What, exactly, is CRT?

[KeepTalking]

CRT seems to be based on the ideological premise that there is no superiority of anyone over anyone else, which is false.

Can you explain what you are basing this interpretation on?

I don't see anything in this thread, or in any of the linked resources that in any way indicate that CRT is "based on the ideological premise that there is no superiority of anyone over anyone else". So, I have no clue why that seems to be the premise to you.

 

[Politesse]

I'm starting to wonder whether they make up alternative definitions of CRT because they don't want to admit in polite company how profoundly they disagree with the actual content of the theory.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm starting to wonder whether they make up alternative definitions of CRT because they don't want to admit in polite company how profoundly they disagree with the actual content of the theory.

Well, it's one thing to disagree with the content, if the disagreement has substance. The problem is that I suspect this disagreement is on the basis of some other, more basic rejection of some thing you and I take for granted, possibly in the orbit of empathy or social paradigms.

 

[Politesse]

Well, that's the thing. I think a lot of these people really do believe in the core tenets of biological racism, but know they'll be shooed out of the room without so much as a by-your-leave if they actually say "I think that there are intrinsic biological differences between the 'races'" so instead they say nonsense like "I oppose racism against whites" or "I just want to see less ideological brainwashing in the classroom" that they know most middle-class voters will find more palatable.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, that's the thing. I think a lot of these people really do believe in the core tenets of biological racism, but know they'll be shooed out of the room without so much as a by-your-leave if they actually say "I think that there are intrinsic biological differences between the 'races'" so instead they say nonsense like "I oppose racism against whites" or "I just want to see less ideological brainwashing in the classroom" that they know most middle-class voters will find more palatable.

The issue here is that very reason they will be shooed out: the evidence against biological racism has been so thoroughly debunked, and shredded further by the fact of interracial diffusion, that the saying of it presages a need to be in a school, not a hall of debate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CRT seems to be based on the ideological premise that there is no superiority of anyone over anyone else, which is false.

Can you explain what you are basing this interpretation on?

I don't see anything in this thread, or in any of the linked resources that in any way indicate that CRT is "based on the ideological premise that there is no superiority of anyone over anyone else". So, I have no clue why that seems to be the premise to you.

The problem is that CRT seems to feel that inequality is proof of wrongdoing.

 

[Politesse]

The problem is that CRT seems to feel that inequality is proof of wrongdoing.

To whom does it "seem" like that, and why?

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem is that CRT seems to feel that inequality is proof of wrongdoing.

To whom does it "seem" like that, and why?

Personally I do see the inequality as being caused by wrongdoing but that is not the same as being proof of current wrongdoing. More, my problem is with lack of current and historical right-doing since the wrong-doing, that allows continued wronged-ness to endure.

Them when the wronged see that they have wrongness in their life and say "we are wronged!" And all the people who did it up and died, the system is designed only to be able to right a wrong if the wrongdoer can be held to account. But they weren't, and can never be now that death has robbed us of equity.

It is an enduring wave, created long ago. It does not change the fact that we gain efficiency and progress from stopping it.

Waves like that create turbulence in our society, a d that turbulence sucks for all of us.

 

[Trausti]

I'm starting to wonder whether they make up alternative definitions of CRT because they don't want to admit in polite company how profoundly they disagree with the actual content of the theory.

Well, what use is it? What predictions does it make? Is it falsifiable? Or is just a political ideology masquerading as science?

 

[Trausti]

The problem is that CRT seems to feel that inequality is proof of wrongdoing.

To whom does it "seem" like that, and why?

If you only see things as racial, then that’s what you get.

 

[Politesse]

The problem is that CRT seems to feel that inequality is proof of wrongdoing.

To whom does it "seem" like that, and why?

If you only see things as racial, then that’s what you get.

Are you accusing Loren of seeing things only in terms of race?

 

[KeepTalking]

CRT seems to be based on the ideological premise that there is no superiority of anyone over anyone else, which is false.

Can you explain what you are basing this interpretation on?

I don't see anything in this thread, or in any of the linked resources that in any way indicate that CRT is "based on the ideological premise that there is no superiority of anyone over anyone else". So, I have no clue why that seems to be the premise to you.

The problem is that CRT seems to feel that inequality is proof of wrongdoing.

Can you explain why it seems that way to you?

I see a couple of people talking about what CRT seems to be to them, but they never get around to informing us why it seems that way to them. They do, however, occasionally go on at length about the horrible implications of what CRT seems to be to them. It is like it never occurs to them to go out and validate whether or not that thing that seems to be is true before freaking out about whatever thing they think they see there.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm starting to wonder whether they make up alternative definitions of CRT because they don't want to admit in polite company how profoundly they disagree with the actual content of the theory.

Well, what use is it? What predictions does it make? Is it falsifiable? Or is just a political ideology masquerading as science?

Seriously? All of those questions are answered up thread.

Please, at least pretend that you are paying attention to the thread in which you are posting.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

I'm starting to wonder whether they make up alternative definitions of CRT because they don't want to admit in polite company how profoundly they disagree with the actual content of the theory.

Well, what use is it? What predictions does it make? Is it falsifiable? Or is just a political ideology masquerading as science?

Seriously? All of those questions are answered up thread.

Please, at least pretend that you are paying attention to the thread in which you are posting.

translation: It has no use, it makes no predictions, it's not falsifiable/verifiable/testable, and it's just a political ideology masquerading as science.

 

[KeepTalking]

Seriously? All of those questions are answered up thread.

Please, at least pretend that you are paying attention to the thread in which you are posting.

translation: It has no use, it makes no predictions, it's not falsifiable/verifiable/testable, and it's just a political ideology masquerading as science.

Translation: I am incapable of scrolling up, or clicking the links that take me to previous posts in this thread, so I am going to pretend that CRT is what I decided it was before I entered this thread.

 

[Politesse]

Conservative skepticism:

STEP 1: "Demand answers".

STEP 2: Ignore the answers you receive.

STEP 3: Demand the same answers, again, until people get bored or aggravated and stop giving you more answers to ignore.

STEP 4: Claim ideological victory.

STEP 5: Continue to blindly accept whatever regressive sociopolitical views your elementary school teachers were foisting on you at the height of the Cold War, meanwhile responding to present issues primarily by enthusiastically spreading around whatever nonsensical claims and conspiracy theories are airing on conservative media these days.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is CRT falsifiable/verifiable/testable? Yes or no?

Well, what use is it? What predictions does it make? Is it falsifiable? Or is it just a political ideology masquerading as science?

Seriously? All of those questions are answered up thread.

Please, at least pretend that you are paying attention to the thread in which you are posting.

translation: It has no use, it makes no predictions, it's not falsifiable/verifiable/testable, and it's just a political ideology masquerading as science.

Translation: I am incapable of scrolling up, or clicking the links that take me to previous posts in this thread, so I am going to pretend that CRT is what I decided it was before I entered this thread.

translation (of CRT promoter-babbler): I'm ashamed to quote any of the alleged answers "up thread" (i.e., answering whether CRT is falsifiable/verifiable/testable), because they are obviously gibberish, and if any of them did answer this I would want to quote them, even repeat them (which is legitimate to do a 2nd or 3rd time for added emphasis), in order to prove I'm right, which obviously I'm not, as demonstrated by my inability to quote those aforementioned links/posts/answers --

-- OR (more appropriately), which links/posts/answers I will now quote if they really do exist, because they deserve to be repeated if they have any merit.

 

[Trausti]

Conservative skepticism:

STEP 1: "Demand answers".

STEP 2: Ignore the answers you receive.

STEP 3: Demand the same answers, again, until people get bored or aggravated and stop giving you more answers to ignore.

STEP 4: Claim ideological victory.

STEP 5: Continue to blindly accept whatever regressive sociopolitical views your elementary school teachers were foisting on you at the height of the Cold War, meanwhile responding to present issues primarily by enthusiastically spreading around whatever nonsensical claims and conspiracy theories are airing on conservative media these days.

Good grief. Why is it this difficult to defend CRT? The obvious flaw - and why it’s utterly useless - is that CRT requires one conclusion to everything: racism. It is not falsifiable. (PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG) It is religion. Why posters on a supposed skeptics board embrace it is an exemplar of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Politesse]

The obvious flaw - and why it’s utterly useless - is that CRT requires one conclusion to everything: racism.

Given how core intersectionality theory is to CRT (as discussed many places upthread) this is not just a wrong description of the theory but would paradigm contradict it. Racial and ethnic identifiers are only one of many overlapping factors that influence the social and economic realities of life in the United States.

 

[Politesse]

Seriously? All of those questions are answered up thread.

Please, at least pretend that you are paying attention to the thread in which you are posting.

translation: It has no use, it makes no predictions, it's not falsifiable/verifiable/testable, and it's just a political ideology masquerading as science.

Translation: I am incapable of scrolling up, or clicking the links that take me to previous posts in this thread, so I am going to pretend that CRT is what I decided it was before I entered this thread.

translation (of CRT promoter-babbler): I'm ashamed to quote any of the alleged answers "up thread" (i.e., answering whether CRT is falsifiable/verifiable/testable), because they are obviously gibberish, and if any of them did answer this I would want to quote them, even repeat them (which is legitimate to do a 2nd or 3rd time for added emphasis), in order to prove I'm right, which obviously I'm not, as demonstrated by my inability to quote those aforementioned links/posts/answers --

-- OR (more appropriately), which links/posts/answers I will now quote if they really do exist, because they deserve to be repeated if they have any merit.

Why would I be ashamed to quote my own work? Start at post #53 and work your way down from there.