What is Critical Race Theory?

These are just conjectures. If you really wanted to test them as hypothesis, well, you can design surveys, studies, or look at proxy data. A willingness to sell black people to private for-profit prisons isn’t really all that different than selling to aliens.

Stories are useful in a world where society and politics are built upon them. For all the accomplishments of the Enlightenment, the most powerful country in the history of human civilization still runs on racism, concentrated power, entrenched wealth, and irrational religion. Humans are not scientific creatures. That’s not the fault of CRT, probably just human biology, and sociologically as well as episdemiolgicslly (sorry, I can never spell that word… The study of the structure and process of knowledge) it’s useful to critically analyze the beliefs underlying that system.

If science relies on falsifiability, it must itself be open to falsification – if not of its methods, at least of its practitioners and results. Politics drive science more often than science drives politics would be my (entirely falsifiable) hypothesis.

Am I “excluding” it? Or am I saying that those driven by unselfish moral reasoning have to convince those in the power structure that doing the moral thing IS doing what is best for all, if they want it to happen?

As for unselfishness, heck, being able to look at yourself in the mirror or wanting to answer your child’s “Daddy, what did you do back in the time?” with your head held high is to me a fine and worthy motivation, but isn’t it “selfish”?.

As far as I can tell, CRT is just Professional Victimhood masquerading as science. And Riemann’s comment about unfalsifiability is spot on; CRT not only accuses everybody of being a racist, but it does so in such a way that nobody can even plead their innocence, let alone prove their innocence.

Have you never read science fiction before? Science fiction tends to make all sorts of interesting and wild claims in order to make you consider current social issues. What’s wrong with someone writing a science fiction story of whites selling blacks to aliens when the aliens ask for them in return for the technology for fusion energy? It seems like a fantastic premise for a sci-fi story.

Its essential point is that racism is structural, not simply the act of individuals with ill intent. Do you believe such a thing is possible at all – that societies, laws, culture, etc. can be racist in the aggregate, because of emergent phenomena at scale, not just as the sum of individual racists?

This weird obsession with personal purity – I’m not racist and the people I know aren’t, therefore structural racism isn’t a thing – is the exact issue it’s highlighting. You’re completely missing the point if that’s all you get out of it. It’s not about any one person but the aggregate impacts on minorities.

As for how do you research institutionalized racism? It’s actually quite common to look at outcomes across demographic areas (zip codes, or countries) or to run different studies (like the name swapped resumes), addressing confounding variables wherever possible.

Did Bell claim simply to be a science fiction author who invented purely fictional though-provoking social narratives? Or did he and others build an edifice of social theory around their ideas, based on the assumption that their model of society is correct?

Again - humans are naturally very good at forming creative hypotheses, but naturally bad at testing all these creative hypotheses rigorously. The scientific method was developed to compensate for this flaw. Since CRT explicitly rejects rational analysis, reasoned discource, objective truth - how exactly is CRT testing its hypotheses?

People have used science fiction to call attention to their own societal concerns for generations. Bell’s story was in the same sci-fi anthology with stories from George Schuyler and W.E.B. Du Bois - not exactly noted sci-fi authors, who wrote stories to highlight their own social beliefs. C.S. Lewis had a sci-fi series decided to the existence of the Christian God.

This is not new and not scandalous. And it’s a interesting question - at the time of its controversy, conservative commentator Connor Friedersdorf speculated that if that choice was offered, white people may indeed have sold black people off to the aliens.

So how did the scientific method lead to LGBTQ+ rights, including marriage? Or was it due to the narratives of LGBTQ+ people which changed the minds of people who had constructed narratives which drove public policy? Because I am sure it as the later. When people found out their relatives and neighbors were gay they were more inclined to support gay rights (this was especially true for a number of Republican politicians such as Dick Cheney and Rob Portman).

How many times will I have to keep repeating this?

So yeah, just keep on with the straw man that I think the good part of CRT is where the problem lies.

You compare it to the ease with which modern White people allow Blacks to be slaughtered, abused and enslaved right now without even that incentive. And if you’re honest with yourself, you say “Seems legit.”

Also, note that The Space Traders isn’t written for White people, as some kind of plea to their apocryphal better natures. It’s written for Blacks, as a warning.

I wrote to convince a resisting class that the patterns of sacrificing black rights to further white interests, so present in American history, pose a continuing threat.

Is that a verbatim quote? I doubt he actually said that. Why would he, when Whites were not the drivers of the civil rights movement? But good job on centering whiteness in the narrative, there…

He did say “whites will promote racial advances for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest.” Which as a generality is absolutely true.

I would argue it’s hard to take your objection seriously when you are going after a science fiction story which is obviously trying to highlight how black people are seen in society when a policy question is posed. This story has nothing to do with how scientific method or rationality are suspect.

The scientific method doesn’t have a monopoly on insights. There can be multiple pathways to revelations, of which science is only one.

In politics and power, science is arguably less powerful than narrative.

In seeking justice, then, narrative is more useful than science. The accuracy rate of science is probably (much) higher, but in a social triage situation where science has failed to be a socially benevolent force for minorities, using the power of narrative to challenge the status quo is a way of reclaiming some of that power. Were there a contingent of racial scientists willing to challenge the status quo using the methodologies familiar to whites, and datasets accepted by both, perhaps that course of action would’ve been more episdemiologically pure. But that’s not the world we live in.

CRT didn’t set out for maximum rigor under a closed system of logic. It sought to identify and address root causes of very real life and death situations of real people who’ve been neglected by most scientists.

Someday in a better future maybe people will look back and think about CRT as a spark that transformed science to be a more universal force for good. But probably not. Science is just a tool, wielded more often for evil than not.

Traditional rights analysis used by normal liberals would have gotten you there. Gay marriage was not asking for special rights any more than blacks in the 1960s were asking for special rights. Wokeness isn’t what got you there.

E.g. See affirmative action.

Facts tell, stories sell.
Sell the sizzle not the steak.

Yeah, we’re going to have to part ways there - at least if we’re talking about the scientific method in a broad sense - the pursuit of knowledge through reason and evidence, including history and philosophy, and social science when it’s pursued in a scientific manner. All other “pathways to revelations” have been shown to be unreliable.

Yeah. Would I prefer a more scientific society? Yes. Are we there? No. Until and unless we get there, science itself is a disparity in power, often used uncritically to maintain the status quo (and ignored when it threatens the status quo).

CRT seeks to address an imbalance in power, not scientific purity. Maybe you don’t like its method, but hey, now we’re actually talking about racial injustice as a country. About fucking time, and no thanks to the scientists.

Actually, I largely try to adhere to that in my own life. But most humans don’t. Many of the ones I’ve asked have explicitly told me they prefer happiness to reality, when it comes to things like religion VS logic or not wanting to know something that would cause them to feel bad. That dismayed me as I’m sure it dismays you. I like science but we are not a species evolved to utilize it naturally or well.

We are apes. Correctness of thought and consistency in worldview are not highly motivating factors for most primates, us included.

Whose asking for special rights? This just seems like silly pleading to me.

Narrative was essential for LGBTQ+ rights (and the courts). Seems like CRT is basically trying to follow that same blueprint to deal with systemic racial issues.

CRT rejects the traditional liberal rights-based approach to social justice.

Anecdotes are not quantifiable, which means for the purposes of any sort of statistical or mathematical analysis, they’re not useful at all. I mean, if I say that Jesus healed my knee, that’s an anecdote, but for the medical profession’s purposes of determining whether the treatment that was administered was effective or not, it’s worthless.

Yes, due to rights based approach hasn’t demonstrated the ending of racial discrimination. But the point being that narrative, not science, was essential for LGBTQ gaining rights. Narrative has been shown to be an effective manner of changing public course. So that is what CRT is trying to use for their goals.