”Whiteness fits the broad historical concept of property by classical theorists”.

So property rights are whiteness. And then she concludes: — ssu

It is more so that she is saying that whiteness is a property possessed by whites much like property rights are possessed by anybody I think, which is even worse.

I did some more thinking, considered your comments and, apart from some racially conscious policies, I don't believe that CRS and liberalism clash. In fact, I don't even think it is that much of a threat to anybody except insofar as it is detrimental to the cause of social justice by framing the issue almost purely in terms of race and by being a little too aggressive. I still maintain that white fragility is a concept fraught with issues (not all whites take defensive moves to avoid racial considerations; whiteness cannot be as homogeneous as it is claimed to be). I also still maintain that hypostatizing whiteness and attributing it to all whites will just reinforce the attitude I originally expressed in the OP; no one wants to think that their very identity is an artifact of someone else's oppression, even if white privilege exists.

And here's the important issue. This a problem of class and income inequality, which goes beyond race. Yet better to put the emphasis on the racial side of this and let the poor white people, who often are called white trash in the US, know that they enjoy white privilege. Divide et impera, I say. — ssu

While class is important, as Timothy points out, poor whites do tend to fair better than poor people of color. This is largely due to programs that, while not explicitly racist, tend to leave out poor people of color. For instance, this article points out a disparity between treatment of people of color and whites with regards to hunger relief: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-white-privilege-looks-when-youre-poor/ As the author says, it isn't like anyone said that the hunger of people of color is less important, but it is indicative of a problematic trend nevertheless. That being said, white privilege doesn't really confer substantial benefits to dirt poor white people. This article contains a good bit of subtlety and regard for this fact while still acknowledging myriad privileges: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255

This is a little ambiguous, is it really "white people" that CRT is trying to tear down? This is seemingly a big premise in your argument but can you substantiate it and go into greater detail on why you think this is the case? — Judaka

There is a thing called "whiteness studies" related to CRS which seeks to offer an objective definition of "whiteness" that can be decontextualized and hypostatized like I mention in the OP. This feeds into "White Fragility", (https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116) which is defined by Di Angelo as "a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves" on the part of a white person. Di Angelo goes on to say that this property, belonging to whites, serves to restore racial equilibrium to those who have been triggered.

That pretty much sounds like an indictment of white people to me: they are so entitled that any skepticism is indicative of (white) fragility. But then again, according to Di Angelo, by making this argument I'm just taking defensive moves to restore racial equilibrium; I'm just a triggered white man.

we can acknowledge they've worked hard to get there, that they are good at what they do while acknowledging that racism exists as something with meaningful consequences. — Judaka

Yeah, I think you are right. You express a nuanced but common sense view here.

Critical Race Theory seems to be the boogeyman du jour phrase for conservatives and as typical for conservatives their employment of the phrase is purposefully fuzzy and ambiguous, despite a multi-decade body of academic work behind it. — Maw

Good point. This seems to be so that they can shift the goalposts every time that they gain ground or are shown up.

Liberalism did provide a philosophical justification for individual rights which are arguable indispensable, nevertheless the history behind Liberalism is fraught with violent oppression against non-white ethnicities — Maw

Another good point. That's essentially what I was thinking; mere equality before the law can lead to inequitable outcomes due to the accumulation and lopsided application of power; the "emancipated class" will inevitably oppress the disadvantaged. That being said, something like freedom of speech is an overwhelming good; we must have certain liberties, even if these liberties do not strictly promote equity. And if we do have issues with the inequity being propagated under the cover of individualism, we should first focus on the propaganda targeting leftism, which can only be addressed with more speech.

Critical Race Theory can help expose and critique that verifiable history, including contemporary liberalism and even Marxist assumptions, and looks for ways to universalize emancipatory Liberalism without falling back into racialized and class-based demarcation that has typified Liberalism. — Maw

Well said. I think most of us agree on that; that sounds like the way forward.

Charles W. Mill's Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism is a good read. — Maw

I'll have to look that up.

But do you read Zizek?

So back to liberalism. Given that equity of outcome is fraught, what about working towards equity of opportunity? Might we agree that that would be worthy of consideration? — Banno

Of course. We should work towards that without a doubt, and if supposedly discriminatory policies in favor of people of color is the way to do it, I say go ahead.

I would love to do more reading but I'm a peasant with no access to scholarly articles.

Great response. I see liberalism and CRT as clashing in a meaningful way when one essentially defines a whole class of people as material objects of their oppression to be torn down instead of using racially conscious policies to address inequity. Also: attacking whiteness, as if it were a thing that could be separated from and decontextualized from the practices and viewpoints of actual white people, seems to go against the (perhaps vaunted) principle of merit that defines liberalism; while white supremacy exists and confers myriad advantages to whites, many of them really have worked hard to get to where they are and this success might be partially explained in terms of culture and individual motivation to succeed.

Liberalism actually protects social media users from censorship, even if their free speech effectively makes it more difficult for others to speak their minds but I think this problem is overexaggerated often for political purposes. — Judaka

Some people don't seem to understand that strong dissent is only allowed by the very thing they despise and fight against. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this.

I don't think CRT should be judged for what it says, we should judge what people say we should do about it. Does whiteness confer special privileges in the US? Yeah, I'm sure it does. But what impact should that have on the overall narrative? For white or non-white people? And what is the appropriate response? That's where the trouble starts, I don't think we should be getting annoyed about CRT for describing the situation in terms of race, it's reasonable given the context. — Judaka

I think that there is a difference between defining the problem in terms of race and defining a class of people as problematic based on belonging to a category. Unless they are billionaires or war criminals; that's okay.

And sorry, Jack, Banno dragged me into this. I'll ask a mod to delete this shit.

I must have hit a nerve. If you are so well read then why don't you actually engage me in that thread? Put me in my place, maybe?

At least I don't namedrop Zizek to sound well-read. And do you really need to give me shit in unrelated threads?

And there you go, dodging out of any meaningful conversation. Have fun!

Now that you have been bequeathed the title of debater this should be easy to demolish me.

Okay, my bad. Now do you want to address something or are you going to offer another quibble (which is all you seem to do)?

I'll have to read into it.

Talk of rights in liberal theory since Rawls has moved on to talk of opportunity and access. The discussion of a supposed freedom to post lies is worthy of further consideration. But pivotal here is the failure to recognise white privilege, together with the the failure to present any alternative politic.

But it's all parochial stuff; 'merican middle-class male dominance. — Banno

Quite frankly it sounds like you skimmed the OP. I literally acknowledge that white supremacy is a thing by claiming that CRT is partially right imo. And I provided an example of censorship even if it wasn't of people on the right. Furthermore, I wasn't laying out a grand scheme for some sort of all-encompassing politic but rather just providing a pretty mild criticism and attempting to start a conversation. You contribute so little for having such a high opinion of yourself.

Well, then what explains all the successful AAs and Asians and Indians as well as all the poor white people? — synthesis

I'm a little confused; how is that relevant? I'm asking you to recognize that people of color - even the supposedly unsuccessful ones - often times are hard workers that are struggling with the effects of a history of oppression. Just because this is a trend doesn't mean that it is the case for all of them.

I am belittling nobody as I have been around a lot of very successful people of all colors. — synthesis

Another statement typically squawked with repetition. The success of some doesn't mean that there are not serious disadvantages that cannot be merely overcome with wholesome family values, a respect for authority, and hard work. Or whatever you want to call it; its all the same.

There is no doubt in my mind that the AA community will come into its own within the next couple of generations. — synthesis

And they will have benefited little from attitudes like yours.

Thanks for participating in the thread. You seem pretty reasonable to me. :up:

Aren’t race-conscious policies and quotas a form of exclusionary, institutional racism? It seems to me if we want to rid the system of embedded racism we should first start by refusing to institute it. — NOS4A2

They are, but a proponent of CRT would probably argue that it is the only way to correct existing institutional racism, so it is justified.

For instance, at the moment, white farmers are suing the federal government of the US because they are excluded from debt relief programs due to the fact of their skin color, and by no other measure. I think this is wrong for the same reason it is wrong to exclude any other race. How can it be said that this combats inequality? — NOS4A2

That is obviously stupid. I certainly wouldn't advocate for that. But then again I'm not exactly a proponent of CRT. I just think it has some useful applications.

I agree, it is a bit nebulous, and has the potential to be commandeered or misused, but I don't see liberalism solving the issues of racial inequality plaguing our society, although I understand, like I say in the OP, that certain rights cannot be relinquished, and that a respect for some enlightenment values is paramount. For example, to quote Chomsky: there are precisely two positions on free speech: you are either for it or against it. Any reasonable progressive is a proponent of free speech/free press while also recognizing that there is racial inequality and that fake news probably contributes to it. As to whether or not it is part of a Chinese plot: I think that the conditions of US academia are wholly sufficient for producing and propagating CRT, with all of its flaws.

AAs need to get their communities together and do what the Asians did, work their asses off. — synthesis

Has it ever occurred to you that many people of color are hard-working yet are not doing well financially because of external disadvantages? Maybe from a long history of differential treatment?

CRT is crazy. It is Maoist cultural revolution kind of stuff. — synthesis

Sounds like you enjoy soundbites almost as much as belittling people of color whom you deem unsuccessful.

here are no ideal situations. Again, the best you can hope for is that your society works towards particular goals. Look at the difference in opportunity afforded to AAs in 1960 v. 2021. It's night and day.

You can not throw out the good because you want the perfect. — synthesis

But taking strides toward eliminating racial inequality does not constitute throwing out the good; no one suffers unduly from activism, quotas, or racially conscious policies. The people of color who are doing well won't do worse because another black congresswoman is elected. And yes, opportunity exists, but obviously we do not have true equality of opportunity, and if CRT is the way to it, so be it - it just needs to be kept in check.

Their attempts to attack it in this sweeping way will fail , I believe, because we’re moving into a post-marxist era where the best concepts from Marx, Critical theory and post-modernism are usurping Enlightenment liberalism as the new ground of political
thought. — Joshs

You have to admit though - the whole whiteness being a valuable property thing is very janky. And I think that enlightenment liberalism can coexist with the best concepts of the academic schools of thought you mention - although I am not that well read on them, I must admit.

Thanks for the reply.

I fear CRT is the direct descendant of the old racism rather than its opposition. The idea that wider American society constitutes “white supremacy”, as if no other hand but a white one could influence it, change it, or benefit from it, is not only manifestly false debilitating to those who believe it. And the notion of viewing the world through a “racial lens”, which is common to all racists, is frightening given that such a pseudoscientific framework has led to injustice and atrocity, as it must. — NOS4A2

I get that it might seem like CRT is repackaged racism, but many of the race-conscious policies that are being pushed for are being pushed to combat inequality, not increase it, and if we need to have, for example, quotas, to achieve maximum equality of opportunity, I'm fine with that; some inequality in the short term might lead to a more equitable outcome in the long. And I think that proponents of CRT don't think only white people have the power, but rather that they have a disproportionate share of it due to pervasive racism embedded in our institutions and such.

CRT only atm. I'll have to do some more reading.

I agree, but we do not have maximum opportunity, and it doesn't look like equal rights is going to get us there any time soon.

Oh god, oh Jesus, oh sweet baby Jesus, I'm just being trolled, thank god.

Well, if a woman grabs you by the crotch and you don't like it - I guess you aren't a real man.

I don't see how a real man can claim he was sexually assaulted by a girl's kiss. — Gregory

That is pretty fucked up, dude. A real man?

I don't really know how homosexuals and lesbians are. I don't really understand them well. — Gregory

Seriously? They are exactly the same as everyone else; they are just primates with pretty standard preferences attempting to lead happy lives; they aren't aliens.

Women and men are different; lot of people want to say they are exactly the same apart from body, but that's just ridiculous — Gregory

If there are mental differences, and I will admit there might be some slight ones, they aren't meaningful enough to treat men and women any differently. In your kissing example it very much would be sexual assault for the woman to kiss a man without permission.

Punishment is supposed to try to save the soul of the criminal — Gregory

That is exactly not what punishment is about. Rehabilitation is more about that (or something like that; I don't - and many others don't - believe in souls).



Sorry for not reading all of the pages of comments. That gets a little cumbersome. Didn't mean to take you out of context.

For many atheists, however, who are not connoisseurs of fine philosophy, atheism is the denial of the existence of god, even if the more educated ones might describe it as a lack of belief identical to what you outline. In fact - most have no idea what

¬X — Amalac

even means. But yeah, you are right on. :point:

Leave the woman alone, ffs. — Manuel

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with this kind of stuff. And I don't know why this thread just got popular, it's like a year old.

The only people I called Nazis was, firstly, you because you did not hesitate to say "I'd be perfectly willing to kill a pre-sentient foetus". — Gregory

It never hurts a conversation to cell your interlocutor a nazi :up: .

How is a frozen embryo a child, let alone a person (philosophically)? If it isn't a person it isn't murder, it is just killing. Furthermore, if you believe that an embryo is a potentially valuable being then you must also believe that the pre-inseminated ovum and semen constitute a person, if the ovum is going to be inseminated. That is patently absurd, and yields the conclusion that contraception, or a failure to inseminate the ovum, is murder. Even further, if you believe that the embryo has value because it can develop into a sentient, conscious, etc. being and therefore should be carried to term, then you must maintain that we should bring into existence as many of these valuable beings as we can. So do you believe that we should just breed tons of happy cows? Or all have scads of children, despite the fact that they might live in sub-par conditions due to a lack of resources? Should we raid the freezers and inseminate all of those ova? You might say no, but to not do so is tantamount to murder according to you.

That's a circular definition as you've included the word 'determined'. — Bartricks

That is an idiotic assertion. The word derives itself from the concept in the definition. That's like calling the definition of ornithology circular for having "the science of watching birds" in it.

Essentially I'm saying this: you claim all of the factors that affect our character, and thus actions, are external to the will. One of those elements, our initial character, if it is to be out of our control, must be the result of factors outside of our character that can be identified with a state of the world. Furthermore, if this state of the world is fixed as a function of previous states of the world that originate with a specific state of the world at some time t, and it would have to be if it were determined, then determinism must be true.

You might ask "well what's to say that it's determined?" Well, if all the external factors that dictate one's character after they have come into existence due to external forces are fixed, and are the only external forces, then why would they not be fixed before those external forces created us? Being created by external forces you have nothing to do with does not dictate a change in the laws of physics in the past - or whether or not it was necessary that it would rain last Monday.

If my reasoning here is faulty just say so.

If said state of the universe is necessarily the result of previous states, and it would have to be for your character to be predetermined, then it seems to follow that determinism is true. — ToothyMaw

correction: later states of the world can be seen as fixing earlier states of the world; I'm no physicist.

If said state of the universe is necessarily the result of previous states, and it would have to be for your character to be predetermined, then it seems to follow that determinism is true. — ToothyMaw

What I'm saying here is that at some specific way things were in the past at a time t, we can say that what ensues from there that results in one's initial character is fixed as a matter of natural law - in other words predetermined. This follows from the definition of determinism used by the SEP:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

I assume you will dispute my definition of determinism