4 ms·

No, full stop. The two American parties are not equivalent in their modern forms. You can use “over the long term” to further any point you like because at one

by efnx 5y ago

No, full stop. The two American parties are not equivalent in their modern forms. You can use “over the long term” to further any point you like because at one point the Republican Party was the liberal, progressive party before it adopted the original southern strategy. Studying race and systemic racism in school is absolutely not “as damaging” as dictating the terms of school funding in a way that disadvantages the poor (and subsequently non-white people). Also your argument is about the two parties being the same over the long term, but then you give a very short term anecdote, and one that isn’t very compelling. I’m sorry to appear so argumentative but it seems you are falling into the trap of false equivalence on multiple levels.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Studying race and systemic racism in school is absolutely not “as damaging” as dictating the terms of school funding in a way that disadvantages the poor (and subsequently non-white people). To be fair, when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Reducing CRT to “merely studying race” is dishonest. Moreover, as race essentialist ideas are want to do, I posit that CRT does harm poorer people because it lets rich whites absolve themselves by way of ritual while characterizing poorer whites as the aggressors. Similarly, we prioritize issues that are almost certainly harmful for poorer communities of color, like (de facto or de jure) de-policing high-crime areas (we celebrate fewer police-related fatalities and sweep under the rug the enormous spike in murders). Note that this isn’t a partisan issue. The best criticism of CRT comes largely from liberals, progressives, and independent conservatives (CRT seems like it should be a slam dunk for establishment Republicans but in increasingly normal form they are finding innovative ways to bungle it).
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  >when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. CRT posits that differences among racial/ethnic groups are the result of, as wikipedia puts it, "social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors." Even its critics claim it relies too heavily on social constructivism - the literal opposite of essentialism. (Racial essentialism, in contrast, claims that "races" are biologically district categories that result in innate individual differences) Of course, you used a throwaway account here, so you must, on some level, know you argument doesn't hold to educated scrutiny.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. I knew someone was going to be pedantic which is why I phrased it as I did. The term is becoming overloaded, and we can either debate semantics or we can engage substantially and I’m choosing the latter. > Of course, you used a throwaway account here, so you must, on some level, know you argument doesn't hold to educated scrutiny. Your account is called “LordDragonfang” with 800 karma, so you're not exactly posting with your legal name yourself. No, I’m not using my legal name, but this is my main account. I post here regularly, in good faith, and overall my contributions have been well-received.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > The term is becoming overloaded No it's not. This bad version you imagine isn't being taught to anyone. > and we can either debate semantics or we can engage substantially and I’m choosing the latter. It's not "semantics" to talk about what is actually happening and being complained about.
    - LordDragonfang 5y ago
      My mistake, I assumed that your username actually reflected your account. In retrospect, I think I recall seeing you before, but you obviously don't have a very distinctive name.

by efnx 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

> Studying race and systemic racism in school is absolutely not “as damaging” as dictating the terms of school funding in a way that disadvantages the poor (and subsequently non-white people). To be fair, when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Reducing CRT to “merely studying race” is dishonest. Moreover, as race essentialist ideas are want to do, I posit that CRT does harm poorer people because it lets rich whites absolve themselves by way of ritual while characterizing poorer whites as the aggressors. Similarly, we prioritize issues that are almost certainly harmful for poorer communities of color, like (de facto or de jure) de-policing high-crime areas (we celebrate fewer police-related fatalities and sweep under the rug the enormous spike in murders). Note that this isn’t a partisan issue. The best criticism of CRT comes largely from liberals, progressives, and independent conservatives (CRT seems like it should be a slam dunk for establishment Republicans but in increasingly normal form they are finding innovative ways to bungle it).

LordDragonfang 5y ago
>when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. CRT posits that differences among racial/ethnic groups are the result of, as wikipedia puts it, "social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors." Even its critics claim it relies too heavily on social constructivism - the literal opposite of essentialism. (Racial essentialism, in contrast, claims that "races" are biologically district categories that result in innate individual differences) Of course, you used a throwaway account here, so you must, on some level, know you argument doesn't hold to educated scrutiny.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. I knew someone was going to be pedantic which is why I phrased it as I did. The term is becoming overloaded, and we can either debate semantics or we can engage substantially and I’m choosing the latter. > Of course, you used a throwaway account here, so you must, on some level, know you argument doesn't hold to educated scrutiny. Your account is called “LordDragonfang” with 800 karma, so you're not exactly posting with your legal name yourself. No, I’m not using my legal name, but this is my main account. I post here regularly, in good faith, and overall my contributions have been well-received.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > The term is becoming overloaded No it's not. This bad version you imagine isn't being taught to anyone. > and we can either debate semantics or we can engage substantially and I’m choosing the latter. It's not "semantics" to talk about what is actually happening and being complained about.
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    My mistake, I assumed that your username actually reflected your account. In retrospect, I think I recall seeing you before, but you obviously don't have a very distinctive name.