Mixed-race student brings lawsuit against charter school for mandatory CRT content.

[Politesse]

Critical race theory proponents say all white people, and only white people, are racist. It isn't a straw man.

What CRT observes is in a white-majority that the effect of white racism is very different from the effect of racism in the other direction, since there isn't an equivalent amount of insitutional inertia behind those two conditions.

Evidently you are not acquainted with CRT. They don't call prejudice against whites 'racism', nor is anything people of colour do to anyone else (including other people of colour) 'racism'. It could be bigotry and prejudice, but not racism.

Yes, your careful study of conservative websites trumps reading the actual literature on the subject...

 

[Metaphor]

Evidently you are not acquainted with CRT. They don't call prejudice against whites 'racism', nor is anything people of colour do to anyone else (including other people of colour) 'racism'. It could be bigotry and prejudice, but not racism.

Yes, your careful study of conservative websites trumps reading the actual literature on the subject...

You are embarrassing yourself luv.

http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opin...jdCPCz90NWS0xwHPMlfz3pSSIIfHx-3TPSP8lpyPoWLiG
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/oacs/wp-content/uploads/sites/140/Key-Terms-Racism.pdf

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/e...a-thing_n_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97?ri18n=true

 

[Bomb#20]

Why is it racist? Were the white kids excluded from the course?

"The majestic equality of the laws prohibits the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread." - Anatole France

 

[Bomb#20]

The suit even noted the direct connection of this material to published, peer-reviewed research, so in theory it should be fair game just like any other scientific theory set that has met the same bar.

Not understanding science is not the same thing as science itself being wrong.

If the research is peer-reviewed, that means it was reviewed by the authors' peers, i.e., by other critical race theorists?

"Correlation was established in 1981, as the Astrological Association’s international biannual Journal of Research into Astrology. It publishes the finest peer-reviewed astrological research."

https://correlationjournal.com/

Apparently astrology counts as a science now too.

 

[Politesse]

Evidently you are not acquainted with CRT. They don't call prejudice against whites 'racism', nor is anything people of colour do to anyone else (including other people of colour) 'racism'. It could be bigotry and prejudice, but not racism.

Yes, your careful study of conservative websites trumps reading the actual literature on the subject...

You are embarrassing yourself luv.

http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opin...jdCPCz90NWS0xwHPMlfz3pSSIIfHx-3TPSP8lpyPoWLiG
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/oacs/wp-content/uploads/sites/140/Key-Terms-Racism.pdf

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/e...a-thing_n_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97?ri18n=true

I have no idea how to respond to this, except to express continued bafflement by your habit of voluntarily linking to documents that don't support your hysterical claims about their authors.

 

[Metaphor]

You are embarrassing yourself luv.

http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opin...jdCPCz90NWS0xwHPMlfz3pSSIIfHx-3TPSP8lpyPoWLiG
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/oacs/wp-content/uploads/sites/140/Key-Terms-Racism.pdf

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/e...a-thing_n_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97?ri18n=true

I have no idea how to respond to this, except to express continued bafflement by your habit of voluntarily linking to documents that don't support your hysterical claims about their authors.

You did not even bother reading the first sentence in the first link.

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Politesse, you have multiple times responded to my threads and never bothered reading what is written. Please either start reading, or stop responding.

 

[Politesse]

You did not even bother reading the first sentence in the first link.

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Politesse, you have multiple times responded to my threads and never bothered reading what is written. Please either start reading, or stop responding.

The first sentence reads:

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Your claim was:

all white people are inherently racist.

Those aren't even slightly the same thing. And your third linked source directly refutes what you've written in its first sentence:

Race
“A social construct that artificially divides people into distinct groups based on certain
characteristics such as physical appearance (particularly skin color) ancestral heritage,
cultural affiliation, cultural history, ethnic classification...

If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions. It categorically affects you regardless of your personal opinions, so it's not that you are a racist so much as that you live within a system of institutionalized racism, and therefore benefit from it whether you agree with that system or not, just as you benefit from other social insitutions that favor you regardless of whether you personally agree with them, such as capitalism or the concept of governmental welfare or national citzenship.

If you actually read your own links, they discuss this in some detail.

 

[Metaphor]

The first sentence read:

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Your claim was:

all white people are inherently racist.

That was one of my claims. Is that the only claim you are disputing about what CRT says?

 

[Jokodo]

No, they're not.



To imagine critical race theory is science is to imagine feminist theory is science. There's nothing 'scientific' about proclaiming that all white people are inherently racist.

You obviously don't understand critical race theory or feminist theory if that is your summary of it. Taking a course on the subject would help, not hurt, this situation. Not understanding science is not the same thing as science itself being wrong.

If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.

Such a snowflake...

 

[Metaphor]

If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.

Such a snowflake...

Call me what you like luv. I don't need to volunteer my time to listen to it.

 

[Politesse]

The first sentence read:



Your claim was:

That was one of my claims. Is that the only claim you are disputing about what CRT says?

It's the claim I objected to first and what you were ostensibly responding to. I concede that you have added a fair amount of other nonsense to the pile as well.

Note: I've edited the quoted post to clarify my point.

 

[Metaphor]

The first sentence reads:

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Your claim was:

all white people are inherently racist.

Those aren't even slightly the same thing. And your third linked source directly refutes what you've written in its first sentence:

Race
“A social construct that artificially divides people into distinct groups based on certain
characteristics such as physical appearance (particularly skin color) ancestral heritage,
cultural affiliation, cultural history, ethnic classification...

If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions. It categorically affects you regardless of your personal opinions, so it's not that you are a racist so much as that you live within a system of institutionalized racism, and therefore benefit from it whether you agree with that system or not, just as you benefit from other social insitutions that favor you regardless of whether you personally agree with them, such as capitalism or the concept of governmental welfare or national citzenship.

If you actually read your own links, they discuss this in some detail.

Good god.

I said:

Critical race theory proponents say all white people, and only white people, are racist. It isn't a straw man.

You said:

What CRT observes is in a white-majority that the effect of white racism is very different from the effect of racism in the other direction, since there isn't an equivalent amount of insitutional inertia behind those two conditions.

I called you out because CRT does not accept that there is any such thing as 'racism' in the other direction. They don't call it racism, they call it bigotry and prejudice.

 

[Metaphor]

In the interest of accountability, I cannot find the quote I was thinking of, of Robin DiAngelo calling white people inherently racist, so I will withdraw the claim. It's possible I'm misremembering another word used, like 'inescapably' or something similar.

 

[Bomb#20]

If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions. It categorically affects you regardless of your personal opinions, so it's not that you are a racist so much as that you live within a system of institutionalized racism, and therefore benefit from it whether you agree with that system or not, just as you benefit from other social insitutions that favor you regardless of whether you personally agree with them, such as capitalism or the concept of governmental welfare or national citzenship.

Um, he benefits from capitalism, governmental welfare and national citizenship because those are good things that help people. A system of institutionalized racism is a bad thing that hurts people. Why you would feel he benefits from it merely because it favors whites is transparently a zero-sum-game mentality. Life is not a zero-sum game. Institutional racism hurts people of all races -- the races it's directed against more than the rest.

 

[Derec]

This thread shows just how ridiculous CRT is. There is nothing redeeming academically to it. All it does is embolden anti-white racists in their racism.

 

[Derec]

I have no idea how to respond to this, except to express continued bafflement by your habit of voluntarily linking to documents that don't support your hysterical claims about their authors.

In what way do you these ramblings Methaphor linked to fail to support Metaphor's point?

 

[Derec]

If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions.

That is a stupid definition of racism that was only made up to try to justify the "only whites can be racist" dogma on the Left.
In reality, "broad social structures" can favor blacks and in our modern world often do. Black politicians also often hold power, so "prejudice+power" would apply. When white people are denied employment and promotions in a black controlled government (such as Fulton and Clayton Counties in Georgia) that would be an example of racism under that definition. But it is not viewed as such under CRT because the sole purpose of CRT is to attack whitey. So excuses are made why that doesn't qualify. Or why "broad social structures" like giving black students preferences in admissions or such things as "cultural appropriation" that seek to control behavior of white people do not qualify.

If you actually read your own links, they discuss this in some detail.

Just because they ramble at length does not mean they are making any sense. When a black student can get into say med school with far worse grades and MCAT scores than a white or Asian student, how is that not an example of a "broad social structure" that benefits blacks? When white majority sports are pressured into recruiting or hiring more "minority" players, coaches etc. but black-dominated sports like NBA. I have never heard any calls for more player diversity in the NBA, but I have heard many such calls in other leagues. Why is that?

 

[thebeave]

If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions.

That is a stupid definition of racism that was only made up to try to justify the "only whites can be racist" dogma on the Left.
In reality, "broad social structures" can favor blacks and in our modern world often do. Black politicians also often hold power, so "prejudice+power" would apply. When white people are denied employment and promotions in a black controlled government (such as Fulton and Clayton Counties in Georgia) that would be an example of racism under that definition. But it is not viewed as such under CRT because the sole purpose of CRT is to attack whitey. So excuses are made why that doesn't qualify. Or why "broad social structures" like giving black students preferences in admissions or such things as "cultural appropriation" that seek to control behavior of white people do not qualify.

If you actually read your own links, they discuss this in some detail.

Just because they ramble at length does not mean they are making any sense. When a black student can get into say med school with far worse grades and MCAT scores than a white or Asian student, how is that not an example of a "broad social structure" that benefits blacks? When white majority sports are pressured into recruiting or hiring more "minority" players, coaches etc. but black-dominated sports like NBA. I have never heard any calls for more player diversity in the NBA, but I have heard many such calls in other leagues. Why is that?

Don't expect to get a meaningful response your questions or comments, as they don't have them. Instead, this is the point where they chime in and say this is a perfect example of "white fragility"...blah, blah, blah. You're wasting your time.

 

[repoman]

Wassup my Niggas?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/26/us/mimi-groves-jimmy-galligan-racial-slurs.html#click=https://t.co/UA84HkMYXg

This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.

Again, not even remotely connected to CRT. You aren't "inherently broken because of your skin color"; rather, because you were socialized into a culture in which skin color is used (somewhat arbitraily) as a class marker, your perceived skin color has had a measurable impact on your social life and position, whether or not you "meant" for this to be the case.

And you take it as a given that the differences are due to race rather than background.