CRA is not as universal as you are assuming.

I think when qualifications are made irrelevant, is precisely the type of discrimination the law was hoping to outlaw.

CRT is alien to me, it's a very American thing. This is both academically and culturally.

Academically in the sense that it hasn't been imported from the US to local academia (to any noteworthy degree at least). Culturally in the sense that I don't identify culturally by skin colour, I identify by ethnicity.

The latter isn't a brag to say I don't have the capacity to be a horrible racist, that is another issue entirely. But for example if I meet a white man from Estonia, I don't at all identify us as having a similar cultural background or belonging to a joint cultural group.

I suspect the reason for this kind of cultural identification stems from custom and language being so distinct once you cross borders in Europe.

I'm glad to see conservatives have come around to supporting the Civil Rights Act. Maybe we can sell them on the VRA next.

@tames

The irony in that Lindsay tweet is, you'll almost never see a HuffPost article titled "thinking twice about gender reassignment surgery" for your child... but you will see one that questions cutting off a dog's balls. All, or most, HuffPost articles are going to be all "pro gender reassignment" for children. They won't post many, if any, that has a headline that questions gender reassignment, which includes surgically removing or altering genitalia of humans.

Mostly you seem to be complaining that people have nuanced views on race that don't fit into boxes you think they should. I believe that people have racial biases they are not aware of, that white people on average have advantages over black people in American society, that not looking at how marginalized identities interact can cause you to miss out on the reality of discrimination, that there is a white group identity that some people have, that race is relevant to many aspects of American life, and that some people oppress other people.

You want to make people who accept these things into defenders of CRT so it is convenient and easy to attack them by attacking and mocking that theory. Too bad. That's not how ideology works. If you want to criticize my views you'll have to direct your criticism to my stated views rather than the intellectual commitments of CRT, and if that is more difficult because you'll have to go beyond the right-wing pre-fab critiques of CRT, well, good. We're more likely to have a meaningful discussion then rather than just trade links written by more educated people.

Now talk about how white people view race, and put them in your boxes, then deny to be put in the a box yourselves.

I have not followed closely the referenced discussion. Are they, in fact, calling for appointments where "qualifications are irrelevant" or are they saying some/more choices must be made, in their view, from qualified candidates that fit within a certain under represented group.

As one of the biggest lies certain people like to tell to mislead and slander on these 'rebalancing' pushes is that it is not possible to get a 'qualified' in that group and thus this is a call to 'put aside' qualifications.

That is not true or accurate. You can both call for/demand 'representation' and also understand, respect the process demands a qualified person.


I would think it would be accurately labeled a racist trope at this point to allude to the person necessarily being unqualified as if that is the norm in any such call.

They explicitly threatened to reject ANY appointments that didn't fit a certain demographic characteristics. They did not take an AA approach.

Different white people view race differently, just like black people. Some adopt colorblind ideology, some are racist, some adopt CRT views, some have Marxist views, some adopt racial liberalism, some emphasize multiculturalism, etc.

As usual OrP brings the point concisely and convincingly.

Trying to cram people into some intellectual box and then argue against them by proxy is an old argumentative tactic. It is especially useful if it provides a convenient villain, in this case CRT.

In my light research on CRT, I even found conservative thinktanks in my country that held wrote about the dangers of CRT and using it as a proxy to attack anything they perceived to be on the ubiquitous "left". And CRT isn't even taught to any noteworthy degree in our universities, so they had obviously just copy-pasted some American thinkers without much thought for application. If you go past the intellectual bankruptcy, it is actually quite amusing: People complaining about the dangers of an idea, while blindly parroting an idea that doesn't even apply to their circumstance.

A CRT'er has some check marks...ALL of which are endorsed by many in this thread, in one form or another and in conjunction with each other, what box can we put them in?

I love how the woke deny being woke, and are talking about how they're not being treated like individuals, but they are certain white privilege exist and acts to further white supremacy (racist/privileged/et al) culture, where individualism is highly thought of.

It doesn't seem like you need much input on your question.

I'll argue that the most of the thinkers you are reading / have quoted are chasing intellectual ghosts, desperately hunting for those instances that can realize their worst fears. It seems like you see these ghosts when you debate this issue.

Heh Just Ice geddit?

That maybe but their ideas/criticisms have to be defeated. No one can defeat them. No one is trying to defeat them. Their ideas/criticisms aren't defeated.

Simply saying they're chasing ghosts... is an intellectually lacking rebuttal.

Well, it seems the reply is to just toss more links, tweets and essays onto the pile and go "well, this then".

I doubt any poster in this thread has much interest, nor the patience or time to go up against dozens of pundits who write such texts for a very comfortable living.

I don't know? You'll have to be specific about whom you are talking about. As a rule I let people identify what ideologies they hold or don't hold themselves. If you want to criticize specific ideas they say they support, that seems fine to me.

They can exit stage left then. No one is asking anyone to be here. you can either contend with the criticisms or you don't.

I suspect at this point you have probably linked more stuff than most have even browsed through.

After all, is there a point to doing the research to contradict an essay written by some wealthy pundit, just to be hit called "woke left social justice warrior who wants to castrate children", before being hit by another essay by another pundit?

That seems like it is just subsidizing faux intellectualism for little purpose.

This goes back to what I'm saying... People want to discuss specific aspects of CRT, in a vacuum. That's great. We've had many of those discussions. The issue is, of those specific aspects of CRT, when combined together, is CRT. That's the part you all deny. Maybe you reject certain aspects of CRT, but as a whole most of you actually buy into many of it's concepts.

It's like that you have small disagreements with liberalism and refuse to be called a liberal.

I'm not woke, although evidently you think it is meaningless to claim this. I don't really buy into white privilege as it seems to be used in popular culture, although I do think white people have structural advantages over black people in the US. I favor Enlightenment individualism, although that is a broad concept and I'm not sure we mean the same thing by it. You think it is inconsistent for me to accuse you of overgeneralizing and ignoring individual differences because you think CRT also overgeneralizes and assume falsely that believing in structural racism and the reality of white consciousness makes someone a CRTer.

Every single thing I've cited has been in the context of CRT, or it's tenets. People who have come in here to discuss it's various holding/tenets, have or should know this. Claiming they are not defending CRT is trying to change the context of the discussion, and trying to blame me for it. If you want to discuss these things outside of the context of CRT, anyone is capable of making a thread to do so. If you don't want to be called a CRT'er, don't come into a thread criticizing CRT, and attempt to defend those criticism under a different context.


If you want to go discuss the value of implicit bias go discuss implicit bias. If you want to talk implicit bias in conjunction with everything else CRT proposes, then we can talk.

You are trying to change the context in which my criticism is leveled against auspices of CRT and it's tenants, and onto into one of your own, or other individuals, context of individual perspective.

That misses the point. If you want to argue against CRT, fine. If you want to argue against specific CRT ideas that some people here hold, that's fine as well. But it doesn't work to say that because you accept CRT idea A then you also must hold bad CRT idea B unless you can draw a logical connection between those ideas. Merely pointing out that they are part of the same ideology isn't sufficient, especially if you are talking with someone who doesn't identify with that ideology.