I know better to go too much into the weeds with you.

However, it specifically and explicitly says to target white people for this "treatment". It's not a treatment though, because race or racism isn't a mental condition. It's activism.


I should have just said the CRA... But that's THE LAW in question.

I mean, you're the one defending explicit racial discrimination here, bro. I could be the stupidest m*********** here, and you're still the racist in the conversation.

Ooooooh, please, tell me another one. Do you have some articles about therapists talking with men about their sexist attitudes towards women is akshully sexist against the men (despite the fact that the men are in their voluntarily and under informed consent)? Keep it coming, this is hilarious.

You know, I wonder if the disconnect is between what I envision therapy as (that is, what it actually is, a voluntary conversation between two people to help the client sort themselves out) versus what ihiv thinks therapy is, perhaps where vans of leftists capture white men off the street, take them to holding cells, strap them into chairs, and hold their eyes open while making them watch reprogramming videos?



I guess I would have to concede that's unethical, even if the guy is a massive racist and a jerk. It's also imaginary.

There's nothing else to say. Nevermind the racial discrimination, you are advocating for....imagine a 15-year-old white trans kid threatened to commit suicide, and some psychologist is morally and ethically obligated to talk to that person about race.. and racism. Maybe they can talk about white privilege.

It's perverse, but you do you.

Lololololol. I mean, I know Donald Trump made it fashionable to shamelessly lie, but you are no Trump. This is just pathetic.

No, not really. If we assume I, as a psychologist, in a professional capacity advised a hypothetical person to take some walks, and then we talked about those walks at a later time, this would qualify as "praxis". Not that I would use it as as psychological terminology, because it is not a very precise term.

There is however nothing mysterious about the word, but I guess the X makes it sound foreign, scary and ominous and thus a ripe candidate for weird conspiracy theories.

In reality it is just German for "practice", the Greek etymology probably made it popular with 1800s thinkers. A decent enough translation to its meaning in this context would be "learning by doing".

I'm not expert on American guidelines and regulations for psychologists (and what I suspect would be a messy web of differing state standards), but I expect the chief and foremost duty with a suicidal patient to be preventing self-harm or death. Not doing so would seem to be dereliction of duty (which I'm sure happens on individual levels, but you are referring to guideline levels and regulative levels).

So it seems like a bizarrely constructed scenario ala "what happens when doctors have to stop critical heart surgery to attend sensitivity training?!". Probably a best-seller on Facebook, but not much more.

Are there going to be CRT classes in school? Full semesters dedicated on it?
Econonics they teach aspects of socialism, capitalism, communism, gasp Marxism.
If in history or social studies they touch on some CRT theory what's the big deal?

Deep Thoughts, with your host, HIV.

The term has a specific Marxist context, and that's the context I used.

It's advocating for the psychologist to teach. It's advocating for the psychologist to teach a specific perspective in regards to race and racism. That perspective comes from critical race theory (it explicitly lays out the perspective with multiple citations from CRT). The entire goal is to liberate white people by awakening them to their racial consciousness.

More racial segregation in public schools:

WOW

Wokesters gone wild

Your post stated that it was unethical for psychologists to engage in praxis. That's not a "Marxist context", it is a general context. You also don't seem to understand that you're using a general terminology to describe a specific practice.

The "Marxist context" is also just scaremongering bullshit, unwilling to admit that intellectual words from the 1800s have taken convoluted and not straightforward routes. If you're going to lay into every academic field that happens to use a term that Marx or Engels at some point used or inspired, I'm sad to inform you that pretty much every article you've linked in this thread to support your case is also just Marxist.

If you want this thread to have the right to life, perhaps try harder than resurrecting McCarthyism.

Whatever, bro. That paper explicitly advocates for indoctrination into the tenets and conclusions of CRT/ct, using psychotherapy.

If you deny that you're not being intellectually honest. Re-education to install marxian concepts is marxian praxis.

I don't really care that you don't think CRT/CT is marxist, because you can't distinguish it from what makes marxism, marxism.

"If you don't accept my obvious bullshit as gospel, you're the real liar!"

You can't distinguish between CRT and any other discussion of racial equality without having to plainly lie about what MLK said, and neither can you distinguish between one niche aspect of Marxism with Marxism in toto, as if discussions about class and race are the same as long as both want to make the world a better place.

Bootsy and Buckethead etc may beg to differ

That's not what I'm saying at all. I think it's clearly Marxist b*******. You guys are saying it's not. I post endless examples of what CRT is , from critical race theorist, and examples of Marxist teachings, from marxist thinkers. They are strongly correlated. You guys saying that's not Marxist.... Cool, but you're argument has no substance behind it. That's what I'm saying. So y'all can say whatever you want to say about whether it's not Marxism or not. It doesn't mean I have to accept it, just as you don't have to accept my conclusions. If you want me to take you serious, you need put some substance behind your argument instead of just saying it's a "scare word", or that I'm lying.



As far as MLK goes, you interjected him into the conversation and posted a bunch of stuff he said. I posted one thing he said about Marx, after you brought him into the conversation. I specifically refer to the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Act in that little digression, you conflated that to MLK and attributed to me to saying that stuff about MLK.

The argument isn't new, nor is it radical or unsubstantial.

When's the last time you read the Dec. of Independence?

IHIV,

Does it bother you at all that this...

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure

...is what all your indoctrination and scare mongering is about?

OMG CRITICAL PEDAGOGY OMG OMG OMG.

MOOOOAAAARRRRRR SCARE TERMS