Did you take a class in critical race theory?

[Trausti]

CRT is total crap. From 1997:

For Black Scholars Wedded to Prism of Race, New and Separate Goals

Critical race theorists, who are on the faculty at almost every major law school and are producing an ever-growing body of scholarly work, have drawn from an idea made popular by postmodernist scholars of all races, that there is no objective reality.

Anti-enlightenment, indeed. The Age of Reason is dead.

Professor Butler, a former Federal prosecutor, has also suggested that black jurors should assess whether black Americans would be helped or harmed by acquitting black defendants accused of stealing the property of whites. He has portrayed his suggestions as a kind of black self-help, a direct way of adjusting the score after decades of racial oppression.

What could go wrong?

Some theorists go so far as to say that what really happened in a particular incident may be no more important than what people feel or say happened. For example, some argue that even though Tawana Brawley, then a teen-ager, made up her account that a gang of white men, one with a badge, raped and defiled her in New York in 1987, her story is still valid because it offers truths about the oppression of black women.

The race hoax as noble.

”Surely the most striking example of the influence of the critical race theorists on the American legal system is the O. J. Simpson case, in which Johnnie L. Cochran dramatically enacted each of the most controversial postulates of the movement before a transfixed and racially divided nation,” Professor Rosen wrote. ”Indeed, Cochran’s strategy in the courtroom might be best described as applied critical race theory.”

He added that Mr. Cochran ”set out, through storytelling and the manipulation of racial iconography, to create a narrative that transformed O. J. from a coddled celebrity into the civil rights martyr of a racist police force.”

Why would anyone protest removing objectivity from schools and replacing it with this?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, the right is overly hysterical about it, they are mainly using it as a political tactic. But that it is used for a tactic, doesn't mean there is nothing bad going on in schools related to crt. That the right hates something doesn't automatically make it good, even if mostly.

Agreed. The issue at hand is the noise to content ratio. We're hearing about how radical CRT is and it is indoctrinating children, but the examples provided of this actually happening is much like the "liberal indoctrination" at school. There are scattered articles about some teacher doing something dumb, then getting in trouble for it.

The hyperbole used against CRT and its alleged indoctrination in schools is very familiar. Everything from same sex marriage slippery slopes to sex education in classrooms, there is so much noise and so little back up that their claims are legitimate.

This isn't aimed at you specifically, but give me corroboration (significant corroboration! not just a scattering of isolated stories of teachers getting into trouble, showing the system is working) or I just don't bloody care. Life is too darn short for right-wing panty messing noise. The boy cried wolf too many damn times.

 

[KeepTalking]

That article does not mention Critical Race Theory.

True, it doesn't use that term, but so what?

You held it forth as evidence of CRT being taught in middle school.

If it does not mention CRT, what criteria did you use to determine that it is an article about a course teaching CRT?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I'm in my late 30's, have been posting here for years and at no point in any of that time do not remember a single instance of someone who is on the side of racial justice actually utter the words "critical race theory". It has not, in fact, come a single time into my ears as an utterance from a human voice, in any of my memory, at least not for the discussion of any topic ostensibly under that banner.

In fact, 100% of the usage of the term that I can actually remember and identify has come from the "woke right" who want to fight against this Boogeyman, and it happened here.

Now there are plenty of phenomena that I would and do freely identify as problems within our society, such as the idea that most people don't even have a good grasp on the extent to which they participate in continued patterns of racism.

But the fact is, when you put a formal box around it and call it a "theory", it has long been the practice of Liars for Jesus to attempt the odd well poisoning here and there.

It is, in this way not unlike the problems that exist in the way most atheists frame against "religion". They point to it repeatedly as a font of ills, but the fact is that it's also a font of good starting points of philosophical investigation. They wish to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And, never once has anyone on the right formally explained the "critical race theory", either -- especially not in any level of rigor. I assume mostly this is because they neither know nor understand it, especially not at any level of rigor.

The most ironic part of all this is that the prescriptions offered for the racial injustice are themselves non-racial: make higher education readily and freely available to all; legalize/regulate personal use of mind altering substances; ban the box.

Of course, other things, like structured unavailability of racial markers in evaluations, would also go a long way.

The one thing that I would prescribe for education, in fact the only thing that in any way MIGHT be construed as "inegalitarian" is that I think educational and academic environments have a responsibility to seek out and pad their ranks with an ecclectic rather than cross-sectional spread of thinkers, and that has more to do with "the problem of perspective" moreso than anything else: the geometry of most people's mental models are going to be such that they cannot pivot or shift to a place that they can "always" be "right"; your perspective will inevitably lead you, and everyone who shares that perspective, to a wrong answer at some point.

But that's not all. There is still the fact that individuals are not races or groups. I am exactly myself, and if you wish to know anything about that person, you can't learn it by looking at anyone else. So, if you wish to ethically evaluate someone for their ability in a situation, you have to evaluate them, not other people, and most certainly not other people in aggregate.

So, what this really trikes me as is an objection to readily available education, an objection to letting people live down their pasts, an objection to letting people live their life on their own terms, and finally as an objection to the geometry of the universe itself.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So, I'm in my late 30's, have been posting here for years and at no point in any of that time do not remember a single instance of someone who is on the side of racial justice actually utter the words "critical race theory". It has not, in fact, come a single time into my ears as an utterance from a human voice, in any of my memory, at least not for the discussion of any topic ostensibly under that banner.

In fact, 100% of the usage of the term that I can actually remember and identify has come from the "woke right" who want to fight against this Boogeyman, and it happened here.

Now there are plenty of phenomena that I would and do freely identify as problems within our society, such as the idea that most people don't even have a good grasp on the extent to which they participate in continued patterns of racism.

But the fact is, when you put a formal box around it and call it a "theory", it has long been the practice of Liars for Jesus to attempt the odd well poisoning here and there.

It is, in this way not unlike the problems that exist in the way most atheists frame against "religion". They point to it repeatedly as a font of ills, but the fact is that it's also a font of good starting points of philosophical investigation. They wish to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And, never once has anyone on the right formally explained the "critical race theory", either -- especially not in any level of rigor. I assume mostly this is because they neither know nor understand it, especially not at any level of rigor.

The most ironic part of all this is that the prescriptions offered for the racial injustice are themselves non-racial: make higher education readily and freely available to all; legalize/regulate personal use of mind altering substances; ban the box.

Of course, other things, like structured unavailability of racial markers in evaluations, would also go a long way.

The one thing that I would prescribe for education, in fact the only thing that in any way MIGHT be construed as "inegalitarian" is that I think educational and academic environments have a responsibility to seek out and pad their ranks with an ecclectic rather than cross-sectional spread of thinkers, and that has more to do with "the problem of perspective" moreso than anything else: the geometry of most people's mental models are going to be such that they cannot pivot or shift to a place that they can "always" be "right"; your perspective will inevitably lead you, and everyone who shares that perspective, to a wrong answer at some point.

But that's not all. There is still the fact that individuals are not races or groups. I am exactly myself, and if you wish to know anything about that person, you can't learn it by looking at anyone else. So, if you wish to ethically evaluate someone for their ability in a situation, you have to evaluate them, not other people, and most certainly not other people in aggregate.

So, what this really trikes me as is an objection to readily available education, an objection to letting people live down their pasts, an objection to letting people live their life on their own terms, and finally as an objection to the geometry of the universe itself.

Well, it's just political gold for the right. They want to scare and motivate their political base: disenfranchised white voters. What better way to motivate a voter than to make them think that the other side is out to get them.

 

[WAB]

Jarhyn: I am exactly myself, and if you wish to know anything about that person, you can't learn it by looking at anyone else.

This is one of the most intelligent and true things I've ever seen written at TFT.

We must see people as individuals, not as members of groups. Groups don't exist. Only individuals exist.

A cool, simple link:

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/universals-simply-philosophy/

 

[WAB]

Jarhyn: I am exactly myself, and if you wish to know anything about that person, you can't learn it by looking at anyone else.

This is one of the most intelligent and true things I've ever seen written at TFT.

We must see people as individuals, not as members of groups. Groups don't exist. Only individuals exist.

A cool, simple link:

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/universals-simply-philosophy/

The first para:

Universals are things that have a single name but many instances. There are many instances in universals in real life. Humanity, planets, stars, atoms and rocks are all universals. So is unity, redness and straightness. But while the existence of such universals is demonstrable, there is good reason to believe that they do not exist. A universal is contradictory and cannot exist.

A bit deeper, and more in depth:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/

ETA: Egads, I didn't mean to quote my FREAKING self! Sorry....

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn: I am exactly myself, and if you wish to know anything about that person, you can't learn it by looking at anyone else.

This is one of the most intelligent and true things I've ever seen written at TFT.

We must see people as individuals, not as members of groups. Groups don't exist. Only individuals exist.

A cool, simple link:

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/universals-simply-philosophy/

The first para:

Universals are things that have a single name but many instances. There are many instances in universals in real life. Humanity, planets, stars, atoms and rocks are all universals. So is unity, redness and straightness. But while the existence of such universals is demonstrable, there is good reason to believe that they do not exist. A universal is contradictory and cannot exist.

A bit deeper, and more in depth:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/

ETA: Egads, I didn't mean to quote my FREAKING self! Sorry....

Heh... No big. But it is interesting. I think you aren't entirely right. I mean, about THINGS not actually being universal, or fungible. That's actually pretty much spot fucking on.

But there are, nonetheless, universal tendencies, not in the things themselves but in the way things may be.

These are geometries of the universe itself, however, rather than a shared geometry of instantiations within it.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I took one called Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination, if that counts. Around 1996.

Note that from the poll, I am the only one.

 

[Jarhyn]

I took one called Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination, if that counts. Around 1996.

Note that from the poll, I am the only one.

Personally, I really don't think it should. The topic is "critical race theory", which as I mentioned seems to be something that exists to the same extent as Antifa terrorists and MS-13.

Now, I can say for a fact I took a class on "diversity" in college. The class did a lot of discussions on topics like what racism is, how prejudice happens, and the systems and structures of disparity and privilege that have been echoing and feeding each other since our nation's beginnings.

But we didn't talk about anything that wasn't real, there. It was, ultimately, a class studying actual phenomena and talking about them.

Never once did "CRT" get brought up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I took one called Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination, if that counts. Around 1996.

Note that from the poll, I am the only one.

I am going to hold myself to what I wrote before which is that if Critical Race Theory was a major concept in the curriculum, then it should count. Note that I've never taken a course on race or discrimination in the first place and so I wouldn't know.

 

[bilby]

Jarhyn: I am exactly myself, and if you wish to know anything about that person, you can't learn it by looking at anyone else.

This is one of the most intelligent and true things I've ever seen written at TFT.

We must see people as individuals, not as members of groups. Groups don't exist. Only individuals exist.

A cool, simple link:

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/universals-simply-philosophy/

Groups most assuredly do exist, and are not merely the sum of their individual members.

It's when philosophers say things like "Groups don't exist. Only individuals exist" that I remember something a very wise person said to me a long time ago: "Philosophy is crap".

 

[DrZoidberg]

So, I'm in my late 30's, have been posting here for years and at no point in any of that time do not remember a single instance of someone who is on the side of racial justice actually utter the words "critical race theory". It has not, in fact, come a single time into my ears as an utterance from a human voice, in any of my memory, at least not for the discussion of any topic ostensibly under that banner.

In fact, 100% of the usage of the term that I can actually remember and identify has come from the "woke right" who want to fight against this Boogeyman, and it happened here.

Now there are plenty of phenomena that I would and do freely identify as problems within our society, such as the idea that most people don't even have a good grasp on the extent to which they participate in continued patterns of racism.

But the fact is, when you put a formal box around it and call it a "theory", it has long been the practice of Liars for Jesus to attempt the odd well poisoning here and there.

It is, in this way not unlike the problems that exist in the way most atheists frame against "religion". They point to it repeatedly as a font of ills, but the fact is that it's also a font of good starting points of philosophical investigation. They wish to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And, never once has anyone on the right formally explained the "critical race theory", either -- especially not in any level of rigor. I assume mostly this is because they neither know nor understand it, especially not at any level of rigor.

The most ironic part of all this is that the prescriptions offered for the racial injustice are themselves non-racial: make higher education readily and freely available to all; legalize/regulate personal use of mind altering substances; ban the box.

Of course, other things, like structured unavailability of racial markers in evaluations, would also go a long way.

The one thing that I would prescribe for education, in fact the only thing that in any way MIGHT be construed as "inegalitarian" is that I think educational and academic environments have a responsibility to seek out and pad their ranks with an ecclectic rather than cross-sectional spread of thinkers, and that has more to do with "the problem of perspective" moreso than anything else: the geometry of most people's mental models are going to be such that they cannot pivot or shift to a place that they can "always" be "right"; your perspective will inevitably lead you, and everyone who shares that perspective, to a wrong answer at some point.

But that's not all. There is still the fact that individuals are not races or groups. I am exactly myself, and if you wish to know anything about that person, you can't learn it by looking at anyone else. So, if you wish to ethically evaluate someone for their ability in a situation, you have to evaluate them, not other people, and most certainly not other people in aggregate.

So, what this really trikes me as is an objection to readily available education, an objection to letting people live down their pasts, an objection to letting people live their life on their own terms, and finally as an objection to the geometry of the universe itself.

You put your finger on what the problem is. This leftist pomo ideology is a university thing. The left pretty much control academia today and they are wrecking it with a totalitarian ideology. It's far removed from the real world. The only reason I'm aware of this is because I have a lot of friends in academia. It is a huge problem.

Social media and Internet teaching tools are making universities increasingly obsolete. If a person wants to raise themselves from their station in life they can go to university today. But that's less and less becoming true. What we don't want is the educated elites shunning the university system and only recruiting members from their own ranks.

Because of the declining value of a university education the loony fringe leftists are now able to take power there. There's less pushback from the sensible people.

These people are making universities nothing but brainwashed intolerant totalitarian leftist pomo puppets. Loony leftist academics churning out brainwashed leftist has been a problem since the 1960'ies. The difference with today is that they had relatively little power. They were up against a majority society where they were always the underdog. That's not true any longer. Within the academic system these loony leftists are now in power.

Because of increasing student power, there's an unhelpful feedback loop making this development worse.

There's a real risk that universities will disappear in a not so distant future, and all meaningful education will be taught within corporations creating obedient and brainwashed workers for their cause. The exact thing our current university system is designed to combat.

The conservatives criticizing this aren't wrong, no matter if most people on the left don't know wtf are on about.

 

[Gospel]

I took one called Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination, if that counts. Around 1996.

Note that from the poll, I am the only one.

Personally, I really don't think it should. The topic is "critical race theory", which as I mentioned seems to be something that exists to the same extent as Antifa terrorists and MS-13.

Now, I can say for a fact I took a class on "diversity" in college. The class did a lot of discussions on topics like what racism is, how prejudice happens, and the systems and structures of disparity and privilege that have been echoing and feeding each other since our nation's beginnings.

But we didn't talk about anything that wasn't real, there. It was, ultimately, a class studying actual phenomena and talking about them.

Never once did "CRT" get brought up.

Yeah, My job has a similar course (not voluntary) about inclusion in the workplace and understanding what may be considered racism, sexism, sexual harassment, and other things. I didn't click yes on CRT because it wasn't specifically about CRT.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I'm in my late 30's, have been posting here for years and at no point in any of that time do not remember a single instance of someone who is on the side of racial justice actually utter the words "critical race theory". It has not, in fact, come a single time into my ears as an utterance from a human voice, in any of my memory, at least not for the discussion of any topic ostensibly under that banner.

In fact, 100% of the usage of the term that I can actually remember and identify has come from the "woke right" who want to fight against this Boogeyman, and it happened here.

Now there are plenty of phenomena that I would and do freely identify as problems within our society, such as the idea that most people don't even have a good grasp on the extent to which they participate in continued patterns of racism.

But the fact is, when you put a formal box around it and call it a "theory", it has long been the practice of Liars for Jesus to attempt the odd well poisoning here and there.

It is, in this way not unlike the problems that exist in the way most atheists frame against "religion". They point to it repeatedly as a font of ills, but the fact is that it's also a font of good starting points of philosophical investigation. They wish to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And, never once has anyone on the right formally explained the "critical race theory", either -- especially not in any level of rigor. I assume mostly this is because they neither know nor understand it, especially not at any level of rigor.

The most ironic part of all this is that the prescriptions offered for the racial injustice are themselves non-racial: make higher education readily and freely available to all; legalize/regulate personal use of mind altering substances; ban the box.

Of course, other things, like structured unavailability of racial markers in evaluations, would also go a long way.

The one thing that I would prescribe for education, in fact the only thing that in any way MIGHT be construed as "inegalitarian" is that I think educational and academic environments have a responsibility to seek out and pad their ranks with an ecclectic rather than cross-sectional spread of thinkers, and that has more to do with "the problem of perspective" moreso than anything else: the geometry of most people's mental models are going to be such that they cannot pivot or shift to a place that they can "always" be "right"; your perspective will inevitably lead you, and everyone who shares that perspective, to a wrong answer at some point.

But that's not all. There is still the fact that individuals are not races or groups. I am exactly myself, and if you wish to know anything about that person, you can't learn it by looking at anyone else. So, if you wish to ethically evaluate someone for their ability in a situation, you have to evaluate them, not other people, and most certainly not other people in aggregate.

So, what this really trikes me as is an objection to readily available education, an objection to letting people live down their pasts, an objection to letting people live their life on their own terms, and finally as an objection to the geometry of the universe itself.

You put your finger on what the problem is.

damn right I did

... The conservatives criticizing this aren't wrong, no matter if most people on the left don't know wtf are on about.

And then everything after the first sentence was trash.

I pointed out how, at least in my experience, the only discussions most universities have at all about race are and have been reasonable discussions about real phenomena that have led me and most others to post-racial solutions to the racial problems revealed.

Your solution? Stop talking about the problem and ignore it exists.

Our solution? Talk about and understand the problem so we can figure out solutions to try and fix the wound.

Now go shovel that conservative bullshit elsewhere.

 

[ZiprHead]

You put your finger on what the problem is. This leftist pomo ideology is a university thing. The left pretty much control academia today and they are wrecking it with a totalitarian ideology. It's far removed from the real world. The only reason I'm aware of this is because I have a lot of friends in academia. It is a huge problem.

Social media and Internet teaching tools are making universities increasingly obsolete. If a person wants to raise themselves from their station in life they can go to university today. But that's less and less becoming true. What we don't want is the educated elites shunning the university system and only recruiting members from their own ranks.

Because of the declining value of a university education the loony fringe leftists are now able to take power there. There's less pushback from the sensible people.

Is that you, Governor DeSantis?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I will freely admit that there was a statement in a previous post dealing with the idea of "talking less about the problem". I would like to clarify that this is in the interests, specifically of focusing instead on solutions. Nobody benefits from beating dead horses, except the ones who would use that as a way of questioning whether the horse is dead, or even a horse at all.

Really, the issue is that we let conservatives con us into debating whether racism is a problem rather than discussing and implementing solutions. There is a time to discuss the problem, when you are 13-30, and don't know all the shapes of it yet. But when you reach adulthood, and have goals and wish to live in a world that is better than the one you leave, you have to stop jacking off over "problems" and actually design a path to the better world you wish to live in.

 

[Trausti]

Hitler was a pioneer in Critical Race Theory. He argued over and over that the cause of anything bad that ever happened to Germans, even if the causal connection seemed hazy, simply _had_ to be Systemic Semitism and Jewish Privilege

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hitler was a pioneer in Critical Race Theory. He argued over and over that the cause of anything bad that ever happened to Germans, even if the causal connection seemed hazy, simply _had_ to be Systemic Semitism and Jewish Privilege

That's not true. Hitler argued that Jews were terrible people genetically and that due to their genetics, they were evil, sneaky people. Critical race theory rejects that biological races produce intelligence differences or any other significant difference used to rank people socially, and instead that these these differences are socially defined. You, on the other hand, believe biological race causes intelligence differences. So, you're projecting Critical Race Theorists onto Hitler in ways that one could hypothetical argue your views could be Hitleresque instead.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hitler was a pioneer in Critical Race Theory. He argued over and over that the cause of anything bad that ever happened to Germans, even if the causal connection seemed hazy, simply _had_ to be Systemic Semitism and Jewish Privilege

That's not true. Hitler argued that Jews were terrible people genetically and that due to their genetics, they were evil, sneaky people. Critical race theory rejects that biological races produce intelligence differences or any other significant difference used to rank people socially, and instead that these these differences are socially defined. You, on the other hand, believe biological race causes intelligence differences. So, you're projecting Critical Race Theorists onto Hitler in ways that one could hypothetical argue your views could be Hitleresque instead.

Honestly, I don't give a shit what CRT says about anything. I care that Reality has, time and again, reinforced that people are not groups, they are individuals.

There is a reality in the injustice of using "group membership" as a cudgel against individuals.

Of course as with any thing in reality, though, there is a caveat: when the group membership is determined by possession of the trait in question. But to determine membership to the group you STILL have to assess each individual so it doesn't get you anywhere useful having it