CRT - Page 2 - 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 wat0n
#15174705
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


That's exactly what she's assuming by saying that anti-discrimination law, circa 1989, amounted to opening the hatch to let those on top into the privilege floor. The symbolism of standing over somebody else is not missed either.

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


Obama is a great counterexample because it illustrates the limitations of the analogy. Kimberle Crenshaw herself would be another.

But tell me, do you really believe that the white trailer park boy will not have to deal with the same sort of mistreatment as an adult as the black female? That he won't be stopped by cops for example?

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


A position that was reached due to the 2008 election you mean.

The fact that being an Obama is what aids her should be already grounds to hold the theory suspect.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to be getting angry.

All I said was that you misunderstood.


I'm not, it just hurts to roll my eyes constantly. But really, what would you prefer? To be a Black female US Senator or a white poor boy in the US countryside? I'd pick the former without a second thought.
By Pants-of-dog
#15174707
I have already explained your misconceptions.

I am not interested in tutoring you while you continue to deny systemic.oppression exists.

Another misconception is this weird idea that oppression comes in neat and quantifiable units.

Racism is a single unit that is apparently exactly equal to one unit of sexism which is apparently the exact same as poverty: one unit.

So in someone's head, they can "add it up" and convince themselves that progressives think like this too, and then they convince themselves that we are saying that black women have a score of two and poor white guys only have a score of one.

This ignores how intersectionality discusses how these various forms of oppression intersect in different ways and have different impacts based on specific social.and economic contexts.
By late
#15174710
wat0n wrote:
So you truly believe that a white male kid living in a trailer park in Wyoming oppresses Malia Obama?



No, I believe there are no lengths you will not go to avoid the racism we've had for centuries.

It's kinda despicable...
User avatar
By Julian658
#15174734
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.

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.

POD

Welcome to the real world. Humans exist in a hierarchy and there is no such thing as equality.
The question is how to overcome the differences. Sadly, I don't think that can be accomplished. As usual the left compares the current problems with an utopia that will never become reality.

As everything the views of the XRT people have some basis on reality. We live in the West and hence Western culture is the dominant culture.

“I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define a white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less racist, or in the “choir,” or already “gets it.” White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see us as having arrived. None of our energy will go into what we need to be doing for the rest of our lives: engaging in ongoing self-awareness, continuing education, relationship building, and actual antiracist practice. White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetrate racism, but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so.”
― Robin DiAngelo,


To a certain extent I agree. I believe white progressives practice condescending racism of low expectations with the BIPOC types. However, CRT promotes a more radical approach that infantilizes BIPOC. Whites that practice CRT see BIPOC types as helpless creatures that need to be rescued. This is akin to a person that is dedicated to rescue stray dogs and cats.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15174736
late wrote:No, I believe there are no lengths you will not go to avoid the racism we've had for centuries.

It's kinda despicable...


You avoid discussion, that is typical of religious fervor. All you do is quote chapter and verse from scripture of racism. Being white is the original sin and atonement is needed.
By wat0n
#15174754
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have already explained your misconceptions.

I am not interested in tutoring you while you continue to deny systemic.oppression exists.

Another misconception is this weird idea that oppression comes in neat and quantifiable units.

Racism is a single unit that is apparently exactly equal to one unit of sexism which is apparently the exact same as poverty: one unit.

So in someone's head, they can "add it up" and convince themselves that progressives think like this too, and then they convince themselves that we are saying that black women have a score of two and poor white guys only have a score of one.

This ignores how intersectionality discusses how these various forms of oppression intersect in different ways and have different impacts based on specific social.and economic contexts.


And yet taking it as a single unit is pretty much what's implied in the analogy (people are literally occupying floors in this inverted pyramid based on the number of boxes they check), and what I'm criticizing. It's quite evidently a bad one.

Besides that, your comment is pretty vague.

@late do you have anything to add? The OP claimed people don't read Crenshaw. You're just wrong.
By Pants-of-dog
#15174770
Julian658 wrote:POD

Welcome to the real world. Humans exist in a hierarchy and there is no such thing as equality.


Which definition of equality are you using here?

The question is how to overcome the differences. Sadly, I don't think that can be accomplished. As usual the left compares the current problems with an utopia that will never become reality.

As everything the views of the XRT people have some basis on reality. We live in the West and hence Western culture is the dominant culture.

“I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define a white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less racist, or in the “choir,” or already “gets it.” White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see us as having arrived. None of our energy will go into what we need to be doing for the rest of our lives: engaging in ongoing self-awareness, continuing education, relationship building, and actual antiracist practice. White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetrate racism, but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so.”
― Robin DiAngelo,


To a certain extent I agree. I believe white progressives practice condescending racism of low expectations with the BIPOC types. However, CRT promotes a more radical approach that infantilizes BIPOC. Whites that practice CRT see BIPOC types as helpless creatures that need to be rescued. This is akin to a person that is dedicated to rescue stray dogs and cats.


This is just you discussing your opinion of people you think believe in CRT. It is not an intelligent criticism of CRT.

————————

@wat0n

You are basing your entire “argument” on things you are assuming about the analogy.

Perhaps you need a more productive criticism of CRT other than things you think are being implied in a metaphor.

Let us look at the Wikipedia article as a beginning.

    Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.[1] Critical race theory examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism.[2][3]

I assume no one has any problem with this since this is just a factual description of what it is.

    Critical race theory originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[1] It emerged as a movement by the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[4] Both critical race theory and critical legal studies are rooted in critical theory, which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[5]

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that “social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors”?

    Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that white supremacy, with its societal or structural racism, exists and maintains power through the law;[6] and second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, is possible.[7]

Do you agree or disagree that structural racism exists and maintains power through the law?

Do you agree or disagree that racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly is possible through transforming the relationship between law and racial power?
By wat0n
#15174785
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

You are basing your entire “argument” on things you are assuming about the analogy.


Yet the article was very influential, so of course one has every right to go, read the source and criticize it on its merits. It's also important because plenty of progressives seem to have interpreted in that way, since that's exactly how it lends itself to be interpreted like.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Perhaps you need a more productive criticism of CRT other than things you think are being implied in a metaphor.

Let us look at the Wikipedia article as a beginning.

    Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.[1] Critical race theory examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism.[2][3]

I assume no one has any problem with this since this is just a factual description of what it is.


Indeed, sounds like a purely descriptive text.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
    Critical race theory originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[1] It emerged as a movement by the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[4] Both critical race theory and critical legal studies are rooted in critical theory, which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[5]

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that “social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors”?


I'd say both are important, and hard to distinguish too. Furthermore, social problems are caused by more than just those four things. And this latter part is actually important, because one big mistake among CR theorists seems to be the silly belief that societal structures and cultural assumptions are the cause of all social problems. They are definitely not, and want to know how I can tell? Because even homogenous societies have social problems, and these are not necessarily caused by social structures or cultural assumptions. The homo sociologicus is hardly better than the economicus counterpart.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
    Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that white supremacy, with its societal or structural racism, exists and maintains power through the law;[6] and second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, is possible.[7]

Do you agree or disagree that structural racism exists and maintains power through the law?


No, that's the whole point of current anti-discrimination law. To, you know, root that sort of racism out.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you agree or disagree that racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly is possible through transforming the relationship between law and racial power?


Already done, Jim Crow was abolished long ago and racial discrimination is punished under the law.
By late
#15174797
wat0n wrote:
@late do you have anything to add?



Again, whining about CRT is a brain dead dodge.

It's deliberate propaganda, part of the war to bring back Jim Crow.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15174821
Pants-of-dog wrote:Which definition of equality are you using here?

Humans do not achieve equally. There is a spectrum of talent and competency. Do you agree?

This is just you discussing your opinion of people you think believe in CRT. It is not an intelligent criticism of CRT.


Describing reality is not a belief system.

Let us look at the Wikipedia article as a beginning.

    Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.[1] Critical race theory examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism.[2][3]


The above says nothing about what CRT is: For example let me change a couple of words and you will see it means nothing.

Dark energy theory (CRT) is an academic movement among physics scholars and scientists in the United States who seek to critically examine the laws of physics as they intersect with issues of space-time and to challenge mainstream scientific approaches to academics. 1] Dark theory examines mathematical, physical, and new issues as they relate to gravity..

The above tells me nothing about Dark Energy in the same manner than the WIKI description above says nothing about CRT.

I assume no one has any problem with this since this is just a factual description of what it is.


It is BS POD. It fails to really describe CRT.

    Critical race theory originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[1] It emerged as a movement by the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[4] Both critical race theory and critical legal studies are rooted in critical theory, which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[5]


Same issue here: The paragraph does not say what is CRT. It simply states it is a new approach. However, the last sentence gives a hint that the theory is wrong. CRT tries to take individual choices out of the equation with regards to problems in society. That in itself disqualifies CRT . In fact the inability to accept individual responsibility is a major flaw among CRT devotees.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that “social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors”?


The social conditions have dramatically improved and at the same time other problematic issues have worsen or remain the same. Improvement of social conditions without addressing personal responsibility is destined to fail.

    Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that white supremacy, with its societal or structural racism, exists and maintains power through the law;[6] and second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, is possible.[7]


The idea of destroying Western values is childish POD. It is clearly demonstrable that nations with Western values offer the best opportunities for all. This is undeniable! That is why all people that live in non-Western nations want to come to the West.

Do you agree or disagree that structural racism exists and maintains power through the law?


Describe all the institutions, systems, and structures that practice racism. Be specific: Tell us how they keep the BIPOC down. Otherwise, stop the platitudes.

Do you agree or disagree that racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly is possible through transforming the relationship between law and racial power?


Racial power??? Could you define that term.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15174823
late wrote:
It's deliberate propaganda, part of the war to bring back Jim Crow.

It is very sad that in 2021 a person could have such paranoid ideas and lack of understanding. This can only be explained if we assume folks like you see the issue from a religious tribal point of view. The "Us versus them" mindset that is not based on reality and explains the lack of reasoning.

The question that begs an answer is: Who benefits more from BIPOC despair and oppression? Clearly the Democrats get a lot of mileage out of racism as it means LOTS of perennial votes. Meanwhile the Republicans get NOTHING out of this. You fail to see how the Democrats and left wingers practice condescending racism of low expectations with the BIPOC types.

By wat0n
#15174826
late wrote:Again, whining about CRT is a brain dead dodge.

It's deliberate propaganda, part of the war to bring back Jim Crow.


It's ironic that you started this thread to show how people don't understand CRT but now you can't muster a defense of it or of one of its key ideas (intersectionality).
User avatar
By Julian658
#15174829
wat0n wrote:It's ironic that you started this thread to show how people don't understand CRT but now you can't muster a defense of it or of one of its key ideas (intersectionality).

That is because CRT and anti-racism is religion and there is no need to explain religion. The only thing needed is to accept the tenets of CRT is faith.
By late
#15174839
wat0n wrote:
It's ironic that you started this thread to show how people don't understand CRT but now you can't muster a defense of it or of one of its key ideas (intersectionality).



This is a quote from the beginning of the thread:

"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."

Where I differ from the author is I am quite aware that the racists know they are wrong, know that it is nothing more than propaganda, and have an evil intent.
By Pants-of-dog
#15174867
wat0n wrote:Yet the article was very influential, so of course one has every right to go, read the source and criticize it on its merits.


Yes, people have the right to read the source and criticize it on its merits. They also have the right to read the source, focus on a metaphor, make some assumptions about said metaphor, and then criticse those assumptions.

The former would be appreciated.

It's also important because plenty of progressives seem to have interpreted in that way, since that's exactly how it lends itself to be interpreted like.


Can you please provide an example of this?

Indeed, sounds like a purely descriptive text.

I'd say both are important,


No one is saying that one is unimportant.

Again, do you agree or disagree with the claim? Are you arguing that both are equally important?

and hard to distinguish too. Furthermore, social problems are caused by more than just those four things. And this latter part is actually important, because one big mistake among CR theorists seems to be the silly belief that societal structures and cultural assumptions are the cause of all social problems. They are definitely not, and want to know how I can tell? Because even homogenous societies have social problems, and these are not necessarily caused by social structures or cultural assumptions. The homo sociologicus is hardly better than the economicus counterpart.


No, this seems like a strawman. Since the article just said that CRT holds that some causes are more important than others, it is a logical necessity that the person claiming this must believe that social problems have more than one cause.

It is like saying that more diseases are caused by viruses than bacteria. The speaker is not saying that only viruses cause disease. The speaker is clearly saying that diseases have more than one cause.

No, that's the whole point of current anti-discrimination law. To, you know, root that sort of racism out.


So you think that the only relationship between law and racism is anti-discrimination law. That seems like a simplistic and reductionist assumption.

Can you please support this claim with evidence? Thanks.

Already done, Jim Crow was abolished long ago and racial discrimination is punished under the law.


So you do disagree because you think racism ended. Okay.

Can you please show that the US no longer supports racism at all through its laws in any way? Thanks.

—————————

Julian658 wrote:Humans do not achieve equally. There is a spectrum of talent and competency. Do you agree?


Yes, there is often such a spectrum.

Is that the definition of equality are you using here?

If so, do you agree that this is different from the definition of equality used when discussing rights in society? Yes or no?


Describing reality is not a belief system.


True, but you did not do that.

Instead, you were discussing your opinion of people you think believe in CRT. It is not an intelligent criticism of CRT.


The above says nothing about what CRT is: For example let me change a couple of words and you will see it means nothing.

Dark energy theory (CRT) is an academic movement among physics scholars and scientists in the United States who seek to critically examine the laws of physics as they intersect with issues of space-time and to challenge mainstream scientific approaches to academics. 1] Dark theory examines mathematical, physical, and new issues as they relate to gravity..

The above tells me nothing about Dark Energy in the same manner than the WIKI description above says nothing about CRT.

It is BS POD. It fails to really describe CRT.


This seems like a criticism of the Wiki article and not a criticism of CRT.

Same issue here: The paragraph does not say what is CRT. It simply states it is a new approach. However, the last sentence gives a hint that the theory is wrong. CRT tries to take individual choices out of the equation with regards to problems in society. That in itself disqualifies CRT . In fact the inability to accept individual responsibility is a major flaw among CRT devotees.


No, when we say that something is more important than individual choices, we are assuming that individual choices are real and have a real impact. It is just that we also assume that other causes are even more important.

The social conditions have dramatically improved and at the same time other problematic issues have worsen or remain the same. Improvement of social conditions without addressing personal responsibility is destined to fail.


Do you agree or disagree with the idea that “social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors”?

The idea of destroying Western values is childish POD. It is clearly demonstrable that nations with Western values offer the best opportunities for all. This is undeniable! That is why all people that live in non-Western nations want to come to the West.


So you think that the racism supported by legal structures is a western value that must be protected. If that is your problem with CRT (that it attacks your precious western racism), then we have different ideas about what is a problem.

Describe all the institutions, systems, and structures that practice racism. Be specific: Tell us how they keep the BIPOC down. Otherwise, stop the platitudes.


Are you saying that CRT is wrong and that law does not support racism?

Racial power??? Could you define that term.


I will let you look it up.
By wat0n
#15174871
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, people have the right to read the source and criticize it on its merits. They also have the right to read the source, focus on a metaphor, make some assumptions about said metaphor, and then criticse those assumptions.

The former would be appreciated.


Thankfully I did the former :)

Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you please provide an example of this?


AWIS wrote:Defining Intersectionality

Intersectionality is a contextual framework for examining how systems of oppression deeply intertwine and influence experiences and opportunities. As shown on Diagram 1, the systems that shape experiences cannot be separated, even though they are often studied this way. For example, a black woman with a disability does not experience her engineering workplace only as a woman, black person, or person with a disability, but instead through her own unique interaction with the systems in which she is situated.


Reads like a grocery shopping list to me. Who has a better engineering workplace experience, that disabled Black female engineer or the poor white male high school dropout that works cleaning the toilets at the office?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No one is saying that one is unimportant.

Again, do you agree or disagree with the claim? Are you arguing that both are equally important?


Depends on the social problem we're talking about. Racism is by itself a social problem, but it's far from being the only one.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this seems like a strawman. Since the article just said that CRT holds that some causes are more important than others, it is a logical necessity that the person claiming this must believe that social problems have more than one cause.

It is like saying that more diseases are caused by viruses than bacteria. The speaker is not saying that only viruses cause disease. The speaker is clearly saying that diseases have more than one cause.


And yet in practice CR theorists disregard all other possible causes and indeed some may even call you names for pointing out that, no, not every social problem is about racism (or sexism or other forms of discrimination).

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you think that the only relationship between law and racism is anti-discrimination law. That seems like a simplistic and reductionist assumption.

Can you please support this claim with evidence? Thanks.


You were asking if "structural racism" (a construct you have yet to define and whose existence you have yet to prove) exerts and maintains its power through the law. Yet that flies on its face when one considers the very existence of anti-discrimination law and things like affirmative action.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you do disagree because you think racism ended. Okay.

Can you please show that the US no longer supports racism at all through its laws in any way? Thanks.


Actually you are the one who has to prove that the US supports racism through its laws. I think the Civil Rights Act amounted to the dismantling of such a system, if you believe it still exists, then go on and prove so.

Name the law, cite from it and depending on what you find we'll be able to continue the discussion.
By late
#15174875
wat0n wrote:

Actually you are the one who has to prove that the US supports racism through its laws. I think the Civil Rights Act amounted to the dismantling of such a system, if you believe it still exists, then go on and prove so.



That's been done many times, in many ways.

Belief has not a thing to do with it...

Occasionally a blind person will gain eyesight as an adult. A building will look curved, because your eye is curved. You have to learn to see it as flat. Perception is interpretation.

You learned to see things a certain way, and it isn't easy to change.

Worth trying, tho...
By late
#15174879
wat0n wrote:
@late you can provide an example of such discriminatory laws too, if you want.



All you have to do is stop running away from the obvious.
By wat0n
#15174884
late wrote:All you have to do is stop running away from the obvious.


No, all you have to do is to name the law. It would also be more productive if you want to dismantle the system of oppression you're so concerned about.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 55

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]