CRT, unfalsifiable claims, and Kafka-traps

[Orbit]

Wait, what? You're unable to use a search engine?

You made a claim, and that claim was that Critical Race Theory was part of the K-12 curriculum. You need to provide a link to substantiate that claim. You can do that by going to any state's Department of Education web page and looking at the curriculum standards for Social Studies. Provide a link to the standard that requires mastery of Critical Race Theory. Note that teaching about race, racism, and slavery is not the same as teaching CRT.

 

[Stevicus]

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

I think of CRT as a single tree in a forest of various ideas and schools of thought related to culture, history, and race relations in not just the U.S., but in the world as a whole. However, a lot of the political dialogue and rhetoric which is common in the general narrative tends to focus on the American experience.

Maybe DiAngelo is influential in some circles. Maybe there really are people out there who say and believe that "all white people are racist." But whether it has anything to do with CRT is another matter entirely. Maybe someone should have corrected her, and maybe there are those who have.

As far as influencing the population, when it comes to academically-oriented fields like CRT, most of it might be too esoteric and bookish as to be inaccessible to a large segment of the population. When the rhetoric filters down to the masses, they usually get the "dumbed down" version which is likely how statements like this come about.

I suppose the other side of this question is not really about CRT or where this statement comes from, but as you say, just how influential is this particular line of thought? And what effect could it have on those segments of the population which are already predisposed towards paranoia, xenophobia, and bigotry?

 

[icehorse]

That was was maybe five seconds of searching.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Are you some how able to derive a specific course curriculum from that article?

 

[icehorse]

You made a claim, and that claim was that Critical Race Theory was part of the K-12 curriculum. You need to provide a link to substantiate that claim. You can do that by going to any state's Department of Education web page and looking at the curriculum standards for Social Studies. Provide a link to the standard that requires mastery of Critical Race Theory. Note that teaching about race, racism, and slavery is not the same as teaching CRT.

In a world not dominated by sea lions, not every claim requires a citation. We have to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us or all conversations would grind to a halt.

In this case, if you do a search you'll get many positive results.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In a world not dominated by sea lions, not every claim requires a citation. We have to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us or all conversations would grind to a halt.

In this case, if you do a search you'll get many positive results.

icehorse, when responding to claims made by others:
"So I'll ask you as I've asked the others: You said "CRT doesn't actually claim that". So what is your source?"

icehorse, when responding to people challenging his claims:
"In a world not dominated by sea lions, not every claim requires a citation."

What is argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no addendum that reads "unless it's inconvenient".

 

[icehorse]

Citation needed, because the article in the OP quotes no such thing. It just asserts it.

Have you read the DiAngelo's book? Have the considered that there might be a little bit more complexity and nuance to a position when it is expounded upon in an entire book versus being summed up in an (what is fairly obviously a fairly bad faith) article?

Are you willing to acknowledge that, maybe, you don't know enough about this subject? Are you willing to actually listen to other people explain to you and acknowledge that? Because I've been through this with you before, and you seem very reluctant to admit when you very obviously have been misinformed about something.

After a decent bit of research my conclusion is that NO ONE knows enough about this subject. I have said several times in this conversation that I can't find any detailed curriculum. I have asked several times for the definitive source. Mostly what I've gotten in response is uncited virtue signals. The closest anyone has come is to point to the wikipedia page, which I would assume we've all read.

When we read articles - on any topic - we have to make subjective calls concerning the veracity of what we're reading. One metric I use is whether the article makes clear, specific, falsifiable claims. If it does, my sense is that what I'm reading is reasonable. Not a perfect system no doubt, but we all have limited time. I would have to guess that most of the posters in this thread take a similar approach.

As for nuance and complexity - doh! But OTOH, it's almost certainly the case that some of CRT is useful and some is over the top. So it's our job to sort the wheat from the rotten.

 

[icehorse]

I suppose the other side of this question is not really about CRT or where this statement comes from, but as you say, just how influential is this particular line of thought? And what effect could it have on those segments of the population which are already predisposed towards paranoia, xenophobia, and bigotry?

Bingo!

For the sake of brevity, I'll crudely label the more xenophobic and bigoted portion of the US, "the right". The right's propagandists are not stupid. They are worthy adversaries. They will ABSOLUTELY find the most outrageous claims spouted by the woke and use those claims to stir up trouble.

E.g., when someone says "all white people are racist", the right's clever propagandists will absolutely use that to solidify their base.

Liberals have to stop pitching such softballs to the right. In a recent poll, a large percentage of people on the right said they'd still vote for the dumpster fire, even if he's convicted. You have to ask yourself why? And a part of why, is because extremists on the left are making it far to easy for the right to mobilize.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How about addressing my questions and laying off the insults. if you've got a strong argument, you ought to be able to avoid such nonsense.

You question is loaded because you assume that there is one definitive, absolute and objective version of CRT. There is not. It is social science and not hard, natural science.

 

[icehorse]

icehorse, when responding to claims made by others:
"So I'll ask you as I've asked the others: You said "CRT doesn't actually claim that". So what is your source?"

icehorse, when responding to people challenging his claims:
"In a world not dominated by sea lions, not every claim requires a citation."

What is argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no addendum that reads "unless it's inconvenient".

Said the sea lion. Or perhaps said the ignorant.

Listen, we ALL rely on search engines. We ALL rely on a handful of articles we've read or talks we've watched. I been in many threads with the posters in this thread. No one has the time to thoroughly cite every claim that's made. So we all have to do our best to judge whether what we've watched or read is sufficient and credible.

I've watched DiAngelo speak, have you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

As for nuance and complexity - doh! But OTOH, it's almost certainly the case that some of CRT is useful and some is over the top. So it's our job to sort the wheat from the rotten.

So what is useful?

 

[icehorse]

You question is loaded because you assume that there is one definitive, absolute and objective version of CRT. There is not. It is social science and not hard, natural science.

I'm fine with that. But given that, how can you say that DiAngelo is wrong? See my posts 66 and 67.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

After a decent bit of research my conclusion is that NO ONE knows enough about this subject. I have said several times in this conversation that I can't find any detailed curriculum.

And yet, you have made very specific claims about it being on the K-12 curriculum. Curious.

I have asked several times for the definitive source.

There is no such thing. CRT is an an expansive sociological framework. It is not a monolith or a singular doctrine. This is like asking for the definitive source of English, or the definitive source of arithmetic, or the definitive source of media theory.

Mostly what I've gotten in response is uncited virtue signals.

I don't think you know what a virtue signal is.

The closest anyone has come is to point to the wikipedia page, which I would assume we've all read.

Except you, because you seem to make wild claims that have no relation to what it actually says.

When we read articles - on any topic - we have to make subjective calls concerning the veracity of what we're reading. One metric I use is whether the article makes clear, specific, falsifiable claims.

You mean, like the claim "this book says x" which can be verified by either reading the book or finding direct quotes from the book itself - neither of which you have done?

You just accepted what the article said, without reason, and repeated its assertions.

If it does, my sense is that what I'm reading is reasonable.

So, no need to actually CHECK if it's claims are true, you just ASSUME they're reasonable. Weird how you did this for a random article but not for Wikipedia pages.

Not a perfect system no doubt, but we all have limited time. I would have to guess that most of the posters in this thread take a similar approach.

Correct. Most posters on this thread don't just find a random article and repeat its claims without checking the veracity of them.

As for nuance and complexity - doh! But OTOH, it's almost certainly the case that some of CRT is useful and some is over the top. So it's our job to sort the wheat from the rotten.

This is literally true of all analytical frameworks, ideas, philosophies, art movements and historical analysis.

Thing is, you can't "sort the wheat from the rotten" if you can't even answer basic questions like "what it actually is" and "what it actually says".

 

[icehorse]

So what is useful?

Being aware that racism is still a problem, is useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm fine with that. But given that, how can you say that DiAngelo is wrong? See my posts 66 and 67.

I don't want to play that game. You claim parts of CRT are useful. Explain that and live up to your own standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Being aware that racism is still a problem, is useful.

That is as it stands meaningless, because you don't explaim how we know that.

 

[icehorse]

And yet, you have made very specific claims about it being on the K-12 curriculum. Curious.

Really? Can you not see the distinction between knowing that it's being taught and not knowing what SPECIFICALLY is being taught?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Said the sea lion. Or perhaps said the ignorant.

So you disagree that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?

Listen, we ALL rely on search engines. We ALL rely on a handful of articles we've read or talks we've watched.

No, actually. Some people dig a bit more into things. You can't excuse your own misinformation by saying "look, we're ALL misinformed!". That's not an excuse.

I been in many threads with the posters in this thread. No one has the time to thoroughly cite every claim that's made.

Then maybe stop holding other people to higher standards than you hold yourself. And maybe accept it when people provide your sources while you provide nothing, and use it as an indication that it is time to actually LEARN something.

So we all have to do our best to judge whether what we've watched or read is sufficient and credible.

I've watched DiAngelo speak, have you?

I don't care, and it's irrelevant. I've not made any claims about DiAngelo, I just asked if you've made the effort to read the book you keep claiming to know the contents of.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Really? Can you not see the distinction between knowing that it's being taught and not knowing what SPECIFICALLY is being taught?

Now you're just engaging in obfuscation. I'm not playing your games.

You have claimed it is being taught in the K-12 curriculum. Present evidence of this claim, please.

 

[icehorse]

And yet, you have made very specific claims about it being on the K-12 curriculum. Curious.

Really? Can you not see the distinction between knowing that it's being taught and not knowing what SPECIFICALLY is being taught?

You just accepted what the article said, without reason, and repeated its assertions.

Can we stop with arguments based on your limited abilities as a mind reader?

So, no need to actually CHECK if it's claims are true, you just ASSUME they're reasonable. Weird how you did this for a random article but not for Wikipedia pages.

Both can be - and probably are - true.

Thing is, you can't "sort the wheat from the rotten" if you can't even answer basic questions like "what it actually is" and "what it actually says".

I disagree. While it's good to know whether or if the academics agree, what's more important is what's getting into the hands of the right. The right WILL cherry pick. So we need to know what specifically is being said by influencers on the left, and what specifically is included in curriculums.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Bingo!

For the sake of brevity, I'll crudely label the more xenophobic and bigoted portion of the US, "the right". The right's propagandists are not stupid. They are worthy adversaries. They will ABSOLUTELY find the most outrageous claims spouted by the woke and use those claims to stir up trouble.

E.g., when someone says "all white people are racist", the right's clever propagandists will absolutely use that to solidify their base.

Or, in this case, they may not have said it, and the right just CLAIMS they have.

Liberals have to stop pitching such softballs to the right. In a recent poll, a large percentage of people on the right said they'd still vote for the dumpster fire, even if he's convicted. You have to ask yourself why? And a part of why, is because extremists on the left are making it far to easy for the right to mobilize.

It wouldn't matter what balls we pitch them. They're determined to stretch, lie and obfuscate. They are going to do it anyway. The correct response is not to silence the few voices that are (often) clipped out of context, or the few extreme voices who are not representative of the whole (or even a significant portion of it), its to show up the right for being dishonest.

I mean, what's the alternative? Silencing people because the right are going to disingenuously misrepresent them? Leave no room for discussion of ideas that the right MAY be able to stoke fear about? They. Are. Going. To. Do. That. Anyway.