Critical race theory (CRT)

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
Watch Amber, maybe you’ll learn something.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I'll take Kimberle Crenshaw's account of what CRT is over the talking head you linked to. I got about 14 seconds in and stopped when she said nobody seems to be able to say what it is. If you aren't going to engage with my sources, I see no reason to engage with yours.
 

greg0205

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
163
The textbook I linked to? Or the red-herring you introduced? I don't see you explaining how you needed CRT to tell you it was white supremacy, so I'm guessing you didn't need it.


What does that have to do with CRT?

And there it is.

CRT bad, but I don’t know what it is.

Jesus, Xarog. CRT looks at how white supremacy infects and affects structures like law and education, and how that, in turn, affects the lives of folks right now.

The *supremacy* is what is being examined criticality.

It’s in that textbook, it’s in the legal system, it’s in the penal system, it’s in the NFL, it’s in redlining, it’s in George Floyd, and I could go on and on and on.

You see this?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

greg0205

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
163
I'll take Kimberle Crenshaw's account of what CRT is over the talking head you linked to. I got about 14 seconds in and stopped when she said nobody seems to be able to say what it is. If you aren't going to engage with my sources, I see no reason to engage with yours.

She’s a comedian who has a better understanding of CRT than you ever will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
And there it is.

CRT bad, but I don’t know what it is.

Jesus, Xarog. CRT looks at how white supremacy infects and affects structures like law and education, and how that, in turn, affects the lives of folks right now.

The *supremacy* is what is being examined criticality.

It’s in that textbook, it’s in the legal system, it’s in the penal system, it’s in the NFL, it’s in redlining, it’s in George Floyd, and I could go on and on and on.

You see this?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Um. Kimberle Crenshaw is an authority on CRT insofar as she helped found the discipline. Your excuses for not finding out for what I'm talking about rate very poorly at this stage, I have to tell you. Why would Kimberle Crenshaw not know what CRT is such that I shouldn't rely on her explanation of it?

And you didn't explain how you need CRT to talk about any of the things you're talking about. You're not under the impression that the 'critical' in critical race theory is the same as the 'critical' in critical thinking, are you? That would be a mistake.


While Critical Theory is often thought of narrowly as referring to the Frankfurt School that begins with Horkheimer and Adorno and stretches to Marcuse and Habermas, any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a “critical theory,” including feminism, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism. In the following, Critical Theory when capitalized refers only to the Frankfurt School. All other uses of the term are meant in the broader sense and thus not capitalized. When used in the singular, “a critical theory” is not capitalized, even when the theory is developed by members of the Frankfurt School in the context of their overall project of Critical Theory.


It follows from Horkheimer’s definition that a critical theory is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation.
Critical race theory is a critical theory because it follows the parameters set out by Horkheimer, so his definition of critical is what the critical in critical race theory means, and as you can see it's not about getting to the truth of something, it's actually about persuing an activist agenda in the guise of getting to the truth of something. Political science is supposed to be about the science of politics, not the politicisation of science, and Horkheimer did the latter.
 
Last edited:

greg0205

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
163
Um. Kimberle Crenshaw is an authority on CRT insofar as she helped found the discipline. Your excuses for not finding out for what I'm talking about is very poor at this stage, I have to tell you. Why would Kimberle Crenshaw not know what CRT is such that I shouldn't rely on her explanation of it?

And you didn't explain how you need CRT to talk about any of the things you're talking about. You're not under the impression that the 'critical' in critical race theory is the same as the 'critical' in critical thinking, are you? That would be a mistake.



Critical race theory is a critical theory because it follows the parameters set out by Horkheimer, so his definition of critical is what the critical in critical race theory means, and as you can see it's not about getting to the truth of something, it's actually about persuing an activist agenda in the guise of getting to the truth of something. Political science is supposed to be about the science of politics, not the politicisation of science, and Horkheimer did the latter.

Here’s your GingerBeardMan persona making his first appearance… and also the ‘we can discuss this, but only within my perimeters and with my rules’ y’all love so much.

Does CRT highlight structural oppression so folks can recognise it and take action to change the system?

Yes or no.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
Here’s your GingerBeardMan persona making his first appearance… and also the ‘we can discuss this, but only within my perimeters and with my rules’ y’all love so much.

Does CRT highlight structural oppression so folks can recognise it and take action to change the system?

Yes or no.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Did Hitler support vegetarianism, yes or no?

If you want me to engage with your sources, you'll engage with my sources, and I was first. If you had a history of actually engaging with the sources people presented to you, maybe your hurt at the lack of my trust might merit an apology.

Edit:

I mean, reading a single page isn't too much to ask, is it?

Here's another excerpt if you like, it's not as good, but I can copy-paste a quote for you:


C. Relationship to Other Movements

As the reader will see, critical race theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legalstudies and radical feminism, to both of which it owes a large debt. It also draws from certain Europeanphilosophers and theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci and Jacques Derrida...

Delgado and Stefancic are also considered seminal members of the discipline, fwiw.
 
Last edited:

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
@greg0205

Just so we're clear, it's fine for you to endorse CRT so long as you acknowledge that it's inaccurate to call yourself a liberal insofar as you do. But from the looks of things, this is something you cannot bring yourself to admit.
 

Dave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
8,675
Location
the sunlit uplands of Utopia
Did Hitler support vegetarianism, yes or no?

Looking at his favourite meals, the answer would have to be no. You shouldn’t believe all those websites you frequent that love to make things up to suit their viewpoint.

Turtles, pigeons and sausages aren’t usually considered vegetarian…


But if Hitler was indeed a vegetarian, he wasn’t a very good one. In 1964, his former personal chef, Dione Lucas, published The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook, in which she listed turtle soup, stuffed pigeon, and sausages as among his favourite foods. A few decades later, highly acclaimed biographer Robert Payne argued that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a myth created by his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels.





So, let’s settle this: Was Hitler a vegetarian?

First of all, no.

If being a vegetarian means abstaining from meat without fail, then no. Don’t trust me, and don’t trust animal rights brochures. Trust the chef who fed him: “I learned this recipe when I worked as a chef, before World War II, in one of the large hotels in Hamburg, Germany,” writes Dione Lucas in her 1964 classic, Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook. “I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab [pigeon], but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often.” Lest we think she meant a different Mr. Hitler, she adds, “Let us not hold that against a fine recipe, though.”



PS, hello Xarog, nice to see you, you just missed Droid, you’d have liked his opinions.
 

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
Looking at his favourite meals, the answer would have to be no. You shouldn’t believe all those websites you frequent that love to make things up to suit their viewpoint.

Turtles, pigeons and sausages aren’t usually considered vegetarian…


But if Hitler was indeed a vegetarian, he wasn’t a very good one. In 1964, his former personal chef, Dione Lucas, published The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook, in which she listed turtle soup, stuffed pigeon, and sausages as among his favourite foods. A few decades later, highly acclaimed biographer Robert Payne argued that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a myth created by his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels.





So, let’s settle this: Was Hitler a vegetarian?

First of all, no.

If being a vegetarian means abstaining from meat without fail, then no. Don’t trust me, and don’t trust animal rights brochures. Trust the chef who fed him: “I learned this recipe when I worked as a chef, before World War II, in one of the large hotels in Hamburg, Germany,” writes Dione Lucas in her 1964 classic, Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook. “I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab [pigeon], but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often.” Lest we think she meant a different Mr. Hitler, she adds, “Let us not hold that against a fine recipe, though.”
Ok, but whether Hitler was in fact a vegetarian or not is irrelevant to the principle I was illustrating, so thanks for the clarification, and in future I will merely refer to Hitler as the 'proverbial vegetarian' when elaborating on the aforementioned principle when I am in the process of averting any attempts at flawed motte and bailey defences of a position. Satisfied? It's not like I think highly of vegetarianism or anything in case you were getting the wrong impression.

PS, hello Xarog, nice to see you, you just missed Droid, you'd have liked his opinions.
Inb4 any detractor of CRT gets called racist. :D

Just so we're clear, should I take you as being in the yay-CRT camp or the nay-CRT camp? I'm guessing it's yay-CRT.
 

scudsucker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
426

Critical race theory is explicitly hostile to liberal norms and values, and in fact regards them as veneers for racism.

Lefties cry when people associate them all with Marxists and socialists, but then they go and run interference for Marxists and socialists while still expecting the outside observer to take them seriously about their commitment to liberalism (where liberalism means protecting the individual from the overreach of state authority). Hilarious.
Oh, FFS, who invited Xarog?
 

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
Oh, FFS, who invited Xarog?
Lol. I will only say that the person who did the inviting was not dissuaded upon being warned about who the invite was going to. :)

Oh, that and it was you who provided the motivation to take up the invitation. So... congrats. :D

Perhaps you would care to explain to me how Kimberle Crenshaw is not a reliable source, since that will probably help us cut to the chase of the susbstance of any disagreements we might have. ;)
 

scudsucker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
426
Lol. I will only say that the person who did the inviting was not dissuaded upon being warned about who the invite was going to. :)
Why don't you simply go fuck yourself, you disgusting cowardly piece of shit?

That would do the entire world a favour.
 

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
Why don't you simply go fuck yourself, you disgusting cowardly piece of shit?

That would do the entire world a favour.
Triggered. Ah well, I guess you won't be attempting to establish the philosophical merits of your position then. Too bad. :cry:

Lol.
 

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
Late again! Damnit!

A social democrat has entered the chat.

Yeah, a lot of the left/right conversation is dominated by US politics where one side - the left - IMO generally see folks on the right as Americans stuck in a pre-civil rights mindset, while folks on the right see anyone left of the Cheneys as a demoncrat, child-trafficking, blood-drinking, and for the life of me I don't get, but, fascist.

One side is demonstrably trying to work with the other, while the other side would rather storm a capitol building to install a god-emperor to rule for a thousand years.

Folks on the right are in a media bubble of fear and resentment, and rather than traditional conservative platforms like small government, fiscal responsibility and such, the organising principle of modern conservatism is 'owning the libs'.

That it.

Owning the libs.

CRT is this year's Cultural Marxism; A boogeyman folks on the right can't define, but Tucker tells 'em it's bad, so they hate it.


On the other forum folks on the right have been asked to define CRT... It has not gone well... Posted this interaction to try help 'em, but I might as well be pissing in the wind with folks like droid.



Ah, I should amend my position. I had not seen this post of yours, and in due consideration I should posture myself as being in response to you. Not that I particularly care about who was first, it's just that I noticed a neat opportunity to be obnoxiously reasonable AND royally piss off Scudsucker at the same time.

Anyway, your problem, Greg, is that you're too damn smug. Not that you don't have a lot to be smug about, cuz quite honestly your quorum sensing ability with respect to social democrat talking points is godlike. The only other person that can even come close is OD and you outclass him by orders of magnitude, so well done. But the label "social democrat" has a snag in that it smuggles in an equivocation, which is a problem if you're trying to be philosophically rigourous.

Correct

Complete nonsense, leaping to a ridiculous conclusion.

You will need to clear up a few things.

1) how you classify fascism in the same group as marxism, socialism and communism
2) how you come to the conclusion that the set of left-wing people who do believe in one or more of marxism, socialism or communism are the same set that have been diagnosed with a mental health disorder
3) You are counting diagnosis. I suggest to you that mental health disorders are equally spread throughout the entire population, and left wing people are more likely to seek help. You are ignoring all the undiagnosed.

So, in summation, you are very wrong and I disagree with your premise.


Plato in his philosophy gives very important place to the idea of justice. He used the Greek word "Dikaisyne" for justice which comes very near to the work 'morality' or 'righteousness', it properly includes within it the whole duty of man. It also covers the whole field of the individual's conduct in so far as it affects others. Plato contended that justice is the quality of soul, in virtue of which men set aside the irrational desire to taste every pleasure and to get a selfish satisfaction out of every object and accommodated themselves to the discharge of a single function for the general benefit.

From a philosophical standpoint, the discussion on justice and the discussion on right and wrong are practically impossible to divorce from each other. Since Plato's Republic, it would only be a slight overstatement to claim that the project of philosophy was solely aimed at the grounding of justice within a sociopolitical worldview. The traditional grounding for this concept of justice among Indo-Europeans and Semitic cultures(i.e. Abrahamic) was God, but that only works within a theistic framework, and non-theistic frameworks have to find an alternative grounding because they obviously don't believe justice can be guaranteed by something they don't believe in, and that's where secular ideologies (i.e. sociopolitical worldviews) as a response to the scientific revolution enter the picture.

The politically significant secular ideologies can be broadly arranged into three categories, namely liberalism, Nazism and Marxism/socialism. Of the three, only liberalism grounds the notion of justice in the individual, Marxism/socialism and facism both set up sociopolitical systems where social justice takes precedence over individual justice, which is what makes both Marxism/socialism and fascism totalitarian in their disposition upon pain of philosophical self-refutation by way of internal contradiction, and this is what makes liberalism incompatible with the other two as well as what makes it possible for liberalism to rein in the general tendency of states to assume absolute power/responsibility, against which fascism and Marxism/socialism has no defence.

And therein lies the rub, because while you say you are a social democrat, in essence you favour social justice over individual justice, and so substantively your claim to favour social democracy does not and cannot entail a commitment to liberal principles in any meaningful fashion. And indeed, as you should well know given the aforementioned quorum sensing facilities you posess, what label has become fashionable among the left for people who prioritise individual justice over social justice? "White supremacist" or "Nazi", no? Just ask Scudsucker, as he tried to pull exactly the Nazi stunt on me for no other reason that I refused to entertain the idea of a state not being subordinate to individual rights, and objected to you "liberals" pushing totalitarian talking points. :D

stupid 10k char limit 1/2
 

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
The thing that you fail to appreciate, is that if you take a step back and observe what "owning the libs" entails in substance one can clearly see it is a championing of individual rights over group rights, and the lefties are abandoning this position TO the right, and this can be demonstrated by the way lefties are disowning members of their own tribe who try to champion individual rights over group rights. The right is monopolising liberalism and you and yours are telling them they're welcome to it in not-so-kind-words.

As for the Cultural Marxism canard, in much the same way as critical race theory is a critical theory but not a Critical Theory, critical race theory is cultural Marxism but not Cultural Marxism. That was why I was citing Kimberle Crenshaw talking about how CRT uses Gramsci's notion of hegemony and asking you to comment upon it, because I want to see if you can acknowledge this hate fact without spluttering helplessly as you search for a talking point to save you from an indisputable truth.


Marxist cultural analysis is a form of cultural analysis and anti-capitalist cultural critique, which assumes the theory of cultural hegemony and from this specifically targets those aspects of culture which are profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism.[1][2][3]

The original theory behind this form of analysis is commonly associated with Georg Lukacs, the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci, representing an important tendency within Western Marxism. The Marxist cultural analysis, taken as an area of discourse, has commonly considered the industrialization and mass-production of culture by "the Culture Industry" as having an overall negative effect on society, an effect which reifies the audience away from developing a more authentic sense of human values.[1][4]

Since the 1930s, the tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture.[5][6] However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a highly influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis.[7][8]
You see, it would be fair to characterise Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory, but calling CRT cultural Marxism does not in any meaningful fashion appeal to a conspiracy theory, rather it it just a blunt observation of the essential character of the theoretical framework, which the CRT scholars who cite Gramsci, like Krenshaw, Delgado and Stefancic openly admit.


In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class which manipulates the culture of that society—the beliefs and explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that the imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm;[1][need quotation to verify][2] the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for every social class, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.[3] This Marxist analysis of how the ruling capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) establishes and maintains its control was originally developed by the Italian philosopher and politician Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937).

In philosophy and in sociology, the term cultural hegemony has denotations and connotations derived from the Ancient Greek word hegemonia (ἡγεμονία) indicating leadership and rule. In political science, hegemony implies geopolitical imperial dominance with a component of indirect influence, whereby the hegemon (leader state) rules subordinate states through the threat of intervention, an implied means of power, rather than merely through the threat of direct rule—military invasion, occupation, and annexation.[4][5]
You see, the thing is that Gramsci is used by Marxists to argue that people have internalised their oppression, and CRT scholars have used Gramsci to the same effect, which is why CRT produces crazy claims like "maths is racist" courtesy of funding by Bill Gates. Without Gramsci, CRT doesn't have the theoretical chops to make that move, nor indeed any ability to theoretically justify its notion of 'systemic racism', which you are so fond of invoking (hint: again an example of individual rights taking a back seat to collective rights in practice).

Trying to deflect away from the truth of this by denouncing anyone who brings up the cultural Marxism angle as a conspiracy theorist is only going to convince bonafide liberals (as opposed to self-identifying "liberals" whose worldview doesn't champion individual rights) that their only allies against the leftist authoritarians are the far right because at least the far right is willing to call out the illiberalism on the left, which you cannot bring yourself to do (because in fact your worldview is that of a totalitarian). Even if we were to grant the notion that somehow Marxism/socialism doesn't necessitate an illiberal worldview, CRT with its explicit hostility towards liberalism does necessitate it for the sake of internal consistency, and your failure to denounce this posture as part of your self-identification as a "social democrat" says really all that needs to be said.
 

Johnatan56

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
879
Location
Vienna
I don’t know what I am to be fair. Left for some things and right for others.
It's heavily dependent where you are as well, in the US I am slightly right (but vote democrat due to not liking the current republicans, they are just being utterly stupid, while lots of democrats are falling into the social media popularity trap), in South Africa I am right, here in Austria I am left.
South Africa it's right as there is pretty much no slightly conservative party, it's a bit crazy when the only right one that exists is the VF+ and that isn't even that right anymore, and I definitely do not identify as Afrikaans etc., yet they have the most agreeable points which is messed up.
 

Paul Hjul

Active Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
355
so not only does the right wish to go full Godwin on the topic but Critical Race Theory - regardless of its correctness - as a legal and jurisprudential concern is now a catch all term for right wing bashery?

As a general rule people shouldn't debate about Critical Race Theory if they have no fucking idea what it actually is. It would probably be apposite to apply a rule of thumb that unless you've read at least 5 law journal articles on critical jurisprudential theory and know who Richard Posner is you probably have no fucking idea what Critical Race Theory. Therefore if you are going to enter into spewings of screeching about it you are possibly too fucking stupid to own a computer.
 

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
so not only does the right wish to go full Godwin on the topic but Critical Race Theory - regardless of its correctness - as a legal and jurisprudential concern is now a catch all term for right wing bashery?
I don't know what "the right" going full Godwin is supposed to refer to. However, as to the question whether or not CRT is going to become a catch all term, the answer is most likely 'yes' thanks to the helpful assistance of the left.

As a general rule people shouldn't debate about Critical Race Theory if they have no fucking idea what it actually is. It would probably be apposite to apply a rule of thumb that unless you've read at least 5 law journal articles on critical jurisprudential theory and know who Richard Posner is you probably have no fucking idea what Critical Race Theory. Therefore if you are going to enter into spewings of screeching about it you are possibly too fucking stupid to own a computer.
By all means, elaborate for us how the central tenets of critical race theory as a discipline may be derived from Posner's writing, I would love to increase my knowledge on the topic, and am especially interested in how the notion of white privilege as expressed by CRT could be articulated without citing Gramsci.

Edit: Posner appears to be a detractor of CRT. I wonder why you think one would need to know Posner to know CRT?
 
Last edited:

TwoPunnyFourWords

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
230
Paul, meet Xarog.

Xarog, just fuck off you cowardly shitstain.
Well, it seems that if everybody would just admit that CRT was shit, I would have no reason to remain a presence. So... what's stopping you from admitting CRT is shit given your supposed commitment to liberal values? :D
 
Top