Woke is a Joke

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

And yet you just posted a summary of the Critical Race Theory as applied to redlining and zoning laws.  And did a quite good job of it I will add - even if you weren't trying to.

I'll let you connect the dots.  Again, your logic might need a little work.

For his logic to 'need work', it would have to actually exist.

I have yet to see any real evidence of that.

Jakee is right.

[metalslug 31]

As with many topics; it appears that there are several aspects to CRT: from potentially valid concerns such as redlining and zoning laws (which I don't know enough about to have an opinion) , and yet also some absurdities that damage CRT or it's intended purpose.

Two samples  here  and here are people of colour speaking out against CRT, and it would be curious if members of this forum were to argue that the opinions of these two people are 'wrong'.  Neither of these videos include redlining and zoning laws, but that may be because redlining and zoning laws are not at the forefront of the school policies and fallacies that the speakers in these videos are speaking out against. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by metalslug
missing word

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

The logic is simple.

Racism is evil.

Critical Race Theory is 100% racist.

Q.E.D.

I don't think you know what QED means.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

Two samples  here  and here are people of colour speaking out against CRT, and it would be curious if members of this forum were to argue that the opinions of these two people are 'wrong'.  

They are wrong. They're arguing against what scaremongers say critical race theory is rather than what it actually is.

[metalslug 31]

Quote

They are wrong. They're arguing against what scaremongers say critical race theory is rather than what it actually is.

Although, if you had actually watched the clip in the first link , you would know that person is speaking against what his child's school actually did, not what they said or 'scaremongered'.

[jakee 1,254]

21 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Although, if you had actually watched the clip in the first link , you would know that person is speaking against what his child's school actually did, not what they said or 'scaremongered'.

No, you are wrong, watch it again and actually pay attention. He only speaks for 2 minutes, it's not difficult to follow.

When he is talking about the teaching of critical race theory, he is talking about what he is afraid critical race theory will teach. Pay attention to his phrasing - "that would teach my daughter that her mother is evil." Critical race theory in his school has not taught his daughter that her mother is evil, he is afraid that it will teach that because he has paid attention to scaremongers.

Now, what he says has happened - "A teacher pulled my daughter aside and said 'you're a minority, so you know better than to engage in certain things'" - he didn't say that had anything to do with the teaching of critical race theory, and it's fundamentally not a problem with critical race theory, is it? Critical race theory doesn't say minorities should know better. It doesn't say black children should be laughed at when they complain about teachers treating them differently because of race. That behaviour is actually a perfect example of the ingrained social and structural pressures that critical race theory attempts to explain. If he knew what he was talking about, he'd know that he was making an argument for more widespread teaching of what critical race theory actually is, not against it.

Edited July 18, 2021 by jakee

[metalslug 31]

Quote

No, you are wrong, watch it again and actually pay attention. He only speaks for 2 minutes, it's not difficult to follow.

Then by all means take the full two minutes into account; he speaks as much in the present tense as he does in the future, you're cherry-picking the specific parts that suit your narrative of what was said. I'm gobsmacked that you're being obtuse about a recorded event for sake of a cheap slur.

[olofscience 420]

27 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Although, if you had actually watched the clip in the first link , you would know that person is speaking against what his child's school actually did, not what they said or 'scaremongered'.

So CRT is probably something that everyone has their own definition of, so I went to wikipedia to read up on what the consensus actually was.

The guy in the first clip was concerned that Grade school and High school teachers were not qualified to teach it properly, and because they were not properly qualified, they were teaching their own random definition of what it was, which of course turns out to be rubbish.

 

Anyway, CRT says that simply adopting "colour-blind" laws might not be sufficient to prevent discrimination because it is based on a complex combination of social factors.

As someone in the fundamental sciences, my take on that of course is, "no shit, sherlock". Why do we do double-blind tests for medical drugs? Why not just single-blind? As also demonstrated by the AstraZeneca vaccine, even doing double-blind studies aren't completely immune to bias. Pop quiz: what kind of bias did the AstraZeneca vaccine fall into?

Now that bias is just for a faceless, colourless vaccine.  Now imagine trying to eliminate bias for actual people. Whoever thinks it's just merely saying "I don't see colour" has never done a proper scientific experiment past grade school.

Edited July 18, 2021 by olofscience

[mistercwood 287]

6 hours ago, winsor said:

The logic is simple.

Racism is evil.

Critical Race Theory is 100% racist.

Q.E.D.

I'll risk the ban hammer to state something others may prefer to dance around.

For a dude who otherwise presents as being above average intelligence, you really do go out of your way sometimes to appear dumb as shit. Your assessment of CRT is 100% aligned with rage-bait headlines and not with the reality.

[winsor 185]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

And yet you just posted a summary of the Critical Race Theory as applied to redlining and zoning laws.  And did a quite good job of it I will add - even if you weren't trying to.

I'll let you connect the dots.  Again, your logic might need a little work.

Given your penchant for orthodoxy, I'll take that under advisement.

"Mein Kampf" includes some specifics that are factually accurate; if I somehow make reference to particulars that are in accordance with that work it certainly doesn't mean that my argument is in support of the overall conclusions contained therein.

Too many syllogisms upon which CRT is based are terminally flawed, and the fact that you don't pick up on that is telling. 

Perhaps the urge to fight evil with evil is too strong, but it is all evil.

 

BSBD,

Winsor  

[winsor 185]

56 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

I'll risk the ban hammer to state something others may prefer to dance around.

For a dude who otherwise presents as being above average intelligence, you really do go out of your way sometimes to appear dumb as shit. Your assessment of CRT is 100% aligned with rage-bait headlines and not with the reality.

If you actually had a point to make, instead of simply venting your spleen, it might be useful.  Or not.

Some 50 years ago I was sitting in the barracks reading a book as was another guy, one of the Brigade Headquarters clerks.  We got into a discussion of various authors' work at various parts of their careers, in particular the difference between Aldous Huxley's early vs. later works.

A group of Black guys came in and he said "Yo, Homes, wadditiz?" and engaged in the DAP with them.

After they had left, I asked what I had just witnessed.

He said that however educated he became, he would never be White and did not expect to be fully accepted by White society.  It thus behooved him not to alienate his Black compatriots.

He said that while going to school in Harlem he had to bring his textbooks home in a gym bag to avoid being labeled an Oreo, and he did not seem particularly worked up about it.  Though he may have been quite upset by having to go through this at one time or another, while discussing it with me he seemed to accept it as a reality with which he had to deal, and he dealt with it gracefully.

In Grad school I lived in an affordable neighborhood, which was diverse by any standard.  Neighbors included Medical Students, Pharmaceutical Students and Drug Dealers, all of similar ethnicity but by no means socially interchangeable.  The predators in the neighborhood were remarkably egalitarian in their selection of prey, and showed no favorites from a demographic standpoint.

I was not studying Sociology, but it felt like I was in a large scale study.

The bottom line is that the fundamentals of CRT are terminally flawed.  A statement that is conditionally true, without use of the necessary conditions is false.  A syllogism based on false premises is invalid, and many of the premises of CRT are demonstrably false.

I have lived enough places which I found unrecognizable when returning after 20 years, and I have learned to be careful not to claim current knowledge of a place that has most likely changed a lot.  Things that used to be common are now illegal and vice versa. 

If someone chooses to describe the U.S. legal system from a racial standpoint on the basis of the realities of 50 or 100 years ago, the accuracy of their conclusions is on a par with trying to navigate with maps of a similar vintage.  Much of what was quite legal then is now proscribed.

Going through the tenets of CRT is like reviewing the basics of Scientology.  It's hard not to conclude that anyone who buys into either is is hard of thinking, but I suspect the issue is more akin to the cognitive vulnerability that causes the suspension of disbelief upon which religious belief is contingent.

Anything that is believed without question should be held suspect.  All too often, a careful review of closely held beliefs reveals them to be flawed.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[mistercwood 287]

That's several hundred more words than were needed for you to acknowledge "No, I haven't actually looked into how CRT works".

I mean, if it were that clear cut, you would have offered specific examples and refutations by now, instead of just saying vague, unsupported things like:

7 minutes ago, winsor said:

The bottom line is that the fundamentals of CRT are terminally flawed.  A statement that is conditionally true, without use of the necessary conditions is false.  A syllogism based on false premises is invalid, and many of the premises of CRT are demonstrably false.

Right?

[metalslug 31]

Quote

....Grade school and High school teachers were not qualified to teach it properly, and because they were not properly qualified, they were teaching their own random definition of what it was...

Your post had thoughtful and rational comments. Thank you.  If the parent in the video is not speaking accurately as to the true definition of CRT, then we can at least infer that he is speaking in response to how CRT was, is, or will be, (mis)applied at his daughter's school. A scope-creep to include things in CRT that were never intended and ultimately distort the original definition over time. Who polices that ? Which authorities will regulate the correct training of CRT ?  As with most schooling; do it right or don't do it at all. Even if we consider the very mildest definition of CRT, it would be difficult to dismiss every comment made by either video speaker as being irrelevant to the topic.

Quote

Anyway, CRT says that simply adopting "colour-blind" laws might not be sufficient to prevent discrimination because it is based on a complex combination of social factors.

I don't doubt that it's a complex combination, but being 'colour-sensitive' is a very slippery slope as it opens the door of hypocrisy and subjective bias; Racial profiling is OK for 'this' but not for 'that'. The lefts will take it left and the rights will take it right.  'Colour-blind', if not perfect, appears to be the only objective neutral.

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Then by all means take the full two minutes into account; he speaks as much in the present tense as he does in the future, you're cherry-picking the specific parts that suit your narrative of what was said. I'm gobsmacked that you're being obtuse about a recorded event for sake of a cheap slur.

I did take the full two minutes into account.  I fully addressed what he said would happen and I fully addressed what he said did happen. This is plainly obvious for everyone to see. You on the other hand haven’t said a single thing about the points he raised.

So how about you now demonstrate some interest in actually discussing the topics instead of simply lying about the content of my post just so you can throw around ad-hom attacks.

Edited July 18, 2021 by jakee

[wmw999 2,116]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

Too many syllogisms upon which CRT is based are terminally flawed, and the fact that you don't pick up on that is telling. 

Can you enumerate those, or is that statement based on a gut-level reaction to what you heard in a surface piece on NPR? For someone who tries to read things completely (e.g. the books you regularly say you've read, which is more than I've done completely for them), it seems that you're evaluating something based on others' reactions to it, rather than on your own evaluation.

Wendy P.

[wmw999 2,116]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

If someone chooses to describe the U.S. legal system from a racial standpoint on the basis of the realities of 50 or 100 years ago, the accuracy of their conclusions is on a par with trying to navigate with maps of a similar vintage.  Much of what was quite legal then is now proscribed.

Isn't "the legal system of 50 or 100 years ago" another word for "precedents?"

And, frankly, context really, really, matters sometimes.

Wendy P.

[wmw999 2,116]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

Your post had thoughtful and rational comments. Thank you.  If the parent in the video is not speaking accurately as to the true definition of CRT, then we can at least infer that he is speaking in response to how CRT was, is, or will be, (mis)applied at his daughter's school. A scope-creep to include things in CRT that were never intended and ultimately distort the original definition over time. Who polices that ? Which authorities will regulate the correct training of CRT ?  As with most schooling; do it right or don't do it at all. Even if we consider the very mildest definition of CRT, it would be difficult to dismiss every comment made by either video speaker as being irrelevant to the topic.

I don't doubt that it's a complex combination, but being 'colour-sensitive' is a very slippery slope as it opens the door of hypocrisy and subjective bias; Racial profiling is OK for 'this' but not for 'that'. The lefts will take it left and the rights will take it right.  'Colour-blind', if not perfect, appears to be the only objective neutral.

Good post -- you're posting your doubts and questions, not saying they're the be-all and end-all of incisive thought. I tend towards the self-questioning, and think it's a key component to being able to improve myself, so I think that critical race theory is a great lens to do that. But just as binoculars are great for some situations, they really suck when you're dealing with a whole lot of situations -- great for some views, but not as the only way to look at everyone.

Of course some people use it as their sole lens, just as there are people who see everything through the eyes of a racist, or a fundamentalist Christian, an Orthodox Jew, or even a dedicated skydiver ("you suck if you can't land standing up in a downwind"). Their views limit their worlds, don't let them limit yours, but consider that their views may have interesting insights, too.

Wendy P.

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

Who polices that ? Which authorities will regulate the correct training of CRT ? 

I'd simply be thankful if the scientific method was taught better, and students taught the sources of experimental bias a LOT more. Maybe the more intelligent ones will start making a link to social biases.

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

I don't doubt that it's a complex combination, but being 'colour-sensitive' is a very slippery slope as it opens the door of hypocrisy and subjective bias; Racial profiling is OK for 'this' but not for 'that'. The lefts will take it left and the rights will take it right.  'Colour-blind', if not perfect, appears to be the only objective neutral.

That's a bit like saying "it's too difficult, let's just give up trying to correct for these biases".

Carefully controlled, biases can be overcome. In science, it might mean being more careful about taking samples. It might mean you need to improve your technology, like making better telescopes. Or, focusing on a particular area slightly more - in a carefully calculated way - more than the others. Giving up is not an option, otherwise scientific progress would just stop.

Social biases can also be corrected for, but we'll need a more scientific studies and data to figure out exact mechanisms and then to develop corrective strategies. I'm pretty left-leaning, but a lot of leftists do scream about this issue without having a clue about what bias is.

5 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Good post -- you're posting your doubts and questions, not saying they're the be-all and end-all of incisive thought.

To me the most interesting people are the ones who ask good questions. Those who claim to have all the answers usually say the stupidest things.

 

[sfzombie13 307]

the point everyone is missing completely about critical race theory is, once again, the name.  i am inclined to believe the democrats are sabotaging their position on purpose at this point, as it doesn't take a genius to figure out that these divisive names are not what you want to throw out there if you actually wanted to implement the programs. 

 

take the defund the police movement that has everyone in an uproar and that has no intention of actually disbanding or taking the funding away from the police, but rather has an agenda of taking away the military equipment and sourcing other agencies for response to calls that don't involve crimes where an armed intervention is not needed, such as mental health calls.  they could have framed that in a very different way making it much more acceptable to all involved, but no, they had to go for the sensationalism. 

 

same with critical race theory.  they could just as well call it teaching the accurate history, which is the only thing that it involves.  then, rather than idiots arguing over what the meaning of the material is, it is rather simple to conclude that we are just teaching facts instead of the whitewashed history most of us were indoctrinated with.  the us was founded on racist principals, and they have been revived over the centuries in one way or another and now, when enough folks want it to stop and the facts be taught, everyone is stuck on the terminology and not the actual content. 

 

i know for a fact that one particular commentor has no idea what he/she is talking about when referring to crt, as there is nothing specific pointed out that is factually incorrect, or any other attempts at pointing out the flaws in any of it, because there is nothing personally known about it.  that is a textbook definition of trolling.

Edited July 18, 2021 by sfzombie13

[winsor 185]

2 hours ago, mistercwood said:

That's several hundred more words than were needed for you to acknowledge "No, I haven't actually looked into how CRT works".

I mean, if it were that clear cut, you would have offered specific examples and refutations by now, instead of just saying vague, unsupported things like:

Right?

Not even close.  At least you're consistent.

[sfzombie13 307]

6 minutes ago, winsor said:

Not even close.  At least you're consistent.

then provide a few examples of actual things being taught that are wrong in your opinion.  or one.

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

Too many syllogisms upon which CRT is based are terminally flawed, and the fact that you don't pick up on that is telling. 

Aren't you the guy who just demanded that people come at him with data? So what are those syllogisms and how are they flawed?

[wmw999 2,116]

When something evolves from pieces, rather than being designed, it's pretty easy to find that in evolving, it goes through some less-than-ideal phases and even wrong steps. Maybe kind of like people have to be adolescents, unpleasant though it often is for them and everyone around them.

Things like the theory of evolution and genetics went through that (just remember eugenics -- it was an in part an offshoot of that and Mendelian discoveries of genetics). It's really not surprising that BLM and Critial Race Theory are going through the same thing, as people take things that are manifestly wrong (e.g. the casual historic disregard for the humanity of "other" people -- regardless of color, or the rather well-documented fact that some communities are policed more harshly than others -- often still within the bounds of law), but then stretching them to cover everything, or trying to expand them into threads where they really just don't work or are too simplistic.

I find very little in even thought-out crap that I want to discard completely. If nothing else, how else do I keep a bond with old friends who are dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist Trumpeters, especially if that bond has absolutely nothing to do with politics? I want to understand somewhat where they're coming from, so they stay human, rather than turning into caricatures. It's easy to turn a person or idea into a caricature -- it's much harder to turn a caricature back into a person, worthy of consideration, at least in some things, and respect in some things.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

If you actually had a point to make, instead of simply venting your spleen, it might be useful.  Or not.

Some 50 years ago I was sitting in the barracks reading a book as was another guy, one of the Brigade Headquarters clerks.  We got into a discussion of various authors' work at various parts of their careers, in particular the difference between Aldous Huxley's early vs. later works.

A group of Black guys came in and he said "Yo, Homes, wadditiz?" and engaged in the DAP with them.

After they had left, I asked what I had just witnessed.

He said that however educated he became, he would never be White and did not expect to be fully accepted by White society.  It thus behooved him not to alienate his Black compatriots.

He said that while going to school in Harlem he had to bring his textbooks home in a gym bag to avoid being labeled an Oreo, and he did not seem particularly worked up about it.  Though he may have been quite upset by having to go through this at one time or another, while discussing it with me he seemed to accept it as a reality with which he had to deal, and he dealt with it gracefully.

It's funny that this conversation you recount from a 50 year old memory so perfectly supports the preconcieved judgements you appear to have about black society. I'd have thought a guy as educated as you would know more about how memory works.

Second, what the actual fuck is your point? 

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Your post had thoughtful and rational comments. Thank you.  If the parent in the video is not speaking accurately as to the true definition of CRT, then we can at least infer that he is speaking in response to how CRT was, is, or will be, (mis)applied at his daughter's school.

No, you cannot infer that he is talking about how CRT was or is being taught in his school, you are simply assuming it based on your preconcieved assumptions. If you do now acknowledge that he is talking about how he thinks CRT will be taught at his school then we're right back to the bit where he is simply relaying the scaremongering about CRT that has nothing to do with CRT.

Quote

A scope-creep to include things in CRT that were never intended and ultimately distort the original definition over time. Who polices that ? Which authorities will regulate the correct training of CRT ?  As with most schooling; do it right...

Ok cool! So we can teach CRT right. So what's your problem?

Quote

or don't do it at all.

Say your kid's school employs one incompetent maths teacher. Do you a) demand the entire school and all other schools stop teaching maths or b) ask them to either retrain or replace the teacher?

Now consider the video dad's complaint about the educator at his school. If you ban CRT from the syllabus then what do you have? You still have an educator who thinks it is appropriate to tell a little girl she should know better because she's black. You still have school management who think it's appropriate to laugh at pupils who complain about racist treatment by teachers. You don't have a framework being taught which explains why those two things are still widespread in society in 2021. In what objective way is that a better situation?