Not the current power structure, but their own interests. Those may be counter to the current power structure, but instead advance a new structure that is still advantageous to themselves first-and-foremost.
I wouldn’t say it was an “only and ever” rule, I have no doubt there are some exceptions to it. It is, however, way more the rule than not. It’s evident in all those liberals who are for Black equality as long as they don’t suffer for it in any material way whatsoever. Or as long as they still get to be the loudest voices. etc.
Once again, this seems to show a complete misunderstanding of how the discussion should go. If a theory ignores counter-evidence, that doesn’t mean it can’t be examined for validity: rather, that’s how you examine it for validity.
Again: you examine something for validity by determining whether it’s supported by, and consistent with, evidence; and by determining the strength of its explanatory power. If a theory is inconsistent with evidence, that’s not a good theory.
I’m not familiar with this particular theory, but this sort of meta-criticism of it is, at least without some significant context, nonsense.
The article that coined the term “interest convergence” ended with the suggestion that “awareness” is “always the first step toward overcoming still another barrier in the struggle for racial equality.”255 Although the preceding pages have offered many theoretical criticisms of the interest-convergence thesis, **this Article heartily endorses that conclusion.
Indeed, this Article has been animated by the proposition that advocates of racial equality, who demonstrate intimate familiarity with the theory’s virtues, would benefit from an increased awareness of the theory’s vulnerabilities.
Basically what the authors points here is that that item, the convergence theory, needs to be investigated more and that the limitations of what it can and should be always taken into account going forward. (IOW, Critical Race theory continues buckos, this is not the end as some would crow about) (In fack this discussion does follow a lot of what creationists did do with papers that are critical of one aspect of a theory, not the poster that linked to it, but there are a lot of others that grasp at the straws in an attempt to discredit all of evolution in total)
The example of white judges avoiding what Bell claimed, that was deemed very important here, fell a bit flat though. Many judges from the recent past were selected by less ignorant and bigoted presidents or governors. Today it is a very different history and unless leopards can generally change their stripes, I expect more court decisions in the future to show that Judges can go back to make decisions that will rhyme well with the Jim Crow laws.
So yeah, as I told some creationists in the past, that is not how it works, and the author of the paper is criticizing what it needs to be done if one item of CRT will continue to be useful.
BTW, as I also noted in previous discussions of evolution and climate change, just one paper is not the end of history. Many conservatives work like that is the case, but that is not how it works either, hence the need for me to cite more than one paper showing that CRT was involved in not just race alone.
And how is that the fault of asians? Should asians take a knee to prevent whites from taking advantage of asian success?
But of course it is not. CRT is mostly a 2 dimensional landscape with most things put in terms of black and white. The fact that you can point out some exceptions merely proves the rule because it is clear those things are exceptions.
I don’t think you understand racism beyond a very narrow black white universe. And it doesn’t really seem like you care to. You seem to be using simple tropes and caricatures to explain away things your simplistic view of racism cannot explain.
The model minority myth is not a myth about asian success. Asian success is a fact. Clearly no single model can capture the diverse experiences of Asian-Americans. But when the most commonly cited example used to contradict this claim are the Hmong (about 2% of asians in america), then you are really trying to make your case with anecdote.
Asian-Americans are nearly twice as likely as other American adults to have a college degree. And they receive higher grades and standardized test scores in high school, even when you compare them to students of other races with similar incomes. Those are facts not myths.
How it works is, the expert in the subject agrees with what I’ve been saying all along, so if you still object you can take it up with him. I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, that’s fair enough. But it’s not really about the conclusions. I’ve just spent the last few days arguing with a bunch of people who were all insisting that the kind of methods used in the paper were wrong and irrelevant, and telling me I was crazy to want to talk about them. So you’ll have to excuse me for feeling vindicated.
Like I said, you will have a bad time when also attempting to ignore what you specifically posted before.
Not to mention that going forward in the case of one aspect of CRT, you are indeed going for the same vindication as creationists like to jump at, unfortunately for them evolution is still there in schools as what critics found vindication with was just one half of one aspect of a theory.
And so it is the pyrrhic vindication you are crowing about. As noted before to many creationists and climate change deniers in the past, one paper does not make their denials about one item related to the issue to become real.
You, uh, you do realize that there’s more than one “expert in the subject,” right? Which is kind of required, given that the “expert in the subject” is disagreeing with a paper written by someone else, who is, and this is important, also an expert in the subject? This has got to be the weirdest “appeal to authority” I’ve ever seen.
