CRT: Whiteness is Inherently Evil

[Scott Mayers]

The term "critical" relates to logic, and means any set of points of interest that cause change, not the 'critique' against any specific view in political bias. The Rightwing attempt is to utilize those of us from even the more Leftwing who criticize ANY extreme.

In math, for example, a 'critical' point in graphing refers to significant points of change in which one can use such points to SKETCH a graph based upon a given forumula. The "Critical" in CRT are intended to seek ANY points that affect social conflict in politics or other areas. It is NOT the feminist or racialized affirmative actions involved. It is frustrating in that I initially also used this term in regards to pointing out bad policies appropriately but now cannot because it is now tainted as the very Rightwing fucks intended to do!

The tactic: take general terms of something that includes a side you don't like in some proper subset of the whole, then malign the whole as belonging or "owned" ONLY be the negative side; then innoculate the society from its normal use so that no term remains to REFERENCE the issue at all!

The con is a Straw Man combined more specifically with the Relevance Fallacy,

"Assigning Irrelevant Functions or Goals":

Critizing a policy or program because it does not or would not achieve certain goals it was not designed for.

Example:
Lynn: "Do you think philosophy will ever solve all of our problems?"

Owen: "No, probably not.

Lynn: "Then why are you wasting your time studying it."

Note the inherent tribal "us vs them" impulse within the human species.
Therefore we have the right-wing vs the left-wing.
In this, each tribe will find all sorts of faults [even invent them] to condemn the other.

Initially some traces of CRT [by extreme left wingers] were raised by the average [not extreme] right wingers. Example they brainwashed kids that 'white is evil' and others.
As usual the normal strategy is to find a meme that can be viral and effective for them.
So they came up with the "CRT" meme, thus any inkling related to the issue will be termed "CRT."

When they claimed children are taught "CRT" is not meant to be CRT-proper but rather bits and pieces that are used to brainwash them to be anti-white, anti-GOP, anti-authorities to favor blacks [especially] and other minorities.

However the so-called "anti-CRT" did provide loads of evidences to support their claim that their children are being brainwashed with a certain kind of negative ideology related to CRT.

Those evidences so far had triggered the awareness of parents both from the right and the left.
So now this so called anti-CRT is a 'parents vs the extreme-left-wings' issue with parents trying to prevent the children from being brainwashed to be racists.
This is why the recent Virginia Governor race was won over by a GOP candidate with support from parents from the moderate Democrats.

...........
As I had stated the roots of 'critical' in Critical Race Theory is traceable to Marx who borrow it from Kant.
So 'critical' is not solely about logic as you claimed.
This 'critical' has to be taken from Kant's perspective which is critical thinking with a holistic perspective related the survival human species.

The current attitude of the so called 'CRTists' with their battle-cry call 'white is evil' is obviously divisive in itself; it is an evil idea which is very selfish to merely one group seeking some sort of justice. Such an attitude is not holistic but rather a short-sighted 'band aid' strategy. It is not the sort of critique any Kantian will accept.

The rhetoric against CRT is intended to imunize anyone daring to reference anything ABOUT social concerns ABOUT racism using a label that does NOT fit with those using that label to describe ANY VARIETY of views meant to affect change. As such, it maligns those who actually might be AGREEING to many of the things others are now falsely assigning to it. Thus the fallacy is as stated and saying that they have some "batte-cry call 'white is evil' " by particular sources requires to be directly linked.

What I DO know is that I've challenged things like those who assert that 'white privilege' exists as a shared racial fact by all white people because it is inappropriately speaking FOR all people who have white skin and demonstrates racism itself.

The basic concern is sound: that people are NOT 'racist' overtly but due to indirect actions that are not normally recognized by things we do without realizing it, such as my very own point when I discuss this against those on the Right here that the main contributer to racism is not 'hate' but stong exclusive 'love', ...favoritism...., by things like inherited benefits based upon literal financial inheritance, cultural beliefs like religion or 'heritage' conservations, and the subtle benefits unnoticed as NOT 'universal' by those with stable families when granting their children things like allowances, a right to stay home while not paying rent when getting a job, or the simple gift of one to get their first car or home from parents.

Here is the basic meaning with a note regarding WHICH poltical extreme is leading the misleading rhetoric:

Just what is critical race theory anyway?

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas..

Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts.

CRT also has ties to other intellectual currents, including the work of sociologists and literary theorists who studied links between political power, social organization, and language. And its ideas have since informed other fields, like the humanities, the social sciences, and teacher education.

This academic understanding of critical race theory differs from representation in recent popular books and, especially, from its portrayal by critics—often, though not exclusively, conservative Republicans. Critics charge that the theory leads to negative dynamics, such as a focus on group identity over universal, shared traits; divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups; and urges intolerance.

Thus, there is a good deal of confusion over what CRT means, as well as its relationship to other terms, like “anti-racism” and “social justice,” with which it is often conflated.
[Education Week: What is Critical Race Theory?]

Since the Right defaults an overt favoritism of ones' own based upon "family" ideals, the extremes of those who are of exclusively defined genetic families [with no or absurdly trivial variety of mixed racial offspring] can be implicitly or explicitly segregationist and thus 'racist' by at least their right to exclude others outside their clans and associated religions. These extremists do not welcome the forms of opinion that I just gave regardless of having any influence in actual education areas. So the attack against 'CRT' is intended to trademark all those theories one doesn't like regarding any ideas about race that aren't themselves favoring the Right exclusively, regardless of the fact that the criticism INCLUDES how those on the Left are also using inappropriate FAVORITISM to justify their proactivist offensive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The rhetoric against CRT is intended to imunize anyone daring to reference anything ABOUT social concerns ABOUT racism using a label that does NOT fit with those using that label to describe ANY VARIETY of views meant to affect change. As such, it maligns those who actually might be AGREEING to many of the things others are now falsely assigning to it. Thus the fallacy is as stated and saying that they have some "batte-cry call 'white is evil' " by particular sources requires to be directly linked.

What I DO know is that I've challenged things like those who assert that 'white privilege' exists as a shared racial fact by all white people because it is inappropriately speaking FOR all people who have white skin and demonstrates racism itself.

The basic concern is sound: that people are NOT 'racist' overtly but due to indirect actions that are not normally recognized by things we do without realizing it, such as my very own point when I discuss this against those on the Right here that the main contributer to racism is not 'hate' but stong exclusive 'love', ...favoritism...., by things like inherited benefits based upon literal financial inheritance, cultural beliefs like religion or 'heritage' conservations, and the subtle benefits unnoticed as NOT 'universal' by those with stable families when granting their children things like allowances, a right to stay home while not paying rent when getting a job, or the simple gift of one to get their first car or home from parents.

Here is the basic meaning with a note regarding WHICH poltical extreme is leading the misleading rhetoric:

Just what is critical race theory anyway?

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas..

Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts.

CRT also has ties to other intellectual currents, including the work of sociologists and literary theorists who studied links between political power, social organization, and language. And its ideas have since informed other fields, like the humanities, the social sciences, and teacher education.

This academic understanding of critical race theory differs from representation in recent popular books and, especially, from its portrayal by critics—often, though not exclusively, conservative Republicans. Critics charge that the theory leads to negative dynamics, such as a focus on group identity over universal, shared traits; divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups; and urges intolerance.

Thus, there is a good deal of confusion over what CRT means, as well as its relationship to other terms, like “anti-racism” and “social justice,” with which it is often conflated.
[Education Week: What is Critical Race Theory?]

Since the Right defaults an overt favoritism of ones' own based upon "family" ideals, the extremes of those who are of exclusively defined genetic families [with no or absurdly trivial variety of mixed racial offspring] can be implicitly or explicitly segregationist and thus 'racist' by at least their right to exclude others outside their clans and associated religions. These extremists do not welcome the forms of opinion that I just gave regardless of having any influence in actual education areas. So the attack against 'CRT' is intended to trademark all those theories one doesn't like regarding any ideas about race that aren't themselves favoring the Right exclusively, regardless of the fact that the criticism INCLUDES how those on the Left are also using inappropriate FAVORITISM to justify their proactivist offensive.

Yes Critical Race Theory [CRT] is an academic subject as a subset of 'Critical Theory' that was adopted from Marx's idea who adopted Kant's concept of 'critical'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
The problem is such Critical Theory approach can be easily exploited and abused for selfish interests.

Thus by the time CRT was formulated, the essence of 'critical' was already bastardized by Marx and further corrupted by the likes of Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.
These bastardized and corrupted concept of 'critical' was further degraded by the extreme left to serve their extreme leftist interest without any consideration of the need to be seriously 'critical'.
Thus these extreme leftist merely construct their own evil ideology such a blanket 'white is evil' as a propaganda brainwashed to children in schools and workers via training program.

It is a common counter by some on the left who insist CRT is not taught is schools and the workplace, which is true if this 'CRT' is referenced to it as the Academic Subject.

When those on the right refer to 'CRT' they do not mean is as an academic subject but rather the term 'CRT' was merely used conveniently as an effective meme and flag-waving tool to facilitate and garner support for their intended cause. Surely you understand the purpose of memes.

However while they use the CRT meme, those on the right and the partisan parents do provide specific cases and evidences to justify their claims that something is wrong with what the extreme leftists are doing and brainwashing children and workers.
Btw, are you familiar with all the cases and evidences that are brought up as complains by the "CRT" opposers.

I agree it is wrong to merely oppose 'CRT' without justifications but so far do you have any disagreement with the detailed justifications and evidences [there is a list somewhere] provided by those who oppose the brainwashing of their children or workers.

[Scott Mayers]

Yes Critical Race Theory [CRT] is an academic subject as a subset of 'Critical Theory' that was adopted from Marx's idea who adopted Kant's concept of 'critical'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
The problem is such Critical Theory approach can be easily exploited and abused for selfish interests.

Thus by the time CRT was formulated, the essence of 'critical' was already bastardized by Marx and further corrupted by the likes of Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.
These bastardized and corrupted concept of 'critical' was further degraded by the extreme left to serve their extreme leftist interest without any consideration of the need to be seriously 'critical'.
Thus these extreme leftist merely construct their own evil ideology such a blanket 'white is evil' as a propaganda brainwashed to children in schools and workers via training program.

It is a common counter by some on the left who insist CRT is not taught is schools and the workplace, which is true if this 'CRT' is referenced to it as the Academic Subject.

When those on the right refer to 'CRT' they do not mean is as an academic subject but rather the term 'CRT' was merely used conveniently as an effective meme and flag-waving tool to facilitate and garner support for their intended cause. Surely you understand the purpose of memes.

However while they use the CRT meme, those on the right and the partisan parents do provide specific cases and evidences to justify their claims that something is wrong with what the extreme leftists are doing and brainwashing children and workers.
Btw, are you familiar with all the cases and evidences that are brought up as complains by the "CRT" opposers.

I agree it is wrong to merely oppose 'CRT' without justifications but so far do you have any disagreement with the detailed justifications and evidences [there is a list somewhere] provided by those who oppose the brainwashing of their children or workers.

I've only seen (so far) a panel of Right-wing women pretending to not be 'political' demand that society ban all racist ideals presumably implanted specifically by CRTists. That it is coming from the Right was evident upon the interview I saw on CNN where the two women supposedly creating this movement refused to wear masks or take vaccines and blew up against the doctors asserting their effectiveness as simply 'wrong'.

I know that here in Canada, science textbooks from the 1980s introduced more representation of women and non-white scientists in their 'addition' references of practical examples of significant leaders. I remember wondering why they would do this as though all are equally signficant or relevant. But they were side boxes in texts that serve their purpose: to promote more readers to take up math and science by breaking down stereotypes. The theory of the subjects remained. Was this an example?

Or....opposingly but related to favoring biases, if you are in Canada, you can opt to have your child go to a SEPARATE school system (basically privately "Roman Catholic" run independent of government but gives them a 'voucher'-like free pass of their taxes to be diverted from the general public. That to me is absurdly Right-wing with the pretense of being "Left"-like given we have an alternate 'public' system.

Given the U.S. Rightwingers favors the right to privately segregate their children from the public system, is this SPECIFIC type bias to favor ONE cult based upon Rightwing ideals not show MORE bias than the above example of having more women and non-whites be represented in those side-boxes used only to encourage interest by association?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes Critical Race Theory [CRT] is an academic subject as a subset of 'Critical Theory' that was adopted from Marx's idea who adopted Kant's concept of 'critical'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
The problem is such Critical Theory approach can be easily exploited and abused for selfish interests.

Thus by the time CRT was formulated, the essence of 'critical' was already bastardized by Marx and further corrupted by the likes of Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.
These bastardized and corrupted concept of 'critical' was further degraded by the extreme left to serve their extreme leftist interest without any consideration of the need to be seriously 'critical'.
Thus these extreme leftist merely construct their own evil ideology such a blanket 'white is evil' as a propaganda brainwashed to children in schools and workers via training program.

It is a common counter by some on the left who insist CRT is not taught is schools and the workplace, which is true if this 'CRT' is referenced to it as the Academic Subject.

When those on the right refer to 'CRT' they do not mean is as an academic subject but rather the term 'CRT' was merely used conveniently as an effective meme and flag-waving tool to facilitate and garner support for their intended cause. Surely you understand the purpose of memes.

However while they use the CRT meme, those on the right and the partisan parents do provide specific cases and evidences to justify their claims that something is wrong with what the extreme leftists are doing and brainwashing children and workers.
Btw, are you familiar with all the cases and evidences that are brought up as complains by the "CRT" opposers.

I agree it is wrong to merely oppose 'CRT' without justifications but so far do you have any disagreement with the detailed justifications and evidences [there is a list somewhere] provided by those who oppose the brainwashing of their children or workers.

I've only seen (so far) a panel of Right-wing women pretending to not be 'political' demand that society ban all racist ideals presumably implanted specifically by CRTists. That it is coming from the Right was evident upon the interview I saw on CNN where the two women supposedly creating this movement refused to wear masks or take vaccines and blew up against the doctors asserting their effectiveness as simply 'wrong'.

The point re Covid, masks and vaccines are off topic.

Re CRT, whatever the Right-wing or any other women complained about the related racists matters, they must support it with evidences. If they don't have evidences, then it is pointless to consider their views.

I know that here in Canada, science textbooks from the 1980s introduced more representation of women and non-white scientists in their 'addition' references of practical examples of significant leaders. I remember wondering why they would do this as though all are equally signficant or relevant. But they were side boxes in texts that serve their purpose: to promote more readers to take up math and science by breaking down stereotypes. The theory of the subjects remained. Was this an example?

As far as science is concern there should not be compromised for the sake of colors. Science facts are based on verified evidences regardless of what the color of the scientists.

Or....opposingly but related to favoring biases, if you are in Canada, you can opt to have your child go to a SEPARATE school system (basically privately "Roman Catholic" run independent of government but gives them a 'voucher'-like free pass of their taxes to be diverted from the general public. That to me is absurdly Right-wing with the pretense of being "Left"-like given we have an alternate 'public' system.

Education is very serious matter to individual and humanity.
As such the authority must provide good education to students.
If they failed, then parents can take options to have better education for their children regardless any color consideration.

Given the U.S. Rightwingers favors the right to privately segregate their children from the public system, is this SPECIFIC type bias to favor ONE cult based upon Rightwing ideals not show MORE bias than the above example of having more women and non-whites be represented in those side-boxes used only to encourage interest by association?

If the segregation is due to color and not based on the merits of education, then that is wrong.
But the problem is in general the public education system in most countries at present do not provide a good standard of education and can easily be infected with extremist ideas.
If the standard of education provided by the authorities of high or even slightly above average there is no need for private schools at all and they should be banned with some exceptions for justified special cases.

[Immanuel Can]

There IS no such thing as "whiteness," except as a descriptor of pigment.

The Earth is round. It always has been. And yes, that is trivial. But there are many people who assert that the Earth is flat. Flat-Earthers are real. To the question "Are there Flat-Earthers?", the reply "The Earth is round—Get over it" is not an honest answer.

So it is with White Supremacists and their doctrine of whiteness.

No, the question is not, "Are there idiots who believe in race?" Of course there are: even if it turns out that there are no others, there are CRTers themselves.

However, it's not about what any group of idiots may believe, whether on the right or the left...it's whether those idiots believe in anything that is, in reality, more than merely idiotic.

Here, the answer is "No."

[Nick_A]

How long will it be until the CRT experts in lunacy come together to decide that chess is a racist game? The rules of chess demand that the white forces move first asserting their superiority. The black forces being forced to respond are actually demeaned to a defensive response. How racist can they be?

The issue will be debated in congress and it will be agreed that for the next fifty years, all chess games will begin with black moving first to achieve fairness. All games will be recorded on computer to assure the rules are strictly followed. Attempts to return to the old ways will be fined.

After fifty years only tournament chess will be allowed. Each match will be twelve games. A coin flip determines if black or white move first on the first game. After that black and white alternate until one side wins by two games. Chess will become the first game to receive recognition as the ultimate in stupidity and PC correctness.

[promethean75]

Not only that, but also note that the black king by default wears the Christian cross on his crown instead of a voodoo doll. More proof of European religious tyranny. The African Inquisition.

[Immanuel Can]

Not only that, but also note that the black king by default wears the Christian cross on his crown instead of a voodoo doll. More proof of European religious tyranny. The African Inquisition.

Yes. And "pawns" are either slaves or serfs...so the whole thing is feudal and pro-slavery, as well. And the less said about religous exclusivity and the two "bishops," the better.

[promethean75]

Holy shit I wonder what the pieces would be if chess were just now invented in the 21rst century.

King = president
Queen = first lady
Bishop = christian evangelist
Knight= press secretary
Rook = secret service admin
Pawns = working class tax payers

[commonsense]

Nick, prome, IC:

Sometimes an argument ad absurdium is just that—absurd. Hope you are having a laugh.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nick, prome, IC:

Sometimes an argument ad absurdium is just that—absurd. Hope you are having a laugh.

It's no more absurd than the crap we are being fed today. Not a bad analogy actually. One thing the internet has made painfully clear is how stupid and gullible most people are-- incapable of anything more complex or deep than 'black or white' thought processes (and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum, making them two sides of the same coin).

[promethean75]

Yeah yer totally right. It never really wuz about racism in amnerika. That's not what the negrolopithecus is so angry about. Rather what's happening is western history is at a very peculiar, very strenuous stage in its process of auto-correcting a terrible decision made hundreds of years ago by crapitalists of the new world. The importation of African slaves was the absolutely worst way to bring foreigners into your country. Like they couldn't have fucked it up worse. It was an epic fail. And now, we are at the very turbulent end-point of three hundred years of forced integration and everything that comes with that. What keeps dragging this process out is the crapitalist system, because it continually produces and reproduces the circumstances that make it incredibly difficult for the negrolopithecus to steady itself as part of the middle class. One third of them are in prison, one third of them are in the hood, and the rest is split up between small hair salon owners, underpaid workers, and overpaid atheletes and cRap artists.

I mean sure, many a white person are racist, but that's not the driving force behind the negrolopithecus' discontent. The driving forces are the systemic institutions of crapitalism. But cha'll ain't tryna hear that, so....

C'mon, Karl. These folks ain't ready yet.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yeah yer totally right. It never really wuz about racism in amnerika. That's not what the negrolopithecus is so angry about. Rather what's happening is western history is at a very peculiar, very strenuous stage in its process of auto-correcting a terrible decision made hundreds of years ago by crapitalists of the new world. The importation of African slaves was the absolutely worst way to bring foreigners into your country. Like they couldn't have fucked it up worse. It was an epic fail. And now, we are at the very turbulent end-point of three hundred years of forced integration and everything that comes with that. What keeps dragging this process out is the crapitalist system, because it continually produces and reproduces the circumstances that make it incredibly difficult for the negrolopithecus to steady itself as part of the middle class. One third of them are in prison, one third of them are in the hood, and the rest is split up between small hair salon owners, underpaid workers, and overpaid atheletes and cRap artists.

I mean sure, many a white person are racist, but that's not the driving force behind the negrolopithecus' discontent. The driving forces are the systemic institutions of crapitalism. But cha'll ain't tryna hear that, so....

C'mon, Karl. These folks ain't ready yet.

A lot of EVERY kind of people are 'racist' (whatever 'racist' means these days). Why do people talk as if the US is the ONLY country that ever had slavery? Jamaica was far more actively into it. How many peoples have NOT had slavery (either of their own people or others they have conqurered)?
Basically, slaves are only an unpaid workforce. All those people at Walmart who get $4 an hour are practically slaves. The US has a huge (mostly black) unpaid prison workforce--modern day slavery. A very big and lucrative industry. Some thing never change.

[promethean75]

Oh absolutely. It's an anachronism of what Weber called the 'in-group - out-group' phenomena that existed before man had a scientific understanding of genetics. Unfortunately many people today are still at the level of cavemen in their assessment of other 'races'.

Him brown, me white. Attack!

[promethean75]

"Some things never change."

Exactly. This dude one time was like 'hey little boy, you can't go where the others go, 'cause you don't look like they do'.

And I was like 'hey old man how can you stand to think that way? Did you really think about it before you made the rules?'