Critical Race Theory?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do schools intend to present both sides of the coin?

Because we all know that there's good on both sides, right?

Would you support that?

What peer-reviewed theory would you offer for consideration?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Something I've been occasionally mentally chewing on is whether or not it's even possible for any majority population demographic to not present racial injustice in some way.

Have human populations ever exhibited the ability to not lump themselves into class or race groups and eschew dominance over one another?

 

[74x12]

Woke culture dogma (including CRT) attempts to intimidate and brow beat people into agreement. "Agree with me or else I'll say you're really racist" is it's essential argument. It's ruled by a spirit of fear. It really is stupid and it reminds me of the knights who say Ni! This magic word before which all enemies melt in terror! Which is fun ... but seriously insane.

Many white liberals literally melt down in a panic attack if accused of racism. It can be a hilarious viral reaction; but it's also sad and I feel like they have serious unaddressed mental issues.

 

[Windwalker]

Because we all know that there's good on both sides, right?

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.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Here in MS I came across a 1960's History book. It taught that the KKK and Jim Crow laws were necessary. History books have since changed here, but this was for a long time cannon. People here were taught that the KKK was here for the benefit of blacks and whites both, that the curfews were for good reasons, that Jim Crow laws were, too.

Based upon that I can understand why some people may want to teach that ideas about racism have been instituted rather than simply something which occurs naturally.

That doesn't mean I know what items are being disputed. I don't know. My worry would be (if I had basis for worry) that they are somehow denigrating people in some way, but that is a tiny gnat of a worry. I don't think we are in danger of ruining a perfect society. I think we are probably not in danger of doing harm by acknowledging some systematic racism.

 

[epronovost]

Woke culture dogma (including CRT) attempts to intimidate and brow beat people into agreement. "Agree with me or else I'll say you're really racist" is it's essential argument. It's ruled by a spirit of fear. It really is stupid and it reminds me of the knights who say Ni! This magic word before which all enemies melt in terror! Which is fun ... but seriously insane.

Many white liberals literally melt down in a panic attack if accused of racism. It can be a hilarious viral reaction; but it's also sad and I feel like they have serious unaddressed mental issues.

As opposed to you who only call people who disagree with you on this issue as being stupid or tyrannical or even suffering from unaddressed mental issues?

You know, I sense a tad bit of hypocrisy here.

 

[Augustus]

. I don't see how quoting a definition from an African American Study textbook demonstrate that critical race theory isn't a concept associated with legal studies

You don't see how an article that defines CRT as broader than "critical legal studies" supports my argument that scholars use the term in a manner broader than "critical legal studies"?

I'm happy that the following definition more accurately reflects the usage of the term in both academic and popular discourse:

It is a critique of a whole range of legal, social, ideological, linguistic, educational and other power relationships that exist in society that help create and perpetuate structures/systems that lead to inequitable outcomes for "people of colour" (especially black people).

You may disagree, others can make up their own minds who is correct.

 

[George-ananda]

Because we all know that there's good on both sides, right?

I consider the search for truth with malice towards none a good pursuit.

What peer-reviewed theory would you offer for consideration?

Any racial theory will be hotly controversial at this time. I am saying 'Critical Race Theory' is not the only theory worthy of consideration. I mentioned the Bell Curve Theory as another theory worthy of consideration.

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

 

[Windwalker]

Woke culture dogma (including CRT) attempts to intimidate and brow beat people into agreement. "Agree with me or else I'll say you're really racist" is it's essential argument.

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.

It's ruled by a spirit of fear. It really is stupid and it reminds me of the knights who say Ni! This magic word before which all enemies melt in terror! Which is fun ... but seriously insane.

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.

Many white liberals literally melt down in a panic attack if accused of racism. It can be a hilarious viral reaction; but it's also sad and I feel like they have serious unaddressed mental issues.

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.

 

[Kooky]

Woke culture dogma (including CRT) attempts to intimidate and brow beat people into agreement. "Agree with me or else I'll say you're really racist" is it's essential argument. It's ruled by a spirit of fear. It really is stupid and it reminds me of the knights who say Ni! This magic word before which all enemies melt in terror! Which is fun ... but seriously insane.

Many white liberals literally melt down in a panic attack if accused of racism. It can be a hilarious viral reaction; but it's also sad and I feel like they have serious unaddressed mental issues.

If that's only true for liberals, then why does this put you out to such a degree that you are calling everyone who disagrees with you on this issue "seriously insane"? That characterization feels a little inconsistent, to be honest.

 

[Kooky]

I'm just interested to hear what people think about this idea? (it's in the news again)

Sounds pretty cool op

 

[Kooky]

It should not be taught as a fact in a classroom in a nation that prides itself on freedom of speech and thought.

By that argument, nothing should be taught as fact in a classroom. So I guess, that's a win for postmodernism?

 

[Augustus]

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

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.

Pot/kettle

 

[74x12]

As opposed to you who only call people who disagree with you on this issue as being stupid or tyrannical or even suffering from unaddressed mental issues?

You know, I sense a tad bit of hypocrisy here.

I didn't say that. I said the ideology is stupid. Imagine if I took it personally every time someone said my ideas were stupid? It happens all the time.

And I didn't say everyone is suffering from unaddressed mental issues. I said many are. And they are unfortunately. It's called OCD. I feel bad for them. Just because you have OCD doesn't mean you're insane.

If that's only true for liberals, then why does this put you out to such a degree that you are calling everyone who disagrees with you on this issue "seriously insane"? That characterization feels a little inconsistent, to be honest.

I didn't say that. I believe the idea of being intimidated because someone might call you a word is what is illogical and therefore insane. You choose to take this personally. I'm really just saying it's illogical.

 

[Kooky]

Pot/kettle

So are you just here to deal in ad hominems and vague insinuations that Political Correctness has Gone Mad again?

 

[George-ananda]

By that argument, nothing should be taught as fact in a classroom. So I guess, that's a win for postmodernism?

Not everything is controversial to large segments of society. If you want to get into controversial issues then all major sides should be presented .

 

[Kooky]

Something I've been occasionally mentally chewing on is whether or not it's even possible for any majority population demographic to not present racial injustice in some way.

Have human populations ever exhibited the ability to not lump themselves into class or race groups and eschew dominance over one another?

Interestingly I've only ever seen this argument brought up for issues like poverty, racial hatred, etc. - that is, cultural practices that typically are no detriment to the people at the top of society. Whereas similarly endemic issues such as crime, drugs, or minority radicalism don't seem to warrant that same treatment, and are instead often singled out as great ills that must be eradicated with great prejudice.

 

[Augustus]

So are you just here to deal in ad hominems and vague insinuations that Political Correctness has Gone Mad again?

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

I was pointing out, with quotes that clearly demonstrate the point, that doing the same thing you are criticising someone else for doing is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Kooky]

Not everything is controversial to large segments of society. If you want to get into controversial issues then all major sides should be presented .

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.

 

[Kooky]

I didn't say that. I believe the idea of being intimidated because someone might call you a word is what is illogical and therefore insane. You choose to take this personally. I'm really just saying it's illogical.

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