McWhorter actually has a recent piece out addressing the "CRT hysteria": YOU ARE NOT A RACIST TO CRITICIZE CRITICAL RACE THEORY.: Dismiss those pretending that if you don't like what's happening in our schools, you're a jingoistic moron who doesn't want kids to learn about racism.

Where he argues that it actually isn't something that's made up by the right. But I don't think McWhorter is pandering. He has just recently started some stuff for subscribers only on his substack that's just audio of him reading his pieces- but everything has been free to read. Obviously he gets paid when published in The Atlantic or whatever or when he appears on Bill Maher-- but I think he's a true believer.

That doesn't quite engage with the argument though. Black conservativism is a pretty big group of people. Something like 40% of blacks identify as conservative, but vote for the Democratic Party because of the Civil Rights Act.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...te-man/306774/

So yes teaching self determination is good in the abstract and all things being equal everyone should be more self reliant and self empowered, but self empowerment as a movement means potential downsides, just like talking about structural racism has a potential downside of making people fatalistic. People accused Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates of being fatalistic and pessimistic and reading his books you could definitely see a current of thought that swallowed up all hope of defeating racism and reaching a better kind of life. You definitely see a lot of victim blaming in those who'd want to preach self empowerment as well. It's not all learning about changing oil and tires

OK. But the problem is, you seem to want this to be the only solution in schools, and for there to be no discussion of the racism that still exists, as if ignoring it and being better solves all the existing problems.

Exactly. IHIV wants to skip step 2 entirely, and jump right to the promised land of 3.

This is a very nuanced argument that certainly IHIV would never engage with and I am not sure Lucky cares to either.

For example when Canada relocated Indigenous peoples from all the best and most fertile grounds and placed them literally, in some cases on barren rock lands with no ability to hunt or gather we triggered a generational problem that has lead to mass suicide, drug abuse and other issues.

You could get IHIV to acknowledge the initial wrong but subsequent generations should just pull up their boot socks.

And without a doubt the Cosby, IHIV message of everyone focusing on pulling up their boot socks and the few 'escape' stories of you get of the indigenous who do escape their circumstances is great, and they would never have done if they did not try.

So no one is saying they should not try nor are they saying that messaging is wrong.

However there is a certain 'type', lets call them a Steven Miller type who weaponizes that to suggest that is the only/main/ideal way to escape their circumstance and NOT instead addressing the core injustice and underlying issues that caused this.

IHIV would put the blame on the parents, in generation 2 for their kids failure while ignoring they still live on that rock and still have very little opportunity.

They try to establish the 'exception' (the person who does escape) as the rule while ignoring the masses who fail to escape or acting as if their is some inherent defect in that group that they 'just need to accept responsibility for'.

The **** he does. He's made it abundantly clear that he wants to pretend step one is step 3, and thereby just stay in step 1.

Ironically enough I did respond to that post.

A clear example of cognitive dissonance would be when anti-CRTers say stuff like there is a deeply felt cult of victimology that grips the entire black community. That's the reductive broad brush racism they pretend to be against.... except of course when it confirms their priors. Simply pointing out inconsistencies fairly is not cognitive dissonance, no matter how much you need/wish it to be.

I don't know why what you think about the drug war is relevant. I would think you you are not informed enough to have a meaningful opinion on the laws just like you admitted wrt to voting rights. But given your defense of Jim Crow style voting laws, it's hard to imagine anybody caring what you think about the drug war.

Just filled out a diversity survey for a job application. Three questions about race, gender and ethnicity. Six questions about what kind of veteran status I could have.

I have no problem teaching kids what it means to be racist, what stereotypes are, what prejudices are, and what racial discrimination is.

It's not a point of "disagreement" that Black people get arrested more often for drugs despite similar usage rates, and that Black people get harsher sentences for the same crimes. Those are basic facts, and they are substantial injustices baked into the government that keep Black people poor.

Christians think thier ideology is perfect, just like the wokesters. Problem is, you have to accept all the premises in order for it to be perfect. There's no such thing as valid criticism of Christianity to Christians just like there's no such thing as well as criticism of critical race theory to the wokesters.

What are the premises of woksterism?

I agree more with Bobo there.

There is a strong call with IHIV and being lead by Steven Miller types to now 'jump to a colour blind methodology'.

There biggest fear being targeted aid, relief, breaks, programs that could uplift those disadvantaged prior at the expense of the prior advantaged.

As it relates to a prior argument I had with IHIV on the Farm Subsidy money and a statement from a twitter thread attributed to one of Steven Millers Dark money Pac dudes, i paraphrase 'our goal is to target any specific race based allocations because without such specific targeting there is no way to silo funds away from the more equitable criterias of 'production', 'acreage', 'output' or other such stats'.

IT was a recognition that if they could argue against and block anything specific targeted to race they could ensure the bulk of the money past and future would end up in the hands of the White Owned farms.

So while IHIV, will acknowledge the past abuse and how it horribly destroyed black farms and reduced their capacity, he argues a continued system rewarding 'output' and giving mass tax dollars based on that is fair simply because it does not differentiate by race.

But the fact that race was used prior to elevate a group, and this will only solidify their position and make it harder for POC to compete is something he hand waves away as not the point.

So ya, the argument is very deliberate and a way to try and deny any race based remedies to past problems of inequity or todays problems of tilted playing fields.

You only have one explanation for that and you exclude all others despite there being ample evidence there's multiple reasons, including racism, for those disparities. In fact, you outright challenge any other reason when it's presented. I have no problem acknowledging there are racist teachers, judges, politicians, and police officers.

You have yet to contend with that criticism. You just restate the dogma.

Do you really not know? You demonstrate a lot of them...

What are the non-racist reasons black people get arrested so much?

Nope!

Ok. In that case it's mostly trying to make everything about race, always thinking the worst of people who disagree with you, and generally a lot of bad-faith arguing.

You are talking to a guy who does not understand his interpretation of a comic strip is his subjective view ONLY and not widely held and instead thinks it is a matter of fact that anyone who disagrees with is wrong/racist.

Good luck.

Can you give an example of Wookie making “everything about race?”

Of course unlike christian nobody here calls themselves a wokster which allows you to strawman the hell out of this supposed ideology these unnamed people think can't be criticized.

Racist don't call themselves racist, either. I don't give a **** what you call yourself.

All of you are in here defending it and rejecting any other explanation/interpretation of racism, and any criticism of it. You're woke, bro.

You are more than welcome to distinguish yourself. You haven't, though. You've consistently been on the side of critical race theory.

Nope.

Addressing systemic racism is necessary regardless of what individuals do with their shot at life.

You call people who understand that simple fact racist. And that's never going to work either. The problem is, individuals will always succeed despite the rigged system. That isn't a very important part of the discussion to serious people. It's all you want to talk about though.

It is pretty funny how he refers to Black people as victims of abuse and then expects Black people to take responsibility for that.

I think most conservatives would put someone being pro-reparations in that bucket. First time?