Critical Race Theory Is The Left’s QAnon

[nakedfrog]

And what I found hilarious was Laura Ingram, on her Fox show, calling for defunding the military because Gen. Milley made damned good sense in every conceivable way to interpret his words.

Ahhh, that is literally the funniest thing I've heard all day. I'm actually laughing out loud here.

 

[Meghan54]

Ahhh, that is literally the funniest thing I've heard all day. I'm actually laughing out loud here.

Here...this'll make you laugh till you wet yourself:

On Wednesday, Laura Ingraham slammed Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for spreading what she called “far-left Marxist racist ideology” in the U.S. military. Earlier in the day, Milley testified before the House Armed Services Committee and was questioned about diversity training and racism in the armed forces. Milley said he found recent attacks on the military on this front “offensive.”

“I do think it’s important for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and be widely read,” said Milley.

“The fact is, Milley has made his choice,” said Ingraham.”And he’s chosen to indulge the radical whims of Democrats. He’ll do everything they tell him as long as they keep the military-industrial complex flush with cash.”

Ingraham Goes Off on Gen. Milley for ‘Teaching Far-Left Marxist Racist Ideology’ and Suggests Withholding Military Funding

Laura Ingraham ripped into the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Wednesday night.

www.mediaite.com

 

[DigDog]

because i've not heard about CRT before last week;

"
Criticism
Academic
Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry argue that critical race theory lacks supporting evidence, relies on an implausible belief that reality is socially constructed, rejects evidence in favor of storytelling, rejects truth and merit as expressions of political dominance, and rejects the rule of law. Additionally, they posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.[50][51][10] In particular, they suggest that the success of Jews and Asians within what critical race theorists argue is a structurally unfair system may lend itself to allegations of cheating, advantage-taking, or other such claims. A series of responses to Farber and Sherry was published in the Harvard Law Review.[52] These responses argue that there is a difference between criticizing an unfair system and criticizing individuals who perform well inside that system.[10][52] In the Boston College Law Review, Jeffrey Pyle argues that critical race theory undermines confidence in the rule of law, saying that "critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law".[53]

"
Daniel Farber .. "is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. "
Suzanna Sherry .. "is the Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. "

not exactly idiots.
Note that there are equally educated proponents of CRT, so, as a difficult academic matter, i will leave this to the experts and state that i do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it.

 

[Meghan54]

because i've not heard about CRT before last week;

"
Criticism
Academic
Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry argue that critical race theory lacks supporting evidence, relies on an implausible belief that reality is socially constructed, rejects evidence in favor of storytelling, rejects truth and merit as expressions of political dominance, and rejects the rule of law. Additionally, they posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.[50][51][10] In particular, they suggest that the success of Jews and Asians within what critical race theorists argue is a structurally unfair system may lend itself to allegations of cheating, advantage-taking, or other such claims. A series of responses to Farber and Sherry was published in the Harvard Law Review.[52] These responses argue that there is a difference between criticizing an unfair system and criticizing individuals who perform well inside that system.[10][52] In the Boston College Law Review, Jeffrey Pyle argues that critical race theory undermines confidence in the rule of law, saying that "critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law".[53]

"
Daniel Farber .. "is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. "
Suzanna Sherry .. "is the Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. "

not exactly idiots.
Note that there are equally educated proponents of CRT, so, as a difficult academic matter, i will leave this to the experts and state that i do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it.

It's a series of primarily 10 essays, a photo essay, and other writings produced by various authors in conjunction with the NYT Magazine and used the Smithsonian for fact checking.

Here's an interesting read in The Atlantic about CRT:

The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts

A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[DigDog]

Here's an interesting read in The Atlantic about CRT:

and this short read is going to enlighten me sufficiently to chime in on something that Harvard scholars are still debating?

 

[nakedfrog]

and this short read is going to enlighten me sufficiently to chime in on something that Harvard scholars are still debating?

Well, yes and no, here's the paragraph under the title:

A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.

Further on:

In fact, the harshness of the Wilentz letter may obscure the extent to which its authors and the creators of the 1619 Project share a broad historical vision. Both sides agree, as many of the project’s right-wing critics do not, that slavery’s legacy still shapes American life—an argument that is less radical than it may appear at first glance. If you think anti-black racism still shapes American society, then you are in agreement with the thrust of the 1619 Project, though not necessarily with all of its individual arguments.

The clash between the Times authors and their historian critics represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society. Was America founded as a slavocracy, and are current racial inequities the natural outgrowth of that? Or was America conceived in liberty, a nation haltingly redeeming itself through its founding principles? These are not simple questions to answer, because the nation’s pro-slavery and anti-slavery tendencies are so closely intertwined.

So, it may be that you are entitled to form your own opinion on the subject, regardless of what the "Criticisms" section of the wikipedia entry says?

 

[rommelrommel]

because i've not heard about CRT before last week;

"
Criticism
Academic
Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry argue that critical race theory lacks supporting evidence, relies on an implausible belief that reality is socially constructed, rejects evidence in favor of storytelling, rejects truth and merit as expressions of political dominance, and rejects the rule of law. Additionally, they posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.[50][51][10] In particular, they suggest that the success of Jews and Asians within what critical race theorists argue is a structurally unfair system may lend itself to allegations of cheating, advantage-taking, or other such claims. A series of responses to Farber and Sherry was published in the Harvard Law Review.[52] These responses argue that there is a difference between criticizing an unfair system and criticizing individuals who perform well inside that system.[10][52] In the Boston College Law Review, Jeffrey Pyle argues that critical race theory undermines confidence in the rule of law, saying that "critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law".[53]

"
Daniel Farber .. "is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. "
Suzanna Sherry .. "is the Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. "

not exactly idiots.
Note that there are equally educated proponents of CRT, so, as a difficult academic matter, i will leave this to the experts and state that i do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it.

But is it turning the frogs gay?

 

[Paratus]

But is it turning the frogs gay?

Not sure about the frogs but it’s definitely making some white guys rage.

 

[DigDog]

So, it may be that you are entitled to form your own opinion on the subject, regardless of what the "Criticisms" section of the wikipedia entry says?

Social sciences are hard, man. Data collection is always dubious because humans do not react well to being observed, nor do they volunteer accurate data. I would need to read the studies that back up CRT, and i'm not even sure i can do that, assuming the data is reliable.

Shit like astrophysics is easy; mostly because it's an established science, so if i watch a PBS Time Space video, i can pretty much rely that they are thoroughly peer-reviewed and reliable. CRT is an emerging theory, and, while it is easy to divine that *some* observations are based on fact .. just by looking around, there's plenty for a ethinc-minority researcher to want to look at what's causing the issues that are self-evident with american minorities. But how reliable their subsequent studies are, i don't know.

Let me make an example of why i don't want to touch this with a Dungeons & Dragons' very own 10-foot pole: the wage gap.

Or the patriarchy. Whatever, the male-dominated society.

Relatively-sane scientists with credible titles have proposed the wage gap theory. And yet, it's bullshit. They got charts, graphs, interviews, polling data, ALL of which is useless because the scientists are biased.

Also, i'm always very careful when ACADEMIC subjects are being discussed by the uninformed. By which i don't mean YOU, but rather that it's being discussed on teevee, newspapers, etc.


finally, i'm just gonna add that ..
eh, i'm not gonna.

 

[Jhhnn]

and this short read is going to enlighten me sufficiently to chime in on something that Harvard scholars are still debating?

It might inform you as to what they're actually talking about.

 

[Jhhnn]

just by looking around, there's plenty for a ethinc-minority researcher to want to look at what's causing the issues that are self-evident with american minorities

What are those issues, pray tell?

 

[zinfamous]

"Said ownage"?

you mean more white people TELLING black people how oppressed they are, ironically?

The ignorance from you crazy lefties lol. It has become astronomical....

View attachment 46213

do you not understand that you literally have the cognitive ability of a 3rd grader?

That is specifically where you sit. Are you actually unaware of this?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Social sciences are hard, man. Data collection is always dubious because humans do not react well to being observed, nor do they volunteer accurate data. I would need to read the studies that back up CRT, and i'm not even sure i can do that, assuming the data is reliable.

Shit like astrophysics is easy; mostly because it's an established science, so if i watch a PBS Time Space video, i can pretty much rely that they are thoroughly peer-reviewed and reliable. CRT is an emerging theory, and, while it is easy to divine that *some* observations are based on fact .. just by looking around, there's plenty for a ethinc-minority researcher to want to look at what's causing the issues that are self-evident with american minorities. But how reliable their subsequent studies are, i don't know.

Let me make an example of why i don't want to touch this with a Dungeons & Dragons' very own 10-foot pole: the wage gap.

Or the patriarchy. Whatever, the male-dominated society.

Relatively-sane scientists with credible titles have proposed the wage gap theory. And yet, it's bullshit. They got charts, graphs, interviews, polling data, ALL of which is useless because the scientists are biased.

Also, i'm always very careful when ACADEMIC subjects are being discussed by the uninformed. By which i don't mean YOU, but rather that it's being discussed on teevee, newspapers, etc.


finally, i'm just gonna add that ..
eh, i'm not gonna.

Lol you're talking to a bunch of incels that actually still believe shit like the gender wage gap.

 

[MrSquished]

This thread is getting long and I'm still not convinced there was ever real systemic racism in the US.

I'm gonna go buy my confederate flag starter kit.

 

[zinfamous]

because i've not heard about CRT before last week;

"
Criticism
Academic
Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry argue that critical race theory lacks supporting evidence, relies on an implausible belief that reality is socially constructed, rejects evidence in favor of storytelling, rejects truth and merit as expressions of political dominance, and rejects the rule of law. Additionally, they posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.[50][51][10] In particular, they suggest that the success of Jews and Asians within what critical race theorists argue is a structurally unfair system may lend itself to allegations of cheating, advantage-taking, or other such claims. A series of responses to Farber and Sherry was published in the Harvard Law Review.[52] These responses argue that there is a difference between criticizing an unfair system and criticizing individuals who perform well inside that system.[10][52] In the Boston College Law Review, Jeffrey Pyle argues that critical race theory undermines confidence in the rule of law, saying that "critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law".[53]

"
Daniel Farber .. "is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. "
Suzanna Sherry .. "is the Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. "

not exactly idiots.
Note that there are equally educated proponents of CRT, so, as a difficult academic matter, i will leave this to the experts and state that i do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it.

You have literally done more research on this, in one post, than the OP will ever strive to do.

 

[zinfamous]

Social sciences are hard, man. Data collection is always dubious because humans do not react well to being observed, nor do they volunteer accurate data. I would need to read the studies that back up CRT, and i'm not even sure i can do that, assuming the data is reliable.

Shit like astrophysics is easy; mostly because it's an established science, so if i watch a PBS Time Space video, i can pretty much rely that they are thoroughly peer-reviewed and reliable. CRT is an emerging theory, and, while it is easy to divine that *some* observations are based on fact .. just by looking around, there's plenty for a ethinc-minority researcher to want to look at what's causing the issues that are self-evident with american minorities. But how reliable their subsequent studies are, i don't know.

Let me make an example of why i don't want to touch this with a Dungeons & Dragons' very own 10-foot pole: the wage gap.

Or the patriarchy. Whatever, the male-dominated society.

Relatively-sane scientists with credible titles have proposed the wage gap theory. And yet, it's bullshit. They got charts, graphs, interviews, polling data, ALL of which is useless because the scientists are biased.

Also, i'm always very careful when ACADEMIC subjects are being discussed by the uninformed. By which i don't mean YOU, but rather that it's being discussed on teevee, newspapers, etc.


finally, i'm just gonna add that ..
eh, i'm not gonna.

eh, the wage gap is literally there; the popular reasons for it simply aren't true, however (number in hiring, gender disparity in applicants, etc, conflate the numbers)

also, recall that astrophysics is dominated by creationists. At least, that is where you will find the type of scientists that will entertain the idea that Jesus rode dinosaurs.

 

[repoman0]

also, recall that astrophysics is dominated by creationists. At least, that is where you will find the type of scientists that will entertain the idea that Jesus rode dinosaurs.

I can’t tell if you’re kidding … if not, this post is really confusing me right now!

 

[zinfamous]

Lol you're talking to a bunch of incels that actually still believe shit like the gender wage gap.

^this is a guy that thinks that Stephen Colbert was a dig against liberals. He literally believes this.

Also, he seems to think that incels are leftists. That's fucking hilarious. Illiteracy breeds this sort of brain-bleeding ignorance.

Serious question though: seriously: You've discussed here a few times about the pills you need for whatever neurological disorders. Obviously, this is a personal question and you don't have to answer, but you did make that public and you certainly do post with the brain of a fucking 8 year-old, so I'm wondering if you have some kind of TBI or brain disorder that is responsible for your inability to understand simple concepts and talk to humans normally?

....I mean, that would go a long way towards informing the rest of us what is going here. It's pretty shitty to constantly be stomping on a clinically disadvantaged human because your posts are literally the best you can do, because of physical perturbations. I know I'd feel bad. ....the other issue is I'm kind of wondering if you are violating some sort of court order when you post on the internet?

 

[zinfamous]

I can’t tell if you’re kidding … if not, this post is really confusing me right now!

"dominated" is maybe a strong term. ...basically, that is the only field where you will find scientists (Even good ones!) that refuse to accept evolution.

Even if it's only 10 of them, it's 10 too-fucking-much. They all come from astrophysics or the "hard maths" --they don't understand or accept dick about Biology (which literally only works because of the fact of Evolution)

 

[repoman0]

"dominated" is maybe a strong term. ...basically, that is the only field where you will find scientists (Even good ones!) that refuse to accept evolution.

Even if it's only 10 of them, it's 10 too-fucking-much. They all come from astrophysics or the "hard maths" --they don't understand or accept dick about Biology (which literally only works because of the fact of Evolution)

I don’t know man, I think of astrophysicists as just about the least god fearing (or believing) scientists out there. Even the “popular” author ones don’t have time for that shit in their books for the public. Maybe I’m biased because my background is nearly that and I don’t know anyone meeting that description either.

 

[Jhhnn]

do you not understand that you literally have the cognitive ability of a 3rd grader?

That is specifically where you sit. Are you actually unaware of this?

He's an idiot. Black people in Minneapolis told us themselves in the wake of George Floyd's murder. They told us with countless peaceful marches, too, including one on Washington. It's not something made up by Libs.

 

[zinfamous]

I don’t know man, I think of astrophysicists as just about the least god fearing (or believing) scientists out there. Even the “popular” author ones don’t have time for that shit in their books for the public. Maybe I’m biased because my background is nearly that and I don’t know anyone meeting that description either.

I don't know...all I know is that all the scientists with jesus books that the GOP has been using to try and force ID into public schools were astrophysicists/astronomers. :shrug:

It sorta baffles me because you think they'd be at the forefront of "what is out there," but it also doesn't; because in hard math, the math is the answer. Biology doesn't always agree with math. The things that should work, oftentimes don't when you start working inside you model system. There are far too many confounding things going on inside one little critter--a space with problems and interactions that is...well, actually larger than the universe in some ways, that confuse everything.

they don't get it. There is also this tendency to accept that "God can just use evolution as a tool!"

This makes no sense and profoundly rejects evolution. The belief in a God or divine being precludes the notion that this divine being has a plan. This being has made a goal; the tool being the means to that goal. Evolution has no goal. The two simply do not work together, and never can. The end.


........

You know, I've heard so many stories from Grad students and postdocs and others coming through, about where they started. The most perplexing was from someone's highschool "Science teacher" who, when asking what the (now grad student) wanted to do: "I want to be a Scientist!," this teacher's response was: "Why? Everything in science is already known. Why would you do that?"

It's fucking...I mean, it's completely insane to think that. But it makes sense. I have no idea otherwise where people like OP come from. They are the products of that exact type of ignorance. The profoundly incurious, the proudly illiterate, the lazy uneducated, perpetually underperforming, useless humans of the world.

 

[repoman0]

I don't know...all I know is that all the scientists with jesus books that the GOP has been using to try and force ID into public schools were astrophysicists/astronomers. :shrug:

Maybe some half-assed astrophysicists with no real publications or contributions? Or made up qualifications? I’d believe those situations, especially if it’s a GOP stunt. Real ones do not meet your description.

/off topic, and really not that relevant to the discussion, but I took personal offense 😛

edit: what the real ones believe is indeed as you said — “the math is the answer.” That applies both at the scale that their field studies, and on the microscopic in the form of quantum mechanics. Real astrophysicists generally believe that given some set of initial cosmological conditions, the world evolves according to some universal laws of force and matter, which is just some math. All life here and elsewhere is the result of those initial conditions evolving according to those equations … no god or Jesus writing dinosaurs needed

 

[zinfamous]

Maybe some half-assed astrophysicists with no real publications or contributions? Or made up qualifications? I’d believe those situations, especially if it’s a GOP stunt. Real ones do not meet your description.

/off topic, and really not that relevant to the discussion, but I took personal offense 😛

edit: what the real ones believe is indeed as you said — “the math is the answer.” That applies both at the scale that their field studies, and on the microscopic in the form of quantum mechanics. Real astrophysicists generally believe that given some set of initial cosmological conditions, the world evolves according to some universal laws of force and matter, which is just some math. All life here and elsewhere is the result of those initial conditions evolving according to those equations … no god or Jesus writing dinosaurs needed

Oh, I agree with you, and you should be offended by my first post....that's why I did a bit of editing up there, probably before you saw it to respond here.

 

[ivwshane]

^this is a guy that thinks that Stephen Colbert was a dig against liberals. He literally believes this.

Also, he seems to think that incels are leftists. That's fucking hilarious. Illiteracy breeds this sort of brain-bleeding ignorance.

Serious question though: seriously: You've discussed here a few times about the pills you need for whatever neurological disorders. Obviously, this is a personal question and you don't have to answer, but you did make that public and you certainly do post with the brain of a fucking 8 year-old, so I'm wondering if you have some kind of TBI or brain disorder that is responsible for your inability to understand simple concepts and talk to humans normally?

....I mean, that would go a long way towards informing the rest of us what is going here. It's pretty shitty to constantly be stomping on a clinically disadvantaged human because your posts are literally the best you can do, because of physical perturbations. I know I'd feel bad. ....the other issue is I'm kind of wondering if you are violating some sort of court order when you post on the internet?

If he's supposed to be on some sort of pills then his posts start making a lot of sense in that now I understand what's wrong with the guy.

Mental disorders are no joke and its a shame this country has such a poor track record of dealing with it.