Critical Race Theory

Debate and discussion on racism and related issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2044
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Critical Race Theory

Post #1

Post by historia »

From a recent issue of Education Week:

Is "critical race theory" a [useful] way of understanding how American racism has shaped public policy, or a divisive discourse that pits people of color against white people?

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Critical Race Theory

Post #11

Post by bluegreenearth »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:11 pm The unfalsifiable is not necessarily false. As I said in another post, the belief that swans exist is not falsifiable. You could never prove that swans don't exist. But they do exist.
The belief that swans exist emerges from disproving the falsifiable claim that swan's don't exist. The claim that swan's don't exist is demonstrably falsified by the observation of a swan in reality. If it were not possible for anyone to observe a swan in reality, then the claim that swans do or don't exist could not be falsified.
Purple Knight wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:11 pm The colourblind person will see Jews being thrown into ovens and simply see mass murder without the racism, which is why colourblindness in a hyper-racist society is so dangerous, even though if everyone was truly colourblind (whites won't be) that would be the ideal diverse society. There's actually an episode of South Park that demonstrates this (the flag episode) and even has Chef become happy when he realises the children were colourblind. They were so not-racist, he says, that they didn't see it as white people killing a black person, but as people killing another person. You bloody have to realise the implication of that: The colourblind allow the racist side to win. They simply don't see racism when there is racism, and in a racist system, we need to see racism when there is racism. Whites are playing to win, and they only pass to their teammates. Others are in the game whether they like it or not.
If every person who claimed to be colorblind were acting in accordance with the CRT description of colorblindness, then you might have a point. However, the outcomes you've claimed occur as a product of colorblindness cannot be consistently demonstrated as emanating from an effort to judge people by the content of the their characters rather than the color of their skin. You appear to be conflating two concepts of colorblindness. If people are colorblind in the way described by MLK during the Civil Rights Movement, they remain perfectly capable of seeing racism when and where it occurs but without elevating the social significance of race above a person's individuality. With CRT, group identity on the basis of skin color becomes more important than someone's uniqueness as an individual. We are commanded by CRT to see and acknowledge the person's race first regardless of the individual's personal experiences and unique qualities as a fellow human being. Therefore, CRT doesn't function to eliminate racism but merely repositions the target. If you doubt this, just substitute the label "black" for "white" in your response above and ask yourself if it is wise to target an entire demographic of people in that way.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Critical Race Theory

Post #12

Post by Purple Knight »

bluegreenearth wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:00 pm
Purple Knight wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:11 pm The unfalsifiable is not necessarily false. As I said in another post, the belief that swans exist is not falsifiable. You could never prove that swans don't exist. But they do exist.
The belief that swans exist emerges from disproving the falsifiable claim that swan's don't exist. The claim that swan's don't exist is demonstrably falsified by the observation of a swan in reality. If it were not possible for anyone to observe a swan in reality, then the claim that swans do or don't exist could not be falsified.
That's correct. But it is nonetheless an instance where you could say something ("swans exist") and I could challenge you to come up with a condition upon which you would discard your belief (falsify the belief) and you would be unable to do so.

If you believe something, such as, all crows are black, you must also say, but, I will discard that belief if I see one white crow. Likewise, if you believe swans exist, you must say, but, I will discard that belief if ________. For already proven beliefs, and some beliefs like CRT that assess a person's motives, that blank is empty. But is it reasonable to assess motives? In some cases yes.

The only assumption of CRT with regard to white motives is that an organism acts to propagate, support, and multiply its own genes. It's just a firm no to the age-old question about whether selflessness is actually possible, applied to the specific situation where the white race finds itself in the superior position. Remember when even the dumb shows had a little philosophy? Well I don't, because the new shows melted my brain. Here's this anyway. I'm sure I'll forget I posted it.



In this episode, Phoebe argues with Joey about whether a truly selfless act is possible. I'm on Joey's side - it's not. Altruism itself is just an adaptation to protect the group. Yes, that's right: The more selfless you are, the most racist you are. You protect your own genes and whatever has the most of your own genes in it. And when I see how horrible this is, so I work to change myself into someone who would save the black baby and let my own child drown, that is a function of the response from the part of my brain that sees how socially unacceptable my evil is, and that I will be ostracised and unlikely to reproduce if I don't change. So I change. I would save the black baby. I would throw my child in front of a bear to distract the bear from the black child. But it's 100% selfish and I know so. It's a knee-jerk, oh-my-god-my-line-will-end-if-I-continue-this-evil-behaviour response. I'm a meat robot and I know so.
bluegreenearth wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:00 pmYou appear to be conflating two concepts of colorblindness. If people are colorblind in the way described by MLK during the Civil Rights Movement, they remain perfectly capable of seeing racism when and where it occurs but without elevating the social significance of race above a person's individuality.
A colourblind person will attempt to explain disparity in outcomes with ability or effort differences simply because that's how he sees things, and we all have like-me bias. Since he won't hire the white person just because they're white, he doesn't think that other guy will, either. You say they're two different concepts of colourblindness. I say they're two different, specific thought processes that both result from colourblindness.
bluegreenearth wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:00 pmWith CRT, group identity on the basis of skin color becomes more important than someone's uniqueness as an individual. We are commanded by CRT to see and acknowledge the person's race first regardless of the individual's personal experiences and unique qualities as a fellow human being.
Because in this case, at this specific time in history, race correlates with whether this person is being abused. You admitted in another post that these are real problems, you just don't like the solutions.

But let's apply your logic to another period in time when a person's race was the main determinant of whether or not they were suffering societal abuse: The times of slavery. Your logic would go something like... Why would we assume this person is a slave just because they are black? Perhaps they don't need to be freed. Maybe they aren't a slave at all. I think we should look at this person as an individual before we hastily assume all or most blacks are slaves and tell them they need to be freed.

Now, admittedly this is much sillier because slavery was a legal affair and people simply engaged in it in broad daylight, keeping records of the people they bought and sold as if it weren't even wrong. But that's what makes insidious, de facto rather than de jure oppression so serious. It can go on, and people can simply deny that it goes on.
bluegreenearth wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:00 pmTherefore, CRT doesn't function to eliminate racism but merely repositions the target. If you doubt this, just substitute the label "black" for "white" in your response above and ask yourself if it is wise to target an entire demographic of people in that way.
If whites were the victims I would be using that very substitution. I just don't think they are. And I already admitted that neither one is provable. I just think it's more likely that the minority is being oppressed by those in power than that those in power are oppressing their own people because it's funny or because they were bored or because they're simply sadistic and prone to torturing random groups of people.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Critical Race Theory

Post #13

Post by bluegreenearth »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:02 am That's correct. But it is nonetheless an instance where you could say something ("swans exist") and I could challenge you to come up with a condition upon which you would discard your belief (falsify the belief) and you would be unable to do so.
If someone were to demonstrate that every instance where I observe a swan is a demonstrable deception designed to hide the absence of a swan, I would tentatively discard my belief that swans exist.
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:02 am The only assumption of CRT with regard to white motives is that an organism acts to propagate, support, and multiply its own genes. It's just a firm no to the age-old question about whether selflessness is actually possible, applied to the specific situation where the white race finds itself in the superior position. Remember when even the dumb shows had a little philosophy? Well I don't, because the new shows melted my brain. Here's this anyway. I'm sure I'll forget I posted it.

In this episode, Phoebe argues with Joey about whether a truly selfless act is possible. I'm on Joey's side - it's not. Altruism itself is just an adaptation to protect the group. Yes, that's right: The more selfless you are, the most racist you are. You protect your own genes and whatever has the most of your own genes in it. And when I see how horrible this is, so I work to change myself into someone who would save the black baby and let my own child drown, that is a function of the response from the part of my brain that sees how socially unacceptable my evil is, and that I will be ostracised and unlikely to reproduce if I don't change. So I change. I would save the black baby. I would throw my child in front of a bear to distract the bear from the black child. But it's 100% selfish and I know so. It's a knee-jerk, oh-my-god-my-line-will-end-if-I-continue-this-evil-behaviour response. I'm a meat robot and I know so.
You seem to be conflating selfish altruism with racism by redefining racism from what the term meant during the Civil Rights Movement to what it has become under the CRT doctrine. Racism was and is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. When racism is defined as essentially selfish altruism as you've described above, the term becomes diluted to the point of being almost meaningless because every action is a racist action under those conditions.
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:02 am A colourblind person will attempt to explain disparity in outcomes with ability or effort differences simply because that's how he sees things, and we all have like-me bias. Since he won't hire the white person just because they're white, he doesn't think that other guy will, either. You say they're two different concepts of colourblindness. I say they're two different, specific thought processes that both result from colourblindness.
A colorblind person may also attempt to explain disparity in outcome with racial prejudice when it is demonstrable without having to presume guilt until proven innocent. On the other hand, there is no due process for the accused under CRT.
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:02 am Because in this case, at this specific time in history, race correlates with whether this person is being abused. You admitted in another post that these are real problems, you just don't like the solutions.

But let's apply your logic to another period in time when a person's race was the main determinant of whether or not they were suffering societal abuse: The times of slavery. Your logic would go something like... Why would we assume this person is a slave just because they are black? Perhaps they don't need to be freed. Maybe they aren't a slave at all. I think we should look at this person as an individual before we hastily assume all or most blacks are slaves and tell them they need to be freed.

Now, admittedly this is much sillier because slavery was a legal affair and people simply engaged in it in broad daylight, keeping records of the people they bought and sold as if it weren't even wrong. But that's what makes insidious, de facto rather than de jure oppression so serious. It can go on, and people can simply deny that it goes on.
Yet another example of how CRT will always encourage its advocates to find the most uncharitable interpretation of any dissenter's perspective in order to confirm its bias. I suspect even you don't believe I would apply my logic in that way. Your scenario presumes every modern POC is being disproportionately abused in some capacity on account of their skin color without examining the particular nuances of every POC's life as a unique individual to determine how each person would like to be perceived. Not every POC appreciates being described as a perpetual victim or would even claim to have ever been victimized on account of their skin color. This isn't to suggest that there aren't real problems with systemic or structural racism in specific situations, but there are also many situations where numerous POCs are made to feel disempowered by the "woke" effort. This issue with race is far too complex and nuanced to be resolved by a myopic "woke" ideology.
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:02 am If whites were the victims I would be using that very substitution. I just don't think they are. And I already admitted that neither one is provable. I just think it's more likely that the minority is being oppressed by those in power than that those in power are oppressing their own people because it's funny or because they were bored or because they're simply sadistic and prone to torturing random groups of people.
The sad fact is that, while it is most often not the case, there are instances when some people labeled as "white" are victims. At the same time, as previously explained, there are many instances when some POCs are not victims. The only way to accurately assess whether someone was or is a victim or not would be to examine the particulars of their unique circumstance and make an informed decision on how best to proceed with that individual. By definition, it would be racist to presume that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Critical Race Theory

Post #14

Post by Dimmesdale »

In my most humble opinion, conservatives seem to want to sweep the whole notion of race underneath the rug, as if it doesn't exist. On the other hand, liberals want to let the issue pile up in the living room, so that it takes center stage. Both I think are wrong approaches. They lack a complete, integrated perspective that can do justice to the issue.

What remains constant throughout is that race matters. It is a "thing" whether you like it or not. And it will have to be dealt with, one way or another. That is most certain.

(MY 2 CENTS - I will say no more.)
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Critical Race Theory

Post #15

Post by Purple Knight »

bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:19 amIf someone were to demonstrate that every instance where I observe a swan is a demonstrable deception designed to hide the absence of a swan, I would tentatively discard my belief that swans exist.
Okay, that's actually a good one and didn't come up in the original thread. But you do realise that even if every instance is a deception, you're not going to realistically have evidence that they are all deceptions, correct? It's like that with CRT. You will absolutely have some evidence that there is some deception, some discrimination, some injustice. George Floyd is a great example. It's not enough evidence to prove that racial justice simply doesn't exist, but when I see enough swans take off their costumes and turn out to be humans, I'm going to start thinking they're all people in costumes. I've seen enough. You haven't. Neither of us is wrong because this isn't something pure logic can solve, particularly since this isn't about whether there are or aren't a few real swans; it's about whether there are enough people in swan costumes to change the basic dynamic.

I never thought the justice system was fair, and I wondered about whether it accounted for group violence before this was a thing. It doesn't. I was thinking of it in terms of a longstanding family feud like the one between the Hatfields and McCoys. Because we're so obsessed with individual justice and blind to the actual dynamic, if the Hatfields just decide one day they want to win, two of their kids go kill a bunch of McCoys, and best scenario those two kids get punished and go to jail, but probably not even for life. So later that year, another Hatfield decides to go shooting and kills a couple more. Best case, he's punished and goes to jail. Pretty soon they just win. If one side of this is violent and the other peaceful, our law just lets the violent fellows win because it's so near-sightedly individualistic. That's not justice. It only happens to work if everyone is playing individualism. But whites are playing teams.
bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:19 amYou seem to be conflating selfish altruism with racism by redefining racism from what the term meant during the Civil Rights Movement to what it has become under the CRT doctrine. Racism was and is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. When racism is defined as essentially selfish altruism as you've described above, the term becomes diluted to the point of being almost meaningless because every action is a racist action under those conditions.
Every action isn't racist, but most people of all races prefer their own group and are biased. Furthermore, you theoretically could have a world without bias if it's held at the unsteady equilibrium where there's no bias, and there's transparency about it, and everyone knows that if he starts playing hardball it will trigger a chain reaction where everyone does and everyone loses. But this would mean no more closed doors on the hiring process. When the process is kept secret, everyone who loses thinks there was bias and I don't blame them. I don't even blame the white racists who think there is bias against them. Some of these people have worked very hard to get jobs and all they can see is the pure legality: They see that Affirmative Action exists, and they see that a POC got the job. And most white people genuinely can't conceive of how lazy and underachieving they are compared to the rest of the world. Now, I can tell them that the guy who got the job worked ten times as hard because he had to overcome discrimination, and that's always true, but why should he believe me? He doesn't see that 10x effort; he only sees his own lesser effort, and he isn't privy to what went on in the hiring process and he can't see the other guy's qualifications. But he should be able to.

Racism is not defined as selfish altruism; racism is one result of selfish altruism. When you prefer your own group, which everyone does, you discriminate. And when you've got disproportionate societal power, that discrimination becomes racism. It's not a problem if you can get everyone to play the individualistic game, but they don't. It's also not a problem if each race has equal power, but they don't. You can't get people to help someone else's kid instead of their own. That's basic human nature. And when one race has power, the result of everyone doing that adds up to racism, and a biased system.
bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:19 amA colorblind person may also attempt to explain disparity in outcome with racial prejudice when it is demonstrable without having to presume guilt until proven innocent.
Innocent until proven guilty is a bad system, especially for this and I admit it. Nobody committing racism ever discriminates when it's demonstrable because it's illegal. We don't even have the kind of proof positive you're looking for that George Floyd was discriminated against. Who knows? The cop might have done the same to a white person he arrested. When we can demonstrate that someone has a free pass to get away with something, when what we can demonstrate is that they can't be caught if they are guilty, it's best to assume they're guilty and have them prove their innocence.

This is my standard everywhere. It's my standard for voter fraud and AgnosticBoy can back me up on this.
It's my standard for bodybuilding contests which I used to participate in at the amateur level and I never got upset that the assumption was that everyone was on steroids and we have to prove otherwise, even though I really, really, really don't like needles. And my veins roll. Buy you know what? I'm guilty until proven innocent so I stick out my arm and prove my innocence. And guess what? The one time when they said it was pee-in-a-cup and switched it on us at the last minute to the prick, half the guys were disqualified. And if you're one of the ones competing legitimately, you're happy about this. But bodybuilding has a system of steroid abuse, so now (last I heard) they have rules about switching the test like that.
bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:19 amOn the other hand, there is no due process for the accused under CRT.
That's because we can't prove he's guilty, but we can look at outcomes, and unless you believe POCs really are lazier and stupider (which isn't true), we can prove that among his group, a large number of people are guilty, we just can't pin it on one specific person. It's like dealing with the mob. Pure individualism is not going to work.

I'm guessing that in a system where these two people have a perfect way to commit murder, such that we can prove that one of them did it, but we can't prove which one, you wouldn't punish either. That's the justice of individualism. That's what we're taught is right. But I would punish both because of the meta effect of them having this perfect way to commit murder. One innocent person is punished, but because we don't allow this way to work, other innocents are not punished by being murdered in a system that essentially allows murder.

If groups demonstrably can cheat this individualistic system, allowing at least some people to commit injustice with impunity, it's better to revise the system. You will only punish a limited number of innocents anyway, because when this way stops working, and reliably gets them punished, they'll stop using it.
bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:19 amYet another example of how CRT will always encourage its advocates to find the most uncharitable interpretation of any dissenter's perspective in order to confirm its bias. I suspect even you don't believe I would apply my logic in that way. Your scenario presumes every modern POC is being disproportionately abused in some capacity on account of their skin color without examining the particular nuances of every POC's life as a unique individual to determine how each person would like to be perceived. Not every POC appreciates being described as a perpetual victim or would even claim to have ever been victimized on account of their skin color. This isn't to suggest that there aren't real problems with systemic or structural racism in specific situations, but there are also many situations where numerous POCs are made to feel disempowered by the "woke" effort. This issue with race is far too complex and nuanced to be resolved by a myopic "woke" ideology.
Basically, an I admit I'm boiling this down, we can't fix real problems because it makes some people feel bad. Rape has this consequence too. Rape victims sometimes want to hide from the fact that they're victims rather than testify against their attacker. Some would lie, say they weren't victimised. Some would self-deceive, pretend they weren't victimised. As healthy as this is for the individual if successful, I frankly don't care how it makes the rape victims feel. I want the rapist punished so he can't rape again. Did you know that in cases of domestic abuse, particularly child abuse, once evidence is found, the state must continue to prosecute it with or without the victim's agreement because the victim always recants? Did you know that some slaves were worse off when freed? There were instances of former masters exploiting former slaves by charging them outlandish prices for what once had been their due room and board. They got them addicted to alcohol so they could charge them even more. Fixing huge societal problems is difficult and it has casualties.
bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:19 amThe only way to accurately assess whether someone was or is a victim or not would be to examine the particulars of their unique circumstance and make an informed decision on how best to proceed with that individual. By definition, it would be racist to presume that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
That's absolutely correct, which is why we can look at outcomes and determine that a large number of whites are guilty of victimising POCs. Because we can't determine who, and because it's demonstrable that they can get away with it, I say punish them all. And by punish them all, I just mean take away their societal power that's causing this mess. If someone wants to insist they weren't raped, that's fine, we can let them have that, as long as we punish the rapists.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1355
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 150 times
Been thanked: 101 times
Contact:

Re: Critical Race Theory

Post #16

Post by AgnosticBoy »

historia wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:06 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #5]

If you don't mind, can you provide a brief summary of Critical Race Theory.
This tends to be one understanding that comes up:

(from your cited article in the OP):
A recent poll by the advocacy group Parents Defending Education claimed some schools were teaching that “white people are inherently privileged, while Black and other people of color are inherently oppressed and victimized”;
My question to those that espouse this version is which "Whites" are we referring to? I think we have to be more nuanced and get over the monolithic picture that American culture tends to have about race, where it's largely about skin color and paints all White people as the same. I'm thinking, most would be hesitant to think of a "White" Jew as being inherently racist or of a privileged mindset given Jew's long history of being oppressed and slaughtered. Whoopi Goldberg got herself into some trouble for not factoring in this point, and rightly so, imo.

Here's a nuanced discussion on race and how not all "Whites" are the same:
(esp. with the points made at 4:40 to 7:15 minute mark)
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Post Reply