If humans are viewed as just bags of chemicals, or just stardust (ala Carl Sagan), then there is no path to "Racism is evil and stupid."

Evolutionism opens the door to, "Some races are more highly evolved than others, so...."

I see humans as bags of chemicals, or stardust, believe in evolution, and see racism as evil and stupid.

How did we get on to religion here?

"Bags of chemicals" and "stardust" can't do evil things. Ergo, such a worldview can't rationally call racists "evil".

A Reverend(!) Dr. Martin Luther King quote upthread. ("We're all God's children")

Go create a thread "fighting racism". In this thread we're fighting against the racism and demonstrative effects of CRT.

@luckbox

Bobbo's post demostrates the effectiveness of the bait and switch. Not saying he baited and switched. He just bought the bait, but isn't interested in contending with what it actually is He obviously he think's CRT is a noble endeavor because it proclaims to be fighting against racism. He relies on the stated purpose of CRT rather than what it actually is.

So does wet work, for that matter.

Weird I thought someone said it was just for a discussion.

So we're working with the it's a commie takeover line?

I guess things have changed.

I mean obviously you're free to participate or not based on whatever criteria you want. And John McWhorter has said that in his next book instalment, that he'll be proposing what a legitimate anti-racism should look like-- so I'm looking forward to that myself.
But I'm not too keen myself on offering much in the way of solutions for anything that I discuss and do not see that as my goal. This isn't to suggest that solutions wouldn't be nice. But what are the solutions to war and imperialism, or mass media propaganda, or to right wing ideologies masquerading as left wing ideas? The only thing I can attempt to do is further understanding-- both my own and of those I interact with.
But I do think it's also a bit unfair to say that solutions haven't been offered here. I have proposed having an economy that helps out the poorest aspects of society, that is not exploitative, and one that allows for all its members to thrive in. And I've been told this is not realistic. And it's not. But is the reason why it's not because we lack the critical mass of individuals needed to achieve such a thing, or because we have a ruling class that is intent on making sure that we do not achieve this? It can be both there, but ultimately, in my opinion, the only actual solution to big picture problems is an education based in truth, which the racialized ideologies that we have been discussing in this thread are not.

Wetwork has a different view. Wetwork believes 1) this is nothing new 2) that this is basically a continuation of the civil rights struggle 3) that this is the "same two sides" fighting this fight, and that 4) it's essentially no big deal.
I've tried to debunk some of those and some I still need to work on.
Bobo is closer to a true believer.

CRT is the antithesis of the civil rights movement. I mean, you would have to repeal the CRA (or ignore it) in order to enact many of the equity actions they want to take. In many ways it argues against the principles used in the civil rights movement. Wet work is simply relying on the nobleness of the civil rights movement to justify CRT. He doesn't actually contend with what CRT is either.

Of course they can.

LOL.

If that is accurate, it sounds like wet work and I have a lot of similar views. But I suspect that it's also an oversimplification. That's usually what happens when you try to put people in boxes with convenient labels.

Mainly because I think getting bogged down in the minutiae makes it too easy to lose sight of the big picture. The goals still pretty much seem to be off in the same direction wrt civil rights etc. as far as I can surmise. And I just don't think things were neatly tied up in a bow at some point no one can even define--and then some new 'monster' sprang up out of the blue named crt to terrorize our lives.

Nah. This is more closely akin to Jim Crow than to the civil rights movement and the goals are more closely akin to it.
You actually have it backwards. Classical white supremacy as we understand it was created in order to provide a justification for slavery. Jim Crow was created for similar economic purposes-- to keep poor blacks and poor whites from uniting in any sort of populist movement. Ideas of 'white privilege' serve the same ends. It is using racial narratives to explain societal structures, to keep people divided-- crucially poor whites and poor blacks, and to keep the focus on race instead of class.
Functionally it is the same as white supremacy. Saying "white people are supreme" functions the same whether it's normative or descriptive. Fortunately they are neither.
But yes, CRT is very different than the civil rights movement. That is why the civil rights movement is being written out of narratives today.

You think the FBI has a long file on Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, is encouraging them to commit suicide, and is bugging their phones?
King was an actual leftist and the ruling class wanted him dead, and he died. Comparing him to the modern race theorists is what is a travesty to his legacy.
But I don't see how you can say with a straight face that they are part of the same agenda when we're seeing now (both with the 1619 project which is being used in schools and with the california ethnic studies program) how the civil rights movement is being written out of the record.

We must have different interpretations of what the term white privilege is being used for. I don't really see it being used as a justification for what's been happening--just more of a descriptor/definition not something in support of it. Just putting a name to it. It's not a new idea just a term to describe how things are/have been. At least in most of the contexts I've seen it used. I think it helps to have a clear notion of what you're up against--and defining it is part of that.

Personally I think people are fully capable of focusing on 2 things. Whether or not they actually want to is another story. But when it comes to something like activism or whatever--it's kinda tough to be super involved in multiple areas. So people kinda hook into focusing on their different things. Often there is still some overlap between things though so you think by focusing on your 'thing' it may also affect other things positively too.

So I'm guessing you disagree with vegas that it's a bunch of dangerous radicals? You'd think guys like trump would at least be out paying it a little lip service then if it really served their goals--rather than being triggered beyond belief from being confronted by some of the ideas.

Well said.

I'll add that just because terms like "white privilege" and "anti-racism" can be used in support of divisive or more radical agendas doesn't mean that everyone who uses the terms (or the principles behind them) is in lockstep with each other, or belong in a box together with some all-encompassing "CRT" label.

'White privilege' is the term I used there as it's the closest approximation to white supremacy. It's its descriptive analog. And 'white privilege' isn't an isolated concept but forms part of this new racialized ideology. And the function of racialized ideologies from a Marxist standpoint, is the ruling class's desire to reframe what are fundamentally class issues in racial terms, and to prevent any sort of interracial populist movement.
It isn't that 'white privilege' is literally a justification of white privilege. What it is instead is a mechanism for continuing it. If the average white person thinks that the issue that is facing black people is something that they need to work on, instead of thinking that economic conditions need to change or that government couldn't do better in supporting disadvantaged classes-- then for the ruling class, that would be considered a good thing. Ideologies do matter.

Why can't the average white person believe in both?

I'm not entirely sure it's possible to believe in two gods here. This article: The False Dilemma of Class versus Race-- which I'd like to talk about in depth sometime soon, discusses the fracturing of the left that occurred after the Vietnam war into a cultural or "new left" that was focused on identity issues and the old left that remained focused on economic reform-- the Sanders/HRC divide is illustrative of how the split plays in out in the modern day.
Theoretically of course it should be possible but ultimately people have to choose one pole over the other, and very powerful forces that seek to influence public opinion have an interest in seeing which of those poles-- class or culture-- that those who identify as left gravitate towards. Like I said, ideologies do matter. A theory that attributes societal structures to race is fundamentally different from a theory that attributes societal structures to economics.

Well, as someone who believes that white privilege is a thing (in that whites have had many inherent advantages due to the colour of our skin and still do, but hopefully to a much lesser extent now), and also that there are class issues that cross all races/colours/cultures which need to be dealt with, I guess in your world I'm something of a unicorn. And yet I seem to have many, many friends and family that believe the same. I don't think we're all that special - I'm confident that pretty much anyone is capable of managing the same beliefs.

Sure, argument by meme is a fine way to admit there wasn't really an argument to begin with.

This thread is now 2,600 posts long, of which I've written hundreds, and those posts include lots of words. Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here or why you felt the need to go back days to comment on that post, but there has been plenty of argument.

I was really browsing back to the MLK posts, which I had planned to respond to before RL kicked into high gear. Ecriture d'adulte had already covered most of my points.