It's hard to escape the conclusion that "critical race theory" is being used here as a kind of meaningless buzzword that low-info conservatives parrot out.



OK, but you truly don't understand what CRT is? It seems like a valid criticism. I'm not sure what kind of a conversation you expect to have here when you can't even vaguely define what it is you're mad about.

It is your position that there is no such thing?
Eta: it does have a wiki page. Probably should have googled before making unescapable conclusions.

Haha.

I read this after I posted my above post which largely mirrors this.

i love his biggest 'gotcha'.

'Will you admit that it is possible to criticize a woman or minority without it necessarily being sexist or racist'.

'Yes'

Gotcha!!!!


lol, clownshoes.

I don't think you want or are seeking out honest information. People aren't going to look at peer reviewed research on RNA vaccines either. But that doesn't mean a non-troll would start threads and desire to see discussions about whether or not the Covid vaccine can give you autism.

You are the one starting a thread on the subject. Given it's an academic one, shouldn't you have an idea of what the literature says? If you don't, why not read up first then start an informed thread? It's hard to believe you have a genuine interest in what people actually think on the subject.

No. I'm sure CRT has a legitimate meaning in academic circles. McWhorter is a smart guy, he's not just babbling. But it seems clear that OP is using it as a catch-all term to mean "stuff I don't like." Kind of like how the meanings of "Marxist" and "McCarthyist" have been bastardized by right-wing yootoobues into a generic plen-t-plaint.

I thought about googling it, but why should I put more effort into understanding CRT than the OP has?

What parts of CRT do you disagree with? Which do you agree with?

Until I started reading about the origins of CRT, and those responsible, I kinda had this same sentiment. I would often classify it as neo-marxism, as others had. I think there were a few of the founders whose goal was to repurpose/reframe Marxism into a different entity, or lens, which led to CRT creation. What's occured since is, people has embraced this repurposed/reframed version of it, as if its something different.

I can't ignore the parallels between how Marx describes the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat with how CRT proponents describe the relationships whites and POC. In essence, CRT are making a Marx based argument based on culture, rather than economics, which if you were a Marxist in the US, and you wanted to propagate the ideology, it would be a pretty good idea to rebrand (due to the negative views of communism that's prevalent in the US) and instead of focusing on economics, focus on race which was/is ripe for leveraging.

With all that said, whether we call it marxism, or marxist influenced, is not really that important, at least to me. The point is, it using methodology that has led to unimaginable destruction of human life.

If you want proper discussion then don't conflate things and create equivalencies where they don't exist. Don't pull a Tom Cotton.

There is no inconsistency in saying "all people have implicit biases and racial biases' but then not answering a question such as 'which races then are you racist against?'

You have shown in the past no comprehension of how unconscious or subconscious bias can play out into real world institutional racism, to the point of denying its very existence even when presented with the examples you demand and claim do not exist and this thread seems to be going down that very bad slope for you IHIV. I suggest you pull up now.


Answer this if you will IHIV...

- do you accept people can and do have implicit biases and racial biases that can subconsciously impact how they make decisions creating situations of unintended institutional racism?


(I suspect you might not answer it as you have that habit when you realize the answer you would have to give is one you do not like.)

Did you just fail to make it the full way through my post?

One of things I made a vow of since the start of the new year, is not to debate you guys too much. I'm expressing a viewpoint. You can agree, disagree, state your own opinion, and/or ignore it.

Do you think it likely that critical race theory will lead to unimaginable destruction of human life?

As I told a few others, I'm not going to debate. You are more than welcome to share your own opinion on CRT.

You didn't express a viewpoint though. You were just asked what parts of Critical Race Theory you agree with and disagree with. I more or less asked you the same, but you haven't told us. You don't have to debate, but at this point all we got it Tom Cotton and omg Marxism killed people. Be better.

IHIV let me quote this wise man...

Give us some "long form discussion" and flesh out these ideas you keep presenting.

You said what is quoted above, by you, to someone else when you wanted them to flesh out their ideas. Yet in this thread and another, we are engaged in, you refuse to provide any "long form discussion" of the ideas you present.


One would almost think you are afraid of the result of trying to flesh out your ideas. Like Pavlov's dog did actually learn past lessons?

It simple really. I state my thoughts on CRT, you state your thoughts on CRT, and we go from there. You don't want to discuss it, you want to poke holes.

I did, though. What don't you think I subscribe to when it comes to Marxism? I mentioned a particular facet, in a few different post.

The pitting of the Proliant against the Bourgeois, and vice versa.

So one sec, the full depth of your analysis of Critical Race Theory, the reason you started this thread, the sole thing you wish to point out and then have zero debates on is.....uh.....there is a loose parallel between marxism and CRT?

Well done. Post one more Tom Cotton vid for kicks and then closer 'er up imo.

No, read my OP again.

It's the first ****ing sentence:

Well you seem unwilling or unable to
a) articulate any position on any detail of CRT beyond this vague "omg its like marxism and that killed people" take
b) already expressed you wouldn't debate anybody.

So what's the point?

What do you think of CRT?

EDITED.

So in this very thread you ask someone to flesh out their statement in 'long form discussion' because that is what you want but when any one asks that of you, you say 'I am not looking for debate on my ideas... you just want to poke holes' and you think it is 'easy' and clear what you are asking for here?

It seems to me you want others to make and defend (flesh out via long form discussion) there ideas, so you can try and poke holes, but you have learned not to do the same.

Oh, no...I've read extensively on CRT, and it's criticisms. I elaborated on what I think. You haven't, other than trying to get me to defend my position. What do you think of CRT? There can be discussion without debate. You don't seem to want to state what you think on CRT, none of you do who are trying to get me to defend my position, in fact.

You are only focusing on one side of this. Marxists have an incentive to rebrand their ideas because of the negative view of communism in the US, but conservatives have an incentive to rebrand leftwing ideas as Marxist for the same reason. It seems to me better to avoid these propagandistic goals as much as we can and evaluate the ideas fairly on their own merits.

Anyway, my point is that race and class are importantly different categories in US life. A critical theory that focuses on race will lead to different ideas and outcomes than one focused on class. This is why many serious Marxists are opposed to CRT - they view its centering of racial conflict and white supremacy rather than class struggle and capital as a way of hiding the true sources of oppression in modern society. Their analysis will more typically claim that racial conflict is the result of class struggle rather than caused by a pre-existing white supremacy ideology. They will also view the solution very differently as well.

And of course, this is not just race - there is also critical gender studies, queer theory, etc.

Thus, while as a matter of history of ideas while it is helpful to understand how Marxism has influenced and provided analytical tools for critical theory, I don't think it is helpful to use that as a way of eliding the distinction between Marxism and CRT.

Okay? Should we throw out math for the same reason? I fundamentally disagree with this view of "methodology."

so despite all this extensive reading your “elaboration” is nothing more than uh, vaguely noting some parallels to Marxism. Is that really it? Do you have nothing else you are able to elaborate on?

You might be right, but I also think RW ideologues repurpose Marxism as well, especially the far right in their attempt to gain a more authoritarian regime to protect their purported status, they buy into the premise of P v B, or W v B. That some people using Marxism as a cugel is not a good enough argument to not draw a parallel. As far as reaching different conclusions, I'm not sure they do reach different conclusions. As far as I can tell, CRT is entirely about demonstrating the persecution/exploitation of POCs by whites. It's not honestly analyzing the relationship of race in society, or it'd be more critical of black on black crime, but again, that's framed as an issue caused by whiteness/white supremacy, and again pitting B vs P. Amost every issue coming out of CRT frames the underlying issue is white supremacy, or in Marxist lingo, capitalist pigs.

Let's use a reductio ad absurdum. (I have to run, finish later)