Actually I already explained why he had those racist views...he was racist.
What was that you said about a circular argument? But you can just say someone has racist views because they're racist and there's nothing wrong with that...
Not the same thing, appearances are not what assesses biases, behavior does.
One doesn't assume racial discrimination merely because it's a white person interacting with a black person, you're being dishonest in characterizing it remotely like that.
I'm glad we agree on objective reality....a surprising number of philosophers don't.
Do you think that CRT scholars and adherents agree with us? I know that sounds silly...but they say things like "I'm speaking my truth"...and you and most people probably understand that they are speaking their opinions.
Do you think that's how they understand it? Or do they think they are actually speaking the truth?
Opinions can be fact in terms of the justification thereof, the opinions in themselves are an initial provisional statement. You're being obtuse now in trying to act like everyone treats every single interaction like you're going to trial and have to parse the words out so specifically.
"They"...as in some people you can quote mine and not honestly consider that individuals don't represent the whole, that's a compositional fallacy.
People can speak an opinion and be willing to have corrections brought up, but a counter point that merely reinforces a convenient status quo where consequences are optional for a white person that commits murder under some flimsy justification of "self defense" in the context where they walk in armed, then the other side can't be called objective either. It's not an either/or mentality like you want to frame it as
You can't possibly know that unless you know the answer yourself.
Why don't you just cut to the chase and explain it to everyone so we can see if it's a good method for determining the validity of truth claims?
You don't get to assert that there is one absolute epistemology CRT uses without demonstrating as such. You keep asserting it, but haven't substantiated one iota, just assume I'm stupid enough to buy whatever you say when you speak with confidence.
I'm not getting into Hegel at all. Hegelian dialectics aren't something Marx really understood...his version is at best, a distortion of the idea.
So there's some "pure" dialectics, now? Hm...little suspicious in how that's bordering on no true Scotsman
Well CRT adherents are looking at outcomes. If they were looking at who was taking the test instead of test results, for example, you would have a point.
The outcomes in terms of being treated fairly is hardly demanding equal outcome in terms of precise successes, you're equivocating now to suggest black people not wanting to be brutalized by police is equivalent to saying black people want to ALL be as successful as the most successful white people, which is a ludicrous comparison
That's exactly the problem.
It assumes nothing of the sort....
One way is marching in the street leading up to violent revolutions....another is the "long march through the institutions" which describes a method for changing a culture.
There's others but they share the same hypocrisy I pointed out in my last post. You can't reject power structures on principles and increasingly demand power.
Abusive power structures/=/ all power structures, that's a whole other debate that I seriously doubt all Marxists would agree on in terms of such a thing. If you want to paint with a broad brush, maybe substantiate your claims instead of playing this con game and insulting everyone's intelligence with this tripe based on so called "research"
That's certainly a good idea for a larger discussion. If you can think of a power structure that evenly distributes power amongst participants...I'm willing to listen.
I'm not talking about a fictional utopia. I'm talking about something more akin to what our founding fathers did....decide what values you want to create your society around (in the US these would be individual liberty and the right to own property) and the process your society would use to achieve these values (the separation of powers, individual rights, freedom of speech and belief, separation of private and public sectors, etc).
I can only imagine what Marxism would look like today if they actually did this.
Even distribution and fair distribution aren't the same thing, that's equality versus equity on its face and you want to act like equity is the same as equality when the nuance has been conveyed pretty consistently in the last decade or more.
Except not everyone could own property and not everyone had liberty, so...major fail already with the "greatest nation on earth".
This assumes Marxism is monolithic, which you haven't demonstrated in the least, you've just continued to make bald claims and expect me to just go, "Okay, I guess you're right, duuuh,"
It does mean they didn't brainwash me lol.
Brainwashing is VERY specific, let's not conflate terms for convenience. Indoctrination is broader, afaik, brainwashing is the tactic of cults, far less subtle
Ironically, that's exactly what I'm doing now by asking if you know CRT's epistemology lol.
If you actually know like you claim to....my guess is you won't say because it's so intellectually embarrassing.
If you don't know...well you will continue to sound like every other person who has been convinced of a dogma.
We've probably all heard one of those religious adherents who can't really explain their beliefs....like a scientologist.
I don't claim to know, because that assumes a familiarity that is ludicrous to claim for everyone in a discussion. You can't even be charitable and try to suggest what their epistemology is, but keep dancing around the term because apparently that's too embarrassing to say (or you're afraid you'll be censored, very brave of you)
A statement that is believed without question doesn't come close to CRT's general ideas, because, as I already noted, it is not monolithic in itself and is not reduced purely to race in the broader worldview with intersectional concerns where the affluent exploit the impoverished, which happens to have particular outcomes with regards to non whites that you want to sweep under the rug by saying, "Well, look at Asians and Jews," ignoring that they are far more white by proximity in that they can pass as such, plus the model minority myth that persists that inverted racism against Asians and Jews for centuries because it would help line America's pockets in their petty squabbles worldwide to show who's more well endowed.
First of all, that's not why I reject CRT. I reject CRT because I know the problems with the way it makes truth claims....along with the extremely racist worldview it promotes.
If it had no elements of Marxism I'd reject it for those things alone.
Secondly, I just point out the Marxism because that gets a reaction from people over 50. They may not understand Marxism, but they know enough to know they don't want it pushed onto children.
If that seems manipulative of me...consider that I'm doing this to push back against a bunch of racist power hungry Marxists. I'd say that a mild exaggeration of the role of Marxism is justified
So you admit you;'re being manipulative with the use of a loaded term you KNOW many people aren't aware of ? Wow...the blunt honesty of engaging in a con game where your posts are visible to a broad audience is something I'd only expect from someone that has no shame. Call it ad hominem, it's right out there for everyone to see in regards to how you have no dodginess in saying that you're being emotionally conniving towards an age demographic you seem to think is too stupid to know what's good for them, but I guess YOU know better, right?
Ah, it's okay for you to demonize and insult people, but when your opponents do it, it's suddenly wrong? Seems more than a bit hypocritical, but I feel like you're going to deflect again and act like I'm the problem and you could never be wrong because you're just dealing in "facts" (as you spin them for a narrative, since there aren't pure facts apart from subjective interpretation)
I can't think of any good examples of Marxism in practice (not that they don't exist....I'm saying they don't turn out well).
Consider that our founding fathers screwed up so badly at their first attempt at a new society....they literally had to go start over again (we don't teach the Articles of Confederation much). I think that not only should we teach that part of history in greater detail, we should point out that the reason why they could admit failure and start over at all was because they placed such a high importance on freedom of speech and expression. Ideologies like Marxism demand conformity and this makes genuine problem solving difficult.
Oh, because there's no ideology in America at all? Maybe if you admitted that there could be an ideological bent that goes to excess in America as well then you could start to find some moderate middle path instead of acting like anything not Marxist must be okay (whatever you seem to think Marxism is, it's hardly a unified idea in the same vein as socialism, communism, etc. Weird you don't just call it communist, because that'd be another notch in your belt of manipulating 50 somethings who are too dumb to think for themselves). Because without qualification, it isn't unreasonable to consider that you're enabling or even outright promoting an ideology that benefits you while others suffer under it because they don;t see it like you (because you're so much more enlightened, right?)
You are defending it. You claim to know what the epistemology is....otherwise you couldn't claim I'm wrong about it. Let's try a practical question....
Imagine that a black female lesbian in her 40s saw an incident between two individuals. I saw the same incident and I'm a white straight male of the same age. She describes the incident as being racist....I disagree and say it wasn't. We're both in the US at the time (so are the individuals who we are observing).
The claim of racism here is a truth claim. The scenario includes all the necessary information about positionality that CRT requires to agree or disagree with the truth claim.
Does the CRT scholar agree with the black woman or do they agree with me?
I won't ask you why. If you know and I know, there's no need to ask.
I don't claim to know the epistemology overall because that's not how any theory necessarily works when it is addressing something as broad as social issues. There may be some common threads, but it is not universal anymore than the idea that all atheists have to be
Your race, age and sex are all factors that will color experience and interpretation of something. No one is claiming one person will be absolutely right, you keep making this either/or notion and suggesting no middle ground or alternate situation, which is not a healthy perspective, it continues to polarize instead of trying to have any kind of compromise or bridging.
If you just regard yourself as right and anyone not in your neat little ideology as wrong, then 1) you ARE an absolutist of a different stripe and 2) you also can't seem to acknowledge that you may be subject to an ideology coloring your perspective as much as you accuse others, pot calling the kettle black as it were
I'm seeing less and less of a need to engage with someone who sets up a loaded question and then basically regards themselves as already having won with what might as well be a smug expression on their face or an implicit sense of self satisfaction with a petty rhetorical duel on the internet. Hope you feel good about yourself in "helping" people
