All it's missing is the truth part. Critical race theory does not equate skin color to oppression/victimhood.
Please read this! SLC Dunk- Black Lives Matter
- Thread starter oneye
- Start date
All it's missing is the truth part. Critical race theory does not equate skin color to oppression/victimhood.
Joncolton
Well-Known Member
You should write her a letter. Please do explain to the British Minister of Equalities how she doesn't understand what critical race theory is. When you get your reply, could you share it with us though?
Why would you expect an honest reply from a politician who already lied about the the subject? I mean, it's not like the definition is hard to find on line. Here's one from wikipedia:
Critical race theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power. It is loosely unified by two common themes. Firstly, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Secondly, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as pursuing a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly.
See anything in there about skin color defining who is oppressed or a victim?
Joncolton
Well-Known Member
1. It would seem you can’t possibly have a simple difference of opinion with a woman of color. First you imply that she’s ignorant and then effectively call her a liar for not thinking the same things as you. Name calling is not a good look, it’s one of the lowest forms of communication and it’s beneath you.
2. Wikipedia is only a useful source of information when being used as a resource to find other citations and links to actual reliable sources. For all anyone knows you could have updated the definition of CRT on Wikipedia to reflect your views just prior to posting that. You may as well have quoted Twitter.
3. She was speaking specifically about things being taught at educational institutions in Britain. Specifically she was speaking to news articles and video clips that explicitly and demonstrably show the kinds of things she speaking about. These vids are all over YouTube and incredibly easy to find. I could post several of them for you but I just assume not try to spread further racial division, hatred based off factors beyond a persons control and denial of the existence of the individual.
1a. Definitions are not opinions. Critical race theory has an actual definition that she misrepresented.
1b. I never implied she was ignorant.
1c. I said she was lying because she misrepresented what critical race theory is.
1d. Thank you for watching out for my good name so carefully.
2a. You are correct that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Wikipedia article does contain links to better sources, should you wish to seek them out.
2b. In consecutive paragraphs, you said I should be careful of my good name, and then said I am the type of person that might change a Wikipedia article just to prove a point on a discussion forum. So, in your view, how good a name do I have, that such preservation is possible?
3a. Lying about what critical race theory discusses is a lie even when applied to British schools.
3b. I agree that what you occasionally see in Youtube videos, and the like, is entirely inaccurate, and I'm sure there are videos that equate skin color to victimization/oppression, or that confuse this position with critical race theory. This is even less reliable than Wikipedia.
3c. Tarring an academic discipline by suggesting kids on Youtube are presenting an accurate picture of it is silly, when it is not being used for political points. It can be fun to watch kids post on stuff, but they aren't experts on vaccination, climate change, nor on critical race theory.
Joncolton
Well-Known Member
1c. Misrepresenting isn't always a lie. In order for someone to lie, they have to say something that they know is untrue. You could have said, "I disagree with her assessment." Which of course would have been perfectly fine. When you call someone a liar, you are not arguing a point only attempting to impugn her character.
1d. You're welcome.
2b. I said "could" not "would". Anybody could drown a cat. That sentence doesn't mean that I think you WOULD drown a cat.
3. I was not referring to videos of kids. But actual trainings taking place with Seattle, Portland and New York employees, where certified trainers are indoctrinating employees with dangerous ideas, that separate people into groups based on race alone, establishing tiers of tormentors and the tormented, and denying the existence of the individual, or individual thought.
I think you have good intentions and mean well, but if you truly want to see all Americans succeed and prosper, you have to read more books to find the right ideas. Try this interview with Jason Riley as a starting place. His book is powerful, academic with cited sources, and absolutely non-partisan. His only search is for the truth, and I think he may have found some. If you find the interview intriguing, please read the book.
1d. You're welcome.
2b. I said "could" not "would". Anybody could drown a cat. That sentence doesn't mean that I think you WOULD drown a cat.
3. I was not referring to videos of kids. But actual trainings taking place with Seattle, Portland and New York employees, where certified trainers are indoctrinating employees with dangerous ideas, that separate people into groups based on race alone, establishing tiers of tormentors and the tormented, and denying the existence of the individual, or individual thought.
I think you have good intentions and mean well, but if you truly want to see all Americans succeed and prosper, you have to read more books to find the right ideas. Try this interview with Jason Riley as a starting place. His book is powerful, academic with cited sources, and absolutely non-partisan. His only search is for the truth, and I think he may have found some. If you find the interview intriguing, please read the book.
1c. As the Minister for Equalities, she know the definition of critical race theory in order to criticize it. It's still a lie when you should know something, but decline to learn in and then mischaracterize it.
3. Link to some of these actual training materials. Possibly they exist, but I think it more likely they are being misrepresented.
I will likely watch the video later, but it's not like I haven't listened to black conservatives before. They are very good at helping white people not feel guilty about all the advantages they receive for being white. I'm sure his book seems powerful to people who see in it what they want to have validated.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
Joncolton
Well-Known Member
Onebrow, I’m not sure if you can classify Jason Riley as “conservative”. His other book was Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders (2008).
But if he’s too much for you, I could recommend this podcast roundtable featuring conservatives, liberals and independents - I thought it was excellent, deep and poignant.
But if he’s too much for you, I could recommend this podcast roundtable featuring conservatives, liberals and independents - I thought it was excellent, deep and poignant.
Hundreds of small things that add up.
Libertarian, then.
Please. I was reading what men like Thomas Sowell wrote when Riley was still in high school, and I saw through their nonsense back then. I'm very familiar with the selective use of statistics and the buying into structural power narratives. One good example is not mentioning how the War on Drugs factored into the fracturing into the black family unit.
Perhaps this weekend.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
You sound like every left and right extremist.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
I was wondering the same as well
Joncolton
Well-Known Member
I thought this could be good for this discussion. For those not familiar with John McWhorter, he is a best-selling author, a Democrat, and professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University. He's speaking to some hard truths here for both sides of the debate, and hitting on some of the more nuanced ideas that often fall by the way side when discussing emotionally volatile issues.
Michaelr
Well-Known Member
The writer of the stupid racist article.
Mychal Lowman?
I'm sorry you take it so personally when discussions of the racism that exists in our society happen. If you've never gotten any type of therapy this might be an issue it would be useful for you to discuss in a safe place so that you can fully process your feelings about it.
I've read a couple of the studies McWhorter mentions, and they have some caveats. For example, they are very dependent on police testimony to determine the circumstances. Since police already treat black people as more threatening at every other level of force, you would expect their reports of fatal interactions to have a similar bias, but the studies don't use a mechanism to compensate for this.
That said, I agree that most black people are not worried they will be shot on an every day basis.