4 ms·

gender is not the same as sex, and critical race theory is nothing more than how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, socia

gender is not the same as sex, and critical race theory is nothing more than how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity. being intentionally ignorant of those differences and definitions isn't making a great point.

the_third_wave 4y ago
I did not mention anything about gender (not discussing linguistics) so why bring it up? For more on critical race theory - and critical theory from which it derives - may I suggest a visit to New Discourses' explanation of the origins and essence of this movement? https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-race-theory/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-race-theory/
- boston_clone 4y ago
  > "Just because someone [...] recognises [sic] the fact that sexually reproducing mammals like us come in two sexes [...] does not mean they are 'right wing'." Yeah super weird, why would I bring up the most-often conflated term in right-wing discourse regarding transgender rights when you repeat their views almost verbatim? SUPER weird. I've read the New Discourses assessment, thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, it didn't really shed light on any new topic or idea, but finding the author to be a self-professed nationalist was of little surprise. If I may suggest some reading, pick up a copy of The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. I wouldn't mind lending mine, either - I'll even cover shipping charges.
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    "right-wing discourse" "self-professed nationalist" Please stop throwing labels and start talking substance. On that book suggestion I have another pointer for you to read which poses a number of questions related to the use of the "Jim Crow" moniker for explaining problems with the American justice system. You can download the PDF, no postage needed: Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966018 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966018
    - spencerflem 4y ago
      look, the label is only used because it is logical and reasonable to assume someone using the rhetoric of one group is likely to hold their views. I notice you have not said your own opinion on transgender issues, only tried to deflect it as "labels and not substance" and as for your article, that sort of discussion is important to have (both the book which I like and your article which is well written and academic and better than I was expecting ). Talking the issue is doing CRT The banning crowd wants to make this sort of discussion illegal in schools
      - the_third_wave 4y ago
        I have not mentioned my own views on "transgender" issues or "racial justice" issues or any other issues as these are of no concern to the issue here, that being the question whether any issue is ripe for satire no matter who does the satirising. I do not mention my views so as not to muddle the issue, not because they are secret. We're talking about satire, not about sex or religion or ideology. My views on humour and satire are relevant so I'll give them: anything is ripe for satire and humour is in the eye and ear of the beholder. That does not mean everything makes for good satire and everything which is deemed humorous by some is good humour but it does mean the limits to humour and satire are to be set by the laws of the land, not by a self-styled thought police. The Onion is free to satirise anything they want and so is the Babylon Bee. You do not have to find their satire funny nor do you have to read or watch it, that is up to you. As long as they do not violate the law - which, at least in theory, is shaped through a democratically (or in the case of the USA a representational republic-ally - they are free to wander where they want.
        boston_clone 4y ago
        Extraordinary; all this discussion just to get back to square zero. No one has advocated that the government step in and censor the Bee because what they’re doing is illegal. People are being critical because the content they publish legitimizes lies and punches down on marginalized groups. If you enjoy that kind of content, you should feel free to go where those views are welcome; I am making it plain that it is not welcome here.
yucky 4y ago
critical race theory is nothing more than how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” ~Ibram X. Kendi, explaining critical race theory
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  You are misrepresenting (Kendi’s approach to) antiracism with CRT. Antiracism (in general or any specific approach) is not the same thing as CRT. CRT is an analytical approach to description of what is. Antiracism is a mix of normative judgement of what ought ought to be and beliefs and descriptive theory about what actions will get from what is to that goal. CRT or other analysis of what is may inform antiracism, but they remain very different things.
  - yucky 4y ago
    They are inseparable. No reason to gaslight. Anybody who believes in treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT), supports racial discrimination by definition.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > They are inseparable. They are quite separable, both logically and in practice; Kendi’s approach to antiracism is not uncontroversial even among people who accept CRT as a correct approach to analyzing the status quo. In fact, in regard to the particular quote you see as emblematic, CRT tends to see the problem of the status quo situation of marginalized racial groups not as being a past discrimination which needs correction by present discrimination, but currently-existing structures which prevent progress which need dismantled. While Kendi’s statement isn’t logically excluded by CRT, it is far from the most natural conclusion from it. Generously, CRTs observation of the scope and breadth of subtle systemic discrimination through superficially race-neutral policies might lend support to a idea of compensatory overt discrimination as an easier stopgap while those systems are identified and dismantled, which is rather different from what Kendi articulates but similar in policy recommendation. > treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT) That’s not a tenet of CRT at all. CRT is an analytical approach to how racial inequality occurs and is preserved through law and institutional structure. While people interested in it naturally tend to have views on a desired end-state and also be interested into policy prescriptions as to how best to achieve that, those are beyond the scope of CRT.

the_third_wave 4y ago

I did not mention anything about gender (not discussing linguistics) so why bring it up? For more on critical race theory - and critical theory from which it derives - may I suggest a visit to New Discourses' explanation of the origins and essence of this movement? https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-race-theory/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-race-theory/

boston_clone 4y ago
> "Just because someone [...] recognises [sic] the fact that sexually reproducing mammals like us come in two sexes [...] does not mean they are 'right wing'." Yeah super weird, why would I bring up the most-often conflated term in right-wing discourse regarding transgender rights when you repeat their views almost verbatim? SUPER weird. I've read the New Discourses assessment, thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, it didn't really shed light on any new topic or idea, but finding the author to be a self-professed nationalist was of little surprise. If I may suggest some reading, pick up a copy of The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. I wouldn't mind lending mine, either - I'll even cover shipping charges.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  "right-wing discourse" "self-professed nationalist" Please stop throwing labels and start talking substance. On that book suggestion I have another pointer for you to read which poses a number of questions related to the use of the "Jim Crow" moniker for explaining problems with the American justice system. You can download the PDF, no postage needed: Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966018 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966018
  - spencerflem 4y ago
    look, the label is only used because it is logical and reasonable to assume someone using the rhetoric of one group is likely to hold their views. I notice you have not said your own opinion on transgender issues, only tried to deflect it as "labels and not substance" and as for your article, that sort of discussion is important to have (both the book which I like and your article which is well written and academic and better than I was expecting ). Talking the issue is doing CRT The banning crowd wants to make this sort of discussion illegal in schools
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      I have not mentioned my own views on "transgender" issues or "racial justice" issues or any other issues as these are of no concern to the issue here, that being the question whether any issue is ripe for satire no matter who does the satirising. I do not mention my views so as not to muddle the issue, not because they are secret. We're talking about satire, not about sex or religion or ideology. My views on humour and satire are relevant so I'll give them: anything is ripe for satire and humour is in the eye and ear of the beholder. That does not mean everything makes for good satire and everything which is deemed humorous by some is good humour but it does mean the limits to humour and satire are to be set by the laws of the land, not by a self-styled thought police. The Onion is free to satirise anything they want and so is the Babylon Bee. You do not have to find their satire funny nor do you have to read or watch it, that is up to you. As long as they do not violate the law - which, at least in theory, is shaped through a democratically (or in the case of the USA a representational republic-ally - they are free to wander where they want.
      - boston_clone 4y ago
        Extraordinary; all this discussion just to get back to square zero. No one has advocated that the government step in and censor the Bee because what they’re doing is illegal. People are being critical because the content they publish legitimizes lies and punches down on marginalized groups. If you enjoy that kind of content, you should feel free to go where those views are welcome; I am making it plain that it is not welcome here.

yucky 4y ago

critical race theory is nothing more than how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” ~Ibram X. Kendi, explaining critical race theory

dragonwriter 4y ago
You are misrepresenting (Kendi’s approach to) antiracism with CRT. Antiracism (in general or any specific approach) is not the same thing as CRT. CRT is an analytical approach to description of what is. Antiracism is a mix of normative judgement of what ought ought to be and beliefs and descriptive theory about what actions will get from what is to that goal. CRT or other analysis of what is may inform antiracism, but they remain very different things.
- yucky 4y ago
  They are inseparable. No reason to gaslight. Anybody who believes in treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT), supports racial discrimination by definition.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > They are inseparable. They are quite separable, both logically and in practice; Kendi’s approach to antiracism is not uncontroversial even among people who accept CRT as a correct approach to analyzing the status quo. In fact, in regard to the particular quote you see as emblematic, CRT tends to see the problem of the status quo situation of marginalized racial groups not as being a past discrimination which needs correction by present discrimination, but currently-existing structures which prevent progress which need dismantled. While Kendi’s statement isn’t logically excluded by CRT, it is far from the most natural conclusion from it. Generously, CRTs observation of the scope and breadth of subtle systemic discrimination through superficially race-neutral policies might lend support to a idea of compensatory overt discrimination as an easier stopgap while those systems are identified and dismantled, which is rather different from what Kendi articulates but similar in policy recommendation. > treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT) That’s not a tenet of CRT at all. CRT is an analytical approach to how racial inequality occurs and is preserved through law and institutional structure. While people interested in it naturally tend to have views on a desired end-state and also be interested into policy prescriptions as to how best to achieve that, those are beyond the scope of CRT.