I opened the thread and clicked "view post" on the OP who I have on ignore and was met with a video of Tom Cotton and you refusing to use your own words for multiple pages before actually posting an original thought

That's kind of the point. You started a thread and it became a futile exercise of you screaming about "woke left orthodoxy" and I'm reading it literally trying to understand wtf exactly CRT is and why it matters

Your retort is that I defend it and I don't even understand the very subject other than what I read in this thread. Yet you seem more interested in stating openly that "some posters unwittingly defend CRT" or "some posters implicitly or tacitly defend it or agree with it" and you just lump everyone who argues with you in it

I mean to just constantly think in that manner means you're either a colossal moron or just deliberately obtuse. And I'm on record as saying I think you're a very intelligent, smart person. But you resort to that mode of thinking because you're full of yourself and project all day everyday. Your problem is where you cling tighter to a thought process you should relinquish it and realize the error in your ways. I'm not saying you don't have a valid argument, I'm saying people think you're a crappy poster and "troll" you because you literally make no sense half the time

If I say I'm trying to figure out and understand CRT and your response is lol you defend CRT and are woke left with terrible orthodoxy, well, I'm sorry, but you just sound loony

Literally my only complaint is you aren't capable of being consistently intellectually honest. You're just like the others who spend all this time claiming this is a left wing echo chamber rather than just dispassionately put forth meritorious viewpoints and ignore the noise. But you can't, because you don't want to directly address the merit, you want to drive the convo somewhere and it frustrates you that people are just loling at you instead

You want a left wing echo chamber? Try Unstuck Politics. Have fun getting owned there for the same reasons, because I have news for you, they argue there too and it's among themselves...But the debates there are much better sometimes because clownshoes bad faith arguing isn't as prevalent. Not my fault, or anyone else's, that reality does not support you

The only real concern about CRT and its influence just seems to be that a person who has to hire lots of people misunderstands, deliberately or unintentionally, ends up hiring for diversity while eroding the idea of meritocracy

Meghan McCain sort of made that point on her tv show, asking if one of the hosts need to be replaced literally because nobody Asian has been on the host panel save for once...Everyone gets that. The problem arises when you act like that's racism and the US is becoming Nazi Germany, all the while literal Nazis were in the White House last term (Steven Miller) injecting a draconian policy at the southern border, and also acting like lefties can't possibly acknowledge it's still a crisis even tho Biden and media won't call it that. We get that, we criticize that too, but we don't spend all day whining about it because it's also kind of important to note that the policy, while a total mess imo and others' opinion, is no longer insanely draconian and inhumane, but you and others act like it still is as if you're devoid of nuance. Stop being devoid of nuance and maybe Trolly won't be so annoying to you

And by "we" I don't mean the left wing. I mean people who consistently argue in good faith. I don't even know why you would call my last post an ad hominem because it should be obvious I'm pointing out why Trolly acts the way he does and why this thread flows the way it does. It's not invalidating any legitimate point you've made, it's pointing out you make a whole shitload of dumb ones in between, of which makes no sense, and from which you start to make other claims and do weird **** like make blank posts. Because you can't control yourself, dude. Not my problem, it's yours

You can add that to the other points of evidence that you focus hard on the wrong things and weaken your own arguments as a result. Because you took that whole long winded post as an attack on you rather than an explanation as to why this thread is a lot of noise and dilutes the substance buried in between it

Again:

And:

It's basically the point I'm making, only adding that you intentionally don't want to acknowledge this even though it's 100% true. That's not to say it's a nothingburger, but that you and others make a mountain out of a molehill for lack of better words and that's just going to get you ridiculed every time

It also takes away time for the substantive stuff, which is more or less why I said anything at all. It's really hard to follow when Original Position lays out his usual quality posts and then it's a chain of petty nonsense and side jabs or you and LI talking to each other like you're the only two at the adult table and 25 posts later someone says something worth reading. And the worst part about it is your instant react is always to blame someone else and act like this is some giant ad hominem rather than constructive criticism mixed in with a gripe about the quality and readability of what I would imagine we'd all like to be stimulating intellectual discourse

If only everyone posted in good faith like Trolly we would have better discussion here.

The **** did I do?

The concern is raising a new generation of identity politics believers, including the white ones, and of replacing class issues with identity ones.

That's what CRT's influence is, what is already happening, and will continue to happen.
Obviously rational and reasonable people of all races will continue to reject labels, while racists of all races will gravitate towards extremist positions. The media will amplify this, and the cycle of racial issues will continue in perpetuity. That's the concern.

It's the never ending issue of lefties; not seeing their biggest weakness...how their ideas can be used to hurt the people they champion, while ignoring that the electorate is largely dumb.

But this is a much bigger problem on the right (look at the hardcore racists activated by Trump) which rejects CRT, so clearly the influence of CRT is not the driving force behind modern race extremism. It's a minor issue blown out of proportion by right wingers and their sympathizers to avoid having to defend the endemic racism in the conservative movement.

Trump is a part of the exact same system that promotes identity politics. It's not a contest to see which "side" is worse. They're all bad.

If that were true, you and iHIV wouldn’t be constantly going to bat for right-wing talking points.

dude I've been railing against privilege and crt concepts on forums for over 15 years. I'm not going to say I saw what today is like, but I knew something like it it was coming.

How could something I say affect what system Trump-- a man I've never met-- is a part of? I don't have that kind of power.
Oh wait I get it...you think everything that you disagree with is a right wing talking point and that everyone you disagree with must be a Trumper. I see...

"All these journalist"

Lol.




I don't think the problem is with Twitter, per se.

But there are some questions. For you example you used the term "fascist" to describe CRT, in what seemed like criticism of its normative component. Itshot and Corpus Vile has offered similar sentiments, if not so strongly worded.

But normative approaches aren't that uncommon in academia. They happen in medicine, law, ecology, economics and political science to name a few. You yourself have in the past quoted thinkers from within critical science and have given a lot of ideas on this forum that would have made one of the grandfathers of Critical Theory, Jurgen Habermas, nod in approval (your view on "elites", your views on mass media and your views on public understanding of politics). Critical theory from a methodological point of view is pretty close to CRT.

So it becomes a legitimate question why it is specifically CRT that meets this heavy criticism for daring to be normative. It arose within the discipline of law. One can disagree with its assumptions, but that there should be a normative approach to law ("how should the law be" vs "how is the law") isn't that strange. Presumably a lot of people who study law academically also want the law to be fair.

As I have said earlier, CT is not for me (and nor do I think CRT is). But I think a lot of the criticism in this thread has been scattershot more than precision aiming.

But it is a test for how much of identity politics is fueled by CRT. And the answer is not very much. The major party built by the worst aspects of identity politics also a priori rejects CRT.

Yes, I don’t doubt you were railing against “political correctness” back when that was the Fox News complaint du jour.

I used the term "fascistic" to contrast CRT with mainstream sociology, both in terms of their aims and the values that are promoted. As sociology values truth, objectivity and reason (which is the trademark of all science), whereas the normative component of CRT is literally a race-based will to power.
But you're right that academic fields can have normative components of course and legal studies can and should qualify as one of those fields. A normative sociology is a lot more problematic and CRT now is something that has eclipsed it's initial start as a legal field and ventured into places that are properly the domain of sociologists. So I'll admit that some of my objection amounts to a turf war, although it's still very much ideologically informed.
But you are right that I agree with them a lot. I probably agree with them a lot more than a lot of the people most content to carry water for them, and a lot of the difficulties here and what has made this thread scattershot is just the vastness of what we're discussing.

Welfare queens being characterized as mostly black, Obama phones, "quite living on the plantation African Americans", Obama as the "food stamp president", blacks not being the stereotypical Great Depression poor or a stereotypical Social Security recipients.

I wouldn't want to reduce all opposition to programs that help the poor to racism because people of all races will f*ck over poor people of their own race, but racialization of programs has definitely contributed to opposition to programs that help the poor.

When referring to baby bonds I was saying the inverse of the Southern Strategy because the Southern Strategy was all about not being racially explicit while racializing opposition to programs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

I've always argued in this thread that CRT is something that has been piggybacked onto existing identity politics trends. But I don't think the GOP being racist has all that much to say about the influence of CRT for the Democratic party or for the "left" though. But if the point is that CRT isn't needed for identity politics to be a thing, then I definitely agree.

No matter if you think this is just, or unjust... There are 14,000 people (the amount of poor whites) in Oakland, some of which are going to think this is unfair, no matter how much you teach them about white privilege. Do they get called racist for thinking this is unfair? Also, do you think these poor whites are going to be more sympathetic to identarian dogma?

No I didn't. I said if the wiki piece was correct re CRT particularly re alleged anti Semitism/Asian sentiment, it shouldn't be taught in schools/colleges with the caveat attached that I don't regard wiki as a reliable source of info.

I then stated if the wiki piece wasn't accurate then I'd no real opinion on it. I also stated in another post that I didn't have enough interest in it to research in debt and from a cursory inspection it seemed like psychobabble to me. I don't regard CRT as some bogeyman that'll be the end of society as we know it and again don't have the interest to research it further.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=388

Muslim isn't a race. So while Caleb is right that plenty of people jumped the gun, doesn't seem like he's the best person do decide what is or isn't racist

Well, if there is one thing proponents of CRT can't really object to on method, it is that people disagree with them on ideological grounds. That's the price of choosing a normative approach. What's left becomes a political debate.

My beef with CT was that it has a tendency to become fluffy, unwieldy, difficult to follow and the admission of bias doesn't always seem to come with the necessary diligence in conclusions. Freud-like if you will. My brief reading on CRT seemed to indicate similar symptoms, and I think its underlying assumptions seem to be dangerously close to blanket statements.

And yes, I prefer my social science in the descriptive format. Of course, these thoughts started in an age when positivism was the ruling format of science. Positivism was very arrogant, a view that science was this pure shining beacon of unbiased knowledge. In such an environment I think one can see how critical theory becomes a thing. An academic middle-finger if you will; "stop pretending you can be unbiased".

If you think the main point of talking about CRT is for right wingers and social conservatives to hype up hugely unimportant issues that make the left look bad while ignoring Trump or the fact that the main writer for the highest rated conservative news show got fired for blatant racism and misogyny intolerable even by Fox news standards, I agree.

No, it's probably close but there will still be more white people elevated as there are still more white people in poverty. 75% of the population are white and 10% are in poverty. AAs are like 13% and Hispanics are like 18% with about 25% poverty rates for them.

Conservatism is very much the art of white people hating their neighbors wile thinking they're hating the browns.

Ironic.