CRT - Page 53 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15180106
wat0n wrote:
that was a non-response.



It is more than your White Supremacist propaganda deserves.
By wat0n
#15180110
late wrote:It is more than your White Supremacist propaganda deserves.


And more dishonesty, ironically you stand with them when it comes to antisemitism and the epistemic approach from white supremacists is not radically different from that by CRT advocates (they are also keen on relying on narratives) :roll:
By late
#15180116
wat0n wrote:
And more dishonesty, ironically you stand with them when it comes to antisemitism and the epistemic approach from white supremacists is not radically different from that by CRT advocates (they are also keen on relying on narratives)



Lying won't help.
By Pants-of-dog
#15180217
wat0n wrote:Targeting those ideas implies targeting CRT itself.


Targeting those ideas implies many things, including targeting progressives, anti-racist, BIPOC kids, and equality.

And you are still agreeing with my argument and the OP.

Apparently, anything that can be inferred as being associated with CRT is a good candidate for being banned,

Furthermore, the goal of those who seek to ban CRT from schools seems to fight against efforts to push some very specific narratives about topics like systemic racism in the curriculum.


Yes. The goal seems to be to stop discussing systemic racism at all, and convince white parents that any such discussions are racist and people should vote Republican.

In other words, it is a manufactured controversy used for electioneering and silencing the opposition.

And this is apparently justified because some people believe in the non-existence of systemic racism.
By wat0n
#15180240
Pants-of-dog wrote:Targeting those ideas implies many things, including targeting progressives, anti-racist, BIPOC kids, and equality.


Not really, even more so since CRT itself opposes equality before the law for example. Furthermore, I was quite specific about what "ideas" I was referring to.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you are still agreeing with my argument and the OP.

Apparently, anything that can be inferred as being associated with CRT is a good candidate for being banned,


No, the OP claimed people criticize CRT without reading about it and this thread shows this is manifestly untrue.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. The goal seems to be to stop discussing systemic racism at all, and convince white parents that any such discussions are racist and people should vote Republican.

In other words, it is a manufactured controversy used for electioneering and silencing the opposition.

And this is apparently justified because some people believe in the non-existence of systemic racism.


I don't doubt Republicans are aiming for political gains, just like Democrats are by playing the same game.

That doesn't mean CRT is above criticism, although I'm not surprised you wish to censor CRT critics since you have been unable to defend some of its key tenets ITT.
By Pants-of-dog
#15180243
If the argument is that CRT opposes equality before the law, evidence should be presented to support such a claim.
By wat0n
#15180245
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the argument is that CRT opposes equality before the law, evidence should be presented to support such a claim.


UCLA School of Public Affairs wrote:...

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color. CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege. CRT also recognizes that liberalism and meritocracy are often stories heard from those with wealth, power, and privilege. These stories paint a false picture of meritocracy; everyone who works hard can attain wealth, power, and privilege while ignoring the systemic inequalities that institutional racism provides.

...


This is CRT 101. Maybe you are the one who hasn't actually bothered to read about them.
By Pants-of-dog
#15180246
So we see that CRT does not oppose equality before the law.

Instead it supports equality before the law and points out that this ideal is impossible in the USA.
By wat0n
#15180248
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we see that CRT does not oppose equality before the law.

Instead it supports equality before the law and points out that this ideal is impossible in the USA.


No, it opposes equality before the law by opposing the idea that the law should be neutral.
By Pants-of-dog
#15180250
As shown in the quoted text, CRT acknowledges that the legal system is supposed to neutral and colorblind. CRT also notes that actors on the legal system use this supposed “ liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege”, and because of this, justice cannot truly be neutral and colorblind as CRT advocates, BIPOC people and other people unfairly treated by the justice system would like it to be.
By wat0n
#15180252
Pants-of-dog wrote:As shown in the quoted text, CRT acknowledges that the legal system is supposed to neutral and colorblind. CRT also notes that actors on the legal system use this supposed “ liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege”, and because of this, justice cannot truly be neutral and colorblind as CRT advocates, BIPOC people and other people unfairly treated by the justice system would like it to be.


No, that's also not what the text reads. What it reads, is that neutrality of the law is supposedly a vehicle for white supremacy and therefore the law should not attempt to be neutral.
By Pants-of-dog
#15180253
There are two differing interpretations of a text.

It is highly unlikely that one person is going to convince the other of a particular interpretation.

Fortunately, the text has been quoted in the thread, so readers can simply read it for themselves and decide for themselves.

This is why we should be grateful when people provide the actual evidence since it provides an opportunity for each of us to make up our own minds.
User avatar
By Unthinking Majority
#15180322
PataOneil wrote:I have no problem with you thinking that anti-racists who are bigots are also hypocrites. This, of course, does not remove the validity of the anti-racist movement... or even the truth contained in the message of those whom, you judge to be hypocrites in this matter. People are subject to all manner of weakness... each and every one of us. This is why compassion in social interaction is so important.


Well of course, any decent human being who isn't a raging racist should consider themselves an anti-racist, myself included. And again I have no issues with CRT being caught along any other social/political theory.

I am curious though, the comment stereotyping white people... that was at the beginning of a longer citation. Do you happen to remember what the rest of the quote was about... without going back to check?

It was a number of days ago so no i don't recall.
User avatar
By Gardener
#15181542
Pants-of-dog wrote: ...Apparently, anything that can be inferred as being associated with CRT is a good candidate for being banned,

In line with all other forms of racism. (and CRH is most definitely a racist hypothesis)


Yes. The goal seems to be to stop discussing systemic racism at all, and convince white parents that any such discussions are racist and people should vote Republican.

Stop discussion of systemic racism ? Well, yes, at education below University level. Just as - in schools - discussion of Flat Earth Hypothesis and Nazi Eugenics is discouraged. In the case of CRH, the belief that discussion of it are racist are entirely accurate.


And this is apparently justified because some people believe in the non-existence of systemic racism.

And THAT is ENTIRELY justified, because systemic racism does not exist in America. Or at least, there is no objective evidence to prove that it does.
By Pants-of-dog
#15181547
Gardener wrote:In line with all other forms of racism. (and CRH is most definitely a racist hypothesis)



Stop discussion of systemic racism ? Well, yes, at education below University level. Just as - in schools - discussion of Flat Earth Hypothesis and Nazi Eugenics is discouraged. In the case of CRH, the belief that discussion of it are racist are entirely accurate.


Please show that critical race theory is racist.

And THAT is ENTIRELY justified, because systemic racism does not exist in America. Or at least, there is no objective evidence to prove that it does.


Since we have already discussed examples of systemic racism in this very thread, this is clearly incorrect.
User avatar
By Gardener
#15183813
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please show that critical race theory is racist.

CRT describes everybody in terms of their racial groupings, and allocates characteristics based on that grouping. This is inherently racist.



Since we have already discussed examples of systemic racism in this very thread, this is clearly incorrect.

I don't think they HAVE been discussed; merely blankly stated. There HAS been examples of racial inequity, but there has been NO evidence that this is down to white racism, as opposed to -say - black 'culture'. CRT brushes ALL such discussions under the carpet WITHOUT any scientific discussions (indeed, it poo-pooh's scientific analysis in favour of fairy tales), and it's proponents just accuse you of being racist (without evidence) for even proposing it.

America is the most non-racist country on the planet. The unproven accusations of 'systemic racism', based purely on inequity rather than analytic evidence, merely belies CRT's origins: Marxist Theory of oppression.

Here's another thing; modern proponents of CRT suggest that being non-racist is not enough. To be innocent of racism, you have to actively lobby against racism, and indulge in personal Maoist 'struggle sessions'. To fail to do this means that you are passively accepting 'the racist system', and therefore that you are a racist.

This is typical of a philosophy that rejects formal logic and the scientific method and believes in fairy tales. It's like saying that unless you actively fight against Burglary, then you are yourself a Burglar !
User avatar
By Fasces
#15183819
Gardener wrote:RT describes everybody in terms of their racial groupings, and allocates characteristics based on that grouping. This is inherently racist.


Tell me you don't know what CRT is without telling me you don't know what CRT is.

CRT is a very simple idea:

1. Institutions, specifically institutions of law and state power, were established by racist, often explicitly so, men to achieve racist, often explicitly so, objectives.

2. These same institutions still exist today, and their racist origins perpetuate racist outcomes.

That's all CRT is. A framework of analysis for contemporary problems based on those two assumptions.

wat0n wrote:neutrality of the law is supposedly a vehicle for white supremacy and therefore the law should not attempt to be neutral.


More specifically, it reads that neutrality of the law does nothing to close existing gaps (wealth gaps, achievement gaps, etc) that are the resulting ripple effects of historical racism (this is CRT), and as a result, some argue that doing nothing perpetuates those gaps indefinitely (or more specifically, for ~228 years) (this is not CRT, but some activists using a CRT framework advocate for policies which aim to close these gaps sooner than they otherwise would).
By wat0n
#15183843
Fasces wrote:Tell me you don't know what CRT is without telling me you don't know what CRT is.

CRT is a very simple idea:

1. Institutions, specifically institutions of law and state power, were established by racist, often explicitly so, men to achieve racist, often explicitly so, objectives.

2. These same institutions still exist today, and their racist origins perpetuate racist outcomes.

That's all CRT is. A framework of analysis for contemporary problems based on those two assumptions.


Big genetic fallacy at that, in any event CRT has more assumptions than those as I showed ITT.

Fasces wrote:More specifically, it reads that neutrality of the law does nothing to close existing gaps (wealth gaps, achievement gaps, etc) that are the resulting ripple effects of historical racism (this is CRT), and as a result, some argue that doing nothing perpetuates those gaps indefinitely (or more specifically, for ~228 years) (this is not CRT, but some activists using a CRT framework advocate for policies which aim to close these gaps sooner than they otherwise would).


You don't need to do away with neutrality of the law to close socioeconomic gaps.
By late
#15183852
wat0n wrote:

You don't need to do away with neutrality of the law to close socioeconomic gaps.



Are you still beating that greasy stain on the road that once upon a time was a horse???

They have treatments now for compulsive/obsessives.
  • 1
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55

They're starting that in Thailand, now, although […]

O’Toole conceded defeat early today.

Did You Get Vaccinated?

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1440182825[…]

A link to an article about it . Nixon’s New Fede[…]