[Julian658]

So what is the argument?

I see.

You think the POC kids are too stupid to understand that racism exists unless Marxists tell them it does, and you want them to be blissfully ignorant.

POC immigrants to a nation where everybody has pink skin have an idea they are different. They most likely know that as new arrivals they have a tougher road ahead of them. I would give encouragement and promote the concept of equal opportunity and brotherhood among all people in the classroom. In the video they segregate the children and make sure the POC feel awful. This is brain washing and is done to promote victimhood. They also make sure the white kids feel guilty about been white. The initial enthusiasm in the group is quickly destroyed by the SJW CRT teachers.

Let me ask you a question: Do you enjoy victimhood?
I believe the teaching can be done in a professional manner where hate, resentment, and victimhood are not promoted.

[Pants-of-dog]

POC immigrants to a nation where everybody has pink skin have an idea they are different. They most likely know that as new arrivals they have a tougher road ahead of them. I would give encouragement and promote the concept of equal opportunity and brotherhood among all people in the classroom.

Those kids were not immigrants. You can tell because they have English accents, so they either were born there or came at a very young age.

This idea that anyone who is not white is a foreigner is incorrect and also a generalisation based on skin colour.

In the video they segregate the children

No. They are running a race together in the same gyn class.

and make sure the POC feel awful.

No. The kids already know about, and have emotional reactions to, the racism in everyday society.

This idea that POC kids are too stupid to know racism exists is incorrect, and is also an insulting generalisation based on skin colour.

This is brain washing and is done to promote victimhood. They also make sure the white kids feel guilty about been white.

No. The white kid seems a bit surprised and a bit angry about the injustice. He does not seem like he feels guilty.

The initial enthusiasm in the group is quickly destroyed by the SJW CRT teachers.

I see. So every class should always make kids feel great, no matter what.

Let me ask you a question: Do you enjoy victimhood?

No, I do not enjoy your victimhood narratives. Though I do think it is polite of you to ask how I feel about them.

I believe the teaching can be done in a professional manner where hate, resentment, and victimhood are not promoted.

Me too, but the Republican legislators, governors and AGs banning CRT prefer to continue teaching hate, resentment, and victimhood instead of teaching about racism.

[late]

Me too, but the Republican legislators, governors and AGs banning CRT prefer to continue teaching hate, resentment, and victimhood instead of teaching about racism.

They want more of all of that..

[Julian658]

Those kids were not immigrants. You can tell because they have English accents, so they either were born there or came at a very young age.

That is true, but nevertheless they are new arrivals. Note, how the teacher speaks to this issue when she asks the children if their parents were not native English speakers. She sees that as a disadvantage.

This idea that anyone who is not white is a foreigner is incorrect and also a generalisation based on skin colour.

No disagreement, but let me ask you a question. If you migrated to China or Japan. Would you ever be considered Chinese or Japanese? If you migrated to El Congo, would you be a Congolese?

No. They are running a race together in the same gyn class.

At the onset all the kids were happy and full of enthusiasm. The teachers made the kids feel bad with racist rhetoric that promotes victimhood.

No. The kids already know about, and have emotional reactions to, the racism in everyday society.

Being a minority in a nation with a different culture is not easy. I suggest: When In Rome do as the Romans and move on.

This idea that POC kids are too stupid to know racism exists is incorrect, and is also an insulting generalisation based on skin colour.

Nice straw man POD.

I see. So every class should always make kids feel great, no matter what.

These are precious children POD. And they are indoctrinated on a daily basis.

Me too, but the Republican legislators, governors and AGs banning CRT prefer to continue teaching hate, resentment, and victimhood instead of teaching about racism.

It gets banned because is way over the top and racist. You cannot fight racism with racism POD. CRT assumes everything is racist in a Western society. That is an unrealistic barrier to overcome. Having the excuse of perennial racism provides an excuse for suboptimal performance by POC. It negates all the other positive additional things that could be done to uplift the POC.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is true, but nevertheless they are new arrivals. Note, how the teacher speaks to this issue when she asks the children if their parents were not native English speakers. She sees that as a disadvantage.

So you agree that you were incorrect about their disadvantages being solely due to migrant status and acknowledge that you made a generalisation based on their skin colour.

No disagreement, but let me ask you a question. If you migrated to China or Japan. Would you ever be considered Chinese or Japanese? If you migrated to El Congo, would you be a Congolese?

Who cares?

You seem to be arguing that these kids should never be considered English because of their skin colour.

At the onset all the kids were happy and full of enthusiasm. The teachers made the kids feel bad with racist rhetoric that promotes victimhood.

At the beginning, they were all going to start a race in the same place, which is fair.

By the end, they were going to start a race in wildly different places, which is realistic and unfair.

So yes, they were upset at how unfair the world is.

You seem to be arguing that we should lie to kids and pretend everything is fair and equality is the norm.

Being a minority in a nation with a different culture is not easy.

How would you know?

But you seem to be agreeing that the teachers and the class did not make them upset. The racism that exists in the real world made them upset.

I suggest: When In Rome do as the Romans and move on.

So, new immigrants to the USA should learn to ban or censor teachers that talk about systemic racism. Like US citizens do.

Nice straw man POD.

So you then agree that the BIPOC kids already know about racism and that this class is not indoctrination, which contradicts your previous claim.

I am glad that you agree that this is not indoctrination.

These are precious children POD. And they are indoctrinated on a daily basis.

Yes, they are. For example, Florida is indoctrinating kids by not letting them learn about systemic racism. if you care about kids, you should oppose this indoctrination. But you support it. So, logically speaking, the conclusion must be that you do not think children are actually precious.

It gets banned because is way over the top and racist. You cannot fight racism with racism POD.

Then it is a good thing that CRT is not racist.

And it is good that teaching kids about systemic racism is also not racist.

CRT assumes everything is racist in a Western society. That is an unrealistic barrier to overcome.

Provide evidence for this claim.

Having the excuse of perennial racism provides an excuse for suboptimal performance by POC. It negates all the other positive additional things that could be done to uplift the POC.

No.

You are confusing “excuse” for “cause”.

If I explain that a cop murdered Mr. Floyd because of racism, I am not saying that the murdering cop should be excused because of racism.

So when we say that a black kid gets lower marks because of the unconscious bias of teachers and administrators, we are not saying that the black kid should be applauded for it.

You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that black kids get lower marks because they are dumb, and that there is no racism, and that we should ban any discussion of possible racism in the school.

[Unthinking Majority]

Okay, point to the state directive that this teacher was supposedly following.

I can, in turn, point to actual legislation that is being forced on teachers.

The two are not comparable.

You're trying to say "well X is worse than Y". I agree with that. That doesn't make X right. My argument isn't which one is more serious, we know which one is, i'm saying it's all wrong and none should be allowed. You're defending the individual teacher based on your political bias because they aren't threatening your political ideology. If a conservative teacher stated they "proudly" removed Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Gettysburg address from the curriculum in your child's class because they had a political reason to do so I think you'd be upset.

What's the difference in an individual police officer tasing an innocent civilian whenever they feel like it and the police dept/state not stopping him VS a police department having a policy saying their officers can tase innocent black people whenever they want and the state not stopping them VS the state legislature saying officers can tase innocent black people whenever they want?

Obviously the higher you go, the more widespread the policy is and the more government coercion invoked, but at the end of the day they all result in people getting tased. The person getting tased doesn't care at what level in the government this decision is being made, the result for them is the same. For a student and parent, the same thing. A teacher is a public servant, an agent of the government. Whether it comes from a teacher, a dept., a school board, or a state legislature, indoctrination is indoctrination.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're trying to say "well X is worse than Y". I agree with that. That doesn't make X right. My argument isn't which one is more serious, we know which one is, i'm saying it's all wrong and none should be allowed.

I am not trying to say that the censorship of CRT is worse than the actions of this one teacher, since that would imply that the teacher did something wrong, which is not the case.

The actions of the Republicans in this case are censorship. The actions of this teacher do not justify their censorship, just as the ongoing censorship would not justify her actions if she had done something wrong (which she did not).

You're defending the individual teacher based on your political bias because they aren't threatening your political ideology. If a conservative teacher stated they "proudly" removed Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Gettysburg address from the curriculum in your child's class because they had a political reason to do so I think you'd be upset.

I am in Canada, and my kids go to a school that has lots of Indigenous kids. We are currently dealing with a subject that is somewhat more severe than some minor curriculum details.

What's the difference in an individual police officer tasing an innocent civilian whenever they feel like it and the police dept/state not stopping him VS a police department having a policy saying their officers can tase innocent black people whenever they want and the state not stopping them VS the state legislature saying officers can tase innocent black people whenever they want?

I am glad you asked.

As you move farther up the hierarchy of power, the racism is more systemic and more entrenched. It also requires more power to change the situation.

So, when it is just one cop, you can get the cop fired or disciplined by calling other cops. If the local cops do not discipline him, you can go one step higher.

But if each next step higher also creates discrimination, it adds more power to the discrimination and the group doing the discrimination is more powerful.

This is an important distinction to make when discussing politics.

It is also something that could now be illegal in Florida classrooms.

Obviously the higher you go, the more widespread the policy is and the more government coercion invoked, but at the end of the day they all result in people getting tased. The person getting tased doesn't care at what level in the government this decision is being made, the result for them is the same. For a student and parent, the same thing. A teacher is a public servant, an agent of the government. Whether it comes from a teacher, a dept., a school board, or a state legislature, indoctrination is indoctrination.

Which of these is political indoctrination:

1, Deciding to teach about systemic racism or….
2. Deciding not to teach about systemic racism?

[Julian658]

So you agree that you were incorrect about their disadvantages being solely due to migrant status and acknowledge that you made a generalisation based on their skin colour.

The teacher asked: Who had parents that did not speak English. As you said the kids are native speakers, so who cares about what the parents speak ar home. In fact, a second language at home is an advantage. I have advantage over other USA citizens because i also speak Spanish. Do you think that having parents that are not native English speakers is a disadvantage?

BTW, I will admit that children that grow up with non-native speakers have a different twang or accent. This was pointed out to my kids in school. My children laughed and moved on because I did not raise them as victims.

You seem to be arguing that these kids should never be considered English because of their skin colour.

They are British citizens; they are not English. IN the same manner someone from Wales or Scotland is not English. In the same manner you could immigrate to China and become a citizen, but you will never be Chinese.

At the beginning, they were all going to start a race in the same place, which is fair.

The fact that kids form a 3rd world country go to a British school gives them a massive leg up. However, these teachers see them as victims. How ironic is that? Promoting victimhood is never a good thing POD.

By the end, they were going to start a race in wildly different places, which is realistic and unfair.

It is reality POD. KIds that come form a great family with resources have more opportunities regardless of skin color. It is known As the Matthew Effect. Kids form a crappy home do poorly. BTW, in the UK many of the children of immigrant families do better in life than white males. They do better because many immigrant families have a better home that values hard work and education.

So yes, they were upset at how unfair the world is.

I have news for you POD. The world is unfair. Don't be so naive!

You seem to be arguing that we should lie to kids and pretend everything is fair and equality is the norm.

Children should be cherished and protected. No need to use them as pawns for a political agenda.

[Pants-of-dog]

The teacher asked: Who had parents that did not speak English. As you said the kids are native speakers, so who cares about what the parents speak ar home.

This does not change the fact that you incorrectly assumed that kids with dark skin must be immigrants.

In fact, a second language at home is an advantage. I have advantage over other USA citizens because i also speak Spanish. Do you think that having parents that are not native English speakers is a disadvantage?

If people are treated as foreigners because of this, it can be a disadvantage in a racist society. The exercise shows that society is still racist.

BTW, I will admit that children that grow up with non-native speakers have a different twang or accent. This was pointed out to my kids in school. My children laughed and moved on because I did not raise them as victims.

Every single person in the world grows up with an accent.

Thank you for acknowledging that racist people fear different accents.

They are British citizens; they are not English.

So, yes, you think anyone with dark skin can never be English. And England is the country of the English, so England will never be their home no matter how many generations have lived there, because of their skin colour.

And I assume you think this is not a racist argument.

IN the same manner someone from Wales or Scotland is not English.

No, because if a Welshman lived in England and had kids, those kids would be considered English after a few generations.

In the same manner you could immigrate to China and become a citizen, but you will never be Chinese.

Yes, according to your logic about skin colour, I will never be Chinese nor my descendants, no matter how many generations, because of my skin colour. You have been very clear on that,

The fact that kids form a 3rd world country go to a British school gives them a massive leg up. However, these teachers see them as victims. How ironic is that? Promoting victimhood is never a good thing POD.

Then why are you portraying the kids as sad little victims of mean PC teachers?

It is reality POD. KIds that come form a great family with resources have more opportunities regardless of skin color. It is known As the Matthew Effect. Kids form a crappy home do poorly.

I see.

You think wealth is the only factor.

Someone else in the thread said that everyone who believes that s single factor is responsible is wrong. I think that was you.

So, were you wrong when you said that there has to be more than one factor, or are you wrong now when you claim that wealth is the only factor?

BTW, in the UK many of the children of immigrant families do better in life than white males. They do better because many immigrant families have a better home that values hard work and education.

That does not surprise me, but it also foes not contradict anything I have said.

I have news for you POD. The world is unfair. Don't be so naive!

Apparently, you want to not let kids know because it might make them sad, but you also hold the contradictory belief that kids already know this.

So, your lack of logic about this makes it weird for you to be giving advice.

Children should be cherished and protected. No need to use them as pawns for a political agenda.

Then why do you support the current indoctrination by Republicans?

[Julian658]

This does not change the fact that you incorrectly assumed that kids with dark skin must be immigrants.

Yes, that is recognizing the appearance of people. If natives of the UK had pink skin for centuries than one would tend to notice that. However, over time the native population of the UK may change and the distinction could not be made. This has nothing to do with racism, it is just common sense POD. If i see a Nordic person in Japan I do not assume that person is Japanese. BTW, CRT people want to be recognized according to skin color. They hate the idea of someone that does not see color.

If people are treated as foreigners because of this, it can be a disadvantage in a racist society.

We evolved in tribes and we are trying to deal with that POD. That is why some Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants don't get along. Tribalism is a bitch. BTW, CRT fanatics like you are very tribal.

The exercise shows that society is still racist.

Racism has always existed POD. We evolved in tribes. One day there will not be any racism That will come when the entire world is mixed down to a single group. At that point we will still have classism POD.

Every single person in the world grows up with an accent.

I love mine!

Thank you for acknowledging that racist people fear different accents.

We evolved in tribes.

So, yes, you think anyone with dark skin can never be English. And England is the country of the English, so England will never be their home no matter how many generations have lived there, because of their skin colour.

And I assume you think this is not a racist argument.

This is not about skin color OD. English and Scotts are different. They came from different tribes. And the English did a number on Scottish people. They were not kind to them at all. The English also mocked the Scottish accent. Did you know the Japanese conquered the Koreans and treated them as bad as Hitler treated the Jews. Tribalism is a bitch POD. Sadly CRT promotes tribalism.

No, because if a Welshman lived in England and had kids, those kids would be considered English after a few generations.

Yeah he could become one of them by adapting to the culture. That is why I say: When in Rome do as the Romans.

Yes, according to your logic about skin colour, I will never be Chinese nor my descendants, no matter how many generations, because of my skin colour. You have been very clear on that,

At the onset you will not be Chinese because you look different and have a different culture. If you intermarry and many generations passed then you are OK. Did you know the Vietnamese thought half white Vietnamese were an abomination? Tribalism is real POD.

Then why are you portraying the kids as sad little victims of mean PC teachers?

POD a POC kid living in the UK knows he is different. However, that is different than a teacher telling him everyday in class he is a victim and disadvantaged. That is cruel and child abuse.

BTW, people in your political side of the spectrum think it is cruel to tell a fat person he or she is obese. That makes the fat person feel awful. Why tell a POC kid everyday he is going nowhere because of his skin color? That is nasty POD.

I see.

You think wealth is the only factor.

Someone else in the thread said that everyone who believes that s single factor is responsible is wrong. I think that was you.

So, were you wrong when you said that there has to be more than one factor, or are you wrong now when you claim that wealth is the only factor?

Success is related to multiple factors. You guys think that lack of success is only due to racism. That does not explain why some Indian Immigrants do better than white males in the UK. Or why Jamaican immigrants do better than black Americans in the USA.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, that is recognizing the appearance of people.

…and then making assumptions about them based on their skin colour.

If natives of the UK had pink skin for centuries than one would tend to notice that. However, over time the native population of the UK may change and the distinction could not be made. This has nothing to do with racism, it is just common sense POD. If i see a Nordic person in Japan I do not assume that person is Japanese. BTW, CRT people want to be recognized according to skin color. They hate the idea of someone that does not see color.

So you agree with CRT. Cool.

We evolved in tribes and we are trying to deal with that POD. That is why some Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants don't get along. Tribalism is a bitch. BTW, CRT fanatics like you are very tribal.

Calling me names does not change anything.

Anyway, you do not seem to disagree that people sometimes treat foreigners badly, and since people like you assume anyone who is not white is a foreigner, they end up treating non-whites badly.

This is the behaviour you like to justify as “tribalism”.

Racism has always existed POD. We evolved in tribes. One day there will not be any racism That will come when the entire world is mixed down to a single group. At that point we will still have classism POD.

Again, your justification of racism is irrelevant.

You do not seem to disagree that this exercise is a good learning tool for teaching that society is racist.

I love mine!

So you agree you were wrong.

We evolved in tribes.

Yes, this is your usual justification of racism.

Here, you are justifying racist attitudes to accents. When you try to justify this racism, you are implicitly agreeing with my argument.

This is not about skin color OD.

Yes, it is.

You are the one who said that the kids with dark skin are immigrants.

You said that. You made it about skin colour.

Do not feel bad that you forgot, Many people from the USA, such as yourself, do not notice when they make racist claims. You should take a CRT class.

English and Scotts are different. They came from different tribes. And the English did a number on Scottish people. They were not kind to them at all. The English also mocked the Scottish accent.

Yes, but since you specifically mentioned skin colour, this is not what you are going on about.

Did you know the Japanese conquered the Koreans and treated them as bad as Hitler treated the Jews. Tribalism is a bitch POD. Sadly CRT promotes tribalism.

Which time? Most of the time, the Koreans were able to repel the Japanese before they were able to really get the massacres going.

But you do not disagree that your argument is racist. Good. I am glad that I could teach you something today.

Yeah he could become one of them by adapting to the culture. That is why I say: When in Rome do as the Romans.

So you agree that new immigrants to the USA should support censorship. Should they wait to be citizens or can they start banning subjects as soon as they egt their green card?

At the onset you will not be Chinese because you look different and have a different culture. If you intermarry and many generations passed then you are OK. Did you know the Vietnamese thought half white Vietnamese were an abomination? Tribalism is real POD.

Why are the Chinese not allowed to decide that?

POD a POC kid living in the UK knows he is different. However, that is different than a teacher telling him everyday in class he is a victim and disadvantaged. That is cruel and child abuse.

So you want teachers to lie about racism and say it does not exist. Got it. Why is lying to kids less abusive than teaching them the truth?

BTW, people in your political side of the spectrum think it is cruel to tell a fat person he or she is obese. That makes the fat person feel awful. Why tell a POC kid everyday he is going nowhere because of his skin color? That is nasty POD.

So you think we should tell people things that will make them feel ashamed, because you think leftists are too easy on fat people. This is a weird justification for lying to kids, but okay.

Success is related to multiple factors.

So you admit you were wrong. Cool.

You guys think that lack of success is only due to racism. That does not explain why some Indian Immigrants do better than white males in the UK. Or why Jamaican immigrants do better than black Americans in the USA.

No one said this, so this is a strawman.

[Julian658]

…and then making assumptions about them based on their skin colour.

Yes, that is the definition of racism. To judge others according to phenotype rather than the content of their character. You are preaching to the choir. Nevertheless, ifI see a blonde in Tokio, Japan I will not assume that person is Japanese. In the same manner if I am in a small town in Scotland and see a person with dark olive skin wearing a turban I will not assume he is not from Scotland.

Anyway, you do not seem to disagree that people sometimes treat foreigners badly, and since people like you assume anyone who is not white is a foreigner, they end up treating non-whites badly.

Yes, some people have xenophobia, Welcome to the real world POD.

This is the behaviour you like to justify as “tribalism”.

Making an observation or describing reality does not mean I agree with the observation (or reality). This is a problem with the left they always ignore the obvious if it has potential to change the point of view.

Again, your justification of racism is irrelevant.

You do not seem to disagree that this exercise is a good learning tool for teaching that society is racist.

It is OK to teach some of these principles without preaching victimhood POD. However, you guys always play the victim angle because it is seen as empowering.

Here, you are justifying racist attitudes to accents. When you try to justify this racism, you are implicitly agreeing with my argument.

I am simply describing reality POD. That does not mean I agree with it.

Many people from the USA, such as yourself, do not notice when they make racist claims. You should take a CRT class.

People make inappropriate remarks all the time. They do it in front of me all the time since I was not born in the USA. However, I do not feel like a victim and that helps me to plow ahead. I don't place my well-being in the hands of others. I seek improvement on my own merit. Most people, even the racists ones can be fair if you engage them.



Yes, but since you specifically mentioned skin colour, this is not what you are going on about.

Which time? Most of the time, the Koreans were able to repel the Japanese before they were able to really get the massacres going.

The Japanese were not nice to the Koreans POD. Do not justify that aggression.

So you want teachers to lie about racism and say it does not exist. Got it. Why is lying to kids less abusive than teaching them the truth?

The job of a teacher is to teach reading, math, history, physics, etc. They are not supposed to indoctrinate children into left wing political views.

[late]

The job of a teacher is to teach reading, math, history, physics, etc. They are not supposed to indoctrinate children into left wing political views.

Partly, this is history, the real stuff, not the traditional mythology.

Partly this belongs to Civics, which is also a traditional part of high school curricula.

But mostly, you're still lying.

[Julian658]

Partly, this is history, the real stuff, not the traditional mythology.

Partly this belongs to Civics, which is also a traditional part of high school curricula.

But mostly, you're still lying.

An insult is not an argument.

Sure, they can teach history without preaching victimhood to black children. Or without using racism in the class room by assuming all whites must be racists. They could also teach math in a manner that is more attractive to disadvantaged POC without saying that math taught by whites is racist. They need to refine the message and leave the left wing marxist anti-capitalist dogma behind.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, that is the definition of racism.
…..

Since we now agree that you are making racist arguments and claims in this thread, and since CRT is decidedly anti-racist, we now understand your bias against CRT.

Now, if your support for this censorship is not due to personal bias, what is the logical reason for this indoctrination?

[Julian658]

Since we now agree that you are making racist arguments and claims in this thread, and since CRT is decidedly anti-racist, we now understand your bias against CRT.

Now, if your support for this censorship is not due to personal bias, what is the logical reason for this indoctrination?

POD: To be an antiracist does not mean that person loses the ability to reason. I gave you two examples where one can make judgments regarding the phenotype of a person. If I see an African in Japan I will not assume he is Japanese. IN the same manner if I see an olive skin man with a turban in a small town in Ireland where the population is 100% pink it would be reasonable to assume the man in the turban is not Irish. So I ask you: Is that racism?

This is another problem with CRT. Any disagreement with CRT must be racist. Is there any room for reason in CRT?

I do not support the teaching of victimhood in school. I am 100% against that.

My kids studied Marx in school from an academic standpoint, no problems, However, political indoctrination is problematic. When I was in college I had a marxist social sciences professor, but he never preached his belief system as we studied Marx.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

I already explained how you were making a racist argument. You then agreed.

Also, your criticism of CRT is incorrect, so that cannot be a logical reason to support the censorship.

This means your support of the censorship is because you religiously follow the Republican party line, or some sort of emotional bias.

[Julian658]

@Julian658

I already explained how you were making a racist argument. You then agreed.

Also, your criticism of CRT is incorrect, so that cannot be a logical reason to support the censorship.

This means your support of the censorship is because you religiously follow the Republican party line, or some sort of emotional bias.

OK, POD

Do you think it is racist to assume a Sikh is not Japanese? Awaiting your answer!

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

Your inability to support the ongoing censorship in any logical manner is noted.

Have a good day.

[wat0n]

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").

Speaking of inability to support claims, will @Pants-of-dog ever respond to the above?