What, exactly, is CRT?

[Trausti]

Interesting Article from The Journal of Free Black Thought.

Why Did Critical Race Theory Emerge from Legal Studies?
Everyone knows that CRT emerged from legal studies. This article asks why.

The whole thing is worth the 10 minutes or so to read, but I'll skip to the author's conclusion.

And that’s the goal of CRT: to train enough judges to see in the sins of American history a summons to deprecate individual rights and replace strict scrutiny with sweeping mandates, narrowly tailored decisions with ones that are far-reaching, and justice that is blind with justice that sees color first and foremost. In brief, and in answer to the question of our title, CRT arose in legal studies because the law is where you go to overturn the old, liberal order that works, however imperfectly, and establish a new order, aspirational but untried, in its place.

This is worth a read. CRT - at least by the words of its progenitors - is against the Enlightenment and individual rights. FFS, have the lessons of the 20th Century taught us nothing?

 

[Elixir]

The problem is the left's "answers" to the problem basically consist of close your eyes to the real issue and pretend everything is due to discrimination, direct or hidden.
... the left's answer is just to pile on more and more discrimination.

That seems to be your pat answer to any attempt to disrupt the momentum to which you give lipservice.
Why is that?
Maybe you have no desire to disrupt that momentum, because doing so would disproportionately benefit black and other minority populations - IOW, "discrimination".
You can't do away disproportionate pain that has accrued to a minority without disproportionately benefiting that minority. "Discrimination."
I think that is, plain and simple, why you don't want it to happen.

 

[Politesse]

Interesting Article from The Journal of Free Black Thought.

Why Did Critical Race Theory Emerge from Legal Studies?
Everyone knows that CRT emerged from legal studies. This article asks why.

The whole thing is worth the 10 minutes or so to read, but I'll skip to the author's conclusion.

And that’s the goal of CRT: to train enough judges to see in the sins of American history a summons to deprecate individual rights and replace strict scrutiny with sweeping mandates, narrowly tailored decisions with ones that are far-reaching, and justice that is blind with justice that sees color first and foremost. In brief, and in answer to the question of our title, CRT arose in legal studies because the law is where you go to overturn the old, liberal order that works, however imperfectly, and establish a new order, aspirational but untried, in its place.

An admirable piece of decptive rhetoric, the way they slice through the books and articles "quoted" in that post!

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting Article from The Journal of Free Black Thought.

Why Did Critical Race Theory Emerge from Legal Studies?
Everyone knows that CRT emerged from legal studies. This article asks why.

The whole thing is worth the 10 minutes or so to read, but I'll skip to the author's conclusion.

And that’s the goal of CRT: to train enough judges to see in the sins of American history a summons to deprecate individual rights and replace strict scrutiny with sweeping mandates, narrowly tailored decisions with ones that are far-reaching, and justice that is blind with justice that sees color first and foremost. In brief, and in answer to the question of our title, CRT arose in legal studies because the law is where you go to overturn the old, liberal order that works, however imperfectly, and establish a new order, aspirational but untried, in its place.

An admirable piece of decptive rhetoric, the way they slice through the books and articles "quoted" in that post!

Can you elaborate on what you see as being deceptive?

 

[Trausti]

An admirable piece of decptive rhetoric, the way they slice through the books and articles "quoted" in that post!

Can you elaborate on what you see as being deceptive?

Yeah, I’d like to know, too.

 

[Trausti]

The problem is the left's "answers" to the problem basically consist of close your eyes to the real issue and pretend everything is due to discrimination, direct or hidden.
... the left's answer is just to pile on more and more discrimination.

That seems to be your pat answer to any attempt to disrupt the momentum to which you give lipservice.
Why is that?
Maybe you have no desire to disrupt that momentum, because doing so would disproportionately benefit black and other minority populations - IOW, "discrimination".
You can't do away disproportionate pain that has accrued to a minority without disproportionately benefiting that minority. "Discrimination."
I think that is, plain and simple, why you don't want it to happen.

Eeek. CRT is indeed the death of empiricism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Err, it's a lot more like trying to remedy a problem of people getting stuck in holes by going around and rescuing people who are stuck, all while a bunch of assholes stand around unhelpfully, yelling at you that "you shouldn't do that, it's already technically illegal (even if seldom enforced) to put people in holes. And that's all that needs to be done or should ever be done, because if you actually rescue those people it's prejudiced against people who aren't in holes. Unless everyone gets a paramedic, no one gets a paramedic! Plus, you're victimizing the hole-dwellers and teaching them that being stuck in a hole is bad, that is super patronizing not to make them climb out themselves. Who are you to say that being stuck in a hole is bad? Anyways, they are there voluntarily. Most of them were thrown in holes because they had red hair, and statistics show that way more redheads are in holes than brunettes, which proves that redheads naturally prefer to be stuck in holes and their situation is almost certainly their own fault and totally volitional."

The people are already stuck in the holes. You fix it by helping people out, not by stopping them from going in.

So you do embrace CRT.

The problem is real. The solution is not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

CRT, just another new age religion. Utterly incoherent to bamboozle and confuse the flock. It’s defined in the same way as the holy trinity, incoherent mumbo jumbo but people like to pretend they get it.

What is it that you find difficult to understand, specifically? Complicated and incoherent are different things. CRT is not necessarily simple, but it is coherent.

He does make a good point in comparing it to religion. One of the anti-CRT claims is that it harms the children, the students, when nothing could be farther from fact. Kids will use the knowledge just like they use knowledge from other fields. The problem isn't the kids, it's the parents. Mommy doesn't like her kids learning about things that contradict her religious beliefs. Teaching CRT is no different in that the problem is Mommy - and Daddy.

 

[Trausti]

CRT, just another new age religion. Utterly incoherent to bamboozle and confuse the flock. It’s defined in the same way as the holy trinity, incoherent mumbo jumbo but people like to pretend they get it.

What is it that you find difficult to understand, specifically? Complicated and incoherent are different things. CRT is not necessarily simple, but it is coherent.

He does make a good point in comparing it to religion. One of the anti-CRT claims is that it harms the children, the students, when nothing could be farther from fact. Kids will use the knowledge just like they use knowledge from other fields. The problem isn't the kids, it's the parents. Mommy doesn't like her kids learning about things that contradict her religious beliefs. Teaching CRT is no different in that the problem is Mommy - and Daddy.

Yes. Only awful parents are against teaching children to judge others by the skin color and not their character. Horrible parents.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

He does make a good point in comparing it to religion. One of the anti-CRT claims is that it harms the children, the students, when nothing could be farther from fact. Kids will use the knowledge just like they use knowledge from other fields. The problem isn't the kids, it's the parents. Mommy doesn't like her kids learning about things that contradict her religious beliefs. Teaching CRT is no different in that the problem is Mommy - and Daddy.

Yes. Only awful parents are against teaching children to judge others by the skin color and not their character. Horrible parents.

You seem to have missed the point, namely that Mommy doesn't want her children to learn that her family's religious beliefs are open to question and comparison, or that her family's religion is just another religion out there like all the rest, quite unimportant in the vast scheme of things.

CRT, for those who know what it is, teaches children that systemic racism in the past is still here today. That's all it does. That's all it does, except for what all the Mommy's say it does.

 

[ZiprHead]

CRT, just another new age religion. Utterly incoherent to bamboozle and confuse the flock. It’s defined in the same way as the holy trinity, incoherent mumbo jumbo but people like to pretend they get it.

What is it that you find difficult to understand, specifically? Complicated and incoherent are different things. CRT is not necessarily simple, but it is coherent.

He does make a good point in comparing it to religion. One of the anti-CRT claims is that it harms the children, the students, when nothing could be farther from fact. Kids will use the knowledge just like they use knowledge from other fields. The problem isn't the kids, it's the parents. Mommy doesn't like her kids learning about things that contradict her religious beliefs. Teaching CRT is no different in that the problem is Mommy - and Daddy.

CRT isn't being thought to children. It's graduate level college courses taught in law school.

 

[TSwizzle]

CRT, just another new age religion. Utterly incoherent to bamboozle and confuse the flock. It’s defined in the same way as the holy trinity, incoherent mumbo jumbo but people like to pretend they get it.

What is it that you find difficult to understand, specifically? Complicated and incoherent are different things. CRT is not necessarily simple, but it is coherent.

He does make a good point in comparing it to religion. One of the anti-CRT claims is that it harms the children, the students, when nothing could be farther from fact. Kids will use the knowledge just like they use knowledge from other fields. The problem isn't the kids, it's the parents. Mommy doesn't like her kids learning about things that contradict her religious beliefs. Teaching CRT is no different in that the problem is Mommy - and Daddy.

Mommy doesn't like her kid's time in school being wasted on mumbo jumbo.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

He does make a good point in comparing it to religion. One of the anti-CRT claims is that it harms the children, the students, when nothing could be farther from fact. Kids will use the knowledge just like they use knowledge from other fields. The problem isn't the kids, it's the parents. Mommy doesn't like her kids learning about things that contradict her religious beliefs. Teaching CRT is no different in that the problem is Mommy - and Daddy.

CRT isn't being thought to children. It's graduate level college courses taught in law school.

Then what am I reading when I read this article?

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

It certainly seems like it is affecting how teachers in K thru 12 are able to teach.

The topic has exploded in the public arena this spring—especially in K-12, where numerous state legislatures are debating bills seeking to ban its use in the classroom.

 

[marc]

Then what am I reading when I read this article?

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

It certainly seems like it is affecting how teachers in K thru 12 are able to teach.

The topic has exploded in the public arena this spring—especially in K-12, where numerous state legislatures are debating bills seeking to ban its use in the classroom.

Because conservatives have made CRT their latest boogeyman, trying to link anything they don’t like to the ‘CRT conspiracy to brainwash your kids.’ Usually anything that deals with actual history or race.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CRT, for those who know what it is, teaches children that systemic racism in the past is still here today. That's all it does. That's all it does, except for what all the Mommy's say it does.

Taking as a given a point of contention.

Many of us do not believe that what we are seeing now is systemic racism, but rather the effects of past racism. Can't find the racists to blame for the situation, simple, say it's the system as a whole. Never mind whether you're actually looking at racism or socioeconomic effects.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

CRT, for those who know what it is, teaches children that systemic racism in the past is still here today. That's all it does. That's all it does, except for what all the Mommy's say it does.

Taking as a given a point of contention.

Many of us do not believe that what we are seeing now is systemic racism, but rather the effects of past racism. Can't find the racists to blame for the situation, simple, say it's the system as a whole. Never mind whether you're actually looking at racism or socioeconomic effects.

Therefore there is nothing wrong or unsafe or dangerous with allowing children to understand and discuss the subject and allowing teachers to present it as such.

So why are right wingers so opposed to the exercise?

 

[Bomb#20]

I would like to point out that the issue is more that CRT is not falsifiable for the same reasons the theory of evolution is not: all the evidence is in.

You could disprove it, but the dusproofs are unattainable, in the same way disproof of evolution is: DNA has been directly observed, it's chemistry has been observed mutating, mutations are directly observed to produce results.

I.e., you don't understand the word "falsifiable". Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[Jarhyn]

I would like to point out that the issue is more that CRT is not falsifiable for the same reasons the theory of evolution is not: all the evidence is in.

You could disprove it, but the dusproofs are unattainable, in the same way disproof of evolution is: DNA has been directly observed, it's chemistry has been observed mutating, mutations are directly observed to produce results.

I.e., you don't understand the word "falsifiable". Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Your issue is that you don't see how or why my utterances answer your question, despite the fact they do.

When you have watched the machine function and described that function, it's beyond falsifiability.

CRT describes a machine that keeps black people poor, while providing outlets to white people from that same poverty. All the parts are described and understood.

Falsify it? Falsify the theory of the ICE while you are at it ..

 

[Bomb#20]

I apologize if you feel I have mischaracterized your position, this was not my intention.

If your intention was to apologize, that is not how you do it. This isn't rocket science. When you punch someone in the nose, saying "I apologize if you feel I have punched you in the nose." is not an apology.

This isn't about me "feeling" you have mischaracterized my position. You mischaracterized my position. That's a fact, not a feeling. You did it so egregiously that you would have to be an imbecile to have done it inadvertently. You do not appear to be an imbecile.

However, I must confess to feeling very confused about why you be advocating for studying biological race ideas "academically", but not for "biologized academic racism". Perhaps you could explain this seeming contradiction? Is it just that the words are in a different order that bothers you?

Once again, you do not appear to be an imbecile. Yet you are asking very stupid questions. So it appears you are still engaging in disingenuous rhetorical gamesmanship.

But, supposing I charitably give you the benefit of the doubt and charitably entertain the remote possibility that the problem here is that you genuinely are an imbecile, let me draw your attention to the fact that "race" and "racism" are not the same word. See, you can tell they're different by counting the letters. Or you could take note of the fact that the letters "i", "s" and "m" appear in one of those words but not the other. Consequently "studying biological race ideas academically" and "biologized academic racism" are not "the words in a different order". They are different words. Consequently, your proposal "Is it just that the words are in a different order that bothers you?" is a stupid question. You had no reason to suspect that might be what bothers me.

Furthermore, not only are they different words, but English has different words for these concepts because they are different concepts. So likewise, your request "Perhaps you could explain this seeming contradiction?" is a stupid question. There is no seeming contradiction. You had no reason to suspect that there was a seeming contradiction. The notion that there's a contradiction was simply made up out of whole cloth for the purpose of slandering unbelievers in the racial dogmas that have become prevalent among leftists over the last few decades.

"Studying biological race ideas academically" and "biologized academic racism" are two completely different things, because racism and race are two completely different things, because racism involves the contention that one race is superior to another and the contention that it's appropriate to discriminate against individuals or draw negative inferences about individuals' character or capacities due to their race, whereas the biological race concept involves no such contentions.

This is a fact of English terminology that is familiar to pretty much every fluent native speaker. But many left-wingers have evolved a subculture that cultivates the custom of pretending that it isn't the case. They invent their own idiosyncratic definitions of "racism", pretend that those are the common usage meaning, use their idiosyncratic definitions to commit equivocation fallacies, and pretend that it really is racist merely to take note of the fact that biological races exist. They do this for political purposes; they have made a strategic choice; they've decided this language abuse promotes their political objectives and that's a greater good which outweighs their moral obligation not to libel innocent people as racists. It's straight-up pious fraud. It's deeply dishonest, it's bullying, and the leftists who engage in it should be ashamed of themselves.

None of this is rocket science. If you sincerely didn't already know it, you should have.

The problem is the pseudoscientific nonsense that characterized historical academic studies and which forms part of the bulwark of white supremacist ideology today,

Some of the academics who studied biological race back in the era before the field went out of fashion peddled pseudoscientific white supremacist nonsense, and some of them didn't. Duh. Astrology and astronomy overlapped. Alchemy and chemistry overlapped. That's how scientific progress goes.

 

[Politesse]

That's how scientific progress goes.

Indeed. And where race is concerned, you're welcome to join the 21st century along with the rest of us at any time.