[Pants-of-dog]

You don't need to refuse to read a narrative to dismiss it. For instance, someone may want to claim the Irish slaves were the first ones brought by the British in America, I could read and analyze the claim and dismiss it summarily for e.g. providing no primary sources that confirm this idea. Note that this is clearly not based on standpoint theory as this is independent of the identity categories the person making the claim belongs to.

I see. This tangent seems to he no longer relevant to a discussion in CRT. I will ignore it from now on.

Since when are you supposed to be part of the allegedly oppressed group to use standpoint epistemology? It consists on listening to granting that person an epistemic privilege, that is, taking their narrative as legitimate evidence because of the identity category the person belongs to.

This does not address my point at all, but it does bring up something interesting.

Please provide a link to, and an excerpt from, a website showing a CRT scholar arguing that “ standpoint epistemology consists of listening to and granting that person an epistemic privilege, that is, taking their narrative as legitimate evidence because of the identity category the person belongs to”.

Thank you.

Then, why would you say she's wrong and whatever other BIPOC who agrees with your preconceived claim is right? The honest use of standpoint epistemology would be that it means the question has no clear answer because anything else would amount to a denial of their narrative. But then it means it's a pretty bad epistemic approach to rely on, because you are quite evidently leaving other sources of information unused.

You are making several errors here:

1. I did not say Ms. Yumga was wrong.

2. Again, one can assert the presence of systemic racism in the USA while not “denying her narrative”.

3. Your particular choice to only use standpoint epistemic in a very specific way does not say anything about standpoint epistemic in general.

Yet this is not something that would matter under standpoint epistemology. Again, it's an essentialist and subjectivist approach - that's what actually matters.

I doubt you are correct to claim that the different levels of specificity in narratives cannot be considered in standpoint epistemic.

[wat0n]

This does not address my point at all, but it does bring up something interesting.

Please provide a link to, and an excerpt from, a website showing a CRT scholar arguing that “ standpoint epistemology consists of listening to and granting that person an epistemic privilege, that is, taking their narrative as legitimate evidence because of the identity category the person belongs to”.

Thank you.

Critics argue that standpoint theory, despite challenging essentialism, relies itself on essentialism, as it focuses on the dualism of subjectivity and objectivity.[26] In regards to feminist standpoint theory: though it does dispel many false generalizations of women, it is argued that focus on social groups and social classes of women is still inherently essentialist. Generalizations across the entire female gender can be broken into smaller more specific groups pertaining to women's different social classes and cultures, but are still generalized as distinct groups, and thus marginalization still occurs. West and Turner stated that an author by the name of Catherine O'Leary (1997) argued that although standpoint theory has been helpful in reclaiming women's experiences as suitable research topics, it contains a problematic emphasis on the universality of this experience, at the expense of differences among women's experiences.[26]

Another main criticism of Harding and Wood's standpoint theory is the credibility of strong objectivity vs. subjectivity. Standpoint theorists argue that standpoints are relative and cannot be evaluated by any absolute criteria, but make the assumption that the oppressed are less biased or more impartial than the privileged.[24] This leaves open the possibility of an overbalance of power, in which the oppressed group intentionally or unintentionally becomes the oppressor. Intentional overbalance of power, or revenge, can manifest as justification for extremism and militarism, which can sometimes be seen in more extreme forms of feminism.

While the beginnings of standpoint theory are based on the critical paradigm from a Marxist view of social class oppression, a feminist philosophy developed in the 1970s and 1980s and the main focus has been on the feministic side. Other groups, as of now, need to be included into the theory and a new emphasis needs to be made toward other marginalized or muted groups. These groups envelop minorities, culturally different and the disabled or those that have a disability. When Harding and Wood conceived Standpoint theory they did not understand, when they defined it as a feminist view, that there are different cultures existing in the same social group. Many researchers are unsure of the idea of it having essentialism, as essentialism refers to the practice of generalizing all groups as though they were, in essence, the same.” Early standpoint theorists sought to understand the way in which the gendered identity of knowers affected their epistemic resources and capacities”.[29]:48 These other muted or marginalized groups have a more realistic approach to standpoint theory as they have different experiences than those that are in power and even within those muted groups differences defined by different cultures of people can have an altered standpoint. This view gives a basis that in part Standpoint Theory has a central principle of the inversion thesis and Joshua St. Pierre defined this as "the inversion thesis gives epistemic authority to those marginalized by systems of oppression insofar as these people are often better knowers than those who benefit from oppression. Put simply: social dispossession produces epistemic privilege."

Wylie has perhaps provided the most succinct articulation of second-wave standpoint theory. For her, a standpoint does not mark out a clearly defined territory such as “women” within which members have automatic privilege but is a rather a posture of epistemic engagement. Responding to the claim that the situated knowledge thesis reifies essentialism, Wylie thus argues that it is "an open (empirical) question whether such structures obtain in a given context, what form they take, and how they are internalized or embodied by individuals".[29]:62 Identities are complex and cannot be reduced to simple binaries. Likewise, she argues that the criticism of automatic privilege is falters insofar as a standpoint is never given, but is achieved. (St. Pierre)[29]

It does have quite a bit to do with the issue of standpoint epistemology, actually. You're once again wrong.

You are making several errors here:

1. I did not say Ms. Yumga was wrong.

No, you just disregarded her narrative without even saying why. That's also what calls to listen the oppressed point to: To tell someone's narrative is inaccurate, the first step is to actually listen to it and then explain why.

2. Again, one can assert the presence of systemic racism in the USA while not “denying her narrative”.

How so?

3. Your particular choice to only use standpoint epistemic in a very specific way does not say anything about standpoint epistemic in general.

I'm using it in a valid way that underscores its issues as a means to learn about the world.

I doubt you are correct to claim that the different levels of specificity in narratives cannot be considered in standpoint epistemic.

Why? Again, what matters is the identity of the narrator as it's assumed to be more objective since the narrator is from a presumably oppressed group. I think it's a problematic assumption.

[Pants-of-dog]

It does have quite a bit to do with the issue of standpoint epistemology, actually. You're once again wrong.

Which part of that supports your claim?

No, you just disregarded her narrative without even saying why. That's also what calls to listen the oppressed point to: To tell someone's narrative is inaccurate, the first step is to actually listen to it and then explain why.

Actually, I said we can see that she is describing her personal experience. And since we know that it is possible that she has had different experiences than most black people born in the USA, it is possible for her vague statement to be correct in some way and for systemic racism to be a significant factor for almost all BIPOC people in the USA.

How so?

Well, since we know that it is possible that she has had different experiences than most black people born in the USA, it is possible for her vague statement to be correct in some way and for systemic racism to be a significant factor for almost all BIPOC people in the USA.

I'm using it in a valid way that underscores its issues as a means to learn about the world.

No.

Why? Again, what matters is the identity of the narrator as it's assumed to be more objective since the narrator is from a presumably oppressed group. I think it's a problematic assumption.

No, it does not assume that black people are more objective.

[wat0n]

Which part of that supports your claim?

Joshua St. Pierre defined this as "the inversion thesis gives epistemic authority to those marginalized by systems of oppression insofar as these people are often better knowers than those who benefit from oppression. Put simply: social dispossession produces epistemic privilege."

Actually, I said we can see that she is describing her personal experience. And since we know that it is possible that she has had different experiences than most black people born in the USA, it is possible for her vague statement to be correct in some way and for systemic racism to be a significant factor for almost all BIPOC people in the USA.

Well, since we know that it is possible that she has had different experiences than most black people born in the USA, it is possible for her vague statement to be correct in some way and for systemic racism to be a significant factor for almost all BIPOC people in the USA.

And how else would you be able to prove this if not by using a different approach, and not standpoint epistemology?

No.

Yes I am. Indeed, it's why eventually debates will turn into statistical evidence and not narratives.

No, it does not assume that black people are more objective.

If they are assumed to be oppressed, yes it does. It actually has its origins in Marxism, although it has long drifted away from it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Joshua St. Pierre defined this as "the inversion thesis gives epistemic authority to those marginalized by systems of oppression insofar as these people are often better knowers than those who benefit from oppression. Put simply: social dispossession produces epistemic privilege."

So, black people have more experiences with racism and so have a better understanding of racism, in general.

This seems correct to me.

It does not say that we have to treat all black people as always and unfailingly saying legitimate evidence.

And how else would you be able to prove this if not by using a different approach, and not standpoint epistemology?

No one said you only have to use standpoint epistemology.

If they are assumed to be oppressed, yes it does. It actually has its origins in Marxism, although it has long drifted away from it.

No.

[Unthinking Majority]

The emotional reaction of fear (from conservatives who do not understand what CRT is) is all that is needed to create widespread support for censorship. In fact, it works better when a large number of conservatives do not understand what it is, since the fear is greater that way.

This lack of knowledge can also be seen in the lack of a honest portrayal of CRT when attacking it.

We see our education systems being weaponized for political agendas by both the right and left. Some on the left want to ban books by Homer or teach "social justice" concepts (activism), while some on the right want to ban CRT and other things. This is terrible. I think for public schools up to high school public education should not be political. Don't teach morals or values. For universities I suppose it's fair game.

There should be no need to ban CRT in levels up to high school because it shouldn't be taught anyways. You can't ban CRT in universities/colleges because of free speech and academic freedom.

[wat0n]

So, black people have more experiences with racism and so have a better understanding of racism, in general.

This seems correct to me.

It does not say that we have to treat all black people as always and unfailingly saying legitimate evidence.

But you have to give them the privilege of deeming them more trustworthy than other sources, don't you?

No one said you only have to use standpoint epistemology.

What happens when using an alternative approach leads you to the opposite conclusion from what the oppressed person's narrative suggests or, alternatively, an undesired conclusion?

No.

No what?

[late]

If you want to make it about numbers, let's get statistical evidence into the mix. But that means doing away with the narratives and standpoint epistemology, which is central to justifying CRT.

It means doing away with the brain dead BS.

[Pants-of-dog]

But you have to give them the privilege of deeming them more trustworthy than other sources, don't you?

Do you have an example of this from the real world?

What happens when using an alternative approach leads you to the opposite conclusion from what the oppressed person's narrative suggests or, alternatively, an undesired conclusion?

Do you have an example of this from the real world?

No what?

No, you are incorrect.

[Pants-of-dog]

We see our education systems being weaponized for political agendas by both the right and left. Some on the left want to ban books by Homer or teach "social justice" concepts (activism), while some on the right want to ban CRT and other things. This is terrible. I think for public schools up to high school public education should not be political. Don't teach morals or values. For universities I suppose it's fair game.

There should be no need to ban CRT in levels up to high school because it shouldn't be taught anyways. You can't ban CRT in universities/colleges because of free speech and academic freedom.

Two points:

1. No one ever tried to ban Homer. So it is incorrect to claim the left is doing this.

2. They are not actually trying to ban CRT because they do not really know what CRT is. Instead, things like mentioning systemic racism get banned. It is a bit of a Trojan horse.

[late]

2. They are not actually trying to ban CRT because they do not really know what CRT is. Instead, things like mentioning systemic racism get banned. It is a bit of a Trojan horse.

My prof got her PHD on slavery at the U of Virg... People didn't want to hear it, she liked to say that was why she wound up teaching in Maine.

Parts of the country are profoundly racist, and protecting that racism is what this is about, and nothing else...

[wat0n]

Do you have an example of this from the real world?

Each and every time they focus on the narrative instead of e.g. the state of academic research on these topics you get a real world taste of this approach.

Do you have an example of this from the real world?

How was Nestride Yumga treated by CRT proponents after her video went viral?

No, you are incorrect.

Incorrect about what? Its rough Marxist origins and the subsequent drift away from Marxism into postmodern philosophy? The assumptions it makes about how the oppressed are more objective?

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.

The American feminist theorist Sandra Harding coined the term standpoint theory to categorize epistemologies that emphasize women’s knowledge. She argued that it is easy for those at the top of social hierarchies to lose sight of real human relations and the true nature of social reality and thus miss critical questions about the social and natural world in their academic pursuits. In contrast, people at the bottom of social hierarchies have a unique standpoint that is a better starting point for scholarship. Although such people are often ignored, their marginalized positions actually make it easier for them to define important research questions and explain social and natural problems.

That perspective was shaped by the work of the Canadian sociologist Dorothy Smith. In her book The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology (1989), Smith argued that sociology has ignored and objectified women, making them the “Other.” She claimed that women’s experiences are fertile grounds for feminist knowledge and that by grounding sociological work in women’s everyday experiences, sociologists can ask new questions. For instance, Smith posited that because women have historically been the caregivers of society, men have been able to dedicate their energy to thinking about abstract concepts that are viewed as more valuable and important. Women’s activities are thus made invisible and seen as “natural,” rather than as part of human culture and history. If sociologists start from a female perspective, they can ask concrete questions about why women have been assigned to such activities and what the consequences are for social institutions such as education, the family, government, and the economy.

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.

The American sociologist Patricia Hill Collins, in her book Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (1990), proposed a form of standpoint theory that emphasized the perspective of African American women. Collins argued that the matrix of oppression—an interlocking system of race, gender, and class oppression and privilege—has given African American women a distinctive point of view from which to understand their marginalized status. She showed how African American women have been oppressed by the economic exploitation of their labour, the political denial of their rights, and the use of controlling cultural images that create damaging stereotypes, and she suggested that African American women can contribute something special to feminist scholarship. Collins called for inclusive scholarship that rejects knowledge that dehumanizes and objectifies people.

To address critiques that standpoint theory is essentialist in its implicit claim that there is a universal women’s standpoint, standpoint theorists have focused on the political aspects of social position by emphasizing a feminist rather than a women’s standpoint. Other work has also been careful not to lump women together and has extended Collins’s perspective to embrace the diverse standpoints of many marginalized groups (categories of race and ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, age, physical ability, nationality, and citizenship status).

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?

[Julian658]

Parts of the country are profoundly racist, and protecting that racism is what this is about, and nothing else...

late: We hear you, but the problem is that CRT makes the racism worse. CRT is an insult to intelligent accomplished black people. It is an abomination with no logic whatsoever. This theory comes from the same group of people that believe a man with a penis and XY chromosomes is a woman. It is a joke late. We are going down as a society. This is how it ends. But, who knows maybe folks like you want to end the West.

[Pants-of-dog]

Each and every time they focus on the narrative instead of e.g. the state of academic research on these topics you get a real world taste of this approach.

Please provide a specific example, thank you.

How was Nestride Yumga treated by CRT proponents after her video went viral?

I do not know. How was she treated? Please provide specific examples.

Incorrect about what? Its rough Marxist origins and the subsequent drift away from Marxism into postmodern philosophy? The assumptions it makes about how the oppressed are more objective?

The second.

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?

Please rephrase this part without insults or leading questions. Thank you.

[wat0n]

Please provide a specific example, thank you.

It's not necessary: You can see the writings by standpoint theorists themselves about this issue, as what I quoted from Britannica.

I do not know. How was she treated? Please provide specific examples.

You can read from the very piece she wrote that people attacked her. Are you going to question her narrative, that of a Black woman now?

The second.

Clearly the article in Britannica shows you are factually wrong here

Please rephrase this part without insults or leading questions. Thank you.

I see neither insults nor leading questions here, it's the natural conclusion from reading the source.

Please provide cogent arguments to defend your view of standpoint epistemology now that I provided you with quotes from the standpoint theorists themselves, courtesy of Britannica.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not necessary: You can see the writings by standpoint theorists themselves about this issue, as what I quoted from Britannica.

You can read from the very piece she wrote that people attacked her. Are you going to question her narrative, that of a Black woman now?

I will now dismiss this argument as unsupported, and ignore this tangent from now on.

Clearly the article in Britannica shows you are factually wrong here

No, and since you have kindly quoted the relevant text, people can read for themselves and see what the actual situation is. Thank you.

I see neither insults nor leading questions here, it's the natural conclusion from reading the source.

Please provide cogent arguments to defend your view of standpoint epistemology now that I provided you with quotes from the standpoint theorists themselves, courtesy of Britannica.

Since you are not making an argument in the form of clear declarative sentences, I will not make the effort of doing it for you. Please let me know if and when you will make this argument, whatever it is. Thank you.

[wat0n]

I will now dismiss this argument as unsupported, and ignore this tangent from now on.

And I'll dismiss your dismissal as a denial of the sources. Why are you so afraid to quote from the Britannica link or to listen to Yumga's own words?

No, and since you have kindly quoted the relevant text, people can read for themselves and see what the actual situation is. Thank you.

Indeed, I did and you can clearly see how the idea that the oppressed have more knowledge is in fact a Marxist one. You can also see how standpoint theorists dismiss the use of science as a way to achieve knowledge.

Since you are not making an argument in the form of clear declarative sentences, I will not make the effort of doing it for you. Please let me know if and when you will make this argument, whatever it is. Thank you.

I don't have to follow your directives to make my case. I know that you can't help yourself to tell others how to express themselves, you were doing so with regards to a Black woman like Nestride Yumga, but that only makes you look bad.

Will you finally provide a cogent argument to what's in the Britannica article on standpoint theory? What's your issue with it?

[Unthinking Majority]

Two points:

1. No one ever tried to ban Homer. So it is incorrect to claim the left is doing this.

The teacher claimed she "proudly" removed Homer from her classroom, which infers a reason of social activism or moral motive. Different and less extreme than a law banning Homer, but it is still politicizing the classroom, which we shouldn't be doing. I can't think of any books of fiction that should be unfit for a high school english classroom.

Even Tom Sawyer has the "n word" in it. That was the language of the time unfortunately. Are students too sensitive and immature to read it? I call BS, given that hip-hop is loaded with the word.

In a public school you could even have a world's religion class or political ideology class where you could learn about the different religious texts or ideologies. But it would be very different to teach kids that one of these religions or political ideologies was more or less morally suitable than the other. That is state brainwashing. No moralizing in public schools.

[late]

late: We hear you, but the problem is that CRT makes the racism worse.

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

[Pants-of-dog]

Indeed, I did and you can clearly see how the idea that the oppressed have more knowledge is in fact a Marxist one. You can also see how standpoint theorists dismiss the use of science as a way to achieve knowledge.

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.

—————————

The teacher claimed she "proudly" removed Homer from her classroom, which infers a reason of social activism or moral motive. Different and less extreme than a law banning Homer, but it is still politicizing the classroom, which we shouldn't be doing. I can't think of any books of fiction that should be unfit for a high school english classroom.

Even Tom Sawyer has the "n word" in it. That was the language of the time unfortunately. Are students too sensitive and immature to read it? I call BS, given that hip-hop is loaded with the word.

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

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.

In a public school you could even have a world's religion class or political ideology class where you could learn about the different religious texts or ideologies. But it would be very different to teach kids that one of these religions or political ideologies was more or less morally suitable than the other. That is state brainwashing. No moralizing in public schools.

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.