What, exactly, is CRT?

[Jarhyn]

Loren, imagine that you and someone else sit down to a series of games. Before either of you start playing one of you (doesn't really matter which) suggests that "loser goes second every time!"

Now let's imagine that this is a game with "legacy" rules: every round brings stuff and advantages from the previous round.

Further let's imagine it is a game with first player advantage.

Then let's imagine he cheats in the first game. He lies about a dice roll, he wins, gets his legacy prizes. Or he just played like a complete asshole.

Now using logic shaped like yours re: racism, it goes that all the games after that where they didn't cheat weren't games they won by cheating or through poor conduct, or whatever the case may be.

One might recognize that this is just a shitty set of rules to have around a game, especially with knock-on effects.

By start of the third game you might be foreseeing the result of this day and not wanting to be a member to "your 'friend' wins all the games all day because he was a dickbag yo you in the first".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To sum up -- we are supposed to give respectful consideration to criticisms of the teaching of history from a political group that believes...
> in the Q-Anon vision of Democrat kidnappers and child sex ring operators (substantial support among GOP voters)
> that Trump won the 2020 election in what he calls a landslide (about 60% of GOP voters)
> that Trump committed no impeachable offense ever (overwhelming majority of GOP voters)
> that covid is a ginned-up liberal media hoax that was designed to destroy the Donald (enough support to keep us chained to this miserable epidemic and its medical and economic consequences)
Christ. I need to take up drinkin'.

The problem is that the QOP has taken a real issue and gone way too far with it. Their insane excesses do not make the original issue go away.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Where did I make such an assertion?

You asked why I didn't take it as a given that it is baked in.

There is no question it was in the past. These days there clearly is a socioeconomic pattern and that correlates with race but that doesn't prove racism baked into the system.

Well yeah, we know your house got flooded when the river over ran the levees and the town got flooded. But really, you seem to be stretching in saying that all this water damage is from a flood that is in the past now.

 

[TomC]

Where did I make such an assertion?

You asked why I didn't take it as a given that it is baked in.

There is no question it was in the past. These days there clearly is a socioeconomic pattern and that correlates with race but that doesn't prove racism baked into the system.

Well yeah, we know your house got flooded when the river over ran the levees and the town got flooded. But really, you seem to be stretching in saying that all this water damage is from a flood that is in the past now.

My hometown was inundated by a flood. Homes and buildings that had never even been damp suffered huge damage.

But if someone complained now that their carpet is wet and smelly, and their wallpaper is peeling, neither I nor any insurance company are likely to take claims of flood damage seriously. Because the flood was 11 years ago.

I see similar things going on now concerning race relations and disparate outcomes.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Loren, imagine that you and someone else sit down to a series of games. Before either of you start playing one of you (doesn't really matter which) suggests that "loser goes second every time!"
...
By start of the third game you might be foreseeing the result of this day and not wanting to be a member to "your 'friend' wins all the games all day because he was a dickbag yo you in the first".

Treating the above game as analogous to race means treating people of the same race as interchangeable parts. Treating people of the same race as interchangeable parts is racist.

 

[Bomb#20]

To sum up -- we are supposed to give respectful consideration to criticisms of the teaching of history from a political group that believes...
> in the Q-Anon vision of Democrat kidnappers and child sex ring operators (substantial support among GOP voters)
> that Trump won the 2020 election in what he calls a landslide (about 60% of GOP voters)
> that Trump committed no impeachable offense ever (overwhelming majority of GOP voters)
> that covid is a ginned-up liberal media hoax that was designed to destroy the Donald (enough support to keep us chained to this miserable epidemic and its medical and economic consequences)
Christ. I need to take up drinkin'.

To sum up -- we are supposed to let our children be taught the Ages of Rocks by a political group of Darwinists who believe Laissez-Faire Capitalism is just Survival of the Fittest and who want to Crucify Mankind on a Cross of Gold. Thank you, William Jennings Bryan.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Who let Tucker Carlson in here? Jesus.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Who let Tucker Carlson in here? Jesus.

Whom are you referring to?

 

[TomC]

Who let Tucker Carlson in here? Jesus.

Whom are you referring to?

Bomb#20. That post did kinda reek of Carlsonesque hyperbole.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Who let Tucker Carlson in here? Jesus.

Whom are you referring to?

Bomb#20. That post did kinda reek of Carlsonesque hyperbole.
Tom

I'm not familiar with Carlson, but regardless of whether the style is similar, that does not address the content of the reply.

 

[TomC]

Bomb#20. That post did kinda reek of Carlsonesque hyperbole.
Tom

I'm not familiar with Carlson, but regardless of whether the style is similar, that does not address the content of the reply.

Your better off unfamiliar with Carlson.

But Carlson doesn't usually respond to content. He gets all emotional and hyperbolic about issues. Gets him great TV ratings. That's what made that post so Carlsonesque.
Tom

ETA ~ When Carlson was sued for libel his defense was "Everyone knows I'm lying. Nobody believes me!". That's mainstream media today in the USA.~

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Bomb#20. That post did kinda reek of Carlsonesque hyperbole.
Tom

I'm not familiar with Carlson, but regardless of whether the style is similar, that does not address the content of the reply.

Your better off unfamiliar with Carlson.

But Carlson doesn't usually respond to content. He gets all emotional and hyperbolic about issues. Gets him great TV ratings. That's what made that post so Carlsonesque.
Tom

ETA ~ When Carlson was sued for libel his defense was "Everyone knows I'm lying. Nobody believes me!". That's mainstream media today in the USA.~

No, I meant that comparing the style of B20's post to Carlson's does not respond to the content of the post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well yeah, we know your house got flooded when the river over ran the levees and the town got flooded. But really, you seem to be stretching in saying that all this water damage is from a flood that is in the past now.

My hometown was inundated by a flood. Homes and buildings that had never even been damp suffered huge damage.

But if someone complained now that their carpet is wet and smelly, and their wallpaper is peeling, neither I nor any insurance company are likely to take claims of flood damage seriously. Because the flood was 11 years ago.

I see similar things going on now concerning race relations and disparate outcomes.
Tom

Exactly. Again and again I see clearly economic factors blamed on racism.

It's not racism. It's not even economic. It's simply the state deciding to make not paying what they say you owe to be incredibly painful, thus getting people to pay them first when they don't have enough money to pay everything.

 

[Politesse]

Well yeah, we know your house got flooded when the river over ran the levees and the town got flooded. But really, you seem to be stretching in saying that all this water damage is from a flood that is in the past now.

My hometown was inundated by a flood. Homes and buildings that had never even been damp suffered huge damage.

But if someone complained now that their carpet is wet and smelly, and their wallpaper is peeling, neither I nor any insurance company are likely to take claims of flood damage seriously. Because the flood was 11 years ago.

I see similar things going on now concerning race relations and disparate outcomes.
Tom

Exactly. Again and again I see clearly economic factors blamed on racism.

This is ridiculous. How could any system of system racism not be economic? Of course racism has economic implications.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well yeah, we know your house got flooded when the river over ran the levees and the town got flooded. But really, you seem to be stretching in saying that all this water damage is from a flood that is in the past now.

My hometown was inundated by a flood. Homes and buildings that had never even been damp suffered huge damage.

But if someone complained now that their carpet is wet and smelly, and their wallpaper is peeling, neither I nor any insurance company are likely to take claims of flood damage seriously. Because the flood was 11 years ago.

I see similar things going on now concerning race relations and disparate outcomes.
Tom

Except this damage was not caused by physics drawing water across the land. This damage was caused by humans, and was pushed by those humans upon humans, to build the system in which they are poor, and have no options or access to anything that allows poverty to be escaped.

Generational wealth withheld from whole communities is not a single house here nor there nor in the whole valley flooding. It is putting torch to an entire village, and then spitting on the survivors for being poor, and their children, and their children's children. It is the magic spell that foments hate for your whole community, and some of us resent that hate and want to end it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb#20. That post did kinda reek of Carlsonesque hyperbole.
Tom

I'm not familiar with Carlson, but regardless of whether the style is similar, that does not address the content of the reply.

Oddly enough, it actually does address the content.

In post #659, ideologyhunter trumped up an ad hominem accusation in order to give himself and the choir he preaches to permission not to think about the merits of criticisms of the ideology he wants taught. He didn't even need what he said about his opponents to be true -- it's evidently enough for him if there are some third parties who are guilty as charged who happen to agree with his opponents' criticisms. So he conflated his opponents with these third parties, even though the charges he trumped up were ones the people here actually arguing against his ideology are innocent of. It is the most pathetic and self-deluding species of ad hominem argument you could ask to see. And, funnily enough, it is exactly the same style of ad hominem that William Jennings Bryan used a hundred-odd years ago to give himself and the choir he preached to permission to dismiss out of hand all the evidence for evolution.

So when I point out the parallel in order to draw attention to ideologyhunter's lapse of logic and his lapse of intellectual honesty, how does ideologyhunter react? How else? He reacts by trumping up an ad hominem conflation between me and someone widely despised -- he insinuates, with no basis in fact, that my argument is the sort TC would make. TC probably wouldn't even understand the parallel I drew; and given that TC is on record arguing for teaching so-called "intelligent design", he certainly wouldn't regard a parallel with an anti-evolution argument as exposing a flaw in ideologyhunter's original argument.

So yes, ideologyhunter's answer addresses the content of my reply -- he is de facto confessing that I was spot on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I still think that in this thread for the supporters of CRT, CRT seems to be equated with good, and any opposition is necessarily racist and evil. I see no more nuanced argumentation.

I'm personally not opposed to it. I think CRT is great. But I question how useful it is to be taught to people who haven't first studied philosophy. Since it's a branch of post modern philosophy. I think without this theoretical foundation, it won't be applicable, and risks making people think that it proves more than it does. I haven't seen anybody in this thread argue against that.

We've had the same mess within feminism for 30 years now. I have plenty of friends who have done gender studies at uni and come away with the most bizarre beliefs. Because they only studied that and were never taught the postmodern philosophical foundation. Which I'd argue is super important to make any of it useful. Instead they come away from it seeing the evil patriarchy everywhere, and every problem is the result of the patriarchy.

Teaching CRT in isolation will of course make people see racist oppression everywhere, and see racism as the root cause of every problem. This way of thinking can be a useful tool. In the correct context. It can also cause a lot of damage, without it. Also for black people. Since facing an overwhelming, nebulous and all powerful oppressive force can be disempowering.

I see positives and negatives with it. I haven't seen much discussion in this thread about that?

 

[Derec]

We've had the same mess within feminism for 30 years now. I have plenty of friends who have done gender studies at uni and come away with the most bizarre beliefs. Because they only studied that and were never taught the postmodern philosophical foundation.

Well, to be honest, postmodernist philosophy is pretty bizarre in itself.

As to CRT, it's a bit like socialism. Whatever the lofty theoretical ideal form of socialism is, what actually transpired in reality was "actually existing socialism" in countries like USSR and East Germany.
Same with CRT. Whatever philosophical merit is claimed for the theoretical construct, what is actually being taught at universities in practice is "actually existing CRT" and it's pretty much unvarnished anti-white racism.

 

[Derec]

Now using logic shaped like yours re: racism, it goes that all the games after that where they didn't cheat weren't games they won by cheating or through poor conduct, or whatever the case may be.

The "logic" such as it is of CRT/"affirmative action" is that because someone cheated many rounds ago, other players who kinda-sorta look like the cheater (not necessarily even related) must be disadvantaged and the players who kinda-sorta look like the cheatee (again, not necessarily related) must be given a preference.

I.e. you fail to appreciate that different rounds are different players.

P.S.: Treating people differently because of their race is racism. And that is exactly what CRT is doing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We've had the same mess within feminism for 30 years now. I have plenty of friends who have done gender studies at uni and come away with the most bizarre beliefs. Because they only studied that and were never taught the postmodern philosophical foundation.

Well, to be honest, postmodernist philosophy is pretty bizarre in itself.

As to CRT, it's a bit like socialism. Whatever the lofty theoretical ideal form of socialism is, what actually transpired in reality was "actually existing socialism" in countries like USSR and East Germany.
Same with CRT. Whatever philosophical merit is claimed for the theoretical construct, what is actually being taught at universities in practice is "actually existing CRT" and it's pretty much unvarnished anti-white racism.

I don't think it is bizarre. Or no more bizarre than any other philosophical school. Philosophy is a tool to understanding the world by simplifying, grouping and removing noise. Historically philosophy have always been a tool those in power have used to better be able to wield power. Postmodernism turns all that on it's head. And takes up all manner of different narratives, to better understand how power dynamics warps our understanding of the world. It's primarily a tool to shift that narrative, which it does very well.

It's only problematic, (or bizarre) if we lean on postmodern explanatory models as our main source of narratives. Postmodernism assumes the main philosophical school is modernism. Postmodernism is a philosophical school to help us to make the modernistic philosophical narratives more nuanced. Never heard of modernist philosophy? It's because it's largely dead now. Modernism is positivism, Ayn Rand and utopianism. The rise of Nazi Germany and the USSR killed their prominence. Their failures taught us we needed to be more humble. Hence the rise of postmodernism. But postmodernism doesn't work on its own. Which is why, among philosophers today it's out of fashion.

Today within the field, philosophers have accepted that all schools of philosophy has it's problems and we're best served by not being overly attached to any single one. But this hasn't quite filtered through to the departments of gender studies and critical race theory. This is because of politics. It's trendy to be woke. It looks good to be for this. Which is no doubt why so many people in this thread are so uncritically supporters of CRT. But it has very little to do with doing any kind of philosophy.