4 ms·

The issue of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools has been a subject of intense controversy and public debate for several years and many states have banned it

by xcv123 3y ago

The issue of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools has been a subject of intense controversy and public debate for several years and many states have banned it already. Many states have legislated against it. There is an abundance of legal documentation you can read to find out why.

orwin 3y ago
Do you know what Critical Race Theory is? Or its superset, Critical theory? If it's taught at any level below highschool the US is probably the best educated country in the world, and critical thinking should be really high (is that why the less wrong movement emerged from your country?). In any case, I would be impressed, but I would understand the reasons to not teach it too early.
- xcv123 3y ago
  Yeah I studied mathematics and computer science at post graduate level, including formal logic, and consider CRT to be a pseudo-intellectual field of "study" that actively destroys critical thinking. There is no intellectual rigor in that. They produce indoctrinated midwits and are lobotomizing young people. Merely having "critical" in the title does not mean that it actually teaches critical thinking. Critical Theory has absolutely nothing to do with teaching critical thinking. > is that why the less wrong movement emerged from your country? I live far away from the USA in a very "progressive" country.
  - orwin 3y ago
    What? I understand why people think that its usefulness is overblown (I do too), I understand calling-it pseudo-intellectual too. That's in my opinion a mistake, because my huge issue with it is that it is too intellectual, with almost no real, prescriptive value (too much contradictions). I also think that its writers like to smell their own farts, to take an image from South Park. But 'not critical thinking'? I'm not calling you a liar, but are you sure you learned critical theory in your field of study? What was taught about it? Or were you just suffering from second-hand exposure (like you talked to sociology students)? But critical theory is basically applying critical thinking to... Almost everything,and especially social relations and norms (which is why it's not really useful 99% of the time). I think I have to illustrate it a bit: it was used in archeology (and linguistics) with success. Basically : a lot of European 'war chiefs' tombs were discovered in the 19th century by people who thought only men can use weapons. Someone who took their critical theory course seriously said: 'can we check those bones again to see if they had bias?', and, as easely predicted, having weapons in a cairn did not meant the skeleton was male, thus we no understand info-european culture better than before (which is more in line with ancient Celtic culture than Judeo-Christian culture, especially when it comes to females). It has to be credited for change in the teaching culture too. The 'teachers must learn as much as they teach' is a direct relative to critical theory. Is that what you are against then? I think I like that position in my mind, but some learn better under pressure and rather have authoritarian teachers (I know I do), so in the end it's a negative,i agree. Like I said, it's not pseudo-intellectual, it's too intellectual to be effective. The ideas are nice, the praxis is limited. It's not a materialist theory. I also disagree with like 60% of CT critic of Marx (the only think they got right was the critic of ideology, but tbh I think this originally was from Foucault, so not new at all). Ultimately, I think the best critic of Critical Theory is one that weren't really aimed at it, Baudrillard's hyperreality. (I'm stopping here, sorry, I would have to type twice as much to explain why, just read Baudrillard Simulacrum, it's the most interesting conservative thinker of the era imho) (and yes, he is conservative).
    - xcv123 3y ago
      If we look at Critical Theory in practise, as taught to students, here is what we have: https://crittheory.ucdavis.edu https://crittheory.ucdavis.edu "We are united by no single set of presuppositions but, rather, by a shared commitment to close reading, rigorous thinking, and the pursuit of what Marx famously called “a ruthless critique of everything that exists.” And it goes on to a list a bunch of Cultural Marxist bullshit. It is basically Neo-Marxism. Indoctrination into their twisted belief system and political revolutionary ideology. "Critical" as in rejecting and overthrowing the established order of things to make way for their bullshit utopian vision of society. I reject it outright. You are entitled to disagree. This is just my personal opinion.
      - orwin 3y ago
        > Critical" as in rejecting and overthrowing the established order of things Exactly what I'm talking about. Look, it seems you are passionate about it, but you act like CT modern/young proponents. Critical Theory is overblown, because of its limited praxis and because it is mostly symbolism, signaling. It should have died 30 years ago. And yes, the same signaling as in 'virtue signaling' (this is also a neo-marxist/postmodern word btw). By engaging in both (mostly) wrong and superficial criticism, you are signaling yourself, and seems to attribute to CT a power, reach it does not have, not really. You are attacking symbols and representation, but not the idea itself (which is totally part of my criticism of CT), thus your criticism is unactionable (has no praxis, see the similarity?), and you won't convince anyone using it as a cornerstone of their research that they're wrong. Admittedly, if someone use it as a cornerstone of their research, that research won't go that far, or is pseudoscientific (psychoanalysis), but using it as a limited tool is alright. [edit] and according to the site you linked, it is taught to doctoral students, which is fair, I think at that level most people know to use a tool like that.
        xcv123 3y ago
        Meanwhile in the real world we now have 4 year olds reading this evil product of Cultural Marxism. Just one small example. Many states have legislated against it because it is becoming an actual problem for society. https://x.com/ada_akpala/status/1680152633737093120?s=20 https://x.com/ada_akpala/status/1680152633737093120?s=20
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
A lot of hand waving there. Like I said: If you can come up with evidence that any significant number of kids are being taught that white people are, and I'm quoting you here, "inherently evil", I'll eat my hat. Still waiting.
- xcv123 3y ago
  Here's an example from a children's book: https://x.com/ada_akpala/status/1680152633737093120?s=20 https://x.com/ada_akpala/status/1680152633737093120?s=20
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    As expected, you came up with nothing. Try really hard to remember the components of your claim: –>schools<– were –>teaching<– –>kids<– that –>white people<– are, and again, I'm quoting you here: –>"inherently evil"<–. Instead you link to a tweet with an image of a book that says no such thing. Your "evidence" proves literally none of the components of your claim, and you needed all 4 to not be wrong. Your post shows no schools, no teaching, no kids, and nothing you claim is being taught. That's a quadruple failure. Making up such nonsense claims to prove your point is shameful, and not really in the spirit of this site. Perhaps twitter better suits your conspiracy theories? Maybe you can get elmu to retweet you.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - xcv123 3y ago
      [flagged]

by xcv123 3y ago

orwin 3y ago

Do you know what Critical Race Theory is? Or its superset, Critical theory? If it's taught at any level below highschool the US is probably the best educated country in the world, and critical thinking should be really high (is that why the less wrong movement emerged from your country?). In any case, I would be impressed, but I would understand the reasons to not teach it too early.

xcv123 3y ago
Yeah I studied mathematics and computer science at post graduate level, including formal logic, and consider CRT to be a pseudo-intellectual field of "study" that actively destroys critical thinking. There is no intellectual rigor in that. They produce indoctrinated midwits and are lobotomizing young people. Merely having "critical" in the title does not mean that it actually teaches critical thinking. Critical Theory has absolutely nothing to do with teaching critical thinking. > is that why the less wrong movement emerged from your country? I live far away from the USA in a very "progressive" country.
- orwin 3y ago
  What? I understand why people think that its usefulness is overblown (I do too), I understand calling-it pseudo-intellectual too. That's in my opinion a mistake, because my huge issue with it is that it is too intellectual, with almost no real, prescriptive value (too much contradictions). I also think that its writers like to smell their own farts, to take an image from South Park. But 'not critical thinking'? I'm not calling you a liar, but are you sure you learned critical theory in your field of study? What was taught about it? Or were you just suffering from second-hand exposure (like you talked to sociology students)? But critical theory is basically applying critical thinking to... Almost everything,and especially social relations and norms (which is why it's not really useful 99% of the time). I think I have to illustrate it a bit: it was used in archeology (and linguistics) with success. Basically : a lot of European 'war chiefs' tombs were discovered in the 19th century by people who thought only men can use weapons. Someone who took their critical theory course seriously said: 'can we check those bones again to see if they had bias?', and, as easely predicted, having weapons in a cairn did not meant the skeleton was male, thus we no understand info-european culture better than before (which is more in line with ancient Celtic culture than Judeo-Christian culture, especially when it comes to females). It has to be credited for change in the teaching culture too. The 'teachers must learn as much as they teach' is a direct relative to critical theory. Is that what you are against then? I think I like that position in my mind, but some learn better under pressure and rather have authoritarian teachers (I know I do), so in the end it's a negative,i agree. Like I said, it's not pseudo-intellectual, it's too intellectual to be effective. The ideas are nice, the praxis is limited. It's not a materialist theory. I also disagree with like 60% of CT critic of Marx (the only think they got right was the critic of ideology, but tbh I think this originally was from Foucault, so not new at all). Ultimately, I think the best critic of Critical Theory is one that weren't really aimed at it, Baudrillard's hyperreality. (I'm stopping here, sorry, I would have to type twice as much to explain why, just read Baudrillard Simulacrum, it's the most interesting conservative thinker of the era imho) (and yes, he is conservative).
  - xcv123 3y ago
    If we look at Critical Theory in practise, as taught to students, here is what we have: https://crittheory.ucdavis.edu https://crittheory.ucdavis.edu "We are united by no single set of presuppositions but, rather, by a shared commitment to close reading, rigorous thinking, and the pursuit of what Marx famously called “a ruthless critique of everything that exists.” And it goes on to a list a bunch of Cultural Marxist bullshit. It is basically Neo-Marxism. Indoctrination into their twisted belief system and political revolutionary ideology. "Critical" as in rejecting and overthrowing the established order of things to make way for their bullshit utopian vision of society. I reject it outright. You are entitled to disagree. This is just my personal opinion.
    - orwin 3y ago
      > Critical" as in rejecting and overthrowing the established order of things Exactly what I'm talking about. Look, it seems you are passionate about it, but you act like CT modern/young proponents. Critical Theory is overblown, because of its limited praxis and because it is mostly symbolism, signaling. It should have died 30 years ago. And yes, the same signaling as in 'virtue signaling' (this is also a neo-marxist/postmodern word btw). By engaging in both (mostly) wrong and superficial criticism, you are signaling yourself, and seems to attribute to CT a power, reach it does not have, not really. You are attacking symbols and representation, but not the idea itself (which is totally part of my criticism of CT), thus your criticism is unactionable (has no praxis, see the similarity?), and you won't convince anyone using it as a cornerstone of their research that they're wrong. Admittedly, if someone use it as a cornerstone of their research, that research won't go that far, or is pseudoscientific (psychoanalysis), but using it as a limited tool is alright. [edit] and according to the site you linked, it is taught to doctoral students, which is fair, I think at that level most people know to use a tool like that.
      - xcv123 3y ago
        Meanwhile in the real world we now have 4 year olds reading this evil product of Cultural Marxism. Just one small example. Many states have legislated against it because it is becoming an actual problem for society. https://x.com/ada_akpala/status/1680152633737093120?s=20 https://x.com/ada_akpala/status/1680152633737093120?s=20

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

A lot of hand waving there. Like I said: If you can come up with evidence that any significant number of kids are being taught that white people are, and I'm quoting you here, "inherently evil", I'll eat my hat. Still waiting.

xcv123 3y ago
Here's an example from a children's book: https://x.com/ada_akpala/status/1680152633737093120?s=20 https://x.com/ada_akpala/status/1680152633737093120?s=20
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  As expected, you came up with nothing. Try really hard to remember the components of your claim: –>schools<– were –>teaching<– –>kids<– that –>white people<– are, and again, I'm quoting you here: –>"inherently evil"<–. Instead you link to a tweet with an image of a book that says no such thing. Your "evidence" proves literally none of the components of your claim, and you needed all 4 to not be wrong. Your post shows no schools, no teaching, no kids, and nothing you claim is being taught. That's a quadruple failure. Making up such nonsense claims to prove your point is shameful, and not really in the spirit of this site. Perhaps twitter better suits your conspiracy theories? Maybe you can get elmu to retweet you.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - xcv123 3y ago
    [flagged]