Systemic / Institutional / Societal Racism

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Strat]

22.5 years for chauvin

He'll be out again with plenty of time to exact his revenge.

Fuck this guy.

[B]

22.5 years for chauvin

He'll be out again with plenty of time to exact his revenge.

Fuck this guy.

He's not even eligible for parole for 15 years, but I suppose he'll appeal.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[elliseamos]

He’ll fall in the shower

A la Epstein.

[B]

[Bi_3]

that should be titled "What I get wrong about CRT" as what he is describing is social science, not CRT. His "1+1=2 is true" example is perfect illustration of this misunderstanding. (I will admit it's significantly better than your baseline posts on the topic)

Saying things like "to my knowledge it's not being taught to 4th graders" is both correct and incorrect. It's correct in that the conceptual framework behind CRT is not being taught. IOW, there is no evidence the theory itself is being taught. It's incorrect in that the application of that framework is being forced onto unrelated subjects. "This is not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory." The distinction is crucial. Here's an example from Glendale, California:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ogxk0w ... 6Bl3s/view

[B]

that should be titled "What I get wrong about CRT" as what he is describing is social science, not CRT. His "1+1=2 is true" example is perfect illustration of this misunderstanding. (I will admit it's significantly better than your baseline posts on the topic)

Saying things like "to my knowledge it's not being taught to 4th graders" is both correct and incorrect. It's correct in that the conceptual framework behind CRT is not being taught. IOW, there is no evidence the theory itself is being taught. It's incorrect in that the application of that framework is being forced onto unrelated subjects. "This is not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory." The distinction is crucial. Here's an example from Glendale, California:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ogxk0w ... 6Bl3s/view

Teaching about CRT is cool, but teaching in CRT breaks down society? What the fuck are we even arguing about here?

[BurtReynolds]

Where did you get the idea that teaching CRT is cool?

[BurtReynolds]

I'd be terrified to learn what "comprehensive education on race" really means.

Are the flagellant whips supplied or do the students have to purchase them on their own?

Look I’m not any more interested in a white-shame education than you are. But I’m all for an education that identifies critical points of economic or power disparities, and shows how those disparities can be addressed.

The problem is that CRT hides those points of power disparities rather than expose them, which is why the fixation on race has been wholeheartedly embraced by the elites and institutions of power.

I'd be in favor of teaching kids the tools to analyze these problems themselves, but have no faith that these people are the ones to do that. Their goal is to instill the conclusions they want as dogma to be mindlessly followed. The state has no incentive to teach kids to be better able to recognize where power lies or to think for themselves.

[Bi_3]

I'd be terrified to learn what "comprehensive education on race" really means.

Are the flagellant whips supplied or do the students have to purchase them on their own?

Look I’m not any more interested in a white-shame education than you are. But I’m all for an education that identifies critical points of economic or power disparities, and shows how those disparities can be addressed.

The problem is that CRT hides those points of power disparities rather than expose them, which is why the fixation on race has been wholeheartedly embraced by the elites and institutions of power.

I'd be in favor of teaching kids the tools to analyze these problems themselves, but have no faith that these people are the ones to do that. Their goal is to instill the conclusions they want as dogma to be mindlessly followed. The state has no incentive to teach kids to be better able to recognize where power lies or to think for themselves.

Kinda this. Critical Race Theory imposes a specific answer as a first principle that Critical Theory is suppose to be used to uncover, so where Critical Theory can live in the marketplace of ideas as a way to determine multifaceted causes of social phenomena, CRT cannot because it requires any answer that isn't the one in it's first principle (and even the search for other answers) to be deemed as contributory to the problem under investigation. It's like a giant Kafka trap. A witch would deny she's a witch, therefore if she denies she's a witch she is a witch. A racist would deny she's a racist, therefore if she denies she's a racist she is a racist.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Rob]

I'd be terrified to learn what "comprehensive education on race" really means.

Are the flagellant whips supplied or do the students have to purchase them on their own?

Look I’m not any more interested in a white-shame education than you are. But I’m all for an education that identifies critical points of economic or power disparities, and shows how those disparities can be addressed.

The problem is that CRT hides those points of power disparities rather than expose them, which is why the fixation on race has been wholeheartedly embraced by the elites and institutions of power.

I'd be in favor of teaching kids the tools to analyze these problems themselves, but have no faith that these people are the ones to do that. Their goal is to instill the conclusions they want as dogma to be mindlessly followed. The state has no incentive to teach kids to be better able to recognize where power lies or to think for themselves.

Good post, man.

[Aldrich]

Ugh, all those affirmations with a racism context are outrageous! I don't understand why people still act like there is a difference between us. Come on, we are all the same, the only difference is that someone has read a book or two, and someone don't even know what a book is. For example, I doubt she know [url=shitty bot!]calgaryherald[/url]. After reading this, I guarantee that your brain will commit suicide from what it will read. Good that she resigned, at least, because in the context of BLM, I don’t even know how her mouth was able to say such words!

[Green Habit]

Yeah I don’t know enough about CRT and what the proposed curriculum looks like to really have an opinion. Sounds to me like one of those terms (like cancel culture or green new deal) that is loosely defined and mostly being used as a political football?

This is my take, too.

[Dscans]

Yeah I don’t know enough about CRT and what the proposed curriculum looks like to really have an opinion. Sounds to me like one of those terms (like cancel culture or green new deal) that is loosely defined and mostly being used as a political football?

This is my take, too.

Freddie deBoer had a good post about this: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/th ... sh-fallacy

"...the Selfish Fallacy is a convenient ignorance or misunderstanding, a motivated thoughtlessness; it handles conflicts not through potentially-painful reconciliation but through avoidance. “I think there are important insights within critical race theory, but its rejection of the legitimacy of basic democratic rights isn’t helpful,” is not the Selfish Fallacy. “CRT just says we should teach children that slavery is bad and racism still exists” is the Selfish Fallacy because it’s a convenient ignorance that allows the people saying it (and people do say stuff like that) to fulfill the social mandate to support CRT without prompting any cognitive dissonance."

[Dscans]

I also liked Annie Applebaum's column: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ws/619308/

A few months ago I interviewed Charles Mills, a philosopher whose most famous book, The Racial Contract, published in 1997, offers an alternative reading (you could call it a critical race theorists’ reading) of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant—the Enlightenment thinkers who, anticipating liberal democracy, all argued (to put it crudely) that a legitimate government must have the consent of the governed....
Mills told me that not all of his colleagues understand him. “They say, ‘Why are you trying to keep this tradition alive? We should jettison this whole way of doing political philosophy and basically start anew.’” But he disagrees. “There is a dynamism inside liberalism that they miss,” he told me. The huge advantage of liberal democracy over other political systems is that its leadership constantly adjusts and changes, shifting to absorb new people and ideas. Liberal democracies don’t try, as Soviet Marxism once did, to make everybody agree about everything, all the time.

[Rob]

Enjoyed those two posts, especially the second. Similar to the argument people make about markets (reads like a dynamic “marketplace” but in politics/government).

[elliseamos]

I also liked Annie Applebaum's column: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ws/619308/

Liberal democracies don’t try, as Soviet Marxism once did, to make everybody agree about everything, all the time.

Is this where the two extremes (far-left and far-right) get in trouble with the rest of the country?