CRT, unfalsifiable claims, and Kafka-traps

[icehorse]

I don't care, and it's irrelevant. I've not made any claims about DiAngelo

This thread is largely ABOUT DiAngelo. It's NOT about academics in ivory towers. It's about what's seen in public.

If you search for DiAngelo on YouTube you'll see that her videos have MILLIONS of views. IF she's got it wrong, then the academics must leave their towers and publicly set her straight.

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.

In general, it's extremely difficult to prove that a thing does not exist. That is the stance you're taking. Yours IS the more extraordinary claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

You seems to be confusing reading "minds" with "words".

Both can be - and probably are - true.

Based on what? What allows you to determine the truth of one claim vs the truth of another, conflicting claim?

You have an article that CLAIMS DiAngelo has said "all whites are racist" but doesn't provide any direct quote to that effect. So, what do you do? Do you just accept the conclusion, or do you question it?

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.

So we can do... What? Selectively censure people who the right might lie about?

Take a look at your article. You accepted its claims without verifying them, despite not having read DiAngelo. Now, if it turns out DiAngelo actually DOESN'T hold those positions - or her positions are significantly more nuanced and complicated than the article is implying - on whose fault should the axe fall? DiAngelo for writing things that COULD be interpreted and twisted by the right to generate fear, or the people who twisted her words in order to generate fear?

 

[icehorse]

Or, in this case, they haven't said it, and the right just CLAIMS they have.

You underestimate them if you think they'd open themselves to slander or libel charges. You think DeSantis would be that careless?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This thread is largely ABOUT DiAngelo.

That's convenient, because you've accepted (and made) a lot of claims about them that you have failed to support. Now, they're suddenly irrelevant to the topic. Weird that.

It's NOT about academics in ivory towers.

CRT is an academic framework. So, yes it is.

It's about what's seen in public.

None of which you have thus to substantiate, save for one article that refers to a book you haven't read that indicates that conclusions MAY be drawn from it that you don't agree with. That's literally the extent of your knowledge of the public ideas at play, here.

If you search for DiAngelo on YouTube you'll see that her videos have MILLIONS of views. IF she's got it wrong, then the academics must leave their towers and publicly set her straight.

And HAS she got it wrong? Who else has got it wrong? You seem to be very worried about the possibility of this one person having a bad take, and seem to feel it should be other people's responsibility to "correct" them.

CRT is filled with discourse. Your hand-wringing over one person seems ill-founded.

In general, it's extremely difficult to prove that a thing does not exist. That is the stance you're taking. Yours IS the more extraordinary claim.

You are testing my patience. You know very well the burden is on you, icehorse. Don't insult our intelligence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You underestimate them if you think they'd open themselves to slander or libel charges. You think DeSantis would be that careless?

You seriously think the right doesn't lie?

 

[icehorse]

Another LMGTFY moment:

Do a search on the phrase: DiAngelo all white people are racist

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Another LMGTFY moment:

Do a search on the phrase: DiAngelo all white people are racist

You know that LMGTFY literally means "let me Google that FOR YOU", right?

As in, YOU GOOGLE it and PRESENT the compelling evidence/argument you found from Google.

What you've just done is "let me tell YOU to Google that for me", or "LMTYTGTFM".

Present specifics, please. What specific search result, out of the 390,000 that show up, would you like to talk about?

 

[Stevicus]

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.

They won't really be able to control every crackpot with an ax to grind, but the question is whether they have any influence or pull within whatever faction they're purportedly a part of. But what also seems apparent is that it's not always clear as to where some of this stuff comes from, whether it's right-wing, left-wing, false flag, fake news - there's such a cacophony out there of different sources and various crackpots with axes to grind.

And as you say, Trump seems to have rallied many of the nation's crackpots together. But there are still plenty of left-wing crackpots who are against Trump. So, there's going to be plenty of fodder for either side to blacken and tar the other side as "evil" and the "worst thing in the world."

Personally, I guess I'd like to see cooler heads prevail, those who can approach issues logically and unemotionally. A line I once heard "We can talk sanity to madmen, we can calm mad dogs." But for those who have already gone off the rails and are fully in with the Lunatic Fringe, it may be a rough ride.

 

[MikeDwight]

This is the exact opposite of how I would have guessed it was defined until I look it up. Moving outside of Civil Rights activism this is about black power movements and poverty.

critical race theory
[critical race theory]

NOUN

1. a set of ideas holding that racial bias is inherent in many parts of western society, especially in its legal and social institutions, on the basis of their having been primarily designed for and implemented by white people:
   
   
   

 

[icehorse]

You know that LMGTFY literally means "let me Google that FOR YOU", right?

As in, YOU GOOGLE it and PRESENT the compelling evidence/argument you found from Google.

What you've just done is "let me tell YOU to Google that for me", or "LMTYTGTFM".

Present specifics, please. What specific search result, out of the 390,000 that show up, would you like to talk about?

You know that LMGTFY is a sarcastic jab, right?

Step back for a minute. One way we could rephrase your claim is: "DiAngelo never said that". Again, proving a negative is - in general - an extremely difficult proposition.

So I've given you a search phrase so that you can see that your extraordinary claim is false.

 

[icehorse]

Here's an over view of the general idea, complete with sources.

Critical race theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That was was maybe five seconds of searching.

How carefully did you read the wikipedia page you linked to?

Can I assume that you agree with the following:

- intersectionality theory
- storytelling being more important than evidence and reason

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wiki last edited by Richard-of-Earth.

Creative.

Likewise with Twilight Hue and Nowhere Man.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Likewise with Twilight Hue and Nowhere Man.

Sometimes I miss Nowhere Man and the endless water pipe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can I assume that you agree with the following:

Only if you have very abysmally poor comprehension abilities and somehow, and very inexplicably somehow got the idea that someone relaying information about something is an explicit endorsement of that information.
Can I ask why there is a small segment of RF dedicated to putting words in people's mouths amd insisting they said things they never said?

 

[MikeDwight]

Clarence THomas is the President of Dixieland the seceding court justices whom were cast out, but we will respect Clarence Thomas until the end. Because I never noticed anyone ever. YAAAAA . The Ol' YEBEL YELL.... YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAA THOMAS . Clarence Thomas not a Bill Clinton Justice he's a Republican GHW Bush Justice therefore an Abraham Lincoln Justice! The Ol' Rebel Yell!!! YEEEEEE

 

[Orbit]

How carefully did you read the wikipedia page you linked to?

Can I assume that you agree with the following:

- intersectionality theory
- storytelling being more important than evidence and reason

Intersectionality is a useful concept. I've used it in my teaching, and have published on it. Student complaints about the content taught: zero.

 

[Yerda]

This thread is largely ABOUT DiAngelo. It's NOT about academics in ivory towers. It's about what's seen in public.

If you search for DiAngelo on YouTube you'll see that her videos have MILLIONS of views. IF she's got it wrong, then the academics must leave their towers and publicly set her straight

Genuine question: Is DiAngelo's book CRT?

It doesn't sound like it to me, which is why I was surprised by the use of the book as an example.

 

[Orbit]

Genuine question: Is DiAngelo's book CRT?

It doesn't sound like it to me, which is why I was surprised by the use of the book as an example.

I don't think the originators of CRT would consider it CRT, no. Strictly speaking, it's a book about racism. Not everything to do with racism is CRT, though some concepts developed in CRT have become standard in discussions of race (like intersectionality).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Another LMGTFY moment:

Do a search on the phrase: DiAngelo all white people are racist

Okay, I did that. Precisely one hit on the exact phrase -- but it was not DiAngelo saying it, is was CNN saying she said it. CNN then goes on to discuss her ideas, but the phrase never comes up in anything she actually said.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, I did that. Precisely one hit on the exact phrase -- but it was not DiAngelo saying it, is was CNN saying she said it. CNN then goes on to discuss her ideas, but the phrase never comes up in anything she actually said.

I'm sorry but this sounds a little like distinctions without a difference?