly triggers people who are racist. Facts, yet highly deceptive. You are not insincere, you are stupid.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 11:42:49 Nim: "Totally is. False dichotomy regardless of the flavor." It's not presented as a dichotomy: an either or choice. You have inferred that, with no basis. "The first example you give implies an eventual reconciliation." Lets look at that: "This is hard but not impossible for some classical liberals to reconcile with a worldview that is strongly centred on principles of individualism" Does "not impossible" mean "will"? Does "some" mean "all"? If I had meant "Some classical liberals struggle but eventually reconcile this with a worldview..." I would have written as such. The phrase includes two caveats - it is *hard* to read this as implying a reconciliation is inevitable. It is possible of course. And of course, one of the biggest targets of criticism from the activist fringes are classical Liberals/Centrists. So I'm surprised you would read that sentence and believe it suggests, on the whole, reconciliation. "But let's skip the BS, give me your top 3 criticism of CRT." No, it's irrelevant to the point here, which is that you consistently misread my posts to mean the most extreme and unreasonable thing, and then you make inferences on my character on that basis. You need to stop doing that because it fundamentally prevents meaningful, rational dialogue. There's not point me listing criticisms of CRT if you are highly likely to simply misconstrue them and read into them some twisted motivation. "Not at all I think you are sincere in your beliefs" No, you frequently accuse me of lying etc. Only a few weeks ago you started calling me a piece of shit. These are not the dispassionate, reasonable and unemotionally clouded behaviours you seem to want from me; and I'm pointing out that they appear to arise from fundamental misreadings of what I wrote; and even when pointed out you cling to these misreadings rather than simply accepting them, retracting the inferences you have made about character and motivation, and moving on. "I have no qualms attacking your character, have done so repeatedly and explained to you repeatedly why that matters when it matters." I know, the problem is that the evidential basis you have for this attacks on charcater are based on clear factual misreadings of what I have said, and entirely suprious motivations for things I do not believe and have not said. You are railing at a fiction of your own imagination. "It is, because this validates what I wrote above, about you being mistaken." "The deceptive framing, isn't yours, you just lifted it from CRT sources" which sources? "uncritically, because you are emotionally involved in this topic" I don't know why you think I'm emotionally involved in this - certainly this near compulsive need of yours to read the most unreasonable interpretation you can (even when the words literally do not support it), speculate on motive, and then attribute these to character defects hardly seems unemotive. "and walked in void of reason and critical thinking." And yet it is you that frequently resorts to hinging your arguments of character of your interlocutor - as you do above "Oh look, I assert without evidence that you are emotionally involved, therefore I am free to speculate with no evidence that you have lifted from a source with out criticism, therefore I dismiss your argument". This is a logical fallacy - ad-hominem - and generally considered an argument advanced in bad faith. This is my point here - your arguments lack logical and factual basis. "You seriously still do not understand how apt the Sharia comparison is?" I don't think it is. It's facile - yes, it's a framework that can be applied to jurisprudence - but it is one that is fundamentally incompatible with the general framework of American law, whereas CRT emerged specifically from within it. It's a pretty facile point you were making: Sharia is a jurisprudence and Sharia is bad and dangerous! Being an analytical framework used in jurisprudence isn't necessarily a good thing!" Well, yes, that's all true, but like I said, my description of what it was was not intended to be normative. I never said it was good, or bad. I'm just explaining what it is. You seem to have a really hard time grasping that. Indeed, having explained this several times, you seem to have a massively hard time letting go and trying to insist on reading it differently. "I can do the same speil about how it may be hard for liberals, but not impossible to reconcile" Of course you don't need to. There are indeed liberal interpretations of Sharia that go back to source material and find ways to avoid feeling they are compelled to kill infidels or amputate hands. But it is clear, and you admit, that the entire intent of the comparison was to refute a point I never made about whether CRT being an analytical framework is intrinsically good or bad - and the fact that I didn't actually make such a normative statement is something you have an enormously hard time letting go of.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 11:41:48 "You have inferred that" From what you actually wrote. You can avoid these things. "Lets look at that" It is implied from the false dichotomy and framing, together with the fact that you identify as liberal. You left an escape clause. "No, it's irrelevant to the point here" Very relevant, since you are now saying there is criticism of CRT that isn't authored by triggered racists. I need to make sure these were not just hollow words. "No, you frequently accuse me of lying" People with sincere beliefs lie all the time about a bunch of things, the ends justify the means and all that jazz. I have only said you are sincer in your beliefs about racism and social justice, there instance where you I think were just ignorant and/or lying. I have a nuanced view about you. "Only a few weeks ago you started calling me a piece of shit" Because you were acting like a piece of shit, twatsplaining things. Many times when I have called you a lying piece of shit, I have also said or maybe your have a shit memory. You have not confirmed that you actually suffer from poor memory, so I have deduced that you must be lying. Do you have a poor memory? "you cling to these misreadings rather than simply accepting them" Funny, because these are almost verbatim words I have told you, many many years ago. The Islam discussion. I even said things to the effect that maybe it is me, I quickly learned that admitting even hypothetical mistakes only emboldened you. Naturally I stopped doing that. "I don't know why you think I'm emotionally involved in this" Because you have no direct personal relationship with "racism" only through proxy of friends, but more importantly the two people who I presume you are the most emotionally attached to, your wife and daughter. A wife who is professionally involved in social justice issues. "resorts to hinging your arguments of character of your interlocutor" It is completely reasonable that the character and motivations of other people be a factor in how you deal with them. It is frankly bizarre that you would think otherwise. "I assert without evidence that you are emotionally involved" As you can read, it isn't without evidence but based on facts I know about you and your life. Now you can deny that your half "immigrant" family and social justice activist wife have no impact, but I don't really care, you have yet to say anything or deal with these issue in any way to sway my opinion. "yes, it's a framework that can be applied to jurisprudence - but it is one that is fundamentally incompatible with the general framework of American law" American law is a limitation in scope you are now adding, but also CRT isn't exclusive to the USA. "my description of what it was was not intended to be normative" Neither is my framing of Sharia, it is just deceptive and leaves out very important details. "to avoid feeling they are compelled to kill infidels or amputate hands." No no no, I mean actually relativizing Sharia, it's their culture who are we do judge. "that the entire intent" Was to show how you can frame something insidious to make it sound harmless and nothing to be concerned about. And I think you understood that, realized this, but refused to accept and re-frame it (instead have deceptively added things along the discussion), because you think very highly of yourself and think that you have given these things a lot of thought and consideration.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 12:25:59 Nim: "From what you actually wrote." No, and you yourself have said as much: you've inferred it not just from what I wrote, which doesn't actually support it - but from what you think I meant to write, based on your inaccurate beliefs about my motivations, which themselves are informed by things your inferred from other things I've written, so on and so forth. "It is implied from the false dichotomy" No it isn't, nothing in the pargraph requires or presents it as two exclusive options with nothing else. I've explicitly set out what I meant to convey and why, which is entirely consistent with what is actually written. It is not implied - it is inferred. By you. Based on your inaccurate assumptions about what I meant. "You left an escape clause." Assumption of bad faith, again. No, you just made a mistake; and you can't accept it. I don't think there is any point continuing - functionally - you are behaving in a way that is totally divorced from reality. There is in fact no reasonable way to communicate meaning to you, because you feel entitled to substitute entirely different meaning to what I say; even when that is unsupported and unsupportable by the text, and then reject any attempt to accept clarification or correction as disingenuous e.g. "escape routes". It would be simpler if you argued with yourself. I think we have to call it a day.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 15:14:44 Whatever, but please keep in mind like I said in the gun discussion, there are 3 options. Pick 1 and I will comply.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: