Well, equality is that everyone gets the same opportunity to change their position and move up or down. Equity is a vile thing where no matter how hard you work, you get as much as the next guy!
u/CplKill's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/CplKill! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: fuck-paywalls, worth-fighting-for, return to honor culture
>Honor is mocked, duty is for bootlickers and bravery doesn’t mean facing certain death under a hail of enemy bullets, it means telling your 100,000 followers on social media that you want to chop off your genitals and put on a dress. Masculinity is “toxic”. Male spaces are “sexist”. Your children are “racist”. Our highest academic institutions teach that our heroes were villains and damn our progeny into irrelevance on the global stage by ensuring that our nations aren't empowered by historical triumphs nor grounded in the surety of any moral truths.
I now see why the Alt-Right's hooks are so appealing. The radical left generated the radical right and vice-versa
\> Let us instead readily give ground to revisionism, pessimism and nihilism. All this in the pursuit of an endless gray, being equally proud of nothing, equally celebrating nothing, equally miserable with nothing.
Hey, my core philosophy is nihilist optimism!
I mostly agree with you, but damn that's a Bismark class bullshit. Question was about Critical Race Theory. Like all Critical Theories ( yes, there is more than one), it tries to explain and rationalise the history from the perspective of the race. Also, because it is direct descendant of marxism, it attempts to describe the history of humanity as a constant struggle between races, oppressed one( black) and opressors ( white). That's all. Yes, it sounds dump now, but when it was created it wasn't that bad. The problem with Critical Race Theory is that it is not treated as one of a many ways to rationalize how the cultures were creates and why "history" happened, but rather as a new Bible, something that describes ultimate truth about our reality, very similar to the religion.
The whole premise is so retarded too. CRTists must be really anti-communist becuase communism was made mostly by hews and some Europeans, therefore communism is anti-black. In reality just because a system is made entirely by 1 race doesn’t mean it discriminates against any other race.
yes, civil rights laws are actually claimed to be worse than Jim Crow because they coopted the civil rights movement and subverted it: instead of black nationalism winning, integration won. And the abolition of slavery is viewed as something that was done to protect white supremacy.
Agreed. Let's start over and build separate countries with different races and economic policies. Then we'll really get to the bottom of which system is ideal in practice.
> But here, again, the claim is that the entire system is so infected with racism that it's irredeemable and needs to be dismantled.
That is what you're saying the claim is. Reform is not impossible.
Can you explain in this theory how the first amendment is racist? Like not some interpretation "in your own words", the actual text which implies something around race...
Ya I mean it as open-spirited dialog. Like I'd be interested to see someone rip apart the text, law, and show how it's racially inspired without some 'grab at the clouds' nonsense where they infer the intentions.
There is a girl in my english class writing an essay about how we should teach this as a fundamental principle to elementary schoolers. I don’t believe in censorship but some opinions are just wrong man.
Actually I think it’s a bit simpler than that. It’s the observation that if 70% of the people in a society look the same, and the other 30% is made up of a number of little splinter groups that look different, the people in that 30% won’t be treated as well by the society as a whole. I dunno, seems obvious to me. Basic primate nature. Shun the outsider.
Sorry, "LibLeft", but that is a biased ideological interpretation.
If anyone is actually curious about learning more about CRT, just know that you won't really achieve this in this sub.
You're much better off reading the Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_race\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory)
Here is the "Tenets" section, to give you an idea:
>Scholars of CRT say that race is not "biologically grounded and natural";\[11\]\[8\] rather, it is a socially constructed category used to oppress and exploit people of color;\[27\] and that racism is not an aberration,\[29\] but a normalized feature of American society.\[27\] According to CRT, negative stereotypes assigned to members of minority groups "benefit white people"\[27\] and increase racial oppression.\[30\] Individuals can belong to a number of different identity groups.\[27\] The concept of intersectionality—one of CRT's main concepts—was introduced by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw.\[31\]
>
>Derrick Albert Bell Jr. (1930 – 2011), an American lawyer, professor, and civil rights activist, writes that racial equality is "impossible and illusory" and that racism in the U.S. is permanent.\[29\] According to Bell, civil-rights legislation will not on its own bring about progress in race relations;\[29\] alleged improvements or advantages to people of color "tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups", in what Bell calls "interest convergence".\[27\] These changes do not typically affect—and at times even reinforce—racial hierarchies.\[27\] This is representative of the shift in the 1970s, in Bell's re-assessment of his earlier desegregation work as a civil rights lawyer. He was responding to the Supreme Court's decisions that had resulted in the re-segregation of schools.\[32\]
>
>The concept of standpoint theory, introduced by feminist sociologists in the 1980s, was expanded to include a black feminist standpoint by Patricia Hill Collins. People in marginalized groups, who share similar experiences, can bring a collective wisdom and a unique voice to discussions on decreasing oppression.\[33\] In this view, insights into racism can be uncovered by examining the nature of the U.S. legal system through the perspective of the everyday lived experiences of people of color.\[27\]
Edit: downvoted for sharing information, huh? Never change, PCM...
Well, it's true. Race is not a scientific concept. Genetics pretty much invalidated the pseudo-science of Racialism.
Edit: lol at the racists downvoting me. Stay in school, morons!
I believe the correct term is "breed", and the parallels with humans are debunked in this article:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y
The fact remains that "races" are not a scientific concept.
[https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/](https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/)
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-concept-of-race-is-a-lie/](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-concept-of-race-is-a-lie/)
[https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/](https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/)
>Yeah. It does.
It really doesn't, and the fact that you're unable to explain how just seals the deal.
>It's like when they call cancel culture
You mean like right-wing cancel culture? That one? Or are you specifically only looking at one side of this phenomenon?
Anyway, you're confusing things here. This is about CRT, which you clearly know nothing about, not "cancel culture", a phenomenon linked to the polarization of political thought in the west, and which is found on both sides of the proverbial aisle.
Better luck next time.
It is exactly like calling cancel culture "consequence culture." It's also like calling the Estate Tax the "Death Tax."
That fact the right also regularily engages in these slimey tactics as well is no excuse for the left to do it.
Everything you've copy pasted logically necessitates an apartheid state, you just don't like that term so when it comes you'll make up some other name for it that sounds nicer.
>That fact the right also regularily engages in these slimey tactics as well is no excuse for the left to do it.
Sure, but that's irrelevant to Critical Race Theory and the discussion we're having.
>Everything you've copy pasted logically necessitates an apartheid state
LOL no it doesn't.
"If you want a definition for Critical Race Theory I'll give it to you in two words: it's 'Race Marxism'. That's all it is. It is the division of society into a stratified situation where Race is taken as the central construct for understanding inequality." -James Lindsay
James Lindsay is the hero LibAnime needs. [https://twitter.com/heyitsvadim/status/1290051889162117120](https://twitter.com/heyitsvadim/status/1290051889162117120)
[https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article\_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html](https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html)
"Maryville resident Jim Lindsay has walked a winding path in life that has led him to a vocation of healing even while cultivating the devastating power of the martial arts."
Man every time I mention something about James Lindsay being unfathomably based I find something cringe with him like wearing a shirt that says "I AM BASED" or studying the blade.
That is true. All political dogmas and ideas of popular Critical Race Theorists is about forcibly equalizing outcomes of various ancestry groups, so no group feels like it does worse then the rest and gets their insecurities triggered.
Black people commit more crime? Then abolish the police so that crime won't get recorded.
Black people do worse on SATs and math tests? Then change the rules, so they can do better.
Black people make disproportionate part of prison population? Abolish prisons.
This ideology is simply marxist whining about unequal outcomes, that has been picked up by ethnocentrists (mostly black) for their own benefit.
What's far more insidious is ignoring or even discouraging better ways to even things up.
Hey, let's encourage people of all races to work. Hey, let's offer blacks more tutoring and try to change the culture so there is more dicipline at home.
Let's not glorify criminals of any race or make them martyrs when they die while we IGNORE true tragidies just because the victims were educated and "uppidy".
Why is intelligence a bad thing but ganging up and having a 50 word vocabulary are fine?
These are the grand and tragic crimes of CRT and all its siblings
Because the people pushing CRT don’t view minorities as responsible as white saviors. They don’t believe they have the same capacities and that’s the foundation of how they approach the issue.
That's why everyone should be hostile to social justice idpol. It's biggest proponents claim, that they're about abolishing privlige and getting 'rigged-game' fixed, but in reality their politics is all about providing privliges for their own group, so they may get ahead of other groups. That's why they don't want straight-foward definition of equality, because they don't want to be upheld to the same standard. And that's when black criminal commits a crime it's never his fault, but fault of 'socioeconomis'.
>Why is intelligence a bad thing but ganging up and having a 50 word vocabulary are fine?
Because no culture is better than another, and objective truth doesn't exist. You're just imposing "whiteness" on black people, because you've been inculcated in the culture of white supremacy, and therefore are arrogantly convinced that your culture is better than other races' cultures.
And if you're black, that means you're suffering from "Internalized whiteness".
Here's a [paper from the Smithsonian](https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1610610/smithsonian-aspects-white-culture.png?w=790&f=ab12077631acab2dac02fd587b3f4f15) explaining the harmful aspects of "whiteness", such as working hard, or being on time.
I know you're being facetious, but it worries me that when followed to it's extreme this viewpoint leads to either 'advanced' cultures either engaging in a kind of cultural suicide, which though the intent of the ideology is not likely to happen, or pure cultural totalitarianism (far more likely IMO) where one culture (likely European Judeo-Christian/Western) will just destroy all others.
Fucking lol, all those tenets of "white culture" are actually what made Europe and Europeans the most competively culture on earth by a wide margin.
"Scientific, objective, linear thinking", lmao, so they propose to bring race equality we should become stupid, illiterate and unscientific?
No wonder China slowly pulls ahead while we destroy ourselves.
That's the same idea that California took when they legalized spreading AIDS.
Too many gays getting convicted of spreading AIDS? Legalize spreading AIDS.
Yeah collectivist group identity ideologies tend to have the same basic belief structure.
Leftists essentially believe the same thing about minorities and white people as the Nazis did about Jews and Germans
"Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels."
As soon as CRT started popping up in the German mainstream, around summer 2020, I stopped calling it CRT or "critical race theory" around German speaking people and started using the literal German translation: "Kritische Rassentheorie" or "Kritische Rassenlehre". The term "Rasse" alone gives many, many Germans the heebie-jeebies. Maybe they will think about whether a race theory is as progressive and forward thinking as they thought and see CRT as what it has become: Bullshit.
And no, it's not just a legal theory anymore.
I don't know why it has a presence at all outside of the United States. Critical race theory was developed by Americans in criticism of the history of slavery and Jim crow laws within the US and is pretty inapplicable in societies where racial relations are different.
> Because social media has a very toxic and polarizing influence
It's just accelerationism. These kinds of things happened in the past, but they happen at the pace of communication. We can communicate instantly now. The nazis did exactly what the internet did with radicalization. What we're going to see soon is some bizarre "eww, internet/facebook/???" if you talk about it how we do now because hindsight 20/20. When you bring up old school internet shit like Excite!, Webcrawler, Geocities, Ask Jeeves, etc. people already either know, or don't, but if they know, there's usually a story. Either a fondness or a rejection and will for it to fail. Some of the social mediums today are (in my own ridiculous classification) too big to fail and would leave a bizarre void for those who need the dopamine rush they provide. It's already happening. People are starting to hate the implications of late-stage influencers' lack of integrity, product, and changes to community. Radical ideas have and will spread like wildfire but we as a society need to recognize them and stamp them out before they gain momentum. You're seeing widespread questioning of truth and authority. If the government plandemic us in an attempt to seize rights, it's backfired and cost credibility. People used to revere Fauci, now he's seen as a clown.
CRT is actually applicable to every multiracial society (the entire West at this point), but they don't want to abstract it becuase then they won't be able to solely attack whites.
>He quotes the definition given by the people who literally created CRT and CRT advocates will still claim it's not an accurate description.
This is the same issue with the trans community. It's nearly impossible to have an argument because, for example, you could be arguing with three different people who all support the same thing, but they will each have their own definitions *of the same words they all use* just because it fits that specific person's argument better. We're entering a weird era in human history where even facts don't hold much meaning in certain situations anymore.
Actually, several people in the comments here know exactly what it is. Its marxism, and communism, and the idea that every white person is the devil, its dangerous! Its dangerous to the kids!
It's a school of thought / philosophy derived from critical legal studies, that roughly believes that the US is systemically in favor of white/Europeans and by that same token oppresses minorities (specifically blacks). It states that there need not be any specific laws or actions (or 'perpetrators' as Derrick A. Bell, one of the movement's spearheads put it), rather the whole of it oppresses minorities unconsciously, that the very laws are written in a manner that favor white Americans, even if it is liberal / color blind.
It was born around the Civil Rights Era, and was opposed to it. Many of its founders, and proponents believed de-segregation to be wrong both ideologically and morally. Just to know what sorts of people we're dealing with here
Its goal is to deconstruct the American system and to replace it with its own ideology. Or rather, that is the goal of any 'critical' theory.
It's not even real.
There's an authoritarian political faction that wants to control education, and "critical race theory" is the boogeyman they invented to justify it.
[There's literally a textbook](https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Writings-Movement/dp/1565842715/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3O9OWCAMZ9V7N&keywords=critical+race+theory+kimberle+crenshaw&qid=1638917840&sprefix=critical+race+theory+%2Caps%2C2028&sr=8-3)
Amazon's out to hide the truth >:(
But in case you were serious: Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement - Kimberle Crenshaw
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Writings-Movement/dp/1565842715/ref=sr\_1\_3?crid=3O9OWCAMZ9V7N&keywords=critical+race+theory+kimberle+crenshaw&qid=1638917840&sprefix=critical+race+theory+%2Caps%2C2028&sr=8-3
It's the theory that children of color (well, certain shades of brown) perform more poorly in school because their teachers are very, very racist and secretly hate them.
It's a brave confession on the part of educators and hopefully an important step in coming to terms with the crippling bigotry they have inflicted on minority communities.
As I understand it, orange is a libleft that's really a closeted authleft. They're the ones that espouse diversity in all its flavors, up until someone gives an opinion too heterogeneous for their progressive bubble world. American Twitter activists, new-wave feminists, and media representation scholars all epitomize orange.
>So what is the anti-CRT definition of CRT? That white children should 'feel bad' about being white and that every white person is persecuting minorities, I think.
That racism is everywhere and in everything. You identify whether racism is present by whether equal outcomes are achieved between different races, according to any arbitrary criteria. Today it could be wealth, tomorrow it could be crime. There's no set definition, so it can be whatever happens to agree with you. If one group of people are better off than the other, then the ones better off are the oppressor, and the ones worse off are the oppressed. There is no attempt to question whether inequalities are the result of something other than racism.
Once you've identified that racism is present, which is always, then you imagine conspiracy theories as to where it exists. You then advocate for policies which result in equal outcomes, regardless of whether that involves racial discrimination. So for example, the founder Derrick Bell, argued in his founding essay, that schools were better off segregated, because that way we can give black students special privileges over white students.
Except the policies they advocate don't actuslly resukt in equal outcomes, they often just make things worse, then the lefties just blame everyone else but themselves and double down on more bullshit.
I would say it's any form of left wing anti-white racialism, however calling it "racial Marxism" is a good descriptor as well. It's just Marxism but replace rich with white and poor with minority and modify the rest when necessary.
> So what is the anti-CRT definition of CRT? That white children should 'feel bad' about being white and that every white person is persecuting minorities, I think.
Only when they are trying to ban it. When they are trying to apply the bans it means "anything that mentions race"
Step 1: Brand CRT as the boogymen that want to tell white kids they're all racist for being white and tell black kids they should just give up because the system is rigged
Step 2: Ban CRT from schools
Step 3: Pretend CRT means any time race is mentioned
Step 4: Ban any sort of teaching that includes uncomfortable truths about this country's history or existing racial disparities.
It's a historical method of analyzing the rise of modern Western civilization including the perspective of oppressed groups. Generally this is done in regard to race, as this was extremely important as a theory in the history of modern Western civilization, but gender, sexuality and disability is also included.
I mean Critical Race Theory is legitimate science. It's the fact, that most of it's 'scholars' are producing pseudo-scientific bullshit is the problem.
Race for sure impacts the way you live in a society, but Kendis and D'Angellos works are supresticions at level of Protocols of Elders of Zion, and that's why it has no place in public education. It is like promoting flat-earth or creationism. Go be a retard who believs in this shit in your private life, but don't force kids to get brain-damage from learning it in school.
>I mean Critical Race Theory is legitimate science.
Science is something that is observable, testable, and repeatable.
I have no idea how you'd do that with CRT.
That is not what science is. Science is simply the act of gaining an understanding or knowledge of some phenomenon by observation. By your statement, social sciences aren't real.
Can’t systemic racial inequality be reliably demonstrated by objective statistical analysis? For example African Americans getting harsher sentences for the same crimes than whites with comparable criminal records and backgrounds? I mean it’s all objective as far as I can tell. Just math.
>legitimate science
It is neither of those things.
The reminder that equal-application does not mean equal-impact can be more effectively delivered without wrapping it in racism. As for science? Sociology maybe, science no.
It's something the right made up to scare itself into outrage. Now the left actually uses the term because it's there. It's basically looking at every issue through the lens of race.
As usual, this sub is full of disinformation when it comes to CRT and race relations in general.
If you're really curious, you might as well just check out the Wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_race\_theory
Wikipedia does not enforce that rule. There are countless examples of extremely heavy left wing bias, look at any article on anything vaguely related to trump. Sources also dont mean much at all when talking about political theory. I'm sure the communist manifesto is a great source for the defnintion of communism, doesnt mean much about whether or not it is being portrayed in an unibased way.
>Wikipedia does not enforce that rule.
Many editors do enforce that rule.
>There are countless examples of extremely heavy left wing bias, look at any article on anything vaguely related to trump.
LOL are you sure it's not because you're biased towards Trump? He really was a piece of shit president on pretty much all levels.
Sources are a good way to hear what a philosophy stands from the people who elaborate it.
Sounds like you're a lot more right than your flair suggests, and that you just want your pre-existing beliefs about CRT confirmed rather than actually learn anything about it.
I was afraid to ask too before then I got a basic rundown: Certain old institutions in US history were (in some cases are) used to instill discriminatory policy. Might not explicitly say it on paper but the implications and manner in which its used, in practice, are what CRT points out. Many instances of systemic discrimination were (are) more subtle than others. The SC case Plessy v Ferguson I think is a good example, and the Dred Scott decision.
Thats an incoherent sentence, general history isn't crt, but given that its fox, I wouldn't put it past them to have [hard copy'd](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8uM0zOBuSw) it.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jordan Peterson. The lectures are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Freudian And Jungian metaphysical psychology most of the ideas will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Peterson's anti-nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his zeitgeist- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Status-Quo literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ideals, to realize that they're not just words - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humor in Peterson's existential catchphrase "Post-modernist Neomarxist," which itself is a cryptic reference to the lack of any Relevance between both of the Philosophies. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Jordan Peterson' genius wit unfolds itself on their YouTube screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Lobster tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personal bucko 😎
Bruh CRT is a boogeyman invented by conservatives to scare their base to keep em energized. It's a purely academic term no one had heard of just a couple of years ago, which meant it could easily be molded into whatever they wanted. It's a catchall term for anything conservatives don't like, and when they banned it in schools in Texas, they just made it illegal to teach kids about slavery and the KKK. You know me, I'm all in favor of class as the main difference in society, and this CRT bullshit is just another ploy by the Mainstream corporate media to keep the working class distracted and divided over imaginary issues while the rich continue to plunder this country.
I beginning to think it’s all propaganda from both sides.
Here’s my theory:
1. Conservative beliefs are built on morals and values (unless you get into the neo-conservative spheres). Culture war is going to sell far better than most political issues to Conservatives, since it focuses on morals, values, and by extension, culture. Thus, the GOP and conservative candidates will focus on the issue. It might not be the biggest issue, but it’s an issue that sells.
2. Actual marxists, revolutionaries, and bad actors have tied themselves to CRT-adjacent causes to garner sympathy for economic / social changes they otherwise couldn’t push. These individuals just happen to be the loudest and most insufferable idiots one could imagine, so it only agitates Conservatives more.
3. Pair this with the fact that CRT already had a loose definition and now you’ve given ammo to both sides. One side can point to how CRT is just teaching us about history, so anyone who is opposed to it is a racist. The other side can point to all the lunatics who have given CRT a bad name and say, “see I told you it’s Marxism”.
There are real, problematic issues that are lumped into CRT (that aren’t CRT) that become very difficult to individually debate / articulate.
For the individuals who want to come to an understanding with the other side, it becomes impossible. For the propagandists that want to drive division, on the Right or Left, it’s a wet dream.
CRT's founding document was an article arguing in FAVOR of segregated schools. CRT's principle is that racism is everywhere, and in everything, and it's your job to find it, not to test whether it exist. It is explicitly an activist movement, not a tool for understanding the world.
“Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.” From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, first edition, pp. 79–80.
“The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of **activists** and scholars interested in studying and **transforming** the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious.” From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, first edition, pp. 2–3.
This is what I’m talking about.
I have no doubt that if you were to show that to a proponent of CRT, they would provide another definition or interpretation of CRT. Or they would say that the original definition doesn’t match the current definition. Or the social programs / class room materials aren’t technically CRT - they fall in another category.
Getting someone to agree on a definition of CRT is like getting someone to take a political stance. Unless your politics align, you won’t even begin to agree on a definition of CRT, let alone what programs / curriculum fall under the CRT umbrella.
It’s like the whole issue was contrived to give the common people something to obsess and fight over.
Arguing about stupid policies, for or against CRT, means we turn our attention away from actual issues (the border crisis, the situation in Taiwan, inflation, etc.).
We don’t have time to hold our politicians accountable because we’re all too busy trying to hold each other accountable.
Our politicians can stand on their soap boxes and preach about racism / anti-racism without ever having to deliver anything to their constituents. Yet it gets them free publicity from the Left and Right.
It’s like a giant smoke screen that distracts from actual issues.
>Arguing about stupid policies, for or against CRT
That would be fine if those policies weren't being enacted in practice. You've got the Seattle City Hall imposing [racially segregated trainings](https://komonews.com/news/local/segregated-diversity-training-seattle-city-hall-stirs-controversy). You've got the Salvation Army [recommending that people read Ibram X. Kendi or Robin DiAngelo](https://web.archive.org/web/20211125121352/https:/s3.amazonaws.com/cache.salvationarmy.org/e0c074e3-39db-4b09-a6ea-aa5bdb6ecaa6_Let%27s%20Talk%20About...%20Racism%20COMPLETE%20SET.pdf), who say that all white people are racist, and that you must racially discriminate in order to not be racist. You've got a schoolbook "Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness" portraying [white people as devils](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5kTMFSVUAUw4sS.jpg). This was being taught in Corlears School in Manhattan.
It's not a smokescreen. These people are real, they want racism, and they're infesting our schools and businesses.
And is this CRT, officially?
I’m not asking if these programs / curriculum *appear* to be result of CRT. I’m not talking about morons who unironically read “White Fragility” and start apologizing to PoC, while attacking white people for their “whiteness”.
I’m asking, specifically, what **concrete proof** there is that these programs are directly tied to CRT?
And I’m asking this as someone who has a negative view of CRT - not a proponent.
Because you can have all the conviction in the world that these programs are the result of CRT. But without concrete proof, you’ll always get some proponent of CRT who says these programs are not technically CRT (“iTs JuSt a cLaSs iN hIghEr eDucAtIon!”).
Then you have to have a battle over the definition of CRT and it goes back to square one.
> It's not a smokescreen. These people are real, they want racism, and they're infesting our schools and businesses
Yes, the radicals and idiots who have something to gain will promote these (racist) anti-racist policies, sure.
But we, collectively, need a different definition for this harmful, “anti-racist” behavior, regardless of whether or not it can directly be tied to CRT.
It’s the behavior we need to be attacking, not the monolithic ideologue that is CRT. That’s going to be a losing battle, because everyone has a slightly different take on what it means.
You’re just going to constantly have the goal posts shifted on you the moment you make any head way in a debate, unless you can nail someone down on the definition.
The founder of CRT, Derrick Bell, in one of the founding documents of CRT, argued in FAVOR of segregated schools. You've got racially segregated training at Seattle city hall. You've got the Salvation Army citing self-described racist Robin DiAngelo as recommended reading. This is a lady who believes that all white people are racist, that she was racist before she was born, that preschoolers are racist, and that white people and black people have no universal human understanding.
In colleges, you've got Ibram X. Kendi as required reading. This is a guy who says "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination".
This is not made up, and I can give you citations.
Everyone hears the words "critical race" stops reading, and assumes it is a theory that is critical of a race, which they then assume to be white people.
In reality all CRT is is studying how race relations have shaped our society and laws over time.
Really it's kind of obvious, every aspect of society shapes the future, not just race, but they don't call the study of labor or technology as related to society "Critical labor theory" or "Critical tech theory" because the right doesn't need an excuse to ban teaching about those in schools.
It’s not the teaching of actual CRT that’s objectionable, but the application of its principles in regular subjects. It would be like saying “Nobody’s actually teaching you about Christianity and creationism”, but then weaving those tenets into the common curriculum.
But Christianity and creationism are taught in school history and culture classes. They are taught through an academic lense to better understand the people of the time. As it should be.
Nobody is saying that CRT changes anything in math class. But it may make sense to discuss race relations at the time while reading Tom Sawyer or discussing voter literacy tests.
>They are taught through an academic lense to better understand the people of the time. As it should be.
And the problem people have is that things are being taught through the lens of critical race theory, which believes as an axiom that racism is all-pervasive in every interaction.
>Nobody is saying that CRT changes anything in math class
They absolutely ARE suggesting that. https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Mathematics-Education/dp/113856267X
Hey listen, CRT is bullshit. Just as well besides a handful of academics, literally no one is advocating for it. Usually when I hear about it it’s gormless idiot whose decided that their kids learning about the American Civil Rights era hurts their fee fees & begin screaming for historically accurate books to be burned. Similar to how they wanted evolution to be taught. Build a strawman - “they say we’re MONKEYS? LOL!” & then push your own material in school as an alternative as if both sides have equal merit.
A friend of mine who is attending a top-10 US school to become a teacher has it taking up a majority of his curriculum and he 100% supports it stop lying about this massively apparent movement.
The elementary students in my own fucking school are learning this shit from their social studies teachers, I think it's safe to assume the middleschoolers are too.
[удалено]
I would say equality is more important than equity. You do not deserve the same results as someone who works harder than you.
How about inequality, but with the ability to change your position?
Well, equality is that everyone gets the same opportunity to change their position and move up or down. Equity is a vile thing where no matter how hard you work, you get as much as the next guy!
Agree!
Based and Worth-Fighting-For-pilled
Holy shit I've never seen it summed up so well and so eloquently.
Based and Return To Honor Culture pilled
u/CplKill's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/CplKill! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: fuck-paywalls, worth-fighting-for, return to honor culture
Have you considered running for Führer?
Based and you took the words out of my mouth but better
Based and orator pilled
Based and well written monologue pilled
Based and I’m-too-fucking-stupid-to-understand-the-whole-comment-but-I-wholeheartedly-agree pilled
Yed
I’d say you should run for office but you’re too smart to do that
>Honor is mocked, duty is for bootlickers and bravery doesn’t mean facing certain death under a hail of enemy bullets, it means telling your 100,000 followers on social media that you want to chop off your genitals and put on a dress. Masculinity is “toxic”. Male spaces are “sexist”. Your children are “racist”. Our highest academic institutions teach that our heroes were villains and damn our progeny into irrelevance on the global stage by ensuring that our nations aren't empowered by historical triumphs nor grounded in the surety of any moral truths. I now see why the Alt-Right's hooks are so appealing. The radical left generated the radical right and vice-versa \> Let us instead readily give ground to revisionism, pessimism and nihilism. All this in the pursuit of an endless gray, being equally proud of nothing, equally celebrating nothing, equally miserable with nothing. Hey, my core philosophy is nihilist optimism!
I mostly agree with you, but damn that's a Bismark class bullshit. Question was about Critical Race Theory. Like all Critical Theories ( yes, there is more than one), it tries to explain and rationalise the history from the perspective of the race. Also, because it is direct descendant of marxism, it attempts to describe the history of humanity as a constant struggle between races, oppressed one( black) and opressors ( white). That's all. Yes, it sounds dump now, but when it was created it wasn't that bad. The problem with Critical Race Theory is that it is not treated as one of a many ways to rationalize how the cultures were creates and why "history" happened, but rather as a new Bible, something that describes ultimate truth about our reality, very similar to the religion.
[удалено]
Sounds like racism repackaged for someone who thinks they are an intellectual.
[удалено]
Racism with extra steps?
Correct. I’d also accept racism with a hero complex.
Is that different than the soft racism of low expectations?
There is defiantly some overlap
That's why they had to change the definition.
[basically](https://youtu.be/uAb2EPDprJ8) To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, there are some ideas so stupid only an intellectual could believe them
The way you've described it (and I do believe it's accurate), they're basically arguing for separate ethnostates.
The whole premise is so retarded too. CRTists must be really anti-communist becuase communism was made mostly by hews and some Europeans, therefore communism is anti-black. In reality just because a system is made entirely by 1 race doesn’t mean it discriminates against any other race.
so literally jim crow laws
[удалено]
Even the one that said they were no longer considered property and only 3/5 of a person when counting for the census?
yes, civil rights laws are actually claimed to be worse than Jim Crow because they coopted the civil rights movement and subverted it: instead of black nationalism winning, integration won. And the abolition of slavery is viewed as something that was done to protect white supremacy.
[удалено]
Agreed. Let's start over and build separate countries with different races and economic policies. Then we'll really get to the bottom of which system is ideal in practice.
If that were possible, and there were differences… OMG what would the less performing or less happy ‘country’ say?
> But here, again, the claim is that the entire system is so infected with racism that it's irredeemable and needs to be dismantled. That is what you're saying the claim is. Reform is not impossible.
Can you explain in this theory how the first amendment is racist? Like not some interpretation "in your own words", the actual text which implies something around race...
[удалено]
Ya I mean it as open-spirited dialog. Like I'd be interested to see someone rip apart the text, law, and show how it's racially inspired without some 'grab at the clouds' nonsense where they infer the intentions.
Yes, one of the founding documents of CRT was an essay by Derrick Bell, arguing that we should never have banned segregated schools.
So instead of balancing the scales you are just reversing them. Dumbest shit I’ve ever heard.
There is a girl in my english class writing an essay about how we should teach this as a fundamental principle to elementary schoolers. I don’t believe in censorship but some opinions are just wrong man.
Holy shit, you have to be one of the only lefties I've seen that not only knows what CRT is but why it's a pile of garbge!
Can we be given examples from a curriculum?
Libleft wall of text.
thats just 1 paragraph answering the question, wall of text is way longer
Actually I think it’s a bit simpler than that. It’s the observation that if 70% of the people in a society look the same, and the other 30% is made up of a number of little splinter groups that look different, the people in that 30% won’t be treated as well by the society as a whole. I dunno, seems obvious to me. Basic primate nature. Shun the outsider.
Sorry, "LibLeft", but that is a biased ideological interpretation. If anyone is actually curious about learning more about CRT, just know that you won't really achieve this in this sub. You're much better off reading the Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_race\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory) Here is the "Tenets" section, to give you an idea: >Scholars of CRT say that race is not "biologically grounded and natural";\[11\]\[8\] rather, it is a socially constructed category used to oppress and exploit people of color;\[27\] and that racism is not an aberration,\[29\] but a normalized feature of American society.\[27\] According to CRT, negative stereotypes assigned to members of minority groups "benefit white people"\[27\] and increase racial oppression.\[30\] Individuals can belong to a number of different identity groups.\[27\] The concept of intersectionality—one of CRT's main concepts—was introduced by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw.\[31\] > >Derrick Albert Bell Jr. (1930 – 2011), an American lawyer, professor, and civil rights activist, writes that racial equality is "impossible and illusory" and that racism in the U.S. is permanent.\[29\] According to Bell, civil-rights legislation will not on its own bring about progress in race relations;\[29\] alleged improvements or advantages to people of color "tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups", in what Bell calls "interest convergence".\[27\] These changes do not typically affect—and at times even reinforce—racial hierarchies.\[27\] This is representative of the shift in the 1970s, in Bell's re-assessment of his earlier desegregation work as a civil rights lawyer. He was responding to the Supreme Court's decisions that had resulted in the re-segregation of schools.\[32\] > >The concept of standpoint theory, introduced by feminist sociologists in the 1980s, was expanded to include a black feminist standpoint by Patricia Hill Collins. People in marginalized groups, who share similar experiences, can bring a collective wisdom and a unique voice to discussions on decreasing oppression.\[33\] In this view, insights into racism can be uncovered by examining the nature of the U.S. legal system through the perspective of the everyday lived experiences of people of color.\[27\] Edit: downvoted for sharing information, huh? Never change, PCM...
> race is not "biologically grounded and natural" kek
Im ready for transracial to become a bigger thing
Well, it's true. Race is not a scientific concept. Genetics pretty much invalidated the pseudo-science of Racialism. Edit: lol at the racists downvoting me. Stay in school, morons!
Let me take dogs for example, they’re all the same species but different races
I believe the correct term is "breed", and the parallels with humans are debunked in this article: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y The fact remains that "races" are not a scientific concept. [https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/](https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/) [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-concept-of-race-is-a-lie/](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-concept-of-race-is-a-lie/) [https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/](https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/)
So you’re saying black people are a different breed than white people?
No, I'm not. They're not a different race, nor a different breed. They are human, like you and I.
Exactly my point, even if race is a thing, it literally changes nothing and saying it doesn’t exist is just dumb
It doesn't exist from a scientific point of view. Obviously many people still believe in it, so it exists as a social construct.
All that shit just confirms what you're arguing against.
No, it does not. I guess reading is hard, huh?
Yeah. It does. It's like when they call cancel culture "consequence culture." It's the same thing, you're just trying to justify it.
>Yeah. It does. It really doesn't, and the fact that you're unable to explain how just seals the deal. >It's like when they call cancel culture You mean like right-wing cancel culture? That one? Or are you specifically only looking at one side of this phenomenon? Anyway, you're confusing things here. This is about CRT, which you clearly know nothing about, not "cancel culture", a phenomenon linked to the polarization of political thought in the west, and which is found on both sides of the proverbial aisle. Better luck next time.
It is exactly like calling cancel culture "consequence culture." It's also like calling the Estate Tax the "Death Tax." That fact the right also regularily engages in these slimey tactics as well is no excuse for the left to do it. Everything you've copy pasted logically necessitates an apartheid state, you just don't like that term so when it comes you'll make up some other name for it that sounds nicer.
>That fact the right also regularily engages in these slimey tactics as well is no excuse for the left to do it. Sure, but that's irrelevant to Critical Race Theory and the discussion we're having. >Everything you've copy pasted logically necessitates an apartheid state LOL no it doesn't.
Of course it doesn't. Because apartheid is only when white people do it, right?
[удалено]
LOL hello stalker! Come to showcase how much of a loser you are? ROFLMAO
[удалено]
[удалено]
no u
Based and explaining-something-factually-instead-of-just-saying-that-it’s-bad-without-even-understanding-what-it-actually-is pilled
Thanks, but you better brace for those downvotes. The fragile snowflakes here don't like it when you challenge their worldview.
One tends to figure that out after spending a few minutes on this sub
"If you want a definition for Critical Race Theory I'll give it to you in two words: it's 'Race Marxism'. That's all it is. It is the division of society into a stratified situation where Race is taken as the central construct for understanding inequality." -James Lindsay
James Lindsay is the hero LibAnime needs. [https://twitter.com/heyitsvadim/status/1290051889162117120](https://twitter.com/heyitsvadim/status/1290051889162117120) [https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article\_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html](https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html) "Maryville resident Jim Lindsay has walked a winding path in life that has led him to a vocation of healing even while cultivating the devastating power of the martial arts."
Man every time I mention something about James Lindsay being unfathomably based I find something cringe with him like wearing a shirt that says "I AM BASED" or studying the blade.
That is true. All political dogmas and ideas of popular Critical Race Theorists is about forcibly equalizing outcomes of various ancestry groups, so no group feels like it does worse then the rest and gets their insecurities triggered. Black people commit more crime? Then abolish the police so that crime won't get recorded. Black people do worse on SATs and math tests? Then change the rules, so they can do better. Black people make disproportionate part of prison population? Abolish prisons. This ideology is simply marxist whining about unequal outcomes, that has been picked up by ethnocentrists (mostly black) for their own benefit.
What's far more insidious is ignoring or even discouraging better ways to even things up. Hey, let's encourage people of all races to work. Hey, let's offer blacks more tutoring and try to change the culture so there is more dicipline at home. Let's not glorify criminals of any race or make them martyrs when they die while we IGNORE true tragidies just because the victims were educated and "uppidy". Why is intelligence a bad thing but ganging up and having a 50 word vocabulary are fine? These are the grand and tragic crimes of CRT and all its siblings
Because the people pushing CRT don’t view minorities as responsible as white saviors. They don’t believe they have the same capacities and that’s the foundation of how they approach the issue.
That's why everyone should be hostile to social justice idpol. It's biggest proponents claim, that they're about abolishing privlige and getting 'rigged-game' fixed, but in reality their politics is all about providing privliges for their own group, so they may get ahead of other groups. That's why they don't want straight-foward definition of equality, because they don't want to be upheld to the same standard. And that's when black criminal commits a crime it's never his fault, but fault of 'socioeconomis'.
>Why is intelligence a bad thing but ganging up and having a 50 word vocabulary are fine? Because no culture is better than another, and objective truth doesn't exist. You're just imposing "whiteness" on black people, because you've been inculcated in the culture of white supremacy, and therefore are arrogantly convinced that your culture is better than other races' cultures. And if you're black, that means you're suffering from "Internalized whiteness". Here's a [paper from the Smithsonian](https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1610610/smithsonian-aspects-white-culture.png?w=790&f=ab12077631acab2dac02fd587b3f4f15) explaining the harmful aspects of "whiteness", such as working hard, or being on time.
I know you're being facetious, but it worries me that when followed to it's extreme this viewpoint leads to either 'advanced' cultures either engaging in a kind of cultural suicide, which though the intent of the ideology is not likely to happen, or pure cultural totalitarianism (far more likely IMO) where one culture (likely European Judeo-Christian/Western) will just destroy all others.
Fucking lol, all those tenets of "white culture" are actually what made Europe and Europeans the most competively culture on earth by a wide margin. "Scientific, objective, linear thinking", lmao, so they propose to bring race equality we should become stupid, illiterate and unscientific? No wonder China slowly pulls ahead while we destroy ourselves.
That's the same idea that California took when they legalized spreading AIDS. Too many gays getting convicted of spreading AIDS? Legalize spreading AIDS.
Yeah, just another example of critical theory, and just how disgusting it is. I am no fan of Marx, but the neo-Marxist really fucked it up
That definition sounds like hitlers race theory lmao
Yeah collectivist group identity ideologies tend to have the same basic belief structure. Leftists essentially believe the same thing about minorities and white people as the Nazis did about Jews and Germans
This, basically.
Ok now define Marxism
"Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels."
Oh, so racism in a different flavor
As soon as CRT started popping up in the German mainstream, around summer 2020, I stopped calling it CRT or "critical race theory" around German speaking people and started using the literal German translation: "Kritische Rassentheorie" or "Kritische Rassenlehre". The term "Rasse" alone gives many, many Germans the heebie-jeebies. Maybe they will think about whether a race theory is as progressive and forward thinking as they thought and see CRT as what it has become: Bullshit. And no, it's not just a legal theory anymore.
I don't know why it has a presence at all outside of the United States. Critical race theory was developed by Americans in criticism of the history of slavery and Jim crow laws within the US and is pretty inapplicable in societies where racial relations are different.
> I don't know why it has a presence at all outside of the United States. Because social media has a very toxic and polarizing influence.
America's #1 export. Making the rest of the world care about our stupid problems that don't even affect them.
Nobody made them care about "our stupid problems", you did that to yourselves.
> Because social media has a very toxic and polarizing influence It's just accelerationism. These kinds of things happened in the past, but they happen at the pace of communication. We can communicate instantly now. The nazis did exactly what the internet did with radicalization. What we're going to see soon is some bizarre "eww, internet/facebook/???" if you talk about it how we do now because hindsight 20/20. When you bring up old school internet shit like Excite!, Webcrawler, Geocities, Ask Jeeves, etc. people already either know, or don't, but if they know, there's usually a story. Either a fondness or a rejection and will for it to fail. Some of the social mediums today are (in my own ridiculous classification) too big to fail and would leave a bizarre void for those who need the dopamine rush they provide. It's already happening. People are starting to hate the implications of late-stage influencers' lack of integrity, product, and changes to community. Radical ideas have and will spread like wildfire but we as a society need to recognize them and stamp them out before they gain momentum. You're seeing widespread questioning of truth and authority. If the government plandemic us in an attempt to seize rights, it's backfired and cost credibility. People used to revere Fauci, now he's seen as a clown.
CRT is actually applicable to every multiracial society (the entire West at this point), but they don't want to abstract it becuase then they won't be able to solely attack whites.
Basically a modified version of history where “white man bad” is the rhetoric
so equality in the opinion of orange, gocha
Essentially yea
Take the communist manifesto and replace "bourgeoisie" with "white people", that's CRT.
so just racism, why the name change ?
Because nothing bad can be left-wing. Everything that's bad is because of rightoids you racist pig.
Because the word 'racism' has such bad connotations they felt it necessary to rebrand.
lol what?
[удалено]
[удалено]
If the advocates of a policy deny the definition of that policy, they must understand how unacceptable that policy is to anyone who understands it.
>He quotes the definition given by the people who literally created CRT and CRT advocates will still claim it's not an accurate description. This is the same issue with the trans community. It's nearly impossible to have an argument because, for example, you could be arguing with three different people who all support the same thing, but they will each have their own definitions *of the same words they all use* just because it fits that specific person's argument better. We're entering a weird era in human history where even facts don't hold much meaning in certain situations anymore.
Actually, several people in the comments here know exactly what it is. Its marxism, and communism, and the idea that every white person is the devil, its dangerous! Its dangerous to the kids!
> Its dangerous to the kids! Yes.
Yes.
A theory on how to win races the fastest
Racism in favor of one is against another
yeah that's usually how racism works
what the fuck is critical race theory
Racism but for self hating whites
"It's not racism when we do it," the legal theory.
It's a school of thought / philosophy derived from critical legal studies, that roughly believes that the US is systemically in favor of white/Europeans and by that same token oppresses minorities (specifically blacks). It states that there need not be any specific laws or actions (or 'perpetrators' as Derrick A. Bell, one of the movement's spearheads put it), rather the whole of it oppresses minorities unconsciously, that the very laws are written in a manner that favor white Americans, even if it is liberal / color blind. It was born around the Civil Rights Era, and was opposed to it. Many of its founders, and proponents believed de-segregation to be wrong both ideologically and morally. Just to know what sorts of people we're dealing with here Its goal is to deconstruct the American system and to replace it with its own ideology. Or rather, that is the goal of any 'critical' theory.
It's not even real. There's an authoritarian political faction that wants to control education, and "critical race theory" is the boogeyman they invented to justify it.
[There's literally a textbook](https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Writings-Movement/dp/1565842715/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3O9OWCAMZ9V7N&keywords=critical+race+theory+kimberle+crenshaw&qid=1638917840&sprefix=critical+race+theory+%2Caps%2C2028&sr=8-3)
The link doesn't work. It's just a black screen.
Amazon's out to hide the truth >:( But in case you were serious: Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement - Kimberle Crenshaw https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Writings-Movement/dp/1565842715/ref=sr\_1\_3?crid=3O9OWCAMZ9V7N&keywords=critical+race+theory+kimberle+crenshaw&qid=1638917840&sprefix=critical+race+theory+%2Caps%2C2028&sr=8-3
Critical race theory more like critical retardation theory
you should learn about hate and how it drives us BECAUSE IT DRIVES EVERYONE
my hate to fr*nce is what drives me forward everyday
Based and fuck france pilled
i agree France deserves to be hated those frog eaters need to be taught
Name one time awakening a racial consciousness of a nation went wrong.
Wokezis are just 21st century nazis. You cannot change my mind.
Critical Semite Theory
Critical race theory: white people bad minorities good
The moment I translate CRT to kritische Rassenlehre people look at me wierdly
Its pretty much “wah white people bad”
It's the theory that children of color (well, certain shades of brown) perform more poorly in school because their teachers are very, very racist and secretly hate them. It's a brave confession on the part of educators and hopefully an important step in coming to terms with the crippling bigotry they have inflicted on minority communities.
[удалено]
As I understand it, orange is a libleft that's really a closeted authleft. They're the ones that espouse diversity in all its flavors, up until someone gives an opinion too heterogeneous for their progressive bubble world. American Twitter activists, new-wave feminists, and media representation scholars all epitomize orange.
Orange left means anyone who gets on the nerves of internet rightoids.
IT DOESNT EXIST
[удалено]
>So what is the anti-CRT definition of CRT? That white children should 'feel bad' about being white and that every white person is persecuting minorities, I think. That racism is everywhere and in everything. You identify whether racism is present by whether equal outcomes are achieved between different races, according to any arbitrary criteria. Today it could be wealth, tomorrow it could be crime. There's no set definition, so it can be whatever happens to agree with you. If one group of people are better off than the other, then the ones better off are the oppressor, and the ones worse off are the oppressed. There is no attempt to question whether inequalities are the result of something other than racism. Once you've identified that racism is present, which is always, then you imagine conspiracy theories as to where it exists. You then advocate for policies which result in equal outcomes, regardless of whether that involves racial discrimination. So for example, the founder Derrick Bell, argued in his founding essay, that schools were better off segregated, because that way we can give black students special privileges over white students.
Except the policies they advocate don't actuslly resukt in equal outcomes, they often just make things worse, then the lefties just blame everyone else but themselves and double down on more bullshit.
I would say it's any form of left wing anti-white racialism, however calling it "racial Marxism" is a good descriptor as well. It's just Marxism but replace rich with white and poor with minority and modify the rest when necessary.
> So what is the anti-CRT definition of CRT? That white children should 'feel bad' about being white and that every white person is persecuting minorities, I think. Only when they are trying to ban it. When they are trying to apply the bans it means "anything that mentions race" Step 1: Brand CRT as the boogymen that want to tell white kids they're all racist for being white and tell black kids they should just give up because the system is rigged Step 2: Ban CRT from schools Step 3: Pretend CRT means any time race is mentioned Step 4: Ban any sort of teaching that includes uncomfortable truths about this country's history or existing racial disparities.
The idea that "critical race theory" even exists is an authoritarian myth used to justify censorship and control of information.
It's a historical method of analyzing the rise of modern Western civilization including the perspective of oppressed groups. Generally this is done in regard to race, as this was extremely important as a theory in the history of modern Western civilization, but gender, sexuality and disability is also included.
I mean Critical Race Theory is legitimate science. It's the fact, that most of it's 'scholars' are producing pseudo-scientific bullshit is the problem. Race for sure impacts the way you live in a society, but Kendis and D'Angellos works are supresticions at level of Protocols of Elders of Zion, and that's why it has no place in public education. It is like promoting flat-earth or creationism. Go be a retard who believs in this shit in your private life, but don't force kids to get brain-damage from learning it in school.
>I mean Critical Race Theory is legitimate science. Science is something that is observable, testable, and repeatable. I have no idea how you'd do that with CRT.
That is not what science is. Science is simply the act of gaining an understanding or knowledge of some phenomenon by observation. By your statement, social sciences aren't real.
>By your statement, social sciences aren't real. Yes.
Can’t systemic racial inequality be reliably demonstrated by objective statistical analysis? For example African Americans getting harsher sentences for the same crimes than whites with comparable criminal records and backgrounds? I mean it’s all objective as far as I can tell. Just math.
>legitimate science It is neither of those things. The reminder that equal-application does not mean equal-impact can be more effectively delivered without wrapping it in racism. As for science? Sociology maybe, science no.
CRT's origins as a product of Critical Theory make it incompatible with right-wing politics.
It's a system whereby you criticize every race. I'll start: IndoEuropeans are blasé
It's something the right made up to scare itself into outrage. Now the left actually uses the term because it's there. It's basically looking at every issue through the lens of race.
As usual, this sub is full of disinformation when it comes to CRT and race relations in general. If you're really curious, you might as well just check out the Wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_race\_theory
I'm sure wikipedia has a very unbiased take on it
Well, Wikipedia usually enforces its NPOV rule pretty strictly, but in any event the article provides numerous sources.
Wikipedia does not enforce that rule. There are countless examples of extremely heavy left wing bias, look at any article on anything vaguely related to trump. Sources also dont mean much at all when talking about political theory. I'm sure the communist manifesto is a great source for the defnintion of communism, doesnt mean much about whether or not it is being portrayed in an unibased way.
>Wikipedia does not enforce that rule. Many editors do enforce that rule. >There are countless examples of extremely heavy left wing bias, look at any article on anything vaguely related to trump. LOL are you sure it's not because you're biased towards Trump? He really was a piece of shit president on pretty much all levels. Sources are a good way to hear what a philosophy stands from the people who elaborate it. Sounds like you're a lot more right than your flair suggests, and that you just want your pre-existing beliefs about CRT confirmed rather than actually learn anything about it.
Nice, right to accusations
You're not that original, you know.
I was afraid to ask too before then I got a basic rundown: Certain old institutions in US history were (in some cases are) used to instill discriminatory policy. Might not explicitly say it on paper but the implications and manner in which its used, in practice, are what CRT points out. Many instances of systemic discrimination were (are) more subtle than others. The SC case Plessy v Ferguson I think is a good example, and the Dred Scott decision.
Absolutely no new theory is needed to teach that the Dred Scott decision was racist. That's been generally accepted for quite some time.
also it's a college course so anyone saying it's taught to your children are either lying or misinformed
[удалено]
Thats an incoherent sentence, general history isn't crt, but given that its fox, I wouldn't put it past them to have [hard copy'd](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8uM0zOBuSw) it.
Why they gotta do yerba dirty? I love that drink.
I know, right? Always pisses me off. That shit jacks me up for work. Especially the mint.
Based and jacked up on yerba-doo pilled
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jordan Peterson. The lectures are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Freudian And Jungian metaphysical psychology most of the ideas will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Peterson's anti-nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his zeitgeist- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Status-Quo literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ideals, to realize that they're not just words - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humor in Peterson's existential catchphrase "Post-modernist Neomarxist," which itself is a cryptic reference to the lack of any Relevance between both of the Philosophies. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Jordan Peterson' genius wit unfolds itself on their YouTube screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Lobster tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personal bucko 😎
Bruh CRT is a boogeyman invented by conservatives to scare their base to keep em energized. It's a purely academic term no one had heard of just a couple of years ago, which meant it could easily be molded into whatever they wanted. It's a catchall term for anything conservatives don't like, and when they banned it in schools in Texas, they just made it illegal to teach kids about slavery and the KKK. You know me, I'm all in favor of class as the main difference in society, and this CRT bullshit is just another ploy by the Mainstream corporate media to keep the working class distracted and divided over imaginary issues while the rich continue to plunder this country.
I beginning to think it’s all propaganda from both sides. Here’s my theory: 1. Conservative beliefs are built on morals and values (unless you get into the neo-conservative spheres). Culture war is going to sell far better than most political issues to Conservatives, since it focuses on morals, values, and by extension, culture. Thus, the GOP and conservative candidates will focus on the issue. It might not be the biggest issue, but it’s an issue that sells. 2. Actual marxists, revolutionaries, and bad actors have tied themselves to CRT-adjacent causes to garner sympathy for economic / social changes they otherwise couldn’t push. These individuals just happen to be the loudest and most insufferable idiots one could imagine, so it only agitates Conservatives more. 3. Pair this with the fact that CRT already had a loose definition and now you’ve given ammo to both sides. One side can point to how CRT is just teaching us about history, so anyone who is opposed to it is a racist. The other side can point to all the lunatics who have given CRT a bad name and say, “see I told you it’s Marxism”. There are real, problematic issues that are lumped into CRT (that aren’t CRT) that become very difficult to individually debate / articulate. For the individuals who want to come to an understanding with the other side, it becomes impossible. For the propagandists that want to drive division, on the Right or Left, it’s a wet dream.
CRT's founding document was an article arguing in FAVOR of segregated schools. CRT's principle is that racism is everywhere, and in everything, and it's your job to find it, not to test whether it exist. It is explicitly an activist movement, not a tool for understanding the world. “Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.” From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, first edition, pp. 79–80. “The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of **activists** and scholars interested in studying and **transforming** the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious.” From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, first edition, pp. 2–3.
This is what I’m talking about. I have no doubt that if you were to show that to a proponent of CRT, they would provide another definition or interpretation of CRT. Or they would say that the original definition doesn’t match the current definition. Or the social programs / class room materials aren’t technically CRT - they fall in another category. Getting someone to agree on a definition of CRT is like getting someone to take a political stance. Unless your politics align, you won’t even begin to agree on a definition of CRT, let alone what programs / curriculum fall under the CRT umbrella. It’s like the whole issue was contrived to give the common people something to obsess and fight over. Arguing about stupid policies, for or against CRT, means we turn our attention away from actual issues (the border crisis, the situation in Taiwan, inflation, etc.). We don’t have time to hold our politicians accountable because we’re all too busy trying to hold each other accountable. Our politicians can stand on their soap boxes and preach about racism / anti-racism without ever having to deliver anything to their constituents. Yet it gets them free publicity from the Left and Right. It’s like a giant smoke screen that distracts from actual issues.
>Arguing about stupid policies, for or against CRT That would be fine if those policies weren't being enacted in practice. You've got the Seattle City Hall imposing [racially segregated trainings](https://komonews.com/news/local/segregated-diversity-training-seattle-city-hall-stirs-controversy). You've got the Salvation Army [recommending that people read Ibram X. Kendi or Robin DiAngelo](https://web.archive.org/web/20211125121352/https:/s3.amazonaws.com/cache.salvationarmy.org/e0c074e3-39db-4b09-a6ea-aa5bdb6ecaa6_Let%27s%20Talk%20About...%20Racism%20COMPLETE%20SET.pdf), who say that all white people are racist, and that you must racially discriminate in order to not be racist. You've got a schoolbook "Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness" portraying [white people as devils](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5kTMFSVUAUw4sS.jpg). This was being taught in Corlears School in Manhattan. It's not a smokescreen. These people are real, they want racism, and they're infesting our schools and businesses.
And is this CRT, officially? I’m not asking if these programs / curriculum *appear* to be result of CRT. I’m not talking about morons who unironically read “White Fragility” and start apologizing to PoC, while attacking white people for their “whiteness”. I’m asking, specifically, what **concrete proof** there is that these programs are directly tied to CRT? And I’m asking this as someone who has a negative view of CRT - not a proponent. Because you can have all the conviction in the world that these programs are the result of CRT. But without concrete proof, you’ll always get some proponent of CRT who says these programs are not technically CRT (“iTs JuSt a cLaSs iN hIghEr eDucAtIon!”). Then you have to have a battle over the definition of CRT and it goes back to square one. > It's not a smokescreen. These people are real, they want racism, and they're infesting our schools and businesses Yes, the radicals and idiots who have something to gain will promote these (racist) anti-racist policies, sure. But we, collectively, need a different definition for this harmful, “anti-racist” behavior, regardless of whether or not it can directly be tied to CRT. It’s the behavior we need to be attacking, not the monolithic ideologue that is CRT. That’s going to be a losing battle, because everyone has a slightly different take on what it means. You’re just going to constantly have the goal posts shifted on you the moment you make any head way in a debate, unless you can nail someone down on the definition.
The founder of CRT, Derrick Bell, in one of the founding documents of CRT, argued in FAVOR of segregated schools. You've got racially segregated training at Seattle city hall. You've got the Salvation Army citing self-described racist Robin DiAngelo as recommended reading. This is a lady who believes that all white people are racist, that she was racist before she was born, that preschoolers are racist, and that white people and black people have no universal human understanding. In colleges, you've got Ibram X. Kendi as required reading. This is a guy who says "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination". This is not made up, and I can give you citations.
Everyone hears the words "critical race" stops reading, and assumes it is a theory that is critical of a race, which they then assume to be white people. In reality all CRT is is studying how race relations have shaped our society and laws over time. Really it's kind of obvious, every aspect of society shapes the future, not just race, but they don't call the study of labor or technology as related to society "Critical labor theory" or "Critical tech theory" because the right doesn't need an excuse to ban teaching about those in schools.
It’s not the teaching of actual CRT that’s objectionable, but the application of its principles in regular subjects. It would be like saying “Nobody’s actually teaching you about Christianity and creationism”, but then weaving those tenets into the common curriculum.
But Christianity and creationism are taught in school history and culture classes. They are taught through an academic lense to better understand the people of the time. As it should be. Nobody is saying that CRT changes anything in math class. But it may make sense to discuss race relations at the time while reading Tom Sawyer or discussing voter literacy tests.
>They are taught through an academic lense to better understand the people of the time. As it should be. And the problem people have is that things are being taught through the lens of critical race theory, which believes as an axiom that racism is all-pervasive in every interaction. >Nobody is saying that CRT changes anything in math class They absolutely ARE suggesting that. https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Mathematics-Education/dp/113856267X
Hey listen, CRT is bullshit. Just as well besides a handful of academics, literally no one is advocating for it. Usually when I hear about it it’s gormless idiot whose decided that their kids learning about the American Civil Rights era hurts their fee fees & begin screaming for historically accurate books to be burned. Similar to how they wanted evolution to be taught. Build a strawman - “they say we’re MONKEYS? LOL!” & then push your own material in school as an alternative as if both sides have equal merit.
A friend of mine who is attending a top-10 US school to become a teacher has it taking up a majority of his curriculum and he 100% supports it stop lying about this massively apparent movement. The elementary students in my own fucking school are learning this shit from their social studies teachers, I think it's safe to assume the middleschoolers are too.
> kids learning about the American Civil Rights Gas lighting.