IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th April 2021, 11:17 AM   #41
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No longer Philadelphia :(
Posts: 5,689
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not always. "Let's have better roads", for example, doesn't require debate. You may argue over how to achieve it, or what makes a road better, but anybody who wants to wrangle over whether roads are good can be excluded from the planning.
And yet, some philosophically based opinion is required in order to assert what makes a road "better".
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 11:20 AM   #42
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,267
The "only white people can be racist" meme seems like an equivocation between two different aspects of racism.

It is obvious that a person of any race can have an individually racist take on another race--choosing to allow prejudice to carry into behavior and opinion.

It is in discussing racism as the impact that privilege has on marginalized groups that it can be said this is a characteristic of only the privileged race. While I actually think this is the more impactful kind of racism, I think advocates would do better to avoid testily contradicting people that are speaking of their more familiar understanding of racism, which is the individual kind. It comes off as denying that person's individual experience. That may be less relevant to the important discussion of institutional and societal racism--but as a persuasive tactic it is a great way to cause the person to disconnect from listening.

I'm not totally against shame being used to influence people to do better--but if they don't comprehend what they're being shamed for it is counterproductive. They think the other person is just unfairly accusing them of something different than what's actually being discussed.
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 29th April 2021 at 11:21 AM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 11:23 AM   #43
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,845
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not always. "Let's have better roads", for example, doesn't require debate. You may argue over how to achieve it, or what makes a road better, but anybody who wants to wrangle over whether roads are good can be excluded from the planning.
That used to be true. There certainly were argument that there was functionally nobody on the opposite side of. In fact for the longest my main issue was "cause" people almost entirely was "Who are you yelling at? Who is on the other side of this discussion?"

The last few years have... altered that opinion of mine.
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 11:25 AM   #44
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,845
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
The "only white people can be racist" meme seems like an equivocation between two different aspects of racism.
Pretty much, but I think it's intentional.

When one side is screaming "I have four fingers and a thumb!" and another side is screaming "No you have five fingers!" and they keep arguing even after the context in which side is using their terminology has been clarified it's because they don't want to stop screaming.
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 11:38 AM   #45
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 880
I don't trust elementary school teachers to engage in nuanced discussions about race with children, especially in the CRT angle. I barely trust them to teach math or social studies after a year of observation from remote learnings.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 11:44 AM   #46
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 16,514
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Can't tell what to make of this. The theory seems all over the map, and vague when describing itself. One of the quotes from its proponents in the OP links says that for a 'the question is not whether racism is a factor, but rather how racism manifested in this particular case'. Proponents seem to redefine racism capriciously to make it a white-only position, which is patently stupid. There is a comment fron a 7th circuit appellate judge who was apparently presented with this that it is anti-skeptical, valuing anecdotes over data, and that there is a built-in assumption of intellectual inferiority in POC.

On the surface, it looks like a parody of foolish anti-white stereotypes, like the FSM of racial relations. This theory also popped up on another thread. Is this something that is gaining traction lately?
Yes, it's gaining traction. It's the underlying philosophy for Robin DiAngelo's book "White Fragility", as as well as the cornerstone of the "corporate training" that she gets paid a lot of money to do. And it's begun creeping into middle school and high school curriculum as well. For example... in Seattle Math classes.

At its very earliest inception as an academic concept, it probably had some value. But it really no longer does, as far as I can tell. It's an idea that is destructive and harmful in practice, imo.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 12:20 PM   #47
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,725
I was gonna quote a few folks but meh. Its curious how quick folks were to dismiss as right wing bogeyman/dogwhistle based on two articles. Google was useful in finding all sorts of pro and con sites and description.

I am unimpressed with it, its part of a broader group of things called "critical theory" that does seem to have developed out of Marxism. The difference with critical theory is they've basically swapped out race for class.

Anyrate, it does seem rather illiberal if you ask me. Also, as some useful things to say, regarding privilege and what not. IT sort of reminds of a lot of quack medicine. Seeing racism as basically the cause of all ills and anti-racism as the cure. Where it as left academia anyway. Like a lot of soft science, it seems to have mutated into a dumber less true version in pop culture.

Doing things like redefining white supremecy to mean but most folks think of as racism is just counter productive. Most folks think that white supremecy is an ideology which says, white people are better and should be in charge. So, most will be somewhat offended if you say their society, institutions, selves are white supremecist.

It is apparently quite popular in US University Education and Journalism schools, which is why its gaining traction.

Last edited by ahhell; 29th April 2021 at 12:23 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 12:25 PM   #48
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
At its very earliest inception as an academic concept, it probably had some value. But it really no longer does, as far as I can tell. It's an idea that is destructive and harmful in practice, imo.
I really think we've got a baby in the bathwater problem here. Probably best to drill down to specific claims made by either the early theorizers or the latter-day popularizers. For example, consider the social construction theory of race at post #13. Seems to me it's fairly unobjectionable, in line with what we know from genetics and population science.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 29th April 2021 at 02:10 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 12:28 PM   #49
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,808
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
And yet, some philosophically based opinion is required in order to assert what makes a road "better".
As I said when I said "you may argue over how to achieve it, or what makes a road better". What you may not do is demand justification for the notion of having roads and still expect people to let you sit on the committee for road improvement.

You may as well say "you need to have a philosophical reason to explain why living is better than dying" in order to take any action at all; it may be true on some level, but it is certainly not a necessary prerequisite for getting on with business.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 12:31 PM   #50
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,808
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That used to be true. There certainly were argument that there was functionally nobody on the opposite side of. In fact for the longest my main issue was "cause" people almost entirely was "Who are you yelling at? Who is on the other side of this discussion?"

The last few years have... altered that opinion of mine.
Yes, a great many people are ridiculously stupid. The only way forward is to ignore them and their ridiculousness, and if necessary shout them down and/or allow them to perish from the preventable diseases they disbelieve in.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 12:33 PM   #51
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,845
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You may as well say "you need to have a philosophical reason to explain why living is better than dying" in order to take any action at all.
You mean the thing that people on this board constantly actually do various versions of?
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 12:43 PM   #52
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,808
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You mean the thing that people on this board constantly actually do various versions of?
Or pretend to; if someone truly questioned the worth of any action they wouldn't post anything at all, they'd be rocking back and forth in bed, unable to get up in the mornings.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 12:44 PM   #53
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,845
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Or pretend to; if someone truly questioned the worth of any action they wouldn't post anything at all, they'd be rocking back and forth in bed, unable to get up in the mornings.
Oh for sure, it's a persona put on not an actual held position because, as you say, it's not intellectually stable.
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 02:50 PM   #54
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I made no assertion that it need be "formalized", only that to have an idea of what constitutes "better" or "an improvement" one will almost axiomatically be arguing from their own philosophical framework.
Right. I covered that in the second part of my post. If you're going to define philosophy like that, then every discussion is philosophical and therefore calling something philosophical is meaningless.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 02:57 PM   #55
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 7,732
1992 NYT article on CRT

Came across an article on CRT from the NYT archives:

Quote:
While some instructors teach law through hypothetical cases, a black University of Wisconsin law professor, Patricia J. Williams, uses true stories. For example, she tells students in a "Women and Property" course about how her great-great grandmother was sold at the age of 11 to a white slave holder and later bore his child.

Ms. Williams's resistance to the notion that law operates in a vacuum typifies what legal scholarship's newest kids on the block -- called critical race theorists -- view as an attempt to correct the problem of the law's voice.
Quote:
In 1982, Professor Delgado wrote an article in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review that was the first to suggest that racial hate speech be punishable as a crime. Professor Matsuda followed that up with a Michigan Law Review article that proposed a scheme for regulating hate speech on campus, touching off what was dubbed the "political correctness movement."
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/17/a...ite-voice.html
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 29th April 2021 at 03:22 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 03:06 PM   #56
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No longer Philadelphia :(
Posts: 5,689
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Right. I covered that in the second part of my post. If you're going to define philosophy like that, then every discussion is philosophical and therefore calling something philosophical is meaningless.
That simply is not true.
Discussions using terms like "older", "heavier", "brighter", "further", etc.. do not come from a philosophical framework.

Its the ones that use terms like "better", "meaner", "fairer", "unjust", "intolerant", "equitable" etc.. that require one.
IOW, discussions about things like the OP.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 04:42 PM   #57
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,808
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
That simply is not true.
Discussions using terms like "older", "heavier", "brighter", "further", etc.. do not come from a philosophical framework.

Its the ones that use terms like "better", "meaner", "fairer", "unjust", "intolerant", "equitable" etc.. that require one.
IOW, discussions about things like the OP.
Which are suited for academic environments, which is where this sort of wrangling belongs. The actual roads will be constructed and maintained by different people, who don't value idealogical debate more highly than material action.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 04:58 PM   #58
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
That simply is not true.
Discussions using terms like "older", "heavier", "brighter", "further", etc.. do not come from a philosophical framework.

Its the ones that use terms like "better", "meaner", "fairer", "unjust", "intolerant", "equitable" etc.. that require one.
IOW, discussions about things like the OP.
What does it mean to be older? What is age? What is time? And so on. You can go as far as you want.

And even your examples don't exist outside of a philosophical framework. You're attempting to present empirical terms. Well, care to guess what empiricism is? By which theory of epistemic justification do you hold those examples to be empirical? Evidentialism?

And so on. You're drawing an arbitrary line.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 05:03 PM   #59
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,845
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You're drawing an arbitrary line.
Because that's what philosophers do; declare themselves the authority on where to draw the line.

There's absolutely no reason for philosophy to "stop" where it does.

Philosophers are only interested in stopping whatever discussion is going on by dropping it down one level.

"I think therefore I am" is not more self defining than "I am."
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 05:32 PM   #60
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No longer Philadelphia :(
Posts: 5,689
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
What does it mean to be older? What is age? What is time? And so on. You can go as far as you want.

And even your examples don't exist outside of a philosophical framework. You're attempting to present empirical terms. Well, care to guess what empiricism is? By which theory of epistemic justification do you hold those examples to be empirical? Evidentialism?

And so on. You're drawing an arbitrary line.
I concede your point that all discussion comes from a philosophical framework.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 05:39 PM   #61
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No longer Philadelphia :(
Posts: 5,689
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Which are suited for academic environments, which is where this sort of wrangling belongs. The actual roads will be constructed and maintained by different people, who don't value idealogical debate more highly than material action.
Really?
It is unimportant to those who wish to make roads "better" what "better" actually means?
Are they made better if they encourage people to drive faster? Are they "better" if they have multiple off ramps leading to sparsely populated areas? Are they "better" if they require a larger initial investment-but less upkeep in the future?

Some acknowledgment of what "better" means is necessary if it is to be achieved- and that understanding comes from a philosophical framework wether it is formalized or not.

If one states that the roads need to be made 10' wider, instead of "better" the people who maintain them will not need to consult their philosophical framework.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 29th April 2021 at 05:46 PM.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 05:55 PM   #62
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,749
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
I'd never heard of it. I read the links then looked up a site critical to it. I'm not sure I believe a lot of the claims made by that site. They claim it is more or less re-branded Marxism. I wouldn't know. The article mentioned "radical left" after a few paragraphs and my opinion of it was lowered a bit. It was definitely one-sided.

I'd need an honest and thorough explanation of CRT so I will step aside and read what others here have to say.

I still don't have a solid opinion on CRT.

As far as school curriculum goes, kids barely learn math and English in the US as it is. Last I checked our educational system isn't very good compared with other countries.

I would prefer that our schools be less involoved with a child's life rather than more. Less indoctrination with history and poli sci and more learning how to think. People don't really learn how to think, they learn what to think.

While I'm at it, thirteen years in school is ridiculous. It's just babysitting. Let them take elective courses, perhaps outside of school if they want to learn other subjects.
__________________
Stop feeding the trolls PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 06:03 PM   #63
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,808
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Really?
It is unimportant to those who wish to make roads "better" what "better" actually means?
Are they made better if they encourage people to drive faster? Are they "better" if they have multiple off ramps leading to sparsely populated areas? Are they "better" if they require a larger initial investment-but less upkeep in the future?

Some acknowledgment of what "better" means is necessary if it is to be achieved- and that understanding comes from a philosophical framework wether it is formalized or not.

If one states that the roads need to be made 10' wider, instead of "better" the people who maintain them will not need to consult their philosophical framework.
For the third time I repeat: ""you may argue over how to achieve it, or what makes a road better". If you are going indulge in pseudointellectual sophistry you should at least master the art of reading comprehension so you don't waste your own time arguing a point already made.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 06:04 PM   #64
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,845
This is why people throw rocks at philosophers' heads.
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 06:07 PM   #65
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,808
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is why people throw rocks at philosophers' heads.
That isn't philosophy, and that isn't a philosopher. Actual philosophy is a real discipline, and the people in it don't pretend not to know what you mean. The crap exhibited here (and most places online, to be fair) is as close to philosophy as a microwaved fishstick is to haute cuisine.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 06:33 PM   #66
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That isn't philosophy, and that isn't a philosopher. Actual philosophy is a real discipline, and the people in it don't pretend not to know what you mean.
Meh. Philosophy's been rather dead since we switched to empirical inquiry. Just thinking about stuff isn't useless, but it sure leads to absurdities when it's not grounded in realities.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 07:03 PM   #67
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Philosophy's been rather dead since we switched to empirical inquiry.
Are CRT theorists doing philosophy or empirical inquiry?


Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 07:30 PM   #68
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,808
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Are CRT theorists doing philosophy or empirical inquiry?
It sounds more like the sort of thing that comes out of English departments to me.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 07:37 PM   #69
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It sounds more like the sort of thing that comes out of English departments to me.
Elite law schools, as it turns out.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2021, 11:26 PM   #70
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,206
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Came across an article on CRT from the NYT archives:

Quote:
In 1982, Professor Delgado wrote an article in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review that was the first to suggest that racial hate speech be punishable as a crime. Professor Matsuda followed that up with a Michigan Law Review article that proposed a scheme for regulating hate speech on campus, touching off what was dubbed the "political correctness movement."
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/17/a...ite-voice.html
There's maybe something there that we could discuss, but I don't know how deep into the weeds I want to go.

This is still an ongoing debate. Should "hate speech" be considered a crime, or is freedom of speech the higher good which we should protect?

In the past, the ACLU famously came down on the side of freedom of speech, even suing on behalf of neo-Nazis who wanted to hold a parade through a Jewish neighborhood. I'm not sure whether they still feel the same way anymore. And people still complain about "political correctness" to this day.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 04:53 AM   #71
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
This is still an ongoing debate. Should "hate speech" be considered a crime, or is freedom of speech the higher good which we should protect?
Quite a few possibilities in between, as well, e.g. administrative sanctions for speech which creates a hostile learning/working environment. CRT activists lost the first round back in 1991:
Quote:
In a case that could eventually have implications for colleges around the country, a Federal district judge has voided a University of Wisconsin rule against hate speech, saying it is unconstitutionally broad.

The rule, adopted two years ago by the university's Board of Regents, barred speech that was intended to create a hostile learning environment through the demeaning of a person's race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation or ancestry. The rule called for punishment ranging from public service to suspension.
As you say, though, this struggle is ongoing. I get the sense that nothing much has changed since before I went to college, decades ago, with the possible exception of the Chicago Statement which provides a contrast to the CRT model.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 06:31 AM   #72
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,079
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
We know that discrimination and oppression occur among other ethnic groups. The Japanese are critically viewed as thinking other Asian groups are inferior... India has been notorious for it’s caste system (and still is), Hispanics have a history of division along the lines of Spanish descent as opposed to “Indio” descent.... Etc, etc.

So the notion that “only white people can be racist” seems a bit far-fetched.
That's generally because most of the people talking about this are talking about Americans in America and then applying it to most people of European descent.

I've found that in online discussion the examples you've given are basically downplayed or ignored, or in some cases blamed on white people. And in other cases instances of racism between non-white groups are deemed "prejudice" either because it doesn't fit their narrow view, or because they are downplaying their own racist beliefs.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
In conclusion, CRT by name is likely best left in academe, while in the "real world" people should concentrate on taking actions to bring about desired goals without fighting too hard about the labels attached to theories. One doesn't need a philosophical framework and a manifesto to decide improvements in the current state of things are desirable.
To be honest I feel like this is a pretty good summary of it. Unfortunately the "real world" people are going to take these tools and use them as crude hammers and if those hammers don't work, create a slightly different hammer to deal with the pieces that the first hammers don't adequately deal with.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 07:00 AM   #73
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 100,042
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
In other words, it sounds as if CRT is the name applied to an academic theory which has developed into multiple differing and sometimes conflicting ideas, some of which are controversial and some of which have been reported in a half-assed way in the media and distorted for political reasons by various parties. It sounds intellectually unsafe at best and outright dishonest at worst to ascribe any simplistic position taken for or against CRT to the entire thing, and if a soundbite appears in the media mentioning CRT it is most probably being misused--either the theory or the claim made about it.

In conclusion, CRT by name is likely best left in academe, while in the "real world" people should concentrate on taking actions to bring about desired goals without fighting too hard about the labels attached to theories. One doesn't need a philosophical framework and a manifesto to decide improvements in the current state of things are desirable.
Well put.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 07:03 AM   #74
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 100,042
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That isn't philosophy, and that isn't a philosopher. Actual philosophy is a real discipline, and the people in it don't pretend not to know what you mean. The crap exhibited here (and most places online, to be fair) is as close to philosophy as a microwaved fishstick is to haute cuisine.
Custard or not is the question.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 07:18 AM   #75
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
In conclusion, CRT by name is likely best left in academe, while in the "real world" people should concentrate on taking actions to bring about desired goals without fighting too hard about the labels attached to theories. One doesn't need a philosophical framework and a manifesto to decide improvements in the current state of things are desirable.
The whole point of CRT is to affect change IRL, though. At first, CRT scholars were concentrated in legal academe and focused on legal reform, but eventually the movement came to work largely on winning hearts and minds in post-secondary education.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 08:21 AM   #76
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 15,864
From what I gather, CRT is not a theory, but a rejection of proper method born of impatience with the lack of progress in achieving goals relating to races/groups within societies.

I do like the emphasis on social constructs, but -- from the little I've read -- they fail to translate that perspective into a policy of promotiong fact-based narratives, or engaging in myth-busting memes. Maybe some do.

Story-telling, if used for bonding or catharsis, fine. But if conceptual space is to be wholly mapped onto reality, that's how you jump into the deep end of madness. No thanks. (Hasn't the GOP patented that, btw?)
__________________
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 10:27 AM   #77
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,072
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
The "only white people can be racist" meme seems like an equivocation between two different aspects of racism.

It is obvious that a person of any race can have an individually racist take on another race--choosing to allow prejudice to carry into behavior and opinion.

It is in discussing racism as the impact that privilege has on marginalized groups that it can be said this is a characteristic of only the privileged race. While I actually think this is the more impactful kind of racism, I think advocates would do better to avoid testily contradicting people that are speaking of their more familiar understanding of racism, which is the individual kind. It comes off as denying that person's individual experience. That may be less relevant to the important discussion of institutional and societal racism--but as a persuasive tactic it is a great way to cause the person to disconnect from listening.

I'm not totally against shame being used to influence people to do better--but if they don't comprehend what they're being shamed for it is counterproductive. They think the other person is just unfairly accusing them of something different than what's actually being discussed.
I don't think this is necessarily true.

First I question the notion of racial privilege is questionable in the first place. Not being subject to the same levels of abuse should not be considered a privilege. IMO The typical white American doesn't enjoy greater privileged they are however more likely to enjoy the rights everyone is supposed to have.

Eg, even after adjusting for socio-economic factors police kill fewer white Americans then they do black Americans, but under no circumstances should be consider "less likely to be killed by police" a privilege. "Privileged" white Americans are still killed a far higher rates than Germans. In fact the rate at which American police kill white Americans is much more similar to the rate at which American police kill black Americans than it is the rate at which Germans police kill Germans. While black Americans are more like to be the victims, police shootings put everyone at risk and are not just a problem for African Americans.


The second issue I have is that when you draw artificial "race" lines around groups of people it's inevitable that some of these groups will have less success than others and these inequalities will become self-sustaining over time. It really don't matter who is drawing those lines the result will be that once you do, some group will inevitably be disadvantaged. It's just as harmful when the disadvantaged group draws those lines as it is when someone else does so to really move forward everyone who defends artificial racial grouping must be addressed.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 11:36 AM   #78
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,725
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I don't think this is necessarily true.

First I question the notion of racial privilege is questionable in the first place. Not being subject to the same levels of abuse should not be considered a privilege. IMO The typical white American doesn't enjoy greater privileged they are however more likely to enjoy the rights everyone is supposed to have.

Eg, even after adjusting for socio-economic factors police kill fewer white Americans then they do black Americans, but under no circumstances should be consider "less likely to be killed by police" a privilege. "Privileged" white Americans are still killed a far higher rates than Germans. In fact the rate at which American police kill white Americans is much more similar to the rate at which American police kill black Americans than it is the rate at which Germans police kill Germans. While black Americans are more like to be the victims, police shootings put everyone at risk and are not just a problem for African Americans.


The second issue I have is that when you draw artificial "race" lines around groups of people it's inevitable that some of these groups will have less success than others and these inequalities will become self-sustaining over time. It really don't matter who is drawing those lines the result will be that once you do, some group will inevitably be disadvantaged. It's just as harmful when the disadvantaged group draws those lines as it is when someone else does so to really move forward everyone who defends artificial racial grouping must be addressed.
Is that true? Poor people are more likely to be killed by police and there are hundreds more white men are killed by police every year than black people. Blacks are disproportionally killed to be sure but more in raw numbers?
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 11:52 AM   #79
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,267
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I don't think this is necessarily true.

First I question the notion of racial privilege is questionable in the first place. Not being subject to the same levels of abuse should not be considered a privilege. IMO The typical white American doesn't enjoy greater privileged they are however more likely to enjoy the rights everyone is supposed to have.

Eg, even after adjusting for socio-economic factors police kill fewer white Americans then they do black Americans, but under no circumstances should be consider "less likely to be killed by police" a privilege. "Privileged" white Americans are still killed a far higher rates than Germans. In fact the rate at which American police kill white Americans is much more similar to the rate at which American police kill black Americans than it is the rate at which Germans police kill Germans. While black Americans are more like to be the victims, police shootings put everyone at risk and are not just a problem for African Americans.


The second issue I have is that when you draw artificial "race" lines around groups of people it's inevitable that some of these groups will have less success than others and these inequalities will become self-sustaining over time. It really don't matter who is drawing those lines the result will be that once you do, some group will inevitably be disadvantaged. It's just as harmful when the disadvantaged group draws those lines as it is when someone else does so to really move forward everyone who defends artificial racial grouping must be addressed.
I think you're operating on some unsound assumptions. It may be inevitable that some group will be disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean nothing can be done about it, that the effect cannot be lessened. Certainly I don't see how trying to identify and address structural inequalities actually sustain them.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2021, 11:53 AM   #80
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,267
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Is that true? Poor people are more likely to be killed by police and there are hundreds more white men are killed by police every year than black people. Blacks are disproportionally killed to be sure but more in raw numbers?
I'd say it's a fair assumption to presume we're talking about proportion, as the count in raw numbers is not really indicative.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.