They are both pretty good, and both do their best to steel man CRT. One criticism I have of Wood's part is, he speaks as if Jamal is a monolithic entity and is representative of the black experience, when in reality he is combining the varied experiences of multiple folks and creating a character, i.e. a composite character.

OK but I’ve been asking iHIV for his take.

Ugh, the false dichotomy. We can be critical of Tucker and CRT.

and I repeatedly stated I'm looking for the counter argument to the most substantial criticism of CRT as presented by James Lindsey, Coleman Hughes, et al.

I get you need to make this about me and my competence, but give it a rest. almost everybody here knows you are looking for ammo rather than any sort of substantial discussion.

Do, iyo, what parts of CRT do you disagree with? Which do you agree with?

I'd be extremely happy to discuss CRT and various other frameworks that place a lot of emphasis on race. But I am not interested in discussing CRT with someone whose primary grievance with CRT seems to be it makes White people look bad.

It's just kind of a historical fact of past 200 years that in the US and much of Europe, white people have been on top of social and economic hierarchies and at times have perpetuated pretty awful institutions along racial lines. This fact should be obvious with or without CRT frameworks.

This is common, you must accept the premises of CRT before you even discuss criticisms of CRT.

These premises are:

I know it's for itshot but I was already planning on making this post.
But CRT would seem to get a lot of things correct. But there is still a danger here as CRT isn't a monolithic entity and so talking about the things it gets right and wrong can lead to trouble and claims of strawmanning very quickly.
So caveats aside: CRT is correct that racism has been given less significance than deserved in big picture sociological analysis. America was indeed founded on racism and designed to perpetuate a racist ruling class. CRT is correct when it calls out myths about egalitarian founding fathers or pablum about "the promise of America" or other such rhetoric.
I'm also very much sympathetic with the desire for radical change and share the emphasis on education (change comes from within) that CRT proponents seem to possess.

The breakdown into oppressor/oppressed categories is problematic however. On a geopolitical level, it does somewhat work in terms of how the West has (and still is) exploited the global South. On an individual level it's mostly absurd and likely counterproductive to break down people this way, and even more absurd to have educational programs that teach this false dichotomy to school kids. And in general I object to the premise that it's necessary to make people hyper-aware about race. This on philosophical grounds and without any empirical support-- so the CRT theorists may very well be correct that's it's possible to race-bait ourselves into a better future, but I don't see how getting white people to confess their inherent racism achieves much.
Ultimately, while I'm sympathetic to the concerns of CRT, I'm a conspiracy theorist which means I'm looking a lot further up the ladder to place blame than "white people"-- which I see as punching down and not up-- although the ruling elite is of course predominately white.

I sort of alluded to this in my initial response to you as well, but part of the problem I have with this response to CRT is that it is insufficiently attentive to the distinction between normative and descriptive claims (a problem I also have with CRT).

Our desire for race to not be socially significant does not mean that it in fact is not significant. Similarly, our hope that America can someday overcome racism does not mean that it can do so.

Accepting as a matter of faith that race shouldn't be significant and that racism can be overcome is a shaky foundation. Maybe it can, but it seems pretty reasonable to me for people who will suffer the worst effects of these hopes failing to reject that faith.

Obviously it is a good thing that society no longer places the kind of significance on race that it did during slavery and Jim Crow. But that doesn't mean that race no longer has any social significance. Part of the hope of the Civil Rights era was that non-discrimination and colorblind laws would lead to black people having similar outcomes as the rest of society, which didn't really happen.

This led to the disillusionment with liberalism and the legalist attempt to achieve racial equality that manifests in CRT. But I'm skeptical that CRT as an academic discipline was a significant cause of the cultural wokeism that has people like Lindsay and McWhorter upset. Instead, I view that more as a result of the collapse of racial liberalism that happened on both the left and the right during the Obama presidency, both because he represented an unsatisfying apotheosis of that vision of racial equality and because of a general loss of ideological control by elites.

I actually reject a lot of CRT's premises (as Wikipedia describes them anyway) and I'd love to discuss them.

I am just not interested in debating the historical fact that white people, especially those of western European descent (and more especially Anglo-Saxon, especially in American context), have suppressed other races in recent history.

I can't speak for Itshot here. But the CRT critics we've been discussing (John McWhorter, James Lindsay, John Wood Jr-- Coleman Hughes idk much about so can't speak for him) would not disagree with this. (And neither do I)

I don't either. He's referring to my example of how CRT defines "whiteness". He believes I have an issue with that because it's critical of white people, not that I have an issue with making deterministic value
judgments based on racial identity, irespective of race, and those identities being defined by academia, rather than the individual, which gets into the oppressor or oppressed dichotomy you mentioned earlier, and I've alluded to several times especially with my correlation with Marxism and the P v B dichotomy.

Many advocates of CRT attempt to straw man criticism of CRT as "angry white men being offended at how whiteness is described". Or, as Robin D'Angelo, would say "white fragility".

whole debate seems like the new pseudointellectual version of "affirmative action is the REAL RACISM"/ people of color are the real racists!"

Grunching. Why don't the just call it "Race Theory"?

I'll look at both the link and address some other parts of your post in a bit, but to the bolded: I tend to agree. CRTs roots as a purely academic pursuit going back decades are quite well established. It seems much more likely that 'wokeisms' rise is due to a confluence of factors, but in particular it's due to the system's love of identity politics. It's the divide between class politics and identify politics that Rflush touched on yesterday, and identity politics isn't nearly as threatening to the ruling class as its practitioners would like to pretend-- if they even have a conception of a ruling class-- many of them don't and the ideas are functionally mutually exclusive.
Social media is of course another huge factor in wokeism's rise and we can't discount that at all, along with Trump and Trumpism of course.
It would be silly to put CRT as the root cause of this. To the extent that CRT is used as the theoretical basis for a lot of the educational programs that have critics up-in-arms a more direct connection can be made, although I don't know if that could be called 'wokeism' per se-- whatever wokeism even means.
To get back to the point, academics in general seem to be a lot more prone to blame cultural phenomenon on other academics than should be warranted by common sense. Jordan Peterson puts the fall of civilization squarely on Jacques Derrida ffs (ok that's probably a strawman). That I surely doubt although perhaps there is a hint of truth in regards to CRT/wokeism. More likely CRT is being piggybacked into the current political climate.

Because it's 'Critical'.

As played yes.

Best for Hero to fold now.
Hero never folding.

Not quite pseudo intellectuals but linguists and mathematicians (amongst other disciplines, pretty sure there are some economists) weighing in where they don't belong.

It seems like way too many of the prominent critics are POC for this charge to be effective. (I mean I'm black and I'm taking over for you here so Slighted should probably seek to find more fertile ground for his trolling)

I read a pretty trashy newsweek article here that you'll enjoy on Asians and CRT. Asian Americans Emerging as a Strong Voice Against Critical Race Theory
The idea that a school district would lump Asians in with whites in making reports on their students' performance is sort of......interesting.

To the bolded, on my end at least, I fully admit that part of my opposition to let's call 'the excesses' of CRT/identity politics in general/ and 'wokeism'/, at least as it pertains to racial issues, are ideological and because I've drank the MLK/ colorblind society koolaid.
But otherwise I agree with everything you're saying. Where we differ is that I don't believe that the recent resurgence in racial issues (where under Obama it was not in the forefront as much) are as organic as I assume you assume them to be. I'll reference Matt Taibbi's book Hate Inc. here. But regardless, what we have is an already racist system-- and to be sure the black population has been deliberately targeted-- also pushing racism and racial issues on the masses. So you're right that we can't escape it.

I think that was already trademarked, although the people who did it went out of business ~75 years ago.

A hell of a lot of people's views on these kinda things are being shaped/or reinforced by people like him. So it might be a good idea to also point out what a clown he is

Surely none of the good people here would stoop as low as to watch Tucker Carlson, even if he were to randomly pop up on their youtube feed with a spicy title. People watch TV news still?

I mean, you still read Newsweek.