CRT and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

[Ana the Ist]

There's the boogeyman comments.

You just said it's important.

Well how important is it? Is it more important than say "work ethic" or "creativity" or "tendency for rational thinking" or any other number of aspects of identity?

Why are you focusing on race like it's so important?

 

[rambot]

That explains a lot.



And it's disproven.

But no. Some studies raise questions. It hasn't been disproven. You are welcome to continue that vein of conversation but I won't really participate. A google scholar search reminds me enough.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's a bit of a juvenile response.
"Say I'm right and then I'll provide the source and even if it undermines everything I say, you are still wrong".
Just show the source. The poster will be able to figure out for him/herself if they are wrong.

@rambot...no offense, but I've been on this forum a long time. I've argued a lot of Christians into a corner. I'm not always right...but I've gotten pretty good at identifying when people hold beliefs despite of facts.

In fact, just recently, I was asked to outline an entire argument....step by step...by another poster making similar claims. I did this. He laughed at me and said he wasn't even going to read it. I can point that out if you want, it happened yesterday.

So it's a fair question. Does he really want to know if he's wrong? Or does he want to waste my time?

 

[rambot]

You just said it's important.

Well how important is it? Is it more important than say "work ethic" or "creativity" or "tendency for rational thinking" or any other number of aspects of identity?

Why are you focusing on race like it's so important?

ALL groups are important but I don't think there is a "Supreme Hierarchy of importance" for something so intricate and personal as that. Everyone creates their own hierarchy of importance for their identity. White supremecists, Black Panthers likely have race near the top; Christians, likely, should have their faith near the top. But everyone creates their own identity.


What's so interesting about this conversation is that so many of these posts (and I know you're gonna hate thiiiiiiiis.....sorry), smack if white priviledge. But also a lack of awareness of the connection.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But no. Some studies raise questions. It hasn't been disproven.

No. We have tested, retested, revised, rechecked and the evidence is clear.

Making people aware of biases doesn't change the biases.

On the upside, we've also learned that there's no perceptible effect of implicit bias on behavior.

So again, with the limited time you have as an educator....why spend so much time on examining biases? It can be summed up in one short lesson.

 

[rambot]

@rambot...no offense, but I've been on this forum a long time. I've argued a lot of Christians into a corner. I'm not always right...but I've gotten pretty good at identifying when people hold beliefs despite of facts.

In fact, just recently, I was asked to outline an entire argument....step by step...by another poster making similar claims. I did this. He laughed at me and said he wasn't even going to read it. I can point that out if you want, it happened yesterday.

To some point, fair enough. I've also been on this forum a very VERY long time. I've debated many people. I put up research that gets utterly disregarded and thrown away and ignored. But when I look back, it's because the person I was providing the sources for didn't ACTUALLY care about the source to begin with. They didn't ask for it. They didn't read it. They didn't engage with it. They would simply repeat their own insipid talking points again and again. This is NOT what I am seeing from Leafniggle.
Besides, it's likely, literally, about 2 minutes of work.


I appreciate the grace you showed in your response. Thank you. I did feel a bit uncomfortable using "juvenile".


Lastly...I take some umbrage with this:

So it's a fair question. Does he really want to know if he's wrong? Or does he want to waste my time?

Guy. Were on an internet forum. If we were worried about wasting our time.....?
;-)

 

[rambot]

No. We have tested, retested, revised, rechecked and the evidence is clear.

Making people aware of biases doesn't change the biases.

On the upside, we've also learned that there's no perceptible effect of implicit bias on behavior.

So again, with the limited time you have as an educator....why spend so much time on examining biases? It can be summed up in one short lesson.

I was arguing those biases exist. NOT thta we can change them. Differenc there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ALL groups are important but I don't think there is a "Supreme Hierarchy of importance" for something so intricate and personal as that. Everyone creates their own hierarchy of importance for their identity. White supremecists, Black Panthers likely have race near the top; Christians, likely, should have their faith near the top. But everyone creates their own identity.

Like we would expect if we were all individuals.

What's so interesting about this conversation is that so many of these posts (and I know you're gonna hate thiiiiiiiis.....sorry), smack if white priviledge. But also a lack of awareness of the connection.

White privilege is a concept derived from "critical whiteness studies" which is an offshoot of "critical race theory" and it's biggest star is Peggy Mcintosh who wrote "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" which I have read in its entirety. She outlined many key concepts in "white privilege".

The entire paper contains no research at all.

None.

It is, to put succinctly....the opinion of one woman. I think calling her a scholar is a stretch since she doesn't engage in some pursuit of truth.

To be honest, it doesn't bother me that you say that. If I feel anything it's pity for you. Somewhere along the line you were failed by your educational system and cannot tell fact from dogma.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was arguing those biases exist. NOT thta we can change them. Differenc there.

Ok...

How can we reliably detect them?

 

[bekkilyn]

@rambot...no offense, but I've been on this forum a long time. I've argued a lot of Christians into a corner. I'm not always right...but I've gotten pretty good at identifying when people hold beliefs despite of facts.

In fact, just recently, I was asked to outline an entire argument....step by step...by another poster making similar claims. I did this. He laughed at me and said he wasn't even going to read it. I can point that out if you want, it happened yesterday.

So it's a fair question. Does he really want to know if he's wrong? Or does he want to waste my time?

I've witnessed numerous times when someone in a thread here on CF would make a long, carefully written post that included various sorts of documented evidence, scriptures (if a Christian argument) and posted in good faith only to be responded to with a snarky one-liner or something to the equivalent of a "nuh uh". I don't waste my time on it anymore. If they don't like what I have to say, they can either stop discussing with me or go do their own research.

 

[rambot]

Ok...

How can we reliably detect them?

Cultivating awareness.

 

[rambot]

Like we would expect if we were all individuals.



White privilege is a concept derived from "critical whiteness studies" which is an offshoot of "critical race theory" and it's biggest star is Peggy Mcintosh who wrote "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" which I have read in its entirety. She outlined many key concepts in "white privilege".

The entire paper contains no research at all.

None.

It is, to put succinctly....the opinion of one woman. I think calling her a scholar is a stretch since she doesn't engage in some pursuit of truth.

To be honest, it doesn't bother me that you say that. If I feel anything it's pity for you. Somewhere along the line you were failed by your educational system and cannot tell fact from dogma.

Regardless, it is a privilege to argue that "race doesn't matter".

 

[Ana the Ist]

To some point, fair enough. I've also been on this forum a very VERY long time. I've debated many people. I put up research that gets utterly disregarded and thrown away and ignored. But when I look back, it's because the person I was providing the sources for didn't ACTUALLY care about the source to begin with. They didn't ask for it. They didn't read it. They didn't engage with it. They would simply repeat their own insipid talking points again and again. This is NOT what I am seeing from Leafniggle.
Besides, it's likely, literally, about 2 minutes of work.


I appreciate the grace you showed in your response. Thank you. I did feel a bit uncomfortable using "juvenile".


Lastly...I take some umbrage with this:
Guy. Were on an internet forum. If we were worried about wasting our time.....?
;-)

I'm not upset with you @rambot ...but please consider something from my point of view. For at least 3 years now, I've been accused of arguing in bad faith in these discussions.

On this thread alone....a poster asked for evidence. I linked an article, it included evidence, and they simply claimed they didn't believe it.

I asked what would they believe?

They had no response.

Now this poster is making almost exactly the same claim. Remember when TMZ flat out lied about Hulk Hogan? Sued almost into oblivion. They can bend the truth but no major news source is outright fabricating evidence. They know their livelihood depends upon it. Even CNN had to settle to Nick Sandman for merely suggesting he was racist.

If I provided the website, I expect 1 of 2 things to happen...

1. He's going to ask me to prove it's a real website and not some elaborate fake.

2. He'll disappear and pop back up in a similar conversation later making the same claim. Act like this never happened.

Please, read the rather long post I made on this page.
Is $450,000 enough for each illegal immigrant separated from family?

Read the short post mine was replying to....then read his response.

It's entirely disingenuous. Perhaps that's why I now feel it's important to ask first. People pretend to consider evidence and they don't.

This is typical of the dogmatic.

 

[coffee4u]

This is how CRT is being taught today.

From the article.

The teacher asked all students to create an “identity map,” listing their race, class, gender, religion, family structure, and other characteristics. The teacher explained that the students live in a “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speaker,” who, according to the lesson, “created and maintained” this culture in order “to hold power and stay in power.”

CRT principles involving white privilege and power.

Kimberle Crenshaw, the CRT scholar who first came up with the CRT term “intersectionality,” put the need to abandon the Parisian post-modernism best when she wrote:

While the descriptive project of postmodernism of questioning the ways in which meaning is socially constructed is generally sound, this critique sometimes misreads the meaning of social construction and distorts its political relevance…. But to say that a category such as race or gender is socially constructed is not to say that that category has no significance in our world. On the contrary, a large and continuing project for subordinated people—and indeed, one of the projects for which postmodern theories have been very helpful in thinking about—is the way power has clustered around certain categories and is exercised against others.Kimberle Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review, Vol 43. No. 6 (July 1991), p. 1296, https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2017/SPR470/um/68138626/Crenshaw_1991.txt (accessed December 3, 2020).


According to Critical Race Theorist, the notion of white supremacy within Critical Race Theory offers an all pervading notion of how white racism infuses, directs, situates and positions white people at the expense of their constituent and constructed black Other. As Ansley’s comments,

By] ‘white supremacy’ I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic, and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings’ (Ansley, 1997, P.592).

So yes those are principles contained within crt.

I don't know how to get rid of the strike outs!

A strike is normally made from enclosing a piece of text in a Bracket S Bracket Then add your text in the middle and end on Bracket slash S Bracket
Slash should show in the middle

 

[rambot]

I'm not upset with you @rambot ...but please consider something from my point of view. For at least 3 years now, I've been accused of arguing in bad faith in these discussions.

On this thread alone....a poster asked for evidence. I linked an article, it included evidence, and they simply claimed they didn't believe it.

I asked what would they believe?

They had no response.

Now this poster is making almost exactly the same claim. Remember when TMZ flat out lied about Hulk Hogan? Sued almost into oblivion. They can bend the truth but no major news source is outright fabricating evidence. They know their livelihood depends upon it. Even CNN had to settle to Nick Sandman for merely suggesting he was racist.

If I provided the website, I expect 1 of 2 things to happen...

1. He's going to ask me to prove it's a real website and not some elaborate fake.

2. He'll disappear and pop back up in a similar conversation later making the same claim. Act like this never happened.

Please, read the rather long post I made on this page.
Is $450,000 enough for each illegal immigrant separated from family?

Read the short post mine was replying to....then read his response.

It's entirely disingenuous. Perhaps that's why I now feel it's important to ask first. People pretend to consider evidence and they don't.

This is typical of the dogmatic.

Okay but you also realize in the time you spent creating this post, you could ACTUALLY prove your point, prove him/her wrong, and silence them.
Just seems like a waste of time to complain too much at length.

When it comes to providing sources for other posters, personally, I do it with the assumption that most posters who disagree will probably not look. I do it for my PERSONAL integrity and the integrity of my own argument. They can take that information and do what they want with it but I PERSONALLY think that without good evidence my argument is weaker and I don't like that. I'm selfish like that

As I said earlier, we are on an internet discussion forum. That ALONE is a trememdous waste of time so if you're worried about wasting time, that would be my first suggestion to stop. In the meantime, I have a bit of ye olde calvinist attitude of "do your work well" and so I'd rather just provide my source because that's what a good argument consists of not because someone is asking, not because I'm being harrassed or trolled.

In the meantime, I certainly wouldn't waste my time. If someone asks for a source, I'll just give it. And if I get proven wrong after I do a source search, I admit it and move on.

I don't understand why providing a source is seen as an inconvinience or hindrence.

And for the record, what happenned to you above is absolutely frustrating...and has happenned to every.single.person.on.a.forum.ever.

 

[bekkilyn]

I'm not upset with you @rambot ...but please consider something from my point of view. For at least 3 years now, I've been accused of arguing in bad faith in these discussions.

On this thread alone....a poster asked for evidence. I linked an article, it included evidence, and they simply claimed they didn't believe it.

I asked what would they believe?

They had no response.

Now this poster is making almost exactly the same claim. Remember when TMZ flat out lied about Hulk Hogan? Sued almost into oblivion. They can bend the truth but no major news source is outright fabricating evidence. They know their livelihood depends upon it. Even CNN had to settle to Nick Sandman for merely suggesting he was racist.

If I provided the website, I expect 1 of 2 things to happen...

1. He's going to ask me to prove it's a real website and not some elaborate fake.

2. He'll disappear and pop back up in a similar conversation later making the same claim. Act like this never happened.

Please, read the rather long post I made on this page.
Is $450,000 enough for each illegal immigrant separated from family?

Read the short post mine was replying to....then read his response.

It's entirely disingenuous. Perhaps that's why I now feel it's important to ask first. People pretend to consider evidence and they don't.

This is typical of the dogmatic.

I've been going back and forth as to whether or not you're being sea lioned.

 

[coffee4u]

I'm willing to say they were not. But most American Christians are not willing to say the were not.

So to the extent that American Christians want to continue to claim those folk as Christians (such as, for instance, all the Southern Baptist Convention), then they must accept that those Christians knowingly committed great sin. But they're not willing to accept that, either.

Well I guess that's an American issue.

Matthew 7:16
Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?

 

[rambot]

I've been going back and forth as to whether or not you're being sea lioned.

Thanks for introducing me to the term.

 

[rambot]

I've been going back and forth as to whether or not you're being sea lioned.

uhm....did you think I was doing that?

 

[bekkilyn]

uhm....did you think I was doing that?

I was actually thinking of the other person who keeps repeatedly asking for evidence and yet doesn't seem to want to actually discuss anything other than the perceived quality of what has been already given. It may all be innocent, but well...just call me suspicious.