Critical Race Theory?

[Kooky]

I guess you are unfamiliar with the what the term ad hominem actually means.

That's always possible. I was under the impression that the term ad hominem characterizes an argument, statement or expression that attacks an argumentative opponent's person in lieu of their argument, with the typical goal to infer from a person's negative attribute a lack of merit on part of their argument. This is typically done along the lines of: "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong." Since you were making a thinly veiled attempt at accusing @Windwalker of hypocrisy instead of dealing with the substance of their argument, I thought the term would apply here.

Of course, you are welcome to show why either my definition is wrong, or why it does not apply to this situation. This is how well mannered argumentation is supposed to go after all.

If you want to blow me off and dismiss me as a crank in the same manner as you usually do, that's fine as well; I've come used to that kind of "argumentation". Note how this is not an ad hominem fallacy as per my definition, because I am not actually saying your arguments are bad because you are a bad person, but directly attacking what I see as bad argumentative habits of yours, and not making any claims with regards to the merit of your arguments.

 

[George-ananda]

Controversy is simple to create, you only need to poll enough people until you hit that one nutter who disagrees with the scientific consensus. Examples: Flat Earth, Creationism, Moon Landing conspiracies etc.

And for history, this would be a nightmare. Imagine how you would teach a class that includes topics such as slavery (should we include a "pro and contra slavery" panel?) civil rights ("Jim Crow - good or bad?"), or World War 2 ("Was Hitler justified in murdering the Jews? Were the Nazis the good guys, actually? Are we wrong to condemn the attack on Peal Harbor? Was Stalin the greatest man who ever lived?")

But of course, your argument does not reach that far; it stops right at the issues you consider controversial at a personal level.

Well each of those is a separate discussion.

Let’s discuss race theories. I personally think The Bell Curve is more correct than Critical Race Theory. I don’t see Critical Race Theory proponents wanting contrasting theories taught. Schools can do just fine without wading into controversial racial theories.

 

[74x12]

Calling people who accept science and reason as "woke culture dogma", is in fact the flip side of attempts to intimate and brow beat people into agreement. Labeling and branding and characterizing rational people as a negative, is intimidation tactics. This is projection by the right of their own sins upon those they feel a need to be at war with, for some reason or other.

Sorry but the fact you call it science just makes it sound even more dogmatic to me.

Now, as far as calling out racism goes. That is a good thing, isn't it? Would you rather not address it at all? Would you like no one to talk about it and it just go away, so you can go back to the way things were before all these uppity blacks got all upset and protested and asserted themselves into public discourse again?

It should be addressed in the correct manner. For some reason the modern woke culture completely disagrees with Martin Luther King for example when he talked about a color blind society. No, we don't want that now do we? We want everyone to constantly obsess over race. It's seriously harmful for everyone but we do it; because we profit by it.

So according to the Bible you can't overcome evil with more evil. Yet the woke culture as it is wants to address the evil of racism with fear and intimidation tactics. They're only making things worse. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and instead of trying to make bridges to the other side woke culture tries to bombard the other side with a cannonade of vitriol.

Because forcing people to be your friend never truly works; but woke culture and CRT have minorities believing that no one (of other races) even wants to be their friend and everyone secretly hates them. That is wrong to reinforce such views for so many reasons. Yet the liberal establishment doesn't seem to even care.

"Can't we all just go back to the way things were?", is the driving impulse behind why conservatives chose to hate the light of rationality penetrating the smokescreens it created, that society for itself created and they wish to hold onto, regardless of the facts. To acknowledge that is just intelligence looking at facts. Dealing with it is everyone's mature responsibility. It's the adult view to be dealt with critically, not emotionally.

But it is liberals who constantly play the victim card and constantly claim they're being assaulted emotionally. I think they need to take criticism and they need to realize they are proponents of racist ideology themselves which they claim is anti-racist.

A mature human being will examine themselves for their own actions and take ownership of them. And that entails being honest about the structures of the society that has helped to benefit them, while disadvantaging the black population in every area of society.

The fact is that not all white people enjoy advantages in this society. Many are poor, disenfranchized and without a voice but the white liberal establishment chooses to ignore and even belittle those people in favor of race baiting politics. On the other hand not all minorities are poor, disenfranchized and without a voice. So, democrats used to be the party for the little people but now they honestly just come across as hating all white people.

You have people at all levels of maturity in both conservative and liberal groups. Many liberals who are mature, acknowledge the truth that they have benefitted by, and others, well, some may not quite see it in themselves quite yet, even though they understand the truth of it because of the facts examined rationally. Conservatives tend to have not taken that first step of moving beyond denying it's real yet, like not accepting evolution.

I agree we have mature people in both groups but liberal establishment doesn't want to acknowledge or own the damage their extremist ideologies are doing to more vulnerable people. For example how I was talking about the rise of mental illness among some well meaning white liberals consumed with white guilt.

 

[74x12]

I didn't take it personally, I just found your argument confusing and nonsensical.

Alright, fair enough.

 

[Kooky]

Let’s discuss race theories. I personally think The Bell Curve is more correct than Critical Race Theory.

The Bell Curve has been thrashed by a wide range of social scientists both for its dubious methodology and the terrible conclusions it draws from its data. You may well find it credible because it reinforces your existing belief in the fundamental inequality of people based on inborn and immutable characteristics, but its credibility as a work of science has been thoroughly tarnished, despite it still being held up as gospel truth by "race realists" and ethnostate supporters.

 

[George-ananda]

The Bell Curve has been thrashed by a wide range of social scientists both for its dubious methodology and the terrible conclusions it draws from its data. You may well find it credible because it reinforces your existing belief in the fundamental inequality of people based on inborn and immutable characteristics, but its credibility as a work of science has been thoroughly tarnished, despite it still being held up as gospel truth by "race realists" and ethnostate supporters.

Great we see things quite differently and we both think we’re right. And I think your comments come from the playbook of a culturally bullying left wing. We are not going to settle that here and we don’t need to.

My point here is schools can do fine without wading into controversial race theories.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Probably schools are best to just teach equality under the law and not tackle controversial theories that will rile some?

History and sociology courses should teach, not preach.
That you find the claim that systematic racism was impactful to be 'controversial' is disgusting. That you're concerned about being riled up is pathetic.

 

[George-ananda]

History and sociology courses should teach, not preach.
That you find the claim that systematic racism was impactful to be 'controversial' is disgusting. That you're concerned about being riled up is pathetic.

Perhaps you are not aware of what Critical Race Theory is then? Let's start from the Encyclopedia Britannica (generally respected):

Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.


This is not just about history but now.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is social sciences. It should be taught in school, the same as the scientific theory of evolution should be. The only activists, are the ones who decry it, who happen to be the same ones who decry teaching evolution. They hate anything that tells the truth through science, and much prefer ear-tickling over education. Education threatens their sense of reality as they believe it to be.

It's activism. Not social science.

 

[Kooky]

Great we see things quite differently and we both think we’re right. And I think your comments come from the playbook of a culturally bullying left wing. We are not going to settle that here and we don’t need to.

We don't need to "settle" anything anywhere, I frankly don't care at all about your infatuation with dodgy race science. It was you who brought up "race theories" and The Bell Curve and I simply responded to that. If you don't handle that level of disagreement well, then frankly you shouldn't have started this tangent in the first place.

My point here is schools can do fine without wading into controversial race theories.

Schools "can do fine" while lacking a lot of things. I've talked to people who'd attended schools with mud floors and they'd still managed to learn several languages. That's not really the point at all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Never heard of critical race theory

but to ban it is rather like Book Burning.

There have been many examples in the past, and all have ended badly.

You know? I see a compromise here.

Don't teach it, but have a book on the subject at the school library for any student to check out.

 

[Augustus]

That's always possible. I was under the impression that the term ad honimen characterizes an argument, statement or expression that attacks an argumentative opponent's person in lieu of their argument, with the typical goal to infer from a person's negative attribute that their argument lacks merit. This is typically done along the lines of: "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong." Since you were making a thinly veiled attempt at accusing @Windwalker of hypocrisy instead of dealing with the substance of their argument, I thought the term would apply here.

Of course, you are welcome to show why either my definition is wrong, or why it does not apply to this situation. This is how well mannered argumentation is supposed to go after all.

A) pointing out, with quotes that clearly demonstrate the point in question, that doing the same thing you are criticising someone else for doing is the pot calling the kettle black

B) an argument, statement or expression that attacks an argumentative opponent's person in lieu of their argument

You are saying that you need me to explain to you specifically how A) is not B)?

If you want to blow me off and dismiss me as a crank in the same manner as you usually do, that's fine as well; I've come used to that kind of "argumentation". Note how this is not an ad hominem fallacy as per my definition, because I am not actually saying your arguments are bad because you are a bad person, but directly attacking what I see as bad argumentative habits of yours, and not making any claims with regards to the merit of your arguments.

I don't think you are a "crank" I just think you don't read posts very carefully and add lots of your own *creative* interpretation as to what you think people are saying, rather than trying your best to understand what they are actually saying, even when they correct you on your obvious misrepresentations.

 

[Kooky]

A) pointing out, with quotes that clearly demonstrate the point in question, that doing the same thing you are criticising someone else for doing is the pot calling the kettle black

B) an argument, statement or expression that attacks an argumentative opponent's person in lieu of their argument

You are saying that you need me to explain to you specifically how A) is not B)?

Yes, that's how arguments typically work. Ideally, you would support your statement with "supporting evidence" (hence the qualifier).

I know that this approach lacks your usual reliance on the arrogant belittlement of your opponent, but give it a try at least once!

 

[InChrist]

The orange-hued god of Christian Evangelicals says there are good Nazi's, so I suppose we should teach White Supremacy in school too, as an alternative truth to the liberal's opinions of human rights and equality? Seems only fair.

There may be plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Trump, but why do you feel the need to repeat a falsehood that the media created, which has since been thoroughly debunked? As well as, stereotype and slander all evangelical Christians?

 

[InChrist]

Calling people who accept science and reason as "woke culture dogma", is in fact the flip side of attempts to intimate and brow beat people into agreement. Labeling and branding and characterizing rational people as a negative, is intimidation tactics. This is projection by the right of their own sins upon those they feel a need to be at war with, for some reason or other.


In reality, conservatism by its very definitions, is fear based. It conserves. It draws back, or withdraws and retreats. That is how it is defined. That is a fear response to change. Conservatism's very ground of being, is fear-based.

Now, as far as calling out racism goes. That is a good thing, isn't it? Would you rather not address it at all? Would you like no one to talk about it and it just go away, so you can go back to the way things were before all these uppity blacks got all upset and protested and asserted themselves into public discourse again?

"Can't we all just go back to the way things were?", is the driving impulse behind why conservatives chose to hate the light of rationality penetrating the smokescreens it created, that society for itself created and they wish to hold onto, regardless of the facts. To acknowledge that is just intelligence looking at facts. Dealing with it is everyone's mature responsibility. It's the adult view to be dealt with critically, not emotionally.


A mature human being will examine themselves for their own actions and take ownership of them. And that entails being honest about the structures of the society that has helped to benefit them, while disadvantaging the black population in every area of society.

You have people at all levels of maturity in both conservative and liberal groups. Many liberals who are mature, acknowledge the truth that they have benefitted by, and others, well, some may not quite see it in themselves quite yet, even though they understand the truth of it because of the facts examined rationally. Conservatives tend to have not taken that first step of moving beyond denying it's real yet, like not accepting evolution.

You are certainly free to have your own perspective, but I think in actuality white liberal progressive are so much more bigoted and condescending to people of color, especially Blacks and Hispanics.

“Conservatives” tend to think all people are individuals first, and thus that, regardless of what popular stereotypes might indicate about any given identity group, each new person one encounters must be treated as one’s equal by default, until and unless he or she proves otherwise.

“Liberals,” by contrast, as a matter of ideological faith, think of everyone as a member of an identity group first, and since everyone knows popular stereotypes of blacks indicate lack of education and poor language skills, this means “liberals” will habitually prejudge each individual black person they encounter according to that stereotype.

In short, to the extent that conservatives are less collectivist in their presuppositions, they will naturally exhibit less racial prejudice than liberals. Again, no surprise.

Ho-hum Study from Yale: Progressives More Racist Than Conservatives – DAREN JONESCU

 

[Augustus]

Yes, that's how arguments typically work. Ideally, you would support your statement with "supporting evidence" (hence the qualifier).

Direct quotes don't constitute supporting evidence?

Interesting logic...

I know that this approach lacks your usual reliance on the arrogant belittlement of your opponent, but give it a try at least once!

Pearl clutching pot calling the kettle black..

 

[Windwalker]

Pot/kettle

Saying that converstivim is fear-based is factual. I don't call that labeling or branding them. It's just understanding the nature of what it is. It resists change and progress. Why resist change? Fear.

Are you saying we are not allowed to examine it, because it's "political" or something? However, brandishing the "woke dogma" speak, is in fact political. What I said was not. Just factual.

 

[Augustus]

Saying that converstivim is fear-based is factual. I don't call that labeling or branding them. It's just understanding the nature of what it is. It resists change and progress. Why resist change? Fear.

Are you saying we are not allowed to examine it, because it's "political" or something? However, brandishing the "woke dogma" speak, is in fact political. What I said was not. Just factual.

No, it is not "factual" unless you are so ideologically blinded that you can't differentiate between your own subjective assumptions and objective facts.

You said "Labeling and branding and characterizing rational people as a negative, is intimidation tactics."

You then characterised conservatives as being driven by "fear", a negative emotion. Then claimed you were simply being "factual" by characterising a very broad political designation as being driven by this negativity despite that fact that the majority of conservatives would disagree with you on this, and that there are rational (albeit subjective) arguments in favour of conservatism.

I believe that anyone who claims that the "other side" in a very broad and simplistic "conservative/liberal" dichotomy is primarily driven by negativity is simply demonstrating their own prejudice and closed-mindedness.

 

[Windwalker]

Sorry but the fact you call it science just makes it sound even more dogmatic to me.

Do you think that anything that employs a critical analysis of something in an academic setting is "dogmatic". What is it about saying things like the social sciences are "science", makes them dogmatic to you? Because they challenge what you thought you knew?

I see the sciences as neutral. It's the responses to them which speak of the individuals themselves, and their willingness or not to consider what the information tells. Don't shoot the messenger, in other words.

It should be addressed in the correct manner. For some reason the modern woke culture completely disagrees with Martin Luther King for example when he talked about a color blind society. No, we don't want that now do we? We want everyone to constantly obsess over race. It's seriously harmful for everyone but we do it; because we profit by it.

Multiple things here. First, referring to academia and intelligent society as "woke culture" is a derogatory term meant as an ad hominem slight, "oh... them..." The better term for it would be adults. Rational, educated, reasoned, and mature adults, as well as some degree of compassion for those outside your immediate cultural and religious group. That's maturity.

And that maturity can, and does also exist within conservative worldviews as well. So it is not just 'left wing libs", or some other labeling. There are rational conservatives, to be certain, who themselves accept things like the social sciences and other forms of academic studies. It's shocking, like saying your a Christian and you accept Evolution seems shocking, but it's true nonetheless.

Secondly, do you not understand WHY we're still talking about it? That colorblind society does not yet exist! That's the goal, but the conservative impulse as a whole has done everything against that happening, stacking the deck against integration. You want to know who is to blame for racial tensions? Do you think it's just the black 'nature' to be angry for no reason?

Can you see things for one day from their perspectives?

So according to the Bible you can't overcome evil with more evil. Yet the woke culture as it is wants to address the evil of racism with fear and intimidation tactics.

What do you mean, fear and intimidation tactics? You mean presenting facts and statics and data? Fear is what tries to keep the teaching of evolution of a schools, for that very reason. Fear of facts and reality. Fear of facing changing how you think about reality. That's all this is. Nothing more dressed up than that.

They're only making things worse. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and instead of trying to make bridges to the other side woke culture tries to bombard the other side with a cannonade of vitriol.

Again, with labeling this whole as "woke culture". I certaintly don't identify myself as whatever the hell that is supposed to mean anyway. I just see myself as rational and informed, as well as honest and mature. Does that threaten something for you? What is that?

But as far as flies with honey and all, yes of course that is true. But those who just wanted it to all go away, and work against that change, are not putting honey out at all. They are shaking the bees nest and hitting it with sticks, and guns, and knees pressing down on the hive. So.... it comes as little surprise when some bees get angry enough they start stinging.

Maybe if conservatives were honest and actually offered some honey in good faith, we wouldn't have all these racial tensions in the first place?

Because forcing people to be your friend never truly works; but woke culture and CRT have minorities believing that no one (of other races) even wants to be their friend and everyone secretly hates them.

I don't look at it as force you to be friends. But expecting you to be a good neighbor who doesn't drain his neighbor's lake and fishing stream, is not the same thing as asking you to be pals with him.

But it is liberals who constantly play the victim card and constantly claim they're being assaulted emotionally.

Some would consider me to be liberal, and I don't do any of that. Who are you talking about specifically? It can't be all liberals.

The fact is that not all white people enjoy advantages in this society.

Sure not all. Statistically speaking however, there is a clear advantage given to whites over blacks. That's the data. Don't shoot the messenger.

I agree we have mature people in both groups but liberal establishment doesn't want to acknowledge or own the damage their extremist ideologies are doing to more vulnerable people. For example how I was talking about the rise of mental illness among some well meaning white liberals consumed with white guilt.

If we found out space aliens were real, not everyone would adjust well to trying to integrate that truth into their reality. It's not the fault of the facts. The facts are just the facts. They are neutral.

 

[Windwalker]

You then characterised conservatives as being driven by "fear", a negative emotion.

Fear is not a negative emotion. Fear is fear. And what I said was that conservatism is centered around fear, or resistance to change. I said nothing of the individuals themselves as a whole. I was speaking of an ideology. The definition of conserve is this, "protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction." Why does someone which to protect? Because they fear its destruction. Hence, fear is the energy behind the conservative impulse. How is this not factual?