This isn't directed at QP...

Policing in Black communities is a type 1 type 2 problem. You under police, the gang violence that's pervasive in some of these communities will dominate. You over police, you're going to catch more people committing crime the ordinarily wouldn't be caught if it weren't for the focused efforts. Pick your poison.


Further, the decrease in black people in prison is occurring at twice the rate as white offenders..~35% to 18%, since 2006.

OK but in that is an admission black people are being over policed in inner city areas or where crime is present.

That is not just criminal black people but ALL, so by your own prior logic, the black people just 'caught up' are ending up disproportionately in jail as then are their kids.

But how do you address that Black people are not just over policed in crime areas but also often outside those areas just for DWB or WWB in the wrong (white) neighbourhood?

The government was extremely effective at maintaining slavery, and at maintaining Jim Crow. In fact, it's very good at killing people over seas, delivering health insurance, and at most things it does. People saying the government doesn't work are usually sabotaging it, lying because they don't want the government to do something, or both.

I don't really care if normative instead of positive descriptions of history are told to children, no. Why should I? The Critical Race Theorists seem to have much more accurate tellings of American history than what's currently taught in schools throughout the South, so I say give them a shot.

You are watching too much cable news. This stuff isn't just about history, it's about identity.

Rehabilitation.

I don't know why you think that your unsupported assertions are worth a hill of beans, but I do know something that governments are good at: giving people money. How about we just do that?

The headline is weak, though. James Lindsey and company we're exposing this stuff in academia, long before Rufio ever came along.

Were the founding fathers marxist style revolutionaries? I kinda think the right would describe them that way today.

Sounds like a pretty good presentation. You could stand to take heed of it!

Look, once again, your definition of critical race theory is so broad as to be meaningless as well as failing to capture any reason at all why someone should be scared of it. Unless you want to maintain a society where white people are at the top, of course.

Another IHIV duck noted!

What did you expect when he started with "This isn't directed at QP..."? That was basically saying "I want to respond to Cuepee's post, but without engaging in actual discussion about it".

Critical race theory is analysis...the results of that analysis is broad.

Also, I've provided plenty of reasons for people to reject it.

It doesn't take 180 pages to explain something if a) you know what you're talking about and b) you're making any sense at all

You and your fox news kin are lost af which makes it a great boogie man

I don't have to explain it. I just cite wokeness and let them explain it for me:

That's racial segregation... by the government.

I mean, I always have the receipts:


MrWookie thinks it's my definition...

Why is that bad? I mean, the real analysis discipline of mathematics is a theory of analysis, and its results are broad. I think it's pretty good!

Why is that bad?

As an academic discipline, it's not bad, per se. You want to go to college and study this stupid s***,go for it. Maybe there's some valuable insight that can be gained, as in a broken clock is right twice a day.



I was pointing out that critical race theory is broad, as is critical theory.


---

With that said, there's actually multiple discussions happening at once and you keep pivoting between them, as you are prone to do. I believe you do this on purpose to obfuscate each issue, as a rhetorical tactic, in the attempts to create confusion and ultimately obfuscate with the actual discussions is about, then obviously you're going to blame other people for that happening.



1. You (and others) dispute what critical race theory is. When it's pointed out, by citing the critical race theorists themselves you and others pivot.

1a. You and others deny it's built upon by Marxian principles. When it's demonstrated it's actually built upon Marxian principles, you pivot (see critical theory)

2. You (and others) dispute what scope critical race theory has.


3. There are philosophical issues with marxian analysis. This is significant and substantially documented within academic literature. Those same criticisms apply the critical race theory. (Those don't get engaged with as much because of the disagreement about 1 and 1A.) (Namely, it is illiberal)

4. There are significant practical and cultural issues with the implementation of critical race theory into public institutions. (Racial segregation, pro racial consciousness, and and further or reracialization of society, among others)

5. You and others embrace almost everything CRT has to offer, and I pretty much reject most of it, however you and others dispute the philosophical underpinnings at every juncture, so you can't really have a philosophical discussion about you' and others actual beliefs, which is what I'm clearly challenging in this thread. This consequently forces the person you and others to discuss this with to accept the philosophical premises that your ideologies built upon, which are being challenged.

5a. You and others embrace almost everything' CRToffers culture/society, including racial segregation, racial consciousness, racialization of everything. I've cited many examples of this occurring in these antibias training sessions across multiple public institutions including and most importantly public education. You believe in this stuff, but as before, will are only discuss it if you accept the underlying premises, which are being disputed and rejected.

It's a pretty fair question, because you have not ever provided a specific definition. You point to material that predates the coinage of the term "critical race theory" as being critical race theory, and while modern day critical race theorists do indeed want to co-opt writings from the Civil Rights Era or shortly before or after as being under the umbrella of Critical Race Theory, that substantially undermines two of your core theses, that Critical Race Theory is both new and scary, rather than being a continuation of the (really, really good, and old) Civil Rights Movement. Or, was the Civil Rights Movement Marxist, and thereby bad, by your arguments?

There's a difference between building upon Marxist principles and employing some Marxist methods. CRT is employing some Marxist methods, and in and of themselves, those methods aren't scary, new, undesirable, or unique to Marxism itself.

I mean, maybe? You seem to be applying the term in an broad fashion that extends outside of the existence of anyone ever describing themselves as a critical race theorist. As I stated above, why should I be opposed to critical race theory if the philosophy of the civil rights movement itself, something I definitely support, is critical race theory? What is the difference between the philosophy of civil rights movement and critical race theory?

Actually, I'm going to stop there. That's the question I would really like to get a clear answer from you on. What is the difference between the philosophy of the civil rights movement and critical race theory?

More racial segregation.

I feel you, man. It's wide-ranging, as Crenshaw explicitly stated. It's a collection of ideas(principles) about race, shaped and interpreted using marxian analysis in regards to structures, power, history and social interactions. Critical race theory is purposely kept ambiguous to its definition and scope. It relies upon narratives rather than actual analysis to create theories on why things are the way they are, in regards to race. However, there's no real rigor involved as the grievance studies affair exposed. However, much of this theory is quickly accepted as truisms (and I'm not necessarily talking about systemic racism, per se (although there's obviously disagreement in regards to.thay as well), but the better example would be stuff coming out of whiteness studies that illustrates this. LB probably thinks this is done for nefarious reasons, but there's no rigor or structure to it, same as most critical theories.

It's not easily defined because that's the way it was structured. There is no definitive version of it. Each theorist actually creates their own version of it, and whatnot. Kendi is obviously a critical race theorist, but they doesn't explicitly call himself one, as he's created his own theory and called it anti-racism, but it's built on the back of critical race theory. The obfuscation about what critical race theory is the fault of critical race theory. The random conservative can't really define or articulate it. There is no real acceptable answer, because each theorist view of it is different, but they incorporate each other's ideas and theories. You be hard pressed to find critical race theorist who actually disagree with each other. If you can find a conversation of a few who do, I'd being incredibly interested in seeing that. In fact, anyone who disagrees with critical race theorists truisms can't be a critical race theorist.


I disagree. I believe these methods are leading to the undermining of liberal and capitalistic values. Marxism leads to revolution. It's the only possible logical conclusion using marxian rationale (even if the folks employing it don't buy into revolution.) You separate people, and pit themselves against each other, and point out the differences between them, demonstrate one is gaining advantage and the other is being disadvantaged, they're going to eventually fight. It's not the intention of these critical race theorists to get the people to fight, but what is their intention or not doesn't change the logical conclusion. Almost all these folks are anti-capitalist, whether explici, or implicit.












There's a bunch, but the easiest to to point to is racial consciousness, or the embracing of racial identity. One was adamantly opposed to a racial consciousness, and wanted it eradicated, at least in the eyes of MLK, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical race theory embraces the idea of a white identity, then actively demonizes it and the purported values that it's associated with, i.e. rationality (which is more of a liberal value rather than a white value, in truth). Anything described to capitalistic or liberal ideals is reappropriated to be meaning "white".

This is an explicit attack (as in delegitimizing it) on free speech because speech is used to be racist, sometimes.

As an aside

Are progressive tax rates bigoted or classist against the rich? Is talking about the rich and fixating on income inequality pitting rich and poor Americans against each other? Is the only not bigoted income policy that can be enacted a flat tax because it promotes equality?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/observe...-and-more/amp/