I'm going to guess that saying "socially significant" was a poor choice of words. If racial categories are anything, then they are socially significant. But racial categories-- i.e., how a society divides up its "races" aren't the same as "racial identity"-- which is going to be an individual psychological phenomenon that is only correlated with societal definitions of race. And it's that individual identity that itshot is saying is harmful-- although society dividing people up based on race can be harmful too of course.

That seems like a dumb way to define "whiteness." There are obviously forms of privilege that are unrelated to racial identity, as Marx, feminists, gay people, and others would point out. Still not sure if that is how CRT defines "whiteness" though.

Also probably fair to assume that slavery and Jim Crow would be the placing of importance on racial identity that Itshot would object to.

Shouldn't be. Luckbox got it.

I have to bow out for a few days... I'll be back, though. Always a pleasure to discuss things with you will OP.

This.

I'm predominantly a pragmatist that likes evidence based approaches so I am actually predisposed to dislike CRT.

Nonetheless, as discussed by ITIV, CRT is just a bogeyman.

So is attacking the crt boogeyman/strawman the racists’ new “I don’t see color/I don’t consider myself a racist person... but (insert racist statement here)” is that what I’m getting from this?

You got it. John McWhorter is a huge racist and CRT is just an academic thing that fox news likes to trot out. Nothing much to see here.
I do commend you though for bringing race up in a thread explicitly about race, as normally you throw it into every discussion even when it's not at all warranted. Here it is though.

-Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson talking points on 2p2.

Is there somewhere in this thread or anywhere here where people have posted some sort of similar sentiment, Grizy?
I don't get it. Is it the claim that because some undesirable people have issue with CRT, that it can't be a valid topic for discussion here, or are you just trolling this thread for fun?

The issue is that HIV doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what he's talking about.

You are more than welcome to engage with the criticism, from a much more competent source:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/do...l-race-theory/

I don't think you will engage rationally with CRT criticism, though. There is no counter argument to it, because people won't engage with it. It was clear your objective is to attack my competence rather than criticism of CRT, which isn't entirely undue when it comes to my competence, and why I've resisted debating with the likes of you and others, but you probably going to refuse to engage with actual criticism from competent people.

After reading the first two paragraphs, that link doesn’t describe what CRT actually is.

iHIV: I don’t know what you mean by “critical race theory.” More importantly, you don’t know what you mean either. What kind of a conversation do you expect to have here?

He doesn't define CRT until six paragraphs down... But whatever dude. I knew from the beginning you would never agree on any definition provided. In fact, you can't and won't present a supposedly valid one yourself.

What is “critical race theory?”

Seems reasonable.

Source.

Seems pretty reasonable so far. I wonder why you couldn’t have said this in your own words.

From what I'm gathering, itshot isn't even wrong when he draws the parallels to Marxism. I think it's irrelevant. But not wrong.

So anyway, how does having a DOJ that is sympathetic to the way race has played a part in the criminal justice system make America worse off ?

That was the original post.

Any discussion on that.

Bueller ?

In its most narrow form, CRT is an academic theory which aims to examine the role that racism plays in our lives, the way racism shapes our current system, and especially the way in which racism continues to oppress POC today.
In its broadest from, CRT is used as a stand-in for 'wokeism' or more pejoratively, of 'cancel culture'.

"Oh **** off Tucker! You relentlessly indignant picket fence"

- John Oliver @11:03

If the mods could rename this thread: 'Critical Race Theory and Tucker Carlson' it would probably be helpful.

Then Grizy accomplishes what he wants, i.e. trivializing criticism of CRT.

I watched that entire video you posted yesterday of the discussion with James Lindsday and John Wood Jr and thought it was really good (to anyone else choosing to watch it-- could start at minute 17). I had not heard of either of them before but was impressed. Especially cogent I thought was Wood's etiology of the black condition in America in the second half of the video.
I'm not sure if it's a good video for explaining what CRT is though, for while they touch on it repeatedly and do break it down some, that isn't really the focus of the video. But I was surprised that a video you posted would be as sympathetic to CRT as it was.

Tucker single-handedly debunking the we never talked about race much back in the day narrative with his old video.

Seems kinda racist if a bunch of people of color feel an issue needs to be addressed and the rich white dude's view is everything's fine how about we talk about something else instead?