[wat0n]

Like I said, everyone can read for themselves thanks to your work.

If you have any have any clear criticisms about CRT, please let me know.

Also, I will continue to ignore your questions about my personal behaviour, since they are irrelevant.

Again, is there any factually incorrect information about standpoint theory in that Britannica's article?

[Julian658]

Allow me to apologise in advance for asking a really dumb question. But is there any chance you could stop lying for a while?

You yourself said that hate crimes and racism is worse. Are you implying that racism is not as bad as in the past?

late: At least try to be like POD. He sort of pretends to have a discussion.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, is there any factually incorrect information about standpoint theory in that Britannica's article?

Is there?

————————

There is already pushback against Republican censorship:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/edu ... 640192002/

[wat0n]

Is there?

You tell me. Is it true that standpoint theory was initially based from a loose Marxist idea? At least Britannica seems to claim so ("Standpoint theory, a feminist theoretical perspective that argues that knowledge stems from social position. The perspective denies that traditional science is objective and suggests that research and theory have ignored and marginalized women and feminist ways of thinking. The theory emerged from the Marxist argument that people from an oppressed class have special access to knowledge that is not available to those from a privileged class. In the 1970s feminist writers inspired by that Marxist insight began to examine how inequalities between men and women influence knowledge production. Their work is related to epistemology, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature and origins of knowledge, and stresses that knowledge is always socially situated. In societies stratified by gender and other categories, such as race and class, one’s social positions shape what one can know").

Is it true standpoint epistemology is not quite in agreement with the scientific method? Again, the article would suggest so too ("Standpoint theorists also question objective empiricism—the idea that science can be objective through rigorous methodology. For instance, Harding stated that scientists have ignored their own androcentric and sexist research methods and results, despite their claims of neutrality, and that recognizing the standpoint of knowledge-producers makes people more aware of the power inherent in positions of scientific authority. According to standpoint theorists, when one starts from the perspective of women or other marginalized people, one is more likely to acknowledge the importance of standpoint and to create knowledge that is embodied, self-critical, and coherent").

[Unthinking Majority]

Agin, she did not ban Homer any more than a teacher who switches textbooks from one semester to another.

You're well aware this isn't true. I've never heard of a teacher proudly switching out a textbook. The reason was moral and political.

So, on the one hand, we have a single teacher who changed her curriculum to use books that reflected her students’s experiences more than The Odyssey. The students are more than welcome to read The Odyssey and discuss it in class even though it is not part of the official curriculum.

On the other hand, we have multiple states, legislators, governors, and attorney generals all using their state power to enforce censorship on local school boards. Teachers, other educators, and students are now legally barred from discussing, for example, systemic racism.

I'm not trying to equate the 2 cases. Obviously conservatives using laws to ban things for political reasons is more serious than an individual teacher or dept moralizing curriculum.

With laws banning CRT, you would not be able to have a world’s religions class where you taught, for example, that Christians are being oppressed by Muslim governments in MENA countries, since it is illegal to discuss how one group favoured by the state can use systemic and state power to oppress another.

In public schools I think it's fine to talk about obvious cases of systemic racism from history (holocaust, slavery), just don't teach it trying to indoctrinate students with some kind of activist spin on things, the same with current events.

The whole CRT and systemic racism ban is stupid. What we should be worried about is more what I'm saying, which is political activism by public school teachers and curriculum, regardless of ideology of the teacher.

[Unthinking Majority]

Is Britannica incorrect too? Or you'll just haplessly whine about how everyone but progressives can't understand CRT even when in reality its foundations are being laid bare for you to see, as I'm doing with its radical subjectivist epistemology right now?

Do you agree with their views on science?

Well in regards to the bellow...

Britannica wrote:
Standpoint theory, a feminist theoretical perspective that argues that knowledge stems from social position. The perspective denies that traditional science is objective and suggests that research and theory have ignored and marginalized women and feminist ways of thinking. The theory emerged from the Marxist argument that people from an oppressed class have special access to knowledge that is not available to those from a privileged class. In the 1970s feminist writers inspired by that Marxist insight began to examine how inequalities between men and women influence knowledge production. Their work is related to epistemology, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature and origins of knowledge, and stresses that knowledge is always socially situated. In societies stratified by gender and other categories, such as race and class, one’s social positions shape what one can know.

Women, and people of different economic, racial backgrounds etc will tend to have different views on subjective matters (ie: history is always taught from certain perspectives, and some perspectives will be ignored or focused on more than others). There's nothing controversial about this, so in that sense the standpoint theory is correct and I agree with that postmodern assumption. In terms of hard science, science is objective. The laws of nature don't change based on your group identity. The atomic weight of an element or the the laws of physics etc don't change for anyone depending on your social/economic viewpoint.

If some teachers are teaching that natural science (not social science, some of which is subjective) can change depending on your group identity they would have to provide some kind of evidence for that claim, otherwise they're teaching lies, which shouldn't be allowed for obvious reasons. It's a postmodernist position that i've never understood because i've never heard any good examples.

[wat0n]

Well in regards to the bellow...



Women, and people of different economic, racial backgrounds etc will tend to have different views on subjective matters (ie: history is always taught from certain perspectives, and some perspectives will be ignored). There's nothing controversial about this, so in that sense the standpoint theory is correct and I agree with that postmodern assumption. In terms of hard science, science is objective. The laws of nature don't change based on your group identity. The atomic weight of an element or the the laws of physics etc don't change for anyone depending on your social/economic viewpoint.

If some teachers are teaching that natural science (not social science, some of which is subjective) can change depending on your group identity they would have to provide some kind of evidence for that claim, otherwise they're teaching lies, which shouldn't be allowed for obvious reasons. It's a postmodernist position that i've never understood because i've never heard any good examples.

It depends on the domain indeed, but whether there is systemic racism or not should not be a subjective matter, given its definition. You could claim however that we lack information to make that call, but that's a different matter.

[Gardener]

No, this is an incorrect caricature that I have already addressed in this thread several times.

You have ducked teh question serveral times.

Please show that there is no evidence supporting CRT at all.

How can I prove a negative ? It is down to YOU - as a proponent of CFH - to provide supporting evidence of the core beliefs of CRH. (for example, what evidence can you provide to show that disparities between Black performance and White performance is down to racism, as opposed to - say - culture and upbringing ? )

Please show that there is zero evidence for racism today in the USA.

Why should I do that, when I never made that claim ? I repeat my earlier challenge: provide proof that social differences are caused by racism ?

[Gardener]

.....It is not necessarily true that only one is correct. If, for example, Ms, Yumga is a rich immigrant who literally just got off the plane, she would be correct to claim that she has never dealt with systemic racism in the USA and at the dame time, black people who do live in the USA are also correct when they claim that there is systemic racism.

That merely suggests that it is WEALTH that can cause inequality of outcome, and NOT that it is race !

[late]

late: At least try to be like POD. He sort of pretends to have a discussion.

While you fake it.

[Julian658]

While you fake it.

You and POD avoid an honest discussion at all costs. Ad Hominem is not an argument.

CRT is propaganda to end Western culture. It curriculum is 99% political; worse than living in MAO China. It is OK if you do not have any arguments, no big deal. I suspect you believe in CRT from the point of view of faith.

[late]

CRT is propaganda to end Western culture.

You are projecting again...

The racists need some dumb excuse to defend racism, and that's it.

Btw, you don't have an argument, brain dead propaganda does not an argument make. Repeating it a million times doesn't make it any less idiotic.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're well aware this isn't true. I've never heard of a teacher proudly switching out a textbook. The reason was moral and political.

Her emotional state is irrelevant. Her motives are irrelevant. The fact is that this is only censorship if you define curriculum changes as censorship, in which case, all teachers are constantly censoring books.

I'm not trying to equate the 2 cases. Obviously conservatives using laws to ban things for political reasons is more serious than an individual teacher or dept moralizing curriculum.

I did not think you had.

But I will admit that this was a good opportunity to highlight the vast and radical differences between the two cases. One is censorship and one is not.

In public schools I think it's fine to talk about obvious cases of systemic racism from history (holocaust, slavery), just don't teach it trying to indoctrinate students with some kind of activist spin on things, the same with current events.

The whole CRT and systemic racism ban is stupid. What we should be worried about is more what I'm saying, which is political activism by public school teachers and curriculum, regardless of ideology of the teacher.

All curricula are political. There is no purely objective and purely balanced way of teaching. A lot of it is unconscious or implicit, instead of overt political teachings, but it is still always there.

Even the more objective things, like hard sciences and math, will have politics in their teaching even if they do not have any in the subject matter itself.

————————-

You have ducked teh question serveral times.

If it was a loaded question based on an incorrect caricature of CRT, I probably ignored it and explained it how it was based on a caricature.

Please repeat your question, if you wish.

How can I prove a negative ? It is down to YOU - as a proponent of CFH - to provide supporting evidence of the core beliefs of CRH. (for example, what evidence can you provide to show that disparities between Black performance and White performance is down to racism, as opposed to - say - culture and upbringing ? )

It is easy to prove a negative. I can, for example, prove I did not kill Adolf Hitler by showing that I was not born at the time.

Please provide evidence that CRT is incorrect. Thank you.

Why should I do that, when I never made that claim ? I repeat my earlier challenge: provide proof that social differences are caused by racism ?

Then please clarify your argument. Thank you.

That merely suggests that it is WEALTH that can cause inequality of outcome, and NOT that it is race !

In reality, it is both.

Plus, race also effects wealth, so it is race, and wealth, and race affecting wealth, and a few other factors.

[Gardener]

All curricula are political. There is no purely objective and purely balanced way of teaching. A lot of it is unconscious or implicit, instead of overt political teachings, but it is still always there.

Even the more objective things, like hard sciences and math, will have politics in their teaching even if they do not have any in the subject matter itself.

————————-

Can you give me an example of how Math's can be political ?

If it was a loaded question based on an incorrect caricature of CRT, I probably ignored it and explained it how it was based on a caricature.

Please repeat your question, if you wish.

I merely stated that CRH relied on anecdote, and avoided science wherever possible. Indeed, it was anti-science. You claim that this is a caricature; I challenge that allegation.

It is easy to prove a negative. I can, for example, prove I did not kill Adolf Hitler by showing that I was not born at the time.
Please provide evidence that CRT is incorrect. Thank you.

You obviously have NO idea what is meant by 'proving a negative'.

In reality, it is both.
Plus, race also effects wealth, so it is race, and wealth, and race affecting wealth, and a few other factors.

Those assumptions are NOT proven by your example. You are ASSUMING the reasons, but have no actual EVIDENCE for them.

Once more, we see that CFH is an act of faith. It is religion, if not actually a cult.

[Pants-of-dog]

Can you give me an example of how Math's can be political ?

Yes.

I merely stated that CRH relied on anecdote, and avoided science wherever possible. Indeed, it was anti-science. You claim that this is a caricature; I challenge that allegation.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Those assumptions are NOT proven by your example. You are ASSUMING the reasons, but have no actual EVIDENCE for them.

Once more, we see that CFH is an act of faith. It is religion, if not actually a cult.

Which part of my claim was wrong?

There are many things that affect how much or little oppression you receive from the state in the USA.

One of them is race. Do you need evidence for this claim?

[Julian658]

You are projecting again...

The racists need some dumb excuse to defend racism, and that's it.

Btw, you don't have an argument, brain dead propaganda does not an argument make. Repeating it a million times doesn't make it any less idiotic.

There is no projection late:
From page 9 of the CRT math curriculum.

CENTER ETHNOMATHEMATICS


• Identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/up ... TRIDE1.pdf

Indoctrination of children is something MAO or Hitler would do late.

[Pants-of-dog]

Republicans are indoctrinating kids by not letting them hear or talk about systemic racism.

[late]

Identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/up ... TRIDE1.pdf

Indoctrination of children is something MAO or Hitler would do late.

Actually, that suggests we unwind the old propaganda...

You need lies that aren't brain dead, seriously, this is way too Forest Gump...

[Julian658]

Actually, that suggests we unwind the old propaganda...

You need lies that aren't brain dead, seriously, this is way too Forest Gump...

Let's assume for a moment that before CRT schools were indoctrinating children with pro USA propaganda. Fighting propaganda with propaganda of your won is not the answer. BY the same token fighting racism with racism does not work either. Things were working quite well: Prayer was removed from schools so kids were not uncomfortable. The pledge is now gone in most schools so kids are not upset. And now you guys want to introduce indoctrination that makes a lot of kids very uncomfortable.

Here is what a strong mom had to say about CRT in a school board meeting. Like POD you will not have the guts to look at the video.

[Pants-of-dog]

The first claim this woman makes is that children will be separated by their skin colour.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.