4 ms·

"Pushing CRT" sounds pretty subjective. What measurement are you offering here? CRT, itself, is a pretty nebulous concept outside of actual legal scholarship.

by klyrs 5y ago

"Pushing CRT" sounds pretty subjective. What measurement are you offering here? CRT, itself, is a pretty nebulous concept outside of actual legal scholarship. "Pushing CRT" is a common right-fringe talking point. How much do you think the majority of Democratic voters agree with "pushing CRT"?

orangecat 5y ago
This is the same sort of argument-by-definition that gun rights supporters use to dismiss anyone who talks about "assault weapons". A whole lot of parents don't want their children separated by race and have white kids told that they bear personal responsibility for historical racism and anything they accomplish is only possible due to the oppression of others, while black kids are told that society hates them and they'll never get a fair chance to succeed (unless of course we overthrow the racist misogynist capitalist power structure). If your response to that is "well actually CRT only refers to the specific legal theories of Kimberle Crenshaw", you're not addressing the actual point.
anamax 5y ago
I didn't say that I was offering a measurement, in fact, I asked how we were defining "an objective measure." Moreover, I have no idea how many Democrat voters go along with the institutional Left. That said, the institutional left (IL) is pushing Project 1619 and associated materials outside of law schools, whether or not you want to call that CRT. (Shades of "no true Scotsman.") This is part of a broader "all-in" on DIE by the IL. "Everything" is racism, sexism, etc. There's also deplatforming and doxxing. No, I'm not going to provide a scale. I'm not even going to order deplatforming and doxxing. So, the above isn't quantitative measure. That's a long way from "nothing is happening."
- lapcat 5y ago
  > That's a long way from "nothing is happening." Who are you quoting? Nobody said that. This seems like a non sequitur.
  - anamax 5y ago
    It's sneer quotes. I'm claiming that the fact that the original poster didn't provide something like "0.2 units to the left" doesn't actually refute his fundamental point. Feel free to disagree.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Some relevant quotes from the guidelines: > Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. What you've done is complain about some general stuff that you seem to dislike about "the left" and completely fail to engage with the content of the actual article, which I was trying to bring the discussion back to. But hey, at least you acknowledge ignorance about what most people think. Perhaps you should try exiting your bubble and figure that one out instead of dwelling on what you hate about the fringe.
      - anamax 5y ago
        The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". I provided examples of movement by the institutional left. No, those examples don't have numbers, but they do show movement. Besides, how do you apply numbers to this sort of stuff in any reasonable fashion? Whether or not I like those things or they're "general" has nothing to do with whether they're movement. That's likely why you didn't comment on whether they were in fact movement. That said, as long as we're lecturing one another on meta-discussion, it's nice of you to provide an opportunity to quote Hannah Arendt: "The elite is not composed of ideologists; its members’ whole education is aimed at abolishing their capacity for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, between reality and fiction. Their superiority consists in their ability immediately to dissolve every statement of fact into a declaration of purpose."
        lapcat 5y ago
        > The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". No, the original claim was actually this: "political animosity may be based particularly on partisans’ overestimation of the prevalence of extreme, egregious views held by only a minority of opponents but imagined to be widespread." The counterclaim was: "There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization." My suggestion was that this counterclaim seems to be exhibiting the same fallacy discussed in the paper. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are very large, and its members have a wide variety of views. If you pay close attention, you'll see that there's quite a bit of infighting, sometimes very bitter, even within each party. Broad generalizations about Democrats or "the left" — and likewise about Republicans or "the right" — are often going to be grossly inaccurate. You can't just treat huge groups as uniform when they're demonstrably not uniform. The American people — well over 300 million of them — have diverse political views. But we have a political duopoly. Which means that these diverse views held by Americans have to somehow fit mostly within these 2 parties. It's a mistake to overgeneralize about political parties and similar groups. I personally find the terms "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" to be practically meaningless. They've lost all of their original meaning and become opaque cudgels for the political parties to pretend they have some kind of coherent ideology. But this is a bit of a tangent. Anyway, I would bet that most Democrats and most Republicans don't even know WTF CRT is. Even the ones who complain about it!

by klyrs 5y ago

orangecat 5y ago

This is the same sort of argument-by-definition that gun rights supporters use to dismiss anyone who talks about "assault weapons". A whole lot of parents don't want their children separated by race and have white kids told that they bear personal responsibility for historical racism and anything they accomplish is only possible due to the oppression of others, while black kids are told that society hates them and they'll never get a fair chance to succeed (unless of course we overthrow the racist misogynist capitalist power structure). If your response to that is "well actually CRT only refers to the specific legal theories of Kimberle Crenshaw", you're not addressing the actual point.

anamax 5y ago

I didn't say that I was offering a measurement, in fact, I asked how we were defining "an objective measure." Moreover, I have no idea how many Democrat voters go along with the institutional Left. That said, the institutional left (IL) is pushing Project 1619 and associated materials outside of law schools, whether or not you want to call that CRT. (Shades of "no true Scotsman.") This is part of a broader "all-in" on DIE by the IL. "Everything" is racism, sexism, etc. There's also deplatforming and doxxing. No, I'm not going to provide a scale. I'm not even going to order deplatforming and doxxing. So, the above isn't quantitative measure. That's a long way from "nothing is happening."

lapcat 5y ago
> That's a long way from "nothing is happening." Who are you quoting? Nobody said that. This seems like a non sequitur.
- anamax 5y ago
  It's sneer quotes. I'm claiming that the fact that the original poster didn't provide something like "0.2 units to the left" doesn't actually refute his fundamental point. Feel free to disagree.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Some relevant quotes from the guidelines: > Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. What you've done is complain about some general stuff that you seem to dislike about "the left" and completely fail to engage with the content of the actual article, which I was trying to bring the discussion back to. But hey, at least you acknowledge ignorance about what most people think. Perhaps you should try exiting your bubble and figure that one out instead of dwelling on what you hate about the fringe.
    - anamax 5y ago
      The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". I provided examples of movement by the institutional left. No, those examples don't have numbers, but they do show movement. Besides, how do you apply numbers to this sort of stuff in any reasonable fashion? Whether or not I like those things or they're "general" has nothing to do with whether they're movement. That's likely why you didn't comment on whether they were in fact movement. That said, as long as we're lecturing one another on meta-discussion, it's nice of you to provide an opportunity to quote Hannah Arendt: "The elite is not composed of ideologists; its members’ whole education is aimed at abolishing their capacity for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, between reality and fiction. Their superiority consists in their ability immediately to dissolve every statement of fact into a declaration of purpose."
      - lapcat 5y ago
        > The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". No, the original claim was actually this: "political animosity may be based particularly on partisans’ overestimation of the prevalence of extreme, egregious views held by only a minority of opponents but imagined to be widespread." The counterclaim was: "There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization." My suggestion was that this counterclaim seems to be exhibiting the same fallacy discussed in the paper. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are very large, and its members have a wide variety of views. If you pay close attention, you'll see that there's quite a bit of infighting, sometimes very bitter, even within each party. Broad generalizations about Democrats or "the left" — and likewise about Republicans or "the right" — are often going to be grossly inaccurate. You can't just treat huge groups as uniform when they're demonstrably not uniform. The American people — well over 300 million of them — have diverse political views. But we have a political duopoly. Which means that these diverse views held by Americans have to somehow fit mostly within these 2 parties. It's a mistake to overgeneralize about political parties and similar groups. I personally find the terms "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" to be practically meaningless. They've lost all of their original meaning and become opaque cudgels for the political parties to pretend they have some kind of coherent ideology. But this is a bit of a tangent. Anyway, I would bet that most Democrats and most Republicans don't even know WTF CRT is. Even the ones who complain about it!