You keep trying to mix value with analysis, opinion with fact. That’s why you keep failing at understanding what really is not that complex a subject.
Yes, we have different aims. Some of us want to decrease racial inequity, some don’t care, and some want to increase it.
CRT doesn’t place a value judgement on which camp you fall into, it just provides the framework to analyze whether a given action increases or decreases inequity.
See, this is the sort of thing that is not helpful. You are making an accusation here in order to try and deligitamize criticism.
Your accusation is not accurate, not in the slightest. It’s not “a normal thing that progressives do”. It’s just you claiming persecution to try to shut down conversation.
I think the assumption that inequity is a bad thing is built in to CRT. And I disagree with that assumption. I think we generally regard inquity as a bad thing because it is very commonly the direct or indirect result of prejudice against one group or another. But that doesn’t mean group differences are necessarily wrong in the absense of such prejudice. It would be pointless to judge CRT without considering this aspect.
I don’t think that you are correct in this assertion.
I’ve certainly gotten the impression that you don’t think that inequity is a bad thing. That’s why you fight so strenuously against anything that may decrease it.
Right, and as I said, there are those that do not think that prejudice against one group or another is a bad thing.
We have different values, so we can see the same thing, and can come to different conclusions as to whether they are good or bad. Therefore, it’s silly to try to make universal value judgements as you keep trying to do.
It is worthwhile seeking why there are group differences, rather than just asserting that because you are not a racist yourself, disparate outcomes cannot be the result of prejudice.
I think it’s pointless to judge CRT on a basis that it doesn’t evaluate. But, as I said, we have different values, so maybe you find it useful to make up criteria to use to judge it by.
It does have that implication but I chose to not bring it up.
The point I chose to make was: it would be more analogous if the highway sign said “Don’t want us to nag you about drunk driving? Then don’t text and drive!”
And that is like saying that ‘I will not mention that the pile up yesterday on highway 101 was caused by people not following that advice’.
I remember that there is a saying that goes like: "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts, When the facts are against you , pound the table. (or the framework )
Or in his case, someone is pounding the headline that is usually decided by the owners of the site, not what the writer of the piece decided. But as we know, it is easier to pound on that rather than deal with what the contents are.
Conservative legislators across the country are passing laws to ban books and courses that espouse critical race theory — scholarship born in the 1970s that examines the role that racism plays in our daily lives. For instance, the Idaho House of Representatives passed a higher ed bill based on some lawmakers’ beliefs that critical race theory and similar work “exacerbate and inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation and the well-being of the state of Idaho and its citizens.”
You’d think that after the white supremacists defiled the halls of the Capitol on January 6, policymakers would be compelled to uproot clear and present sources of racial division. After four years of Trump falsely equating white supremacists with activists fighting for racial justice, you’d also think policymakers would see critical race theory as a way to make sense of systemic racism in the U.S. But, alas, racists find a way to use what should be teachable moments as a twisted opportunity to perpetuate their worldview.
The conservative campaign against critical race theory has finally liberated the concept from academia. The internet has made Bell’s “Faces at the Bottom of the Well”accessible to anyone. Meantime, four out of the 15 top books on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list are about race and racism in America — not including the two memoirs by Michelle and Barack Obama.
The “debate” over critical race theory is another remarkable piece of evidence that intellectualism and racism can’t co-exist: anti-racists and thinking people are one and the same.
So I gathered. And if you’re not willing to debate it then there’s no more to say.
You miss the point. I think it often is a bad thing, but it’s the cause of the inequity that makes it bad, it’s not necessarily bad in itself. And I’m not limiting that to the direct results of prejudice, I agree racism can be indirect and institutionalised too.
And it’s absolutely not true to say I “fight strenuously against anything that may decrease it”. I support social justice in a liberal society, I object to theories that reject liberal values.
Why on earth would you assume I was trying to make universal value judgements? This is a debate forum. Values can also be debated. Do they make sense, are they consistent, do they lead to unpalatable conclusions if applied consistently?
“You do things your way, and I’ll do things God’s way.”
Forgot about this. I don’t know where you get any of that rubbish from. While it’s true that some people disagree with ‘Progressive’ ideas because of bigotry, the claim that disagreement implies bigotry is wrong because there are generally many other reasons to disagree. Yet I’ve seen this claim made 1000 times, and that’s very obviously because it’s an effective rhetorical tactic to shut down disagreement.
Thing is that you arrived to this from another poster that complained about a headline where you continue to ignore that in many publications authors usually do not have control about what headlines they put on their articles. It is very similar to your continuous misunderstanding about where to apply your falsification talking point. You miss the target completely.
And of course the point of the article was about ignorance being willfully employed by the conservative politicians in their efforts to ban the teaching of CRT. The point here is that that is clearly using the power of government to actively prosecute the ones that are happening to watch and inform others what the abusers of power against minority groups are doing.
You have it painfully wrong, this very related issue demonstrates that it is the conservatives, not the progressives, the ones who are shutting down disagreement. And not using just rhetoric to do so.
No, I said the headline/article is an example of a phenomenon I have seen many times before.
That doesn’t imply conservatives are not also trying to shut down disagreement by eg passing these laws. Both can be true.
What misunderstanding? You mean where a bunch of people told me I was wrong at great length and made fun of me, then when @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness finally posted an explanation, it basically agreed with what I was saying all along?
It basically did not, and I explained earlier too.
In that same quote it was shown that I was right, it was not a quote from a social sciences paper or a law one, meaning that you were wrong for ages (and you show here that you are wrong still) about what he said having to confront scientific falsification. It was really an opinion from a book and on top of that even in his own quote it is clear that every right wing source of that quote missed that Kendi was also pointing at policies not anything. And he also pointed at policies that can also be anti-racist.
So yes, there is a difference when just saying that Kendi declared that all differences or issues that are wrong are caused by racism, because it omits that he said that those differences are caused by policies, and that there are also others that can make a difference for the good. And there are people behind them that are not only not racist, they also do the right thing.
But it doesn’t really matter whether the opinion is published in a book or a scientific paper. If someone wrote a book saying the Covid vaccine doesn’t work, would it be wrong to disagree or ask what evidence they have? If Fox news claimed Obama spent more time golfing in his first term than Trump did, would be you think it odd to ask for evidence?
You are almost getting it, but not quite. Remember that what I said was that your statement about scientific falsifications was not even wrong. Like @k9bfriender pointed out, you do miss the point spectacularly. Because I also pointed out that then a statement in a book is just an opinion, and it can be countered by educated opinions or even evidence, lets just not pretend that by just mentioning ‘we need scientific falsification!’ that it will magically make it go your way.
The problem was to try to put the square peg of scientific falsification into a round hole of opinion. (The implied point here is that one should look at published papers to get a hold about what CRT is reporting, not what even their proponents just opine.)
BTW as I mentioned in the previous post, what I said is not really countered by what you claim here. Sure you can try to cite better opinions against Kendi, not just the ones from the right wing that still miss his point about also being policies that are anti-racist too.
It seems like you are just quibbling over terminology. My hypothetical Fox News statement about golfing presidents is falsifiable at least in theory; assuming there is some record of how each president spent his time, then we can determine which spent more on the golf course.
You are missing the part that in reality you are pushing an example where the evidence presented to show were Kendi was wrong is irrelevant when not taking into account that he also pointed at other options.
In your hypothetical, it would be like if already (hypothetically speaking indeed) there had been video of the golfing vacations Trump took showing Trump shifting gears and talking on the phone and reporters about an important issue during golf breaks. And then having Trump’s foes looking silly for attempting to show laziness when there was already posted evidence of golfing not stopping his duties completely.
Again, it is just critics omitting an important bit that undermines the claim that the opinion from a CRT proponent does not mention any other policies that are not racist.
You hypothetical is relevant by noticing that a lot of the ones pushing for a ban on teaching CRT also did look at the evidence of Trump’s laziness and they responded with “I don’t care”.
They still don’t care that they relied on misleading statements from right wing sources of info to ban what can the taught, they decided what teachers or scholars can teach based on garbage information.
I’m a neophyte in CRT, so my understanding is limited. Most of the tenets seem pretty obvious to me, and the more I learn about CRT, the more I agree. As a scientist, I have no problem with their use of the word theory since I understand that “theory” in philosophy, literature, legal studies, and everywhere else does not have the strict meaning it has in science.
I do have a bit of a problem with the Interest-Convergence Thesis. I may be misunderstanding, but do proponents of this really think that privileged classes only work for equality when it obviously furthers the interests of the current power structure?
No one has a problem with their use of the word theory. That was @Kimstu’s misunderstanding of my comment.
I’m still reading through it, but this jumped out at me:
With a foundational understanding of the interest-convergence theory in place, Part II identifies and examines four analytical flaws that diminish the theory’s persuasiveness. First, the theory’s overly broad conceptualization of “black interests” and “white interests” obscures the intensely contested disputes regarding what those terms actually mean. Second, the ininterest-convergence theory incorrectly suggests that the racial status of blacks and whites over the course of United States history is notable more for continuity than for change. Third, the interest-convergence theory accords insufficient agency to two groups of actors—black citizens and white judges—who have played, and continue to play, significant roles in shaping racial realities. Fourth, the interest-convergence theory cannot be refuted and, thus, cannot be examined for its validity because it accommodates racially egalitarian judicial decisions either by contending that they are necessary concessions in order to maintain white racism or by ignoring them altogether.
Thank you @Tfletch1. Looks like it is a relevant question after all!
Don’t thank me so fast. The interest-convergence thesis is only one aspect of critical race theory. I’m not sure all proponents of the theory even agree with the interest-convergence thesis. My reading of CRT is limited, but all the other aspects seem pretty obvious to me. I’m only interested in this aspect of CRT.
)