January 2, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said: Can you define Critical Race Theory for me? I did several times, after you asked... did you read them at the time? But I can kindly do it again: Critical Race Theory is the obsession with people's race. Its goal is to judge and assess people's value only through the narrow prism of race. It's a form of Marxism: the individual is wiped out, everything has to be explained by the group affiliation. Simple, but extremely dangerous. CRT is a racist theory and race division fuel.
January 2, 20232 yr On 2/12/2022 at 10:58 PM, Enrico_sw said: @SympathysSilhouette If you want to understand what CRT is, then this teacher in California explains it. On this portal she shows, they say "the basic tactics are to assume racism is everywhere every day" (it's a quote, check it for yourself - at 7:45). CRT promotes racism, because it feeds on racism, division and hatred. Throwbacks...
January 2, 20232 yr Claiming that everything is racist is their basic tactics, because the CRT followers feed on race obsession.
January 2, 20232 yr 45 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: I did several times, after you asked... did you read them at the time? But I can kindly do it again: Critical Race Theory is the obsession with people's race. Its goal is to judge and assess people's value only through the narrow prism of race. It's a form of Marxism: the individual is wiped out, everything has to be explained by the group affiliation. Simple, but extremely dangerous. CRT is a racist theory and race division fuel. That's not really the textbook definition. It's a study of racism within the context of political/cultural/social entities and how those are both shaped by and perpetuate racist ideas. But it's worth to ask the question because it seems to mean something different depending on who you ask or talk to. Some consider teaching about Ruby Bridges a form of CRT.
January 3, 20232 yr 22 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said: That's not really the textbook definition. It's a study of racism within the context of political/cultural/social entities and how those are both shaped by and perpetuate racist ideas. But it's worth to ask the question because it seems to mean something different depending on who you ask or talk to. Some consider teaching about Ruby Bridges a form of CRT. The definition you gave is the cover-up that CRT proponents use. There is no textbook definition, because it's not a science. It's an ideology. CRT is a racist theory, made by racists who are obsessed with race and use "reverse racism" (which is racism) to justify more racism and hatred. Of course, they will say they fight against racism, but the truth is that they are the biggest spreaders of racism. You gotta assess what CRT is based on what its cult followers do, not based on the "good guys" label they self-attribute.
January 3, 20232 yr It's like neo-feminists saying that the fight for "equality", while in reality they fight for their own privileges and hatred towards men (of course, that's not "all feminists", but most of the influent neo-feminists). Also, "equality" can designate two radically opposite concepts: - equality of opportunity (which was the noble fight in the 18th/19th centuries) which promotes justice and a fair chance for everyone - equality of outcome which is a horrible concept that finds its roots in the most profound injustices, hatred and despise for mankind (which was the despicable fight that destroyed many countries, including Russia).
January 3, 20232 yr 28 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: The definition you gave is the cover-up that CRT proponents use. There is no textbook definition, because it's not a science. It's an ideology. CRT is a racist theory, made by racists who are obsessed with race and use "reverse racism" (which is racism) to justify more racism and hatred. Of course, they will say they fight against racism, but the truth is that they are the biggest spreaders of racism. You gotta assess what CRT is based on what its cult followers do, not based on the "good guys" label they self-attribute. Sigh. Critical Race Theory was largely exclusively studied in universitis and was done so long before the right-wing latched onto it as their new buzz word. I stopped taking the label seriously long ago when it started being applied to stuff like Norman Rockwell paintings or Art Spiegelman's Maus.
January 3, 20232 yr Just now, SympathysSilhouette said: Sigh. Not your best argument Just now, SympathysSilhouette said: Critical Race Theory was largely exclusively studied in universitis If something is studied in universities, it doesn't mean it's true (especially in social sience). Far from it. It's not maths. It's not physics. It's not even biology (a "hard science" with still lots of uncertainties, because life is complex). Social sciences are easy to falsify, highly normative. The "knowledge" behind CRT is worthless, because it's not evidence-based, it's ideological.
January 3, 20232 yr Just now, Enrico_sw said: Social sciences are easy to falsify, highly normative. The "knowledge" behind CRT is worthless, because it's not evidence-based, it's ideological. The "grievance studies affair" brilliantly (and scientifically) illustrated the poor value of the knowledge behind these grievance theories (CRT, gender studies, etc.)
January 3, 20232 yr Jon Haidt (one of the most brilliant social psychologists) explains the dangers of unethical and untalented social sciences in American Universities.
January 3, 20232 yr It's not because something is repeated on CNN, MSNBC and by "professors" in Evergreen or Yale that it's true. You gotta remember what happened to Bret Weinstein at Evergreen. Social sciences in American Universities are ailing. It's ideology there, not science. They don't want sane debates, falsifiability or dissenting opinion. That's not science (I have studied science in quite a good environment, this is NOT it).
January 3, 20232 yr Everybody could benefit from reading history books about cultural propaganda in the 20th century (both Gramsci and Goebbels are two extremely important figures to read to understand what propaganda is and how it can infiltrate the university). Look at what Heidegger did in the 30s and 40s. He was one of the best intellectuals of his century. Look at what he did.
January 3, 20232 yr Do you remember Hannah Arendt's critics of the infiltration of totalitarian soaked ideas in social sciences? This is highly valuable knowledge. Based on evidence and thorough critical thinking.
January 3, 20232 yr If the knowledge you learn at your "post-modern" university is not filled with critical thinking, falsifiability and evidence based views, then:
January 3, 20232 yr Hannah Arendt, Jon Haidt, Bret Weinstein and others against all kinds of crazy totalitarian moguls:
January 3, 20232 yr Wokeness is a dangerous totalitarian poison, because it takes 5 seconds for someone to say "oh, my concept is for the good guys" and fool many people. But it takes hours and hours of explanations, evidence-based analyses, rigorous thinking to debunk the lies in these ideologies. In the "long run", reasonable people will understand. But it might be too late.
January 4, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: Not your best argument If something is studied in universities, it doesn't mean it's true (especially in social sience). Far from it. It's not maths. It's not physics. It's not even biology (a "hard science" with still lots of uncertainties, because life is complex). Social sciences are easy to falsify, highly normative. The "knowledge" behind CRT is worthless, because it's not evidence-based, it's ideological. The point of that remark was that it's stupid to pretend that it's being "taught" at any level at the primary or secondary school level. When they accuse those schools of teaching CRT it's usually bullshit like complaining about a Ruby Bridges book or a Holocaust comic.
January 5, 20232 yr On 1/4/2023 at 8:43 AM, SympathysSilhouette said: The point of that remark was that it's stupid to pretend that it's being "taught" at any level at the primary or secondary school level. When they accuse those schools of teaching CRT it's usually bullshit like complaining about a Ruby Bridges book or a Holocaust comic. You can't see the forest for the trees. Who cares if some random trolls on the internet complained about a comic? There are lots of morons on the planet, they have zero influence. Journalists, teachers and professors have influence. This teacher (like many others) explains factually that at school, teachers are told "the basic tactics are to assume racism is everywhere every day" (it's a quote, check it for yourself - at 7:45). This is fuel for hatred. Why is it so hard to understand? Why is it so difficult to criticize something that comes from the woke movement? The inability to criticize a movement is the mark that society is on a totalitarian drift.
January 5, 20232 yr Hatred is increasing in the West and woke ideologies (CRT, neo-feminism, the gender confusion...) are the prime reason. Woke supporters are less and less capable of critical thinking
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.