Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Critical Race Theory, and why...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    I'm not interested in watching an hour-long video for the sake of this discussion, but I read through the article you linked and found it wholly unconvincing. The author says CRT is prone to invention because critical theorists look for things that aren't there. This is a universal criticism of anyone with a strong world view and could apply to religions, political parties, cultural groups, hobbies, etc. If you have any particular reasons to believe that CRT is especially deficient in this regard I would be interested in discussing them, but I otherwise don't see the point to arguing by link on a discussion forum.
    First CRT looks at everything through power dynamics and race - that is just false. There is no evidence that that is a fact.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...nd_controversy
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      ...you can not win. Everything must be viewed through race and power dynamics. Group identity, not individual agency or beliefs, rule. A common example:

      You own a small tailor shop where you need to personally service each customer. Two men walk in, one black one white, at the same time. You choose to help the white man first. That of course means that you see blacks as second class citizens. If you choose the black man first, that means you don't trust the black man to wander through the store while helping the white guy. Novel explanations of such racist tendencies can be invented for nearly every situation. It is devised so you can't win, the white owner is racist no matter his choice. And so are you...

      https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/87913...nd-anti-racism
      The reason both scenario are racist is because of the assumed intentions---intentions color the action. Therefore, if a store clerk helps customer A simply because the other customer B, was busy looking and so customer A happened to approach the clerk first---this is not racist....it is circumstance. But if the intention behind the action is racist---such as preferential treatment of one customer over another or suspicion of one customer over another---then that action becomes racist.

      Ofcourse...intentions cannot be known unless articulated by the person doing the action---therefore intentions are assumed. However, there are mechanisms that create a pattern of behavior---racist "systems" encourage discriminatory patterns of behavior over large sections of society---these patterns of behavior in turn validate/normalize racist/discriminatory intent leading to actions that recreate such patterns---and so on....

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
        I'm not interested in watching an hour-long video for the sake of this discussion, but I read through the article you linked and found it wholly unconvincing. The author says CRT is prone to invention because critical theorists look for things that aren't there. This is a universal criticism of anyone with a strong world view and could apply to religions, political parties, cultural groups, hobbies, etc. If you have any particular reasons to believe that CRT is especially deficient in this regard I would be interested in discussing them, but I otherwise don't see the point to arguing by link on a discussion forum.
        There has been discussion among some Muslims about CRT (...and BLM, Feminism, and other social movements of "Western" origins). It is said that the (West) approach to social problems is to "deconstruct" in order to facilitate an analysis of the problem. Deconstruction is indeed a great tool for analysis. However, it is perhaps, not the best tool to "reconstruct" a better society? This is because it seems to require a "target" (us-vs-them) So...feminism is in opposition to patriarchy, BLM is in opposition to Police injustice, CRT is in opposition to white supremacy---etc. Binaries continue the language/imagery of division---and perhaps do not offer enough of a vision for wholistic/healed societies in a global context?

        In general Islamic ethical principles,... Tawheed (unity) is the basis for ethics and Shirk (Division) for disunity/injustice. Therefore the construction of a "just society" cannot begin with the language/imagery of binaries/divisions....it must begin with the language/imagery of unity. ....?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          Also I'm not going to stop calling you out on what you said about wanting it to be illegal to be gay, and for them to be punished "like they used to".
          One thing that the "church" might gain from some cultural pressures is the remembrance that the gospel is to reach the sinner. So the church is supposed to have compassion that leads people to Christ. If we are too focused on the idea that only the righteous can come, the church meetings will be empty. But this concept is not intended to just let everyone keep on sinning without restraint.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            I'm not interested in watching an hour-long video for the sake of this discussion, but I read through the article you linked and found it wholly unconvincing. The author says CRT is prone to invention because critical theorists look for things that aren't there. This is a universal criticism of anyone with a strong world view and could apply to religions, political parties, cultural groups, hobbies, etc. If you have any particular reasons to believe that CRT is especially deficient in this regard I would be interested in discussing them, but I otherwise don't see the point to arguing by link on a discussion forum.
            This video by the discourses group presents a history how the scholarly world became detached from a cohesive philosophy. The modern social theories (e.g., CRT) are then without foundation.



            Everyone should watch this video who wishes to know how detached from reality the modern protesters are.

            The Evergreen campus is a microcasm of what we see on the streets with the protestors and rioters.

            Here is the start of a series on Evergreen. I'm not sure how good this series is. I had see other videos on this channel.

            Comment


            • #21


              Trump orders defunding of 'un-American propaganda' teaching white privilege and critical race theory at federal agencies

              https://www.theblaze.com/news/trump-...ivilege-racism
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Let me ask you, was putting homosexual and adulterers to death in the OT just?
                No it was barbaric. However, a lot of ancient societies did things that we, today, would consider immoral and barbaric.

                However, were the ancient Israelites as homophobic as some people today think?

                Unlike most most ancient literature from other societies, the Jewish Scriptures pay little attention to same sex eroticism, David and Jonathan is one possible exception.

                In 1 Samuel 19:1 we read that Jonathan "took great delight in David". The same Hebrew word is employed as in Genesis 34:19 to describe Shechem's desire for Dinah.

                Whether or not these characters existed, the concept of sexuality today is entirely different from that of the ancient world. Our modern terms of "homosexual" and "bi-sexual" really have no relevance for these ancient societies because our understanding of sexuality, which we use as a social construct in order to define people within a wider cultural context and system, was non-existent in the ancient world.

                People engaged in heterosexual and homosexual acts to varying degrees and for most of the time these behaviours were not objectionable to their contemporary societies.

                If David and Jonathan existed and if they had a sexual relationship, there is no indication from the Hebrew text to indicate that anyone was overly bothered about it.


                With regard to homosexuality, Jewish authorities do not interpret these isolated references found in the Hebrew bible to be comments on homosexual behaviour or attraction.

                From dozens of exegetical and biblical references to the "sin of Sodom", the medieval rabbinic authority Nachmanides, for example, composed a long commentary on Genesis 19 arguing that the "sin"of Sodom was unequivocally a sin against hospitality and not (as the later medieval Christian church interpreted it) a sin of sexual purity.

                Of course this does not presuppose that profound misgivings and taboos about homosexual behaviour did not exist within Judaic culture.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  No it was barbaric. However, a lot of ancient societies did things that we, today, would consider immoral and barbaric.

                  However, were the ancient Israelites as homophobic as some people today think?

                  Unlike most most ancient literature from other societies, the Jewish Scriptures pay little attention to same sex eroticism, David and Jonathan is one possible exception.

                  In 1 Samuel 19:1 we read that Jonathan "took great delight in David". The same Hebrew word is employed as in Genesis 34:19 to describe Shechem's desire for Dinah.

                  Whether or not these characters existed, the concept of sexuality today is entirely different from that of the ancient world. Our modern terms of "homosexual" and "bi-sexual" really have no relevance for these ancient societies because our understanding of sexuality, which we use as a social construct in order to define people within a wider cultural context and system, was non-existent in the ancient world.

                  People engaged in heterosexual and homosexual acts to varying degrees and for most of the time these behaviours were not objectionable to their contemporary societies.

                  If David and Jonathan existed and if they had a sexual relationship, there is no indication from the Hebrew text to indicate that anyone was overly bothered about it.


                  With regard to homosexuality, Jewish authorities do not interpret these isolated references found in the Hebrew bible to be comments on homosexual behaviour or attraction.

                  From dozens of exegetical and biblical references to the "sin of Sodom", the medieval rabbinic authority Nachmanides, for example, composed a long commentary on Genesis 19 arguing that the "sin"of Sodom was unequivocally a sin against hospitality and not (as the later medieval Christian church interpreted it) a sin of sexual purity.

                  Of course this does not presuppose that profound misgivings and taboos about homosexual behaviour did not exist within Judaic culture.
                  go away....
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    First CRT looks at everything through power dynamics and race - that is just false. There is no evidence that that is a fact.


                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...nd_controversy
                    There is no evidence that CRT looks at everything through power dynamics and race?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                      There is no evidence that CRT looks at everything through power dynamics and race?
                      Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power.[2][3] Developed out of postmodern philosophy, it is based on critical theory, a social philosophy that argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues,[4][5] and is loosely unified by two common themes. Firstly, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Secondly, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as pursuing a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly.[6]
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Group identity, not individual agency or beliefs, rule.
                        Historically that's a criticism that liberals make of conservatives, as conservatives are typically more willing than liberals to sacrifice the individual's freedom in order to promote group structure and identity and the social hierarchy and social order.

                        Leonard's example of gay rights is an example of this in practice, where liberals want to give the individual the freedom to make their own sexual orientation choices, while conservatives want to clamp down on the freedom of gay individuals in order to promote a particular group identity and particular social order.

                        You choose to help the white man first. That of course means that you see blacks as second class citizens. If you choose the black man first, that means you don't trust the black man to wander through the store while helping the white guy. Novel explanations of such racist tendencies can be invented for nearly every situation.
                        Two different people can take different actions for the same reason, or the same action for different reasons. I'm reminded of the story of two sons who were abused by their father, where one grew up to be an abusive father himself and said "with my own background, what else would you expect?" and the other grew up to be a kind and caring father and who said "with my own background, I knew what not to do, and was motivated to be a good father".

                        It is pretty obviously true that your descriptions of ways a racist shop owner might choose to behave and reason are plausible. The same underlying racism might manifest in different ways, with different reasoning. If you were trying to make a good case for critical race theory, I guess you succeeded.

                        Though I sincerely doubt it actually has much to do with your OP, as browsing the wiki article tells me CRT is something totally different to what you're talking about and has to do with analyzing the ways in which a legal system can manifest biased outcomes even if no individual in the system is racist. As you point out it's:
                        a social philosophy that argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors
                        So, contrary to your example in the OP, it wouldn't be interested in the psychology of that individual racist shop owner at all, and in fact says those "individual and psychological" factors aren't important.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          It is pretty obviously true that your descriptions of ways a racist shop owner might choose to behave and reason are plausible. The same underlying racism might manifest in different ways, with different reasoning. If you were trying to make a good case for critical race theory, I guess you succeeded.
                          The point of the example was to show that you can't win, you are considered a racist no matter the choice because the white person always has underlying racial bias. Just ask Robin DiAngelo, See "White Fragility." So you don't know the psychological disposition of the shop owner - it is assumed because of the color of his skin.

                          Though I sincerely doubt it actually has much to do with your OP, as browsing the wiki article tells me CRT is something totally different to what you're talking about and has to do with analyzing the ways in which a legal system can manifest biased outcomes even if no individual in the system is racist. As you point out it's:
                          So, contrary to your example in the OP, it wouldn't be interested in the psychology of that individual racist shop owner at all, and in fact says those "individual and psychological" factors aren't important.
                          https://newdiscourses.com/

                          Last edited by seer; 09-07-2020, 06:02 AM.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            No it was barbaric. However, a lot of ancient societies did things that we, today, would consider immoral and barbaric.
                            Indeed. Most Christians today wouldn't stomach many of the OT laws, as they are pretty obviously inconsistent with Christian morality. For most Christians, the problem is solved by not reading those OT books much, or, at all.

                            However, were the ancient Israelites as homophobic as some people today think?

                            With regard to homosexuality, Jewish authorities do not interpret these isolated references found in the Hebrew bible to be comments on homosexual behaviour or attraction.
                            It seems inherently unlikely the ancient Jews were homophobic. Other historical and archaeological sources suggest the cultures all through that region were pretty tolerant. As you note, it's a reasonably common view among Jewish scholars today to not think the Torah laws refer to homosexuality.

                            In 1 Samuel 19:1 we read that Jonathan "took great delight in David". The same Hebrew word is employed as in Genesis 34:19 to describe Shechem's desire for Dinah.
                            It goes further than that, and has some of the bible's strongest assertions of love, first in 1 Sam 18:1-3 where they "became one in spirit" and "loved him as he loved himself", and then in 2 Sam 1:26 where David says Jonathan's love was "more wonderful than that of women." The original audience in an ancient near-eastern society is clearly supposed to assume a sexual relationship from these descriptions.

                            Whether or not these characters existed, the concept of sexuality today is entirely different from that of the ancient world.
                            Clearly people in the ancient world had sexual desires. Clearly any individual might have sexual desires toward some people and not others. Clearly there would have existed people in the ancient world who experienced only same-sex sexual attractions. How they themselves conceptualized that, if at all, would be hugely variable, but if our term 'homosexual' refers to someone with predominantly or exclusively same-sex sexual attractions, then there certainly were homosexual people in the ancient world.

                            Our modern terms of "homosexual" and "bi-sexual" really have no relevance for these ancient societies because our understanding of sexuality, which we use as a social construct in order to define people within a wider cultural context and system, was non-existent in the ancient world.
                            We obviously have a wide variety of ideas in our society that we attach to such things, from gay pride parades, through to religious persecution. Obviously historical societies don't share our trappings, nor our ways of conceptualizing things.

                            Nonetheless, historic people clearly had sexual desires, and from their various writings they clearly thought about them. For example, Plato, writing at a similar time to when many scholars think the biblical creation accounts were being shaped into their final form, gives a creation account explaining how same-sex attracted people and opposite-sex attracted people originated, as an inherent product of the creation itself. His writings, and those of others in similar time periods, evince an interest not merely in the existence of same-sex attracted people, but in categorizing them positively based on that trait.

                            From dozens of exegetical and biblical references to the "sin of Sodom", the medieval rabbinic authority Nachmanides, for example, composed a long commentary on Genesis 19 arguing that the "sin"of Sodom was unequivocally a sin against hospitality and not (as the later medieval Christian church interpreted it) a sin of sexual purity.
                            From what I can tell, this largely seemed to be the standard Christian view until the publication of Book of Gomorrah by Peter Damian in the 11th century when he reinterpreted the sin of Sodom as being homosexuality and wrote a lengthy rant about how rampant it was within the church of his own time. His work seems to have quickly become influential within the Roman Catholic Church, and led to quite a crack down on same sex practices at that time, and long-term changed how Christians were reading the story of Sodom.
                            Last edited by Starlight; 09-07-2020, 06:38 AM.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              The point of the example was to show that you can't win, you are considered a racist no matter the choice because the white person always has underlying racial bias.
                              I get that's what you were trying to say. Critical race theory doesn't seem to be at all about that though. So your complaint appears completely irrelevant.

                              You're allowed to dislike people who think white people are all racist. You're allowed to whine about people who you see as having a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" attitude toward the actions of white people, as you describe with your store example. Fine. Whatever. Such people do sound pretty dumb. I agree. As a white person myself, who's a leftist, who's glad I'm white, and who doesn't view myself as racist, meeting any such people would probably cause me some intense eye rolling and I would probably dislike them strongly. Fortunately I never have, despite spending much of my life immersed in what you would call leftist and progressive groups and ideas. Because actually, people who think dumb things like that, are vanishingly rare on the left, to the point of like maybe the number who exist in your country might be countable on your fingers. But it's hilarious for you to pretend to yourself this is standard leftist thinking, or somesuch. Whatever. Pretend to yourself yourself the victim if you like. You're so totally persecuted. Whatever floats your victim-complex boat. Have a little cry, or a big cry. However, none of this seems to factually have anything to do with your thread title of critical race theory, which appears to me to be about social structures rather than about racist individuals or what occurs in their heads.

                              In my experience, zealots complaining about things like this invariably have less than no clue what they are even talking about.

                              When I was growing up, "postmodernism" was the in thing to whine about in Christian circles. After many years I realized not a single one of the people whining about it, who were giving sermons and seminars against it, actually had any sort of decently accurate grasp of what it was. Instead they had constructed a boogeyman between them, and their sources of information were each other, and the Christians giving each other talks about postmodernism had constructed a version that no actual postmodernist would at all recognize. When I got to university and did some study on postmodernism there was almost completely zero relationship with all the ideas about postmodernism I had learned from years of hearing about it as a Christian.

                              I've seen that sort of pattern play out over and over again on other issues, where the version of it that political and religious zealots create between them has nothing to do with the ideas that they are supposedly critiquing. So, instead of watching some overenthusiastic undereducated political or religious zealot in your video above talk about something he knows nothing about but which he's sure is totally bad, you should actually find someone who believes the theory, find someone who themselves espouses it, and watch a video of them telling you about it. I have no interest in clicking on the video because all my life's experiences lead me to be 99.9% sure that guy will be mostly wrong with regard to what he says, so if I watch it and believe him I'll know less than when I started because I'd have gained inaccurate beliefs. If I want to learn more about critical race theory, and frankly browsing the wiki article is making me apathetic enough about it that I doubt I can be bothered to watch a video about it, I would watch a video by an adherent of it giving a seminar about it.
                              Last edited by Starlight; 09-07-2020, 06:58 AM.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                I've seen that sort of pattern play out over and over again on other issues, where the version of it that political and religious zealots create between them has nothing to do with the ideas that they are supposedly critiquing. So, instead of watching some overenthusiastic undereducated political or religious zealot in your video above talk about something he knows nothing about but which he's sure is totally bad, you should actually find someone who believes the theory, find someone who themselves espouses it, and watch a video of them telling you about it. I have no interest in clicking on the video because all my life's experiences lead me to be 99.9% sure that guy will be mostly wrong with regard to what he says, so if I watch it and believe him I'll know less than when I started because I'd have gained inaccurate beliefs. If I want to learn more about critical race theory, and frankly browsing the wiki article is making me apathetic enough about it that I doubt I can be bothered to watch a video about it, I would watch a video by an adherent of it giving a seminar about it.
                                Star, Dr. James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose are both academics and have done a deep dive into Critical theory, its history and the influence it is having, especially in the US. It is all well documented. Both BTW are liberals and atheists. And Dr. Lindsay is not uneducated. He holds degrees in physics and mathematics, with a doctorate in the latter.



                                You can bring a house to water and all that: https://newdiscourses.com/tag/critical-race-theory/
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                119 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X