5 ms·

I see this criticism of CRT/wokeism etc very often and I really want to address a point about people talking past each other. Proponents of CRT don't say they w

I see this criticism of CRT/wokeism etc very often and I really want to address a point about people talking past each other. Proponents of CRT don't say they want to divide people based on group characteristics, they say people are divided based on group characteristics and they recognise that whilst individualists deny what is evidently true. Essentially it's the position that people are negatively impacted due to the group they're in so they should advocate for themselves as part of that group.

ramblerman 5y ago
The remedy to injustice is to treat people on their merit. Not come up with different ways to divide them in the name of social justice. > I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
- Traster 5y ago
  If there is injustice, then the correct response is to recognise it and combat it, not to do nothing whilst it continues. The problem with your appeal to treating people on merit is often merit is the result of unequal conditions. So all you’re doing is baking in the existing inequality and then quite insultingly tell people “oh it’s a meritocracy” . It’s not a coincidence that the most privileged people end up having incredibly meritorious children.
peytn 5y ago
It’s about using racial rhetoric in a self-serving way. Isn’t that what people are talking about here?
ttt0 5y ago
I'm not a fan of CRT, but you're 100% right. The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how society would react to such knowledge. And that poses a problem. You can't even propose any alternative theory in the current climate. Second, the same criticism applies to CRT. There is a double standard. For the sake of simplicity, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it under the "Academic Criticism" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic > Farber and Sherry additionally posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications. I don't think I have to explain to anyone why this theory would have any antisemitic or anti-Asian implications, everyone has to know it on some level. You might not necessarily agree with it, but you should know why. But the most interesting and telling thing about everything surrounding the CRT is what this criticism doesn't say. Nowhere does it even mention anti-White implications. Imagine reading something explicitly focused on the overrepresantation of Jewish people in positions of power and saying "wow, this could hurt some innocent Europeans". I agree that the divisions are already here (and pretty much always have been for that matter), and that individualists are wrong in just pretending like the problem doesn't exist. But forcing this down everyone's throats without any possibility of defending yourself will only end up in a disaster.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how the society would react to such knowledge No, it hasn't. Not even your specific example (racial IQ dofferences), on which there continues to be new work published (both on the differences and on influences, both genetic and environmental.) So if “the issue” with CRT is just this thing that is neither true nor about CRT, then that’s pretty much the same as there being, in fact, no issue with CRT.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    The issue with CRT is that it's anti-white. If we would hold it up to the same standard as something like for example the Culture of Critique.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The issue with CRT is that it's anti-white. That's not the issue previously claimed but, like it, also false. CRT is not anti-White.
      - ttt0 5y ago
        No, this is exactly what my claim was. That the same criticism of racism applies to CRT too. From CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-explainer-trnd/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-e... > Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites. I could say a very similar thing about the Jewish people and you'd call me an anti-semite for it. Is this another case of redefining words and "anti-white" no longer means what I think it means or what? I'm confused. edit: I'm rate limited, responding here. > only in the sense that “White elites” are “elites, who are predominantly White” and not “Whites, who as a group are elites”. No serious person claims that this or other ethnicity is an elite as a group, so I'm not sure what does it have to do with anything. > Well, because factually socioeconomic elites (in America) aren't overwhelmingly Jewish Biden's cabinet being 1/3 Jewish (pretty sure it was about half few months ago) is just one example. And they're like what, 2% of the US population? Is that just an antisemitic lie or is the US administration somehow not a part of systemic structure? Once again, people are worried about CRT causing unintentional antisemitism, but no one cares if it's going to cause anti-white hatred, despite that the exact same argument was used against others who tried to explain why things are like this. It's completely transparent what it is and any sane person can see through this gaslighting. But it's alright, if you want to genocide each other then I guess it's none of my business, since I live on the other end of the world and it doesn't involve me personally. I'm not sure myself why I care so much, I clearly shouldn't. Now go ahead and crucify me.

ramblerman 5y ago

The remedy to injustice is to treat people on their merit. Not come up with different ways to divide them in the name of social justice. > I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

Traster 5y ago
If there is injustice, then the correct response is to recognise it and combat it, not to do nothing whilst it continues. The problem with your appeal to treating people on merit is often merit is the result of unequal conditions. So all you’re doing is baking in the existing inequality and then quite insultingly tell people “oh it’s a meritocracy” . It’s not a coincidence that the most privileged people end up having incredibly meritorious children.

peytn 5y ago

It’s about using racial rhetoric in a self-serving way. Isn’t that what people are talking about here?

ttt0 5y ago

I'm not a fan of CRT, but you're 100% right. The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how society would react to such knowledge. And that poses a problem. You can't even propose any alternative theory in the current climate. Second, the same criticism applies to CRT. There is a double standard. For the sake of simplicity, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it under the "Academic Criticism" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic > Farber and Sherry additionally posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications. I don't think I have to explain to anyone why this theory would have any antisemitic or anti-Asian implications, everyone has to know it on some level. You might not necessarily agree with it, but you should know why. But the most interesting and telling thing about everything surrounding the CRT is what this criticism doesn't say. Nowhere does it even mention anti-White implications. Imagine reading something explicitly focused on the overrepresantation of Jewish people in positions of power and saying "wow, this could hurt some innocent Europeans". I agree that the divisions are already here (and pretty much always have been for that matter), and that individualists are wrong in just pretending like the problem doesn't exist. But forcing this down everyone's throats without any possibility of defending yourself will only end up in a disaster.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how the society would react to such knowledge No, it hasn't. Not even your specific example (racial IQ dofferences), on which there continues to be new work published (both on the differences and on influences, both genetic and environmental.) So if “the issue” with CRT is just this thing that is neither true nor about CRT, then that’s pretty much the same as there being, in fact, no issue with CRT.
- ttt0 5y ago
  The issue with CRT is that it's anti-white. If we would hold it up to the same standard as something like for example the Culture of Critique.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The issue with CRT is that it's anti-white. That's not the issue previously claimed but, like it, also false. CRT is not anti-White.
    - ttt0 5y ago
      No, this is exactly what my claim was. That the same criticism of racism applies to CRT too. From CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-explainer-trnd/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-e... > Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites. I could say a very similar thing about the Jewish people and you'd call me an anti-semite for it. Is this another case of redefining words and "anti-white" no longer means what I think it means or what? I'm confused. edit: I'm rate limited, responding here. > only in the sense that “White elites” are “elites, who are predominantly White” and not “Whites, who as a group are elites”. No serious person claims that this or other ethnicity is an elite as a group, so I'm not sure what does it have to do with anything. > Well, because factually socioeconomic elites (in America) aren't overwhelmingly Jewish Biden's cabinet being 1/3 Jewish (pretty sure it was about half few months ago) is just one example. And they're like what, 2% of the US population? Is that just an antisemitic lie or is the US administration somehow not a part of systemic structure? Once again, people are worried about CRT causing unintentional antisemitism, but no one cares if it's going to cause anti-white hatred, despite that the exact same argument was used against others who tried to explain why things are like this. It's completely transparent what it is and any sane person can see through this gaslighting. But it's alright, if you want to genocide each other then I guess it's none of my business, since I live on the other end of the world and it doesn't involve me personally. I'm not sure myself why I care so much, I clearly shouldn't. Now go ahead and crucify me.