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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 3:18 amNote the inherent tribal "us vs them" impulse within the human species.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:13 pm 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,
Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer 2nd ed wrote:"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."
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.
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:
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.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?]