CRT - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15174346
"Critical race theory is an academic concept, a form of analysis developed in the 1970s and ’80s by legal scholars including Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw. It suggests that our nation’s history of race and racism is embedded in law and public policy, still plays a role in shaping outcomes for Black Americans and other people of color, and should be taken into account when these issues are discussed. It has a clear definition, one its critics have chosen not to rationally engage with.

Progressives have tried to push back against the anti-CRT wave by attempting to more clearly explain the concept, or better define the term. They should stop expecting that this will have any effect. Instead, their time would be better spent seeking ways to address the response underlying conservative resistance — worries about culpability, recrimination and displacement.

Objections to CRT are an emotional defense against unwanted change, not an intellectual disagreement. Conservatives were never debating the facts."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/why-conservatives-really-fear-critical-race-theory/
By wat0n
#15174347
Do you really want to discuss the merits of CRT? We can actually check Crenshaw's original article on intersectionality and separate the wheat from the chaff there if you want.
By Pants-of-dog
#15174365
My experience leads me to believe that most conservatives do not know what CRT is.

So, yes, the entire conversation is dominated by two dynamics:

1. Explaining how they are wrong about what they think CRT is.
2. Doing emotional labour for people who become fearful based on their misconceptions.

It would be helpful to have a discussion on its actual problems.
By late
#15174376
wat0n wrote:
Do you really want to discuss the merits of CRT?



Don't care either way.

The author said, in so many words, that this was just more Republican propaganda.

IOW, SSDD...
User avatar
By Gardener
#15174587
Critical Race Theory - as applied - fosters the belief that everyone should be judged by their membership of ethnic or racial groups, rather than as individuals.

It is absolute rubbish, and highly toxic rubbish to boot.
Overt Racism is banned in most civilized nations. CRT - because it is racist - should go the same way. CRT academics should be retrained. Possibly as garbage removal men.
By late
#15174609
Gardener wrote:
Critical Race Theory - as applied - fosters the belief that everyone should be judged by their membership of ethnic or racial groups, rather than as individuals.

It is absolute rubbish, and highly toxic rubbish to boot.
Overt Racism is banned in most civilized nations. CRT - because it is racist - should go the same way. CRT academics should be retrained. Possibly as garbage removal men.



Ignoring the obvious doesn't make it go away.

Even after you close your eyes and wish real hard..
User avatar
By Gardener
#15174615
late wrote:Ignoring the obvious doesn't make it go away.

Even after you close your eyes and wish real hard..

Did you want to discuss CRT and its racist evils, or just make anodyne statements ? :)
By late
#15174626
Gardener wrote:
Did you want to discuss CRT and its racist evils?



Why would I want to participate in your fantasy life?
By Pants-of-dog
#15174633
Gardener wrote:Critical Race Theory - as applied - fosters the belief that everyone should be judged by their membership of ethnic or racial groups, rather than as individuals.


I do not think so. Can you provide some evidence for this claim of yours?

It is absolute rubbish, and highly toxic rubbish to boot.
Overt Racism is banned in most civilized nations. CRT - because it is racist - should go the same way. CRT academics should be retrained. Possibly as garbage removal men.


CRT is already being banned.

The fact that government is openly censoring its citizens by not allowing them to discuss CRT should be worrying. But it seems like people in the USA are fine with cancel culture as long as it is anti-racists being fired and censored.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15174638
late wrote:Ignoring the obvious doesn't make it go away.

Even after you close your eyes and wish real hard..

Classical "late" avoidance of the issue.

If advocates of "wokeness," "critical race theory," and "anti-racism" seem to be acting like religious zealots who must crush all heretics, that's because they are, argued Columbia University linguist John McWhorter at a 2018 debate at the Soho Forum.

"Anti-racism as currently configured has gone a long way from what used to be considered intelligent and sincere civil rights activism to today [being] a religion," said McWhorter. "I don't mean that as a rhetorical thing. It actually is what any naive anthropologist would recognize as a faith."



'late" CRT and wokeness is not what MLK had in mind. Your ideas promote division, tribalism, and violence. There is only one human race and ideally humans are judged according to character and not skin color.
By late
#15174642
Julian658 wrote:
Classical "late" avoidance of the issue.



What I am avoiding is brain dead propaganda.

"There are none so blind..."
By Pants-of-dog
#15174644
@Julian658 seems to not understand what CRT is.

It seems to be used as a synonym for anti-racism, wokeness, being PC, et cetera.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15174677
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658 seems to not understand what CRT is.

It seems to be used as a synonym for anti-racism, wokeness, being PC, et cetera.


Individual identity is inseparable from group identity as ‘oppressed’ or ‘oppressor’.
That is one of the tenets of CRT. Do you agree or disagree?

Setting aside your sense of uniqueness is a critical skill that will allow you to see the big picture of the society in which we live; individualism will not” – Robin DiAngelo,

Agree or disagree?

Try to respond POD. It will help
By Pants-of-dog
#15174685
Julian658 wrote:Individual identity is inseparable from group identity as ‘oppressed’ or ‘oppressor’.
That is one of the tenets of CRT.


Is it? I am not sure that it is.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Setting aside your sense of uniqueness is a critical skill that will allow you to see the big picture of the society in which we live; individualism will not” – Robin DiAngelo,

Agree or disagree?

Try to respond POD. It will help


What is the context of this quote?

Please provide the two paragraphs preceding this text, as well the two following paragraphs. Thank you.
By wat0n
#15174686
I think using analogies like the following one to understand society as a whole is pretty silly as is:

Crenshaw (1989) wrote:To the extent that this general description is accurate, the following analogy can be useful in describing how Black women are marginalized in the interface between antidiscrimination law and race and gender hierarchies: Imagine a basement which contains all people who are disadvantaged on the basis of race, sex, class, sexual preference, age and/or physical ability. These people are stacked-feet standing on shoulders-with those on the bottom being disadvantaged by the full array of factors, up to the very top, where the heads of all those disadvantaged by a singular factor brush up against the ceiling. Their ceiling is actually the floor above which only those who are not disadvantaged in any way reside. In efforts to correct some aspects of domination, those above the ceiling admit from the basement only those who can say that "but for" the ceiling, they too would be in the upper room. A hatch is developed through which those placed immediately below can crawl. Yet this hatch is generally available only to those who-due to the singularity of their burden and their otherwise privileged
position relative to those below-are in the position to crawl through. Those who are multiply-burdened are generally left below unless they can somehow pull themselves into the groups that are permitted to squeeze through the hatch.


Firstly, I actually imagined the scenario and chuckled when imagining a Black, lesbian, genderfluid, poor, disabled, mentally impaired, blind, deaf, not of middle age, biological female holding all those people from her wheelchair. It's of course silly due to demographics alone.

But more importantly, the real problem with that view is that those oppression categories are simply treated as if they were part of an oppression grocery list, when they clearly are not. The daughters of Barack Obama may be Black and female, but they are not less privileged than a white male kid who grew up in a trailer park in West Virginia. On the contrary, they would normally be consider way more privileged than the white male kid for fairly obvious reasons.

And yet it's exactly what informs the general concept of intersectionality :roll:
By late
#15174692
wat0n wrote:
I think using analogies like the following one...



is a lame dodge...

The reality is obvious and quantifiable.

It's also a problem we've had for centuries.
By wat0n
#15174693
late wrote:is a lame dodge...

The reality is obvious and quantifiable.

It's also a problem we've had for centuries.


So you truly believe that a white male kid living in a trailer park in Wyoming oppresses Malia Obama?

Jesus :lol:
By Pants-of-dog
#15174697
No one truly believes that a white male kid living in a trailer park in Wyoming oppresses Malia Obama.

That is not what intersectionality says.

This strawman is based on the incorrect belief that people who believe in intersectionality think whiteness trumps everything, which no one actually believes.

A rich person has more advantages than a poor person. No one denies that. And whiteness provides more advantages than blackness. The poor white kid from rural Wyoming never fears for his life when stopped by cops while a black rich US senator would.

While some conservatives thik we have some sort of “grocery list” hierarchy, we do not. We simply recognise that people who are identified as multiple minorities deal with more oppression than those who do not.
By wat0n
#15174699
Pants-of-dog wrote:No one truly believes that a white male kid living in a trailer park in Wyoming oppresses Malia Obama.

That is not what intersectionality says.


It's exactly what Crenshaw's analogy says. A person with a single category of oppression (being a poor white kid) is stomping, or oppressing, a person with two categories of oppression (a black female daughter of a former POTUS). It's a stupid analogy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This strawman is based on the incorrect belief that people who believe in intersectionality think whiteness trumps everything, which no one actually believes.

A rich person has more advantages than a poor person. No one denies that. And whiteness provides more advantages than blackness. The poor white kid from rural Wyoming never fears for his life when stopped by cops while a black rich US senator would.

While some conservatives thik we have some sort of “grocery list” hierarchy, we do not. We simply recognise that people who are identified as multiple minorities deal with more oppression than those who do not.


Yeah, for example Malia Obama deals with more oppression than the white trailer park boys in rural Wyoming. After all, she's identified as multiple minority while the kid does not. Nevermind that she's the daughter of a former POTUS or that she can attend one of the best universities of the country to likely get a cushy job or jump into politics, while the kid will be working a minimum wage job and will be lucky to jump into the lower middle class.

It's exactly what you believe in, and it's a very stupid belief for that matter. Anyone would prefer to be the Black Senator in that scenario, it's a no brainer.
By Pants-of-dog
#15174701
wat0n wrote:It's exactly what Crenshaw's analogy says. A person with a single category of oppression (being a poor white kid) is stomping, or oppressing, a person with two categories of oppression (a black female daughter of a former POTUS). It's a stupid analogy.


No. You are assuming the positionality of the stacked people in the basement symbolizes the oppression they enact on each other. This ignores systemic racism and attributes solely to personal oppression, which is a common failing in your analyses.

Yeah, for example Malia Obama deals with more oppression than the white trailer park boys in rural Wyoming. After all, she's identified as multiple minority while the kid does not.


Obama deals with racism and sexism, the white kid does not.

The white kid deals with poverty, while Obama does not.

Obama has high levels of social capital, The kid does not.

And frankly, Obama is a bad example since she does not typify most black kids, and not even most rich black kids.

Nevermind that she's the daughter of a former POTUS or that she can attend one of the best universities of the country to likely get a cushy job or jump into politics, while the kid will be working a minimum wage job and will be lucky to jump into the lower middle class.


So we agree that it is the unique position of Obama that grants her privileges and it is not about her identity as a black woman, and therefore she is a bad example.

It's exactly what you believe in, and it's a very stupid belief for that matter. Anyone would prefer to be the Black Senator in that scenario, it's a no brainer.


You seem to be getting angry.

All I said was that you misunderstood.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 53

Tyler Durden is Zero Hedge, meaning you've jump[…]

You know what must be done, xué sheng. The ques[…]

For the last paper I wrote in English, I cited […]

Is Marxism old-fashioned?

Your response is so fucking stupid I am going t[…]