This thread is designed for discussion about CRT.

I'll post some stuff in the future, but to start off....




About 1:50.


It's interesting to me those who are proponents to parts, or all of CRT, dodge when having to expose their own prejudices. Oddly enough, these are questions one would expect from more progressive congressional members, but it's coming from a righty, who is undoubtedly looking for gotchas.

If you are a proponent of CRT, or anti-racism, wouldn't it be important to know which racial biases this person has before they become an integral part of the DOJ? It also points to the issue of, can she be fair, openingly acknowledging she has unconscious bias, especially if she is unable to articulate which specific biases she has. Further, why is so hard for these folks to say Biden's white house is institutionally racist, while claiming all of America is institutionally raicst?

I don't know much about critical race theory, but in general it is always bad to hinge your ideals on specific people. That will only lead to forgive flaws that do not always deserve to be forgiven.

John McWhorter has a book he's serializing on substack that I've been reading on CRT-- which he's rather critical of, calling it a new secular religion. And some of it is entertaining enough.

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com

Now for the meat and potatoes.

CRT originates from socialist/marxist thinkers as expounded on by one of the founding fathers of CRT, Richard Delgado:


The common refrain I read when people throw the Marxist accusation at CRT proponents, is CRT focuses on race, and Marx focuses on class. However, it does not take a rocket scientist, or a sociologist to see how "whiteness" is being used as the Bourgeois, and POC being the Proletariat.

The other is difference that's often discussed is the call for revolution which CRT does not expictedly advocate for, or so these folks say.

For a bit of context:

In the final paragraph of the The Communist Manifesto, the authors call for a "forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions".


It's hard to argue against the fact most CRT proponents advance the idea that all of America, and western civilization, namely capitalistic nations, is infected with "whiteness" and "white supremacy" or the neo-bourgeois that exploits POC, or the neo-Proletariat.

But what's a Proletarian revolution?


You can find many similarities and in some cases out right replication on how Marx describes the bourgeoisie and proletariat when you read or listen to CRT proponents discussing whiteness/white supremacy and POC's.


More to come...

Interesting take, but I'm not sure it's correct.
It seems more likely the case that CRT has gained the coinage that it has in American society, precisely because it's about race and not class.
When you deal with class you're punching up, whereas CRT seems more about punching sideways or down. And punching up isn't really allowed.

I like how the evil Marxists conspired to overthrow democracy after they were purged by McCarthyism. It is a rather subtle way to argue that McCarthyism was justified, and not an overaching abuse of political power and populism to purge anyone they didn’t like. Kudos for throwing affirmative action in there as an evil ploy to destroy society too.

Is there a third volume?

You need to take that criticism up with Richard Delgado, those are his words, not mine. Are you suggesting he is full of ****? If so, I agree.

My comments were aimed at the quote, yes.

Identity politics is used by the liberal elite to keep the lower classes divided.

I'm not sure CRT is meant to be a tool of identity politics but it certainly can be coopted.

We can all acknowledge racial bias in society and ourselves without forgetting that a person of color in the ruling class is still wielding power.

In fact women and poc can sometimes get away with more than a white male these days. That seems to be running it's course though. Class really is the attribute that makes or breaks your life.

Racist Cotton isn't putting anyone in a corner.

I would love to get some video of CRT critics and proponents actually engaging, but there is not many proponents that will engage with the smarter critics. McWhorter and Glen Lowery rail against it all the time, and normally the proponents who do engage are the dumber proponents. Dyson being an example.

What exactly does “critical race theory” mean to you?

I’m not sure it is wielded with much intent, as much as it is just one of many sums of human interaction that make out the mess we call societies.

But a good post, I agree that noone (including oneself) should be free from criticism or assumed to not hold biases.

This is the same tactic creationists and young earth believers use. Debates are stupid. They generate superficial soundbites that only morons (no offense) care about, while correct but more complicated answers can't properly be dumbed down to get into debate format nuggets. There is a reason why scientists and mathematicians write papers rather than hold debate tournaments.

Beginning with - of all people - tom cotton floudering around with a pathetic attempt at a gotcha is.....not encouraging.

But it is specifically not encouraging because of the nature of critical race theory. What usually happens for lay people not really part of the specific academic movement, is that it becomes more or less just a Rorschach test to loosely throw your own prejudices and labels onto it without meaningfully wrestling with the ideas. For instance, one might make just weak parallels to thing like "communism" without actually engaging in the substance. Oh right, ishotinvegas did that too.

My suggestion is this: if you want an actual discussion about CRT and not just throw out potshots, to lay out what specifically you think CRT is , presenting it in its most reasonable form, and use that to develop a substantial critique. If your criticisms are going to rely on potshots, you might get that warm fuzzy feeling that your pwning the libs, but you won't really have touched CRT.

Obfuscation. This was going to be a bit further down the road, but most proponents avoid defining CRT, but instead rely on a few "tenets". An example:



It can't be defined, which is yet another criticism, especially when they want their critics to define it, becasue invariably when they do, the refrain becomes "you don't understand CRT".

Problem is, I'm not the one who connected it to communism/marx/socialism.....Richard Delgado, and many of its other founder did.





and Alan Freeman

TSSI i.e. trying to prove Marx correct.

I'm not looking for a debate. I'm looking for a discussion. I think long-form discussion is certainly a viable format to engage with competing ideas. I also think if you can't have this discussion with critics, it should not be taught in primary education. I'm also not looking to debate here. You are more than welcome to express your own view of CRT, though. I can more than accept you don't accept what I've written. Maybe what you post about it will give me food for thought.

Oh ya the Marxists sure the love Biden and would never be critical of his administration.

Dude you are all over the place here.

So are we going to debate Gupta's views on CRT itt or are we going to figure out if they're Marxist.

I'm not sure why the latter matters.

Gupta's views are only tangential to the broader issue of CRT warping people's minds, and those same folks failures to address their biases, etc, when confronted with criticism based upon the CRT paradigm, i.e. everyone is racist, but when asked if you are racist, you don't say yes. When asked to elaborate on their own biases, they equivocate and don't answer the question.

Gupta was posted as example of CRT and it's proponents absurdities, contradictions, and hypocrisy.

Why do you want to see videos of people engaging? If you care about a subject, reading about it is far better than watching videos. I don't really care about CRT. I'm highly speculative of the format in which you want to learn about it, which is generally chosen by the side that doesn't have good arguments but simply is trying to win a PR battle because deep down they know they are wrong. See creationists, anti-vaxers etc.

I'm not the audience, parents are, and if you think they are going to read peer reviewed research, you are just being naive. It's kinda sad you don't think honest conversation can happen, which I don't agree, btw.


NY principal asks students’ parents to reflect on their ‘whiteness’

I view the centrality of class struggle to historical change as essential to Marxism, and so substituting race for class makes a theory non-Marxist. The fact that CRT uses a similar critical methodology to analyse society as Marxism doesn't on its own make it Marxist, although of course you can say it is influenced by Marxism, or has similarities to Marxism.

Geezus I feel dumber having watched that.

Tom Cotton asks such stupid questions and then acts like he is making cogent points when it is all garbage.


Cotton : he asks her why she mislead a Senator when she answered a 'present' tense question with a present tense answer. His gotcha is then 'but yes in the past you held a different view... so gotcha'. All she had to do and repeat was 'his question was not asking if my views evolved and how. IT was simple asking for my view now...'

HIs next 'gotcha' is to quote her saying 'she believes all people have implicit biases and racial biases'. He tries to get her by demanding she name 'specifically' then which races she is racist towards. When she explains her statement goes to 'subconscious stereotypes and responses' he again goes back to then saying 'again if you believe that which races are you biased again'.

So very stupid and yet due to her being unable to properly reply the total worthlessness of his questions is not properly shown.