2 2
winsor

Woke is a Joke

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, winsor said:

As far as COVID goes, doing everything that may work and doesn't hurt seems advisable.

Like taking a vaccine and promoting a vaccine.

Unfortunately there seem to be people who think or at a minimum imply that Vitamin D and zinc will keep them safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, winsor said:

Thanks, I appreciate actually referencing a source.

Unfortunately, I call bullshit on the first sentence of the tenets of "Principles of the CRT Practice" to wit: "Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed..."

If that's true, let's all just 'identify' as 'people of color' and be done with it.

Humoring people who wish to relabel themselves may be polite, but it doesn't change much:

On the one hand CRT disputes that 'race' even exists, OTOH the sole consideration is race.  I'm not sure if this is the result of irony or stupidity, but suspension of disbelief is necessary to proceed much further.

I guess the problem we have here is that I dispute the basis of CRT ideology.   From a semantic standpoint, their position if FUBAR.

Like any other religion, if it makes you happy, knock yourself out.  If you want me to pretend that CRT has fundamental merit (beyond agreeing that racial discrimination of ANY sort is bad), you're SOL.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Hi Winsor,

Re:  Unfortunately, I call bullshit on the first sentence of the tenets of "Principles of the CRT Practice" to wit: "Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed..."

IMO 'race' is a man-made thing, i.e. 'socially constructed.'  Made to differentiate us. The reasoning, I argue, is very apparent.

In nature, 'race' does not exist.  All humans vary in color; from Ms. Gillibrand to Mr. James.  I vary in color when compared to my brother.  IMO this is the way it is in nature.  

'Race' wants to categorize us, it wants to separate us; all for the so-called 'benefit' of some.

Jerry Baumchen

r-1.jpg.ff6439bcadac498cf06951880fc06c34.jpg

r-2.jpg.6a41f6ca3a74bf40e8748b77cef75ddf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, winsor said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies

Anyone who espouses Marxism I hold suspect, mainly because I have seen "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in action, up close and in person, and I am unimpressed to say the least.

Soooooo, some critical race theory proponents are Marxists, Marxists are wrong about everything, therefore critical race theory is wrong?

Yep, I think you'll find that in the list.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

That is incorrect.  "Begging the Question" is petitio quæsiti

Sorry, I have one of those pesky social science degrees.  

petitio principii pə-tĭsh′ē-ō″ prĭn-sĭp′ē-ē″, -ē-ī″

  • n.
    The fallacy of assuming in the premise of an argument that which one wishes to prove in the conclusion; a begging of the question.
  • n.
    In logic, the assumption of that which in the beginning was set forth to be proved; begging the question: a fallacy or fault of reasoning belonging to argumentations whose conclusions really follow from their premises, either necessarily or with the degree of probability pretended, the fault consisting in the assumption of a premise which no person holding the antagonistic views will admit.
  • n.
    The logical fallacy of begging the question.

No great surprise, but I have a portfolio of hard science type degrees.

 

Edited by winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 minutes ago, winsor said:

principii pə-tĭsh′ē-ō″ prĭn-sĭp′ē-ē″, -ē-ī″

  • n.
    The fallacy of assuming in the premise of an argument that which one wishes to prove in the conclusion; a begging of the question.
  • n.
    In logic, the assumption of that which in the beginning was set forth to be proved; begging the question: a fallacy or fault of reasoning belonging to argumentations whose conclusions really follow from their premises, either necessarily or with the degree of probability pretended, the fault consisting in the assumption of a premise which no person holding the antagonistic views will admit.
  • n.
    The logical fallacy of begging the question.

You're doing the same thing here as you are to CRT. Quoting what others have said, that others have said, and it is incorrect. It was translated incorrectly.  Got to peel back the layers and go to the original source, Brother. 

 

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You're doing the same thing here as you are to CRT. Quoting what others have said, that others have said, and it is incorrect. It was translated incorrectly.  Got to peel back the layers and go to the original source, Brother. 

 

My Latin sucks.  I'm just showing that I'm not the only one with that misimpression (Copi is, too).

One big problem I have with CRT is that, while we all agree that racism (at least to the extent of discrimination) is bad, we seem to be working with different definitions and are thus working with something equivalent to equivocation.  One way or another, we're saying the same words and meaning different things.

There are certainly instances where people are treated better or worse because of the group of which they are members.  The cultural differences may be religious, or national origin with religious overtones (think Ireland), or tribal or ethnic or whatever.

If someone at, say Princeton, bitches because they are treated badly because of their race, it is often more of a matter of their social stature.  "You're a COMMONER, and you're all the same!  There's not a dime's worth of difference between a ghetto denizen and a hillbilly!"

Unless you're Old Money, preferably in the Social Register, you don't count.  Nothing personal.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, winsor said:

If someone at, say Princeton, bitches because they are treated badly because of their race, it is often more of a matter of their social stature.  "You're a COMMONER, and you're all the same!  There's not a dime's worth of difference between a ghetto denizen and a hillbilly!"

Unless you're Old Money, preferably in the Social Register, you don't count.  Nothing personal.

Coming from old money, going to school with old money and at one point belonging to an old money fraternity in university I can say without hesitation you are wrong about that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

One big problem I have with CRT is that, while we all agree that racism (at least to the extent of discrimination) is bad, we seem to be working with different definitions and are thus working with something equivalent to equivocation.  One way or another, we're saying the same words and meaning different things.

That's intentional.  Partisan polticical groups are fomenting and maintaining that confusion to give themselves a good wedge issue.

Try this.  Whenever anyone says "CRT" realize that they are saying one of two things:

1) If it comes from, say, FOX News or Matt Gaetz, it means "a way to indoctrinate children to hate white people, become racists and give black people lots of unearned money."

2) If it comes from someone in academia (say, someone who actually teaches or studies it) it means "a study of the structural biases in US law and society."

Quote

There are certainly instances where people are treated better or worse because of the group of which they are members.  The cultural differences may be religious, or national origin with religious overtones (think Ireland), or tribal or ethnic or whatever.

Exactly.  And knowing what those instances are, and how they arise, is better than being ignorant about them.  Hence, CRT (and CLS.)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Like taking a vaccine and promoting a vaccine.

Unfortunately there seem to be people who think or at a minimum imply that Vitamin D and zinc will keep them safe.

"Your husband has passed, I'm very sorry."

"Give him some chicken soup!"

"He's dead!  How can that help?"

"Couldn't hurt..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billvon said:

That's intentional.  Partisan polticical groups are fomenting and maintaining that confusion to give themselves a good wedge issue.

Try this.  Whenever anyone says "CRT" realize that they are saying one of two things:

1) If it comes from, say, FOX News or Matt Gaetz, it means "a way to indoctrinate children to hate white people, become racists and give black people lots of unearned money."

2) If it comes from someone in academia (say, someone who actually teaches or studies it) it means "a study of the structural biases in US law and society."

Exactly.  And knowing what those instances are, and how they arise, is better than being ignorant about them.  Hence, CRT (and CLS.)

 

I agree that the issues considered by CRT are or have been problems.

Unfortunately, the recommendations made by CRT adherents not only are not solutions, but generally Schlimmverbesserungen - the cure is worse than the disease (loose translation).

 

BSBD.

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Coming from old money, going to school with old money and at one point belonging to an old money fraternity in university I can say without hesitation you are wrong about that too.

Wait a minute - you're saying there's an EXCEPTION?

Okay, so all generalizations are bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, winsor said:

I agree that the issues considered by CRT are or have been problems.

Yep.  And should be (and are being) studied.  You can't solve a problem you don't understand.

Quote

Unfortunately, the recommendations made by CRT adherents not only are not solutions, but generally Schlimmverbesserungen - the cure is worse than the disease (loose translation)

Let's look at a few.

CRT studies have demonstrated that mostly black and Latino school districts are underfunded compared to majority-white school districts.  One recommendation to come out of CRT is to fund them equally.   Do you disagree?

One study showed that in several school districts, there were barriers to non-white students being accepted into gifted programs.  (You pointed one out yourself.)  One recommendation was that those barriers be removed.  Do you disagree?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And should be (and are being) studied.  You can't solve a problem you don't understand.

Let's look at a few.

CRT studies have demonstrated that mostly black and Latino school districts are underfunded compared to majority-white school districts.  One recommendation to come out of CRT is to fund them equally.   Do you disagree?

One study showed that in several school districts, there were barriers to non-white students being accepted into gifted programs.  (You pointed one out yourself.)  One recommendation was that those barriers be removed.  Do you disagree?

 

Like the resort with young women looking for husbands and husbands looking for young women, things may not be as balanced as they seem.

In the '70s, the student protesters of the '60s were now working as young lawyers and junior executives, and put some of their principles to work.  They bought old and dilapidated houses, and renovated them with investment and a lot of hard work.

Some neighborhoods came back amazingly, and did not resemble the slums that they had become.

A number of organizations I will not name came forth and said that what was going on was unfair, that the proud and noble residents of these neighborhoods could no longer afford to live there.

The former student protesters said gee, you're right, and arranged for Low Income Housing to spring up in the midst of the gentrified dwellings.

The residents of the Low Income Housing noted that they still had nothing, and the upscale people around them had more than they possibly could need.  In the interest of Fairness (tm), they sought to redistribute the wealth.

"Muffy!"

"What is it Biff?"

"They broke in again."

"What did they get this time?"

"The teevee and some of our wedding gifts."

There was then a minor exodus from the gentrified neighborhoods and subdivisions out of range of Low Income Housing sprung up.

The problem we have is the Law of Unintended Results.

Lyndon Johnson, one of the sleaziest human beings ever to draw breath, took on poverty.

The problem was simple, as was his solution.  Poverty is the result of people without enough money.  Give them money and voila! the problem is solved.

The worst kind of poverty is, of course, poor children.  If we give people more money the more children they have, we have this thing nipped in the bud!

Fast forward to today.

The affluent neighborhoods consist almost entirely two parent families, and those with more than two kids are in the minority.  The schools are brilliant because they are funded by heavy taxes on the people who live in these neighborhoods.

In Low Income neighborhoods, the inhabitants are sometimes more than 70% from 'single parent households' consisting of a mother and a number of children, often with no two having the same father.  Having an out of wedlock child in one's teens is one way to qualify for the programs that started in LBJ's 'Great Society' initiative. and it is also a way to reduce the level of academic achievement and income potential of the young mother.

Thus, to get around to your first question, "One recommendation to come out of CRT is to fund them equally.   Do you disagree?"   I can't believe you are that naïve. 

You have entrenched social norms that have resulted in neighborhoods with negative net contribution to the economy, with a tax base insufficient to fund much of anything and you blithely say "fund them equally?"  WHO exactly do you expect to do this funding?  'The Rich?'  The people who are being bled white to pay the taxes that go to their own kid's education?  Kids they waited to have until they could afford to give them a good education?

From where I sit, you have just established that CRT is the result of intellectually compromised 'academics,' and exists only because disputing their nonsense results in becoming a target.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

entrenched social norms that have resulted in neighborhoods with negative net contribution to the economy, with a tax base insufficient to fund much of anything and you blithely say "fund them equally?"  WHO exactly do you expect to do this funding?  'The Rich?'  The people who are being bled white to pay the taxes that go to their own kid's education?  Kids they waited to have until they could afford to give them a good education?

Wow.  You can't have it both ways, Winsor. Do you want to fund blacks and Latinos for life or ensure they get a good education, so they CAN fund themselves and increase the tax base. No change to taxes. Instead of by district/county - the state collects up ALL the revenues from taxes and every school [in that state] gets an equal amount - and an equal opportunity for a decent education. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/02/how-redlining-still-hurts-black-latino-students-public-schools-column/6083342002/  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

ou have entrenched social norms that have resulted in neighborhoods with negative net contribution to the economy, with a tax base insufficient to fund much of anything and you blithely say "fund them equally?"  WHO exactly do you expect to do this funding?  'The Rich?'  The people who are being bled white to pay the taxes that go to their own kid's education?  Kids they waited to have until they could afford to give them a good education?

Ah, the good old "stop taxing rich people to pay for social welfare!" combined with "it's poor people's fault that they're lazy and have a lot of children".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Wow.  You can't have it both ways, Winsor. Do you want to fund blacks and Latinos for life or ensure they get a good education, so they CAN fund themselves and increase the tax base. No change to taxes. Instead of by district/county - the state collects up ALL the revenues from taxes and every school [in that state] gets an equal amount - and an equal opportunity for a decent education. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/02/how-redlining-still-hurts-black-latino-students-public-schools-column/6083342002/  

 

I am wholly in agreement that you can't have it both ways.  That is rather my point.

The old 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs!' works, after a fashion, in a closed system such as a Shtetl.  In an open system, not so much.

If the CRT advocates want to cough up to address the damage that has resulted from many decades of catastrophic policies (all implemented with the best of intentions), good for them.

In the Pharmaceutical industry you have companies that screw the pooch royally, and come under a Consent Decree.  One marvelous feature of the Consent Decree is that the people tasked to resolve the problems are the very people who caused them in the first place.  It does not usually end well.

Expecting 'the Government' to fix the things that went to hell on their watch makes every bit as much sense.

The problems blacks and Latinos have has close to nothing to do with the fact that they are black or Latino per se, but a lot to do with policies that have been implement over the years to 'help' them.

If you ask whether I approve of doing the same thing and expecting different results, my answer is no.  If you ask if I want to pay for it, my answer is HELL NO!

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And should be (and are being) studied.  You can't solve a problem you don't understand.

Let's look at a few.

CRT studies have demonstrated that mostly black and Latino school districts are underfunded compared to majority-white school districts.  One recommendation to come out of CRT is to fund them equally.   Do you disagree?

One study showed that in several school districts, there were barriers to non-white students being accepted into gifted programs.  (You pointed one out yourself.)  One recommendation was that those barriers be removed.  Do you disagree?

 

My standpoint across the board is equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less.

If Harvard it thus filled solely with students of Bulganistani heritage because nobody can touch their test scores and work ethic, so be it.  It's an overrated Divinity School as it is.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not familiar with this website:

https://freebeacon.com/culture/why-private-schools-have-gone-woke/

but their thesis fits with what is happening at exclusive private education around here.

As to why, Deep Throat's admonition to follow the money seems apt.  "Do this or we put you out of business."

Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force) is one of my least favorite fallacies, though it is certainly popular.  'Agree with us or we will kill you" has garnered rather a few converts over the millennia, so who can argue with success?

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2021 at 5:35 AM, winsor said:

My standpoint across the board is equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less.

Yet you seem to want to "cancel" the tools we use to determine whether or not those equal rights actually exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yet you seem to want to "cancel" the tools we use to determine whether or not those equal rights actually exist.

Nope, I merely call bullshit where it seems appropriate.  CRT pins the meter, as does pretty much anything "woke."

People are free to be stupid, and some cling more tightly to that right than others.  Social Justice Warriors are among them.

Your assessment of the Marxist nonsense that is CRT as "tools we use to determine whether or not those equal rights actually exist" does not reflect a dispassionate thought process.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2