CRT, unfalsifiable claims, and Kafka-traps

[icehorse]

Interesting article. The summary is that critical race theory (CRT), is a pseudo-science because it's based on at least one unfalsifiable claim:

"Every single white person is racist."

If you reject the claim above, the CRT proponent will say that your rejection makes you even more racist.

I learned an interesting fallacy, the "Kafka trap". Definition: A sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.

The Pseudoscience of Critical Race Theory

 

[PureX]

CRT has nothing at all to do with the proposition that everyone is racist. It's about systemic racism, which does not require that everyone be racist to occur.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting article. The summary is that critical race theory (CRT), is a pseudo-science because it's based on at least one unfalsifiable claim:

"Every single white person is racist."

If you reject the claim above, the CRT proponent will say that your rejection makes you even more racist.

I learned an interesting fallacy, the "Kafka trap". Definition: A sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.

The Pseudoscience of Critical Race Theory

It is a bit more complex than that, but yes, biases and stereotypes can be hard to recognize in one's own cogntion and behaviour.
Rather all humans are racist as a potentional behaviour and it can be hard to spot in oneself.
So yes, the USA has a problem with racism but that is not unique to white people for all cases, but is relevant in part because of the make-up of the USA.
Even Denmark has a racist problem.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From the article ...

One key tenet of CRT is that we’re all unavoidably racist, and treat people differently based on their skin color.​

Scanning Britannica > Basic tenants of critical race theory does not seem to support that assertion. A more thorough disccussion can be found here.

 

[Stevicus]

Interesting article. The summary is that critical race theory (CRT), is a pseudo-science because it's based on at least one unfalsifiable claim:

"Every single white person is racist."

If you reject the claim above, the CRT proponent will say that your rejection makes you even more racist.

I learned an interesting fallacy, the "Kafka trap". Definition: A sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.

The Pseudoscience of Critical Race Theory

I don't know of too many people who subscribe to this particular line of thinking. Such rhetoric seems more an abstraction, not necessarily literal claims of fact. Of course, one can find statements like that and twist it around and make an entire movement or school of thought seem nefarious and threatening. It seems that there are those out there who ostensibly want to generate more fear among certain segments of the white population, many of whom are already half-crazed with notions that they're going to be "replaced" and that the whole world is out to get them. There's rhetoric which just stirs the pot and gets people all riled up.

 

[The Hammer]

"Every single white person is racist."

Not even close to what it says.

 

[Orbit]

Interesting article. The summary is that critical race theory (CRT), is a pseudo-science because it's based on at least one unfalsifiable claim:

"Every single white person is racist."

If you reject the claim above, the CRT proponent will say that your rejection makes you even more racist.

I learned an interesting fallacy, the "Kafka trap". Definition: A sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.

The Pseudoscience of Critical Race Theory

I'm a sociologist. Sociology is the home of CRT, and that's not what it says. I've told you this before, and patiently explained examples of how I teach CRT in college. You seem invested in ignoring it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm a sociologist. Sociology is the home of CRT, and that's not what it says. I've told you this before, and patiently explained examples of how I teach CRT in college. You seem invested in ignoring it.

Of course. It makes it so much easier for me to deny it. Next week I become a creationist.

 

[icehorse]

@PureX, @Jayhawker Soule, @Stevicus, @The Hammer, @Orbit,

The article quotes directly from Robin DiAngelo's book: "White Fragility".

As I understand it, this book is extremely influential in the CRT world. So it would seem that you guys all disagree with DiAngelo?

Perhaps you're correct, but she's the one with the influential book...

 

[The Hammer]

@PureX, @Jayhawker Soule, @Stevicus, @The Hammer, @Orbit,

The article quotes directly from Robin DiAngelo's book: "White Fragility".

As I understand it, this book is extremely influential in the CRT world. So it would seem that you guys all disagree with DiAngelo?

Perhaps you're correct, but she's the one with the influential book...

Just because the book is influential doesn't make every line of it important or correct.

 

[sun rise]

@PureX, @Jayhawker Soule, @Stevicus, @The Hammer, @Orbit,

The article quotes directly from Robin DiAngelo's book: "White Fragility".

As I understand it, this book is extremely influential in the CRT world. So it would seem that you guys all disagree with DiAngelo?

Perhaps you're correct, but she's the one with the influential book...

There's at least one logical fallacy in the proposition that something being influential means that it's necessarily correct. And besides that, there's the "because some X is Y, therefore all X is Y' fallacy

 

[Orbit]

@PureX, @Jayhawker Soule, @Stevicus, @The Hammer, @Orbit,

The article quotes directly from Robin DiAngelo's book: "White Fragility".

As I understand it, this book is extremely influential in the CRT world. So it would seem that you guys all disagree with DiAngelo?

Perhaps you're correct, but she's the one with the influential book...

Let me explain to you how the academic world works. A given field has a range of books published in it representing a range of thought. When one teaches a subject, one generally goes with the mainstream consensus in the field; there is no requirement to double down and focus on one particular book. I think you will find that most sociologists don't walk into the classroom and say "you're all racist!" despite the fact that you can find a book that says we are by implication all participating in a society arranged in such a way that different skin color can produce different social outcomes.

 

[PureX]

@PureX, @Jayhawker Soule, @Stevicus, @The Hammer, @Orbit,

The article quotes directly from Robin DiAngelo's book: "White Fragility".

As I understand it, this book is extremely influential in the CRT world. So it would seem that you guys all disagree with DiAngelo?

Perhaps you're correct, but she's the one with the influential book...

Yes, and so she will provide the quote that the CRT haters will repeat constantly so as to misrepresent what CRT actually is. And keep in mind that it was never being taught in any school anywhere except to upper level law students in law school. And even then it was not a major aspect of their curriculum. More like a sociological addendum to it.

So now we have this gigantic media hubbub among the American ignoramuses on the right because they think CRT called them all racists (which many of them are) and is teaching this to their innocent saintly cherubic children (which would probably be a good idea even though it has not and will not ever actually happen). And they want to tear the entire school system (what's left of it) to pieces to put a stop to this most heinous and totally imaginary outrageous activity.

 

[icehorse]

Ok, so you're all telling me that DiAngelo is NOT a leading authority on CRT? (seems a tall claim, but let's go with that for now)

So then, what IS the definitive work on CRT?

==

As far as "influential" goes: I think it's useful to consider how an idea influences the world, no? So "perhaps" DiAngelo has CRT all wrong. Again, that seems an extraordinary claim...

But! She's super influential in the world. So you guys are quick to explain to me how academia works (phew, I was so confused), but frankly, who cares?

What's important is what influences the population. So if DiAngelo's got it wrong, you academic types have totally failed to correct her.

It's interesting that you're pointing fingers everywhere else and taking no responsibility

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, so you're all telling me that DiAngelo is NOT a leading authority on CRT? (seems a tall claim, but let's go with that for now)

So then, what IS the definitive work on CRT?

...

Here we go again. But you can't see the problem with your question, can you?

It is not a physical natural law theory and is a field of connected versions of understanding.

 

[Orbit]

Ok, so you're all telling me that DiAngelo is NOT a leading authority on CRT? (seems a tall claim, but let's go with that for now)

So then, what IS the definitive work on CRT?

==

As far as "influential" goes: I think it's useful to consider how an idea influences the world, no? So "perhaps" DiAngelo has CRT all wrong. Again, that seems an extraordinary claim...

But! She's super influential in the world. So you guys are quick to explain to me how academia works (phew, I was so confused), but frankly, who cares?

What's important is what influences the population. So if DiAngelo's got it wrong, you academic types have totally failed to correct her.

It's interesting that you're pointing fingers everywhere else and taking no responsibility

Taking responsibility for what? I teach about race in a way that represents the mainstream consensus that social institutions have produced different outcomes for people based on their skin color---that's CRT. When you insist on one sentence in one book, taken out of context-- that's not meant to be taken as holy scripture-- that's not responsible. The whole "CRT" hubbub is a political bogeyman, started by a conservative political operative specifically to misrepresent how race is taught. If you look hard enough, can you find a radical leftist professor? Yes. If you look hard enough, can you find a radical conservative professor? Yes. Why focus on the outliers when the trend is clear?

 

[The Hammer]

Ok, so you're all telling me that DiAngelo is NOT a leading authority on CRT? (seems a tall claim, but let's go with that for now)

Leading authority does not equal infallible or 100% correct.

*Sigh*

 

[icehorse]

Here we go again. But you can't see the problem with your question, can you?

It is not a physical natural law theory and is a field of connected versions of understanding.

I'm being told on this thread what CRT isn't. But no one has pointed to what it is.

Taking responsibility for what? I teach about race in a way that represents the mainstream consensus that social institutions have produced different outcomes for people based on their skin color---that's CRT. When you insist on one sentence in one book, taken out of context-- that's not meant to be taken as holy scripture-- that's not responsible. The whole "CRT" hubbub is a political bogeyman, started by a conservative political operative specifically to misrepresent how race is taught. If you look hard enough, can you find a radical leftist professor? Yes. If you look hard enough, can you find a radical conservative professor? Yes. Why focus on the outliers when the trend is clear?

It's disingenuous to twist my posts into me saying "this one sentence is all I need". You can find hours and hours of videos of DiAngelo speaking at conferences and on TV news shows. The sentence I quoted has been oft repeated and is a central idea, not some one off.

So are you saying DiAngelo is a shill for the right?

So you teach CRT. You've reached a couple of thousand students? DiAngelo has been heard by millions.

==

Next, what trend is clear? The devil is in the details. How do you know that the way you teach CRT is the "correct" way, or the common way?

Once again, you're failing to address how DiAngelo is impacting millions of people. What exactly is she getting wrong?

Leading authority does not equal infallible or 100% correct.

*Sigh*

See my reiteration above, sigh..

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am always dubious of sources that seem to go against the consensus and say "So and so teaches this". Instead of relying on a person that may be cherry picking it might be better to go to sources that support CRT and see what they say about the idea. I know that the absolute worst place to go to see how evolution is taught is to go to a creationist. The same rule may apply here.


That being said my one big gripe about CRT and now CPR is the acronyms that they choose. Those two are taken When I here CRT I think of a computer monitor from the 1990''s or earlier. Even worse is CPR. How do you practice CPR on racism? We don't want to bring it back to life.

 

[Orbit]

I'm being told on this thread what CRT isn't. But no one has pointed to what it is.


It's disingenuous to twist my posts into me saying "this one sentence is all I need". You can find hours and hours of videos of DiAngelo speaking at conferences and on TV news shows. The sentence I quoted has been oft repeated and is a central idea, not some one off.

So are you saying DiAngelo is a shill for the right?

So you teach CRT. You've reached a couple of thousand students? DiAngelo has been heard by millions.

==

Next, what trend is clear? The devil is in the details. How do you know that the way you teach CRT is the "correct" way, or the common way?

Once again, you're failing to address how DiAngelo is impacting millions of people. What exactly is she getting wrong?


See my reiteration above, sigh..

Actually this particular author that you have pointed out, and the book that you have pointed out, are NOT considered THE major work of CRT. Go to Scholar.Google.com and put in "Critical Race Theory" to get a sampling of the diversity of the literature on CRT, a concept that originated with Kimberle Crenshaw in the field of Criminology. You seem to think your pet author here invented it.

To be clear, the hubbub over CRT is from this guy: "Arguably, a large part of the debate has been inflamed and muddled by the activism of a conservative documentary filmmaker named Christopher Rufo.
As detailed in an extensive New Yorker profile, Rufo built a cottage industry exposing government racial awareness training across the US.....
He labelled all of the various episodes and instances he was cataloguing as examples of "critical race theory" in practice, even though the academic discipline was not always an exact fit for what he was documenting.
"The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory'," he wrote on Twitter. "We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans."

If you want to read more about CRT, try this, the BBC article from which this is excerpted: Critical race theory: the concept dividing the US

But please stop being Christopher Rufo's dupe.