Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Just to make it easier to follow.

June 2020 ADL definition: "Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another."

September 2020 ADL definition: "The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people."

Yes, it is ridiculous.

+1 I dont even understand the point of changing the definition of racism. We all know what it is, definition 1 above. Anyone can be racist. If you want to invent a new term about marginalization that specifically affects black people, call it something else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Just to make it easier to follow.

June 2020 ADL definition: "Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another."

September 2020 ADL definition: "The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people."

Yes, it is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:DP. Just to make it easier to follow.

June 2020 ADL definition: "Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another."

September 2020 ADL definition: "The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

Webster's collegiate dictionary, tenth edition copyright 1995 (sitting on my shelf) defines racism as:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

This definition has fallen out of fashion, as the current definition is more like prejudice plus power

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Or you could, I don't know, spend 5 seconds googling the word "racism" if you're unclear what it means.

Every person knows what racism is. It follows from the golden rule, do to others what you would have them do to you. It is part of out tradition of equality under the rule of law etc.

The CRT proponents are dishonest because they use this universally accepted foundation to push for preferential treatment for *some* minorities they deem in need of help from the state. The equality principle of the golden rule is replaced with equity, typically just to cover a selfish interest in profiting from the good intent or guilt tripping of others. Look no further than the murky finances of BLM, to get a glimpse of splurging on lavish mansions under the guise of fighting racism. At least the public is waking up to this ruse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

Webster's collegiate dictionary, tenth edition copyright 1995 (sitting on my shelf) defines racism as:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

This definition has fallen out of fashion, as the current definition is more like prejudice plus power

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Or you could, I don't know, spend 5 seconds googling the word "racism" if you're unclear what it means.

Anonymous wrote:It's banned on public property

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

Webster's collegiate dictionary, tenth edition copyright 1995 (sitting on my shelf) defines racism as:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

This definition has fallen out of fashion, as the current definition is more like prejudice plus power

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

Webster's collegiate dictionary, tenth edition copyright 1995 (sitting on my shelf) defines racism as:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

This definition has fallen out of fashion, as the current definition is more like prejudice plus power

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread seems to have largely come down to is semantics... some people want to define racism as basically anything race-based and tend to focus on specific examples involving individuals in different scenarios, others think the term has an inherent distinction based on power structure and systems, and they tend to focus a bit more on macro outcomes and aggregate impacts for entire large groups in society.

The argument for the former seems more accessible and intuitive as "common sense" to the average layperson (especially-but-not-exclusively the average white layperson), while the latter is a bit more academic and nuanced (nothing wrong with that, some people see "academic" as a negative term but I certainly don't mean it that way... if anything I'm personally more predisposed to be skeptical of anything that people claim is "common sense").

The other big issue I see is that some folks seem to carry the false assumption that addressing the former is sufficient to resolve the latter.

Or it’s all self interested BS. If in order to “understand” CRT, you need to take a class, then it’s worthless.

1) Don't need to take a class. 2) Even if you did, do you think all things that one needs to take a class to understand are worthless, or is this a special exception?

People that are skeptical if common sense need to get a real job, in a business that has customers by selling services and products.

No. Employment has nothing to do with this. I happen to work for a business that sells services to customers, and while we do ok and have been operating for many years, nevertheless our ability to stay in business relies almost exclusively on our ability to keep those customers happy and returning. We screw that up and we're all going to be looking for work in short order. What does that have to do with this conversation?

What one considers "common sense" is usually very dependent on the experiences of that individual, and typically when it comes to political discussions is used as a shorthand to remain willfully ignorant of complexity and nuance around a topic or to learn and absorb new information that might run contrary to their ingrained predispositions.

Heck, even Einstein characterized common sense as nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen.

And here's a good exploration of some of the issues of an appeal to "common sense": https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense

You contradict yourself. On one hand you say classes aren’t needed, on the other there seem to be large swaths if the general population, in particular republican sympathizers making about half of voters, that don’t understand what CRT really is.

Nothing wrong to take classes to understand and learn about a field of knowledge in more detail. We do that all the time with math, science, languages etc. in all these cases one learns about an objective truth, math is what it is, physics can be verified etc. The problem with CRT is that it is teaching a mode of understanding truth, or what they call a lens through which to see society. It builds upon concepts like whiteness, intersectionality, group privilege etc. that to the uninitiated seem odd and far out there, not to mention in direct conflict with the social foundations of individual rights and responsibility, equality etc.

To base policy on CRT is not only controversial (how would such a policy look like, affirmative action on steroids?), but also impractical, a political suicide and in my view also immoral.

Employment has a lot to do with it. CRT originates in ivory tower Marxist grievance studies academic circles, that simply create their own scholarship, and provide little benefit to society. They are generally rejected by the public, and rightfully so.

None of that requires a class, just a willingness to do a bit of reading with a sincere open mind to consider (not necessarily accept) the points being made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread seems to have largely come down to is semantics... some people want to define racism as basically anything race-based and tend to focus on specific examples involving individuals in different scenarios, others think the term has an inherent distinction based on power structure and systems, and they tend to focus a bit more on macro outcomes and aggregate impacts for entire large groups in society.

The argument for the former seems more accessible and intuitive as "common sense" to the average layperson (especially-but-not-exclusively the average white layperson), while the latter is a bit more academic and nuanced (nothing wrong with that, some people see "academic" as a negative term but I certainly don't mean it that way... if anything I'm personally more predisposed to be skeptical of anything that people claim is "common sense").

The other big issue I see is that some folks seem to carry the false assumption that addressing the former is sufficient to resolve the latter.

Or it’s all self interested BS. If in order to “understand” CRT, you need to take a class, then it’s worthless.

1) Don't need to take a class. 2) Even if you did, do you think all things that one needs to take a class to understand are worthless, or is this a special exception?

People that are skeptical if common sense need to get a real job, in a business that has customers by selling services and products.

No. Employment has nothing to do with this. I happen to work for a business that sells services to customers, and while we do ok and have been operating for many years, nevertheless our ability to stay in business relies almost exclusively on our ability to keep those customers happy and returning. We screw that up and we're all going to be looking for work in short order. What does that have to do with this conversation?

What one considers "common sense" is usually very dependent on the experiences of that individual, and typically when it comes to political discussions is used as a shorthand to remain willfully ignorant of complexity and nuance around a topic or to learn and absorb new information that might run contrary to their ingrained predispositions.

Heck, even Einstein characterized common sense as nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen.

And here's a good exploration of some of the issues of an appeal to "common sense": https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense

You contradict yourself. On one hand you say classes aren’t needed, on the other there seem to be large swaths if the general population, in particular republican sympathizers making about half of voters, that don’t understand what CRT really is.

Nothing wrong to take classes to understand and learn about a field of knowledge in more detail. We do that all the time with math, science, languages etc. in all these cases one learns about an objective truth, math is what it is, physics can be verified etc. The problem with CRT is that it is teaching a mode of understanding truth, or what they call a lens through which to see society. It builds upon concepts like whiteness, intersectionality, group privilege etc. that to the uninitiated seem odd and far out there, not to mention in direct conflict with the social foundations of individual rights and responsibility, equality etc.

To base policy on CRT is not only controversial (how would such a policy look like, affirmative action on steroids?), but also impractical, a political suicide and in my view also immoral.

Employment has a lot to do with it. CRT originates in ivory tower Marxist grievance studies academic circles, that simply create their own scholarship, and provide little benefit to society. They are generally rejected by the public, and rightfully so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

Webster's collegiate dictionary, tenth edition copyright 1995 (sitting on my shelf) defines racism as:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

This definition has fallen out of fashion, as the current definition is more like prejudice plus power

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

It's certainly a generational difference, but I don't think its the dominant usage yet. Give it another 20 years though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

Webster's collegiate dictionary, tenth edition copyright 1995 (sitting on my shelf) defines racism as:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

This definition has fallen out of fashion, as the current definition is more like prejudice plus power

That’s why you need a class for CRT, to learn the “updated” meaning of the words in English language.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

Webster's collegiate dictionary, tenth edition copyright 1995 (sitting on my shelf) defines racism as:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

This definition has fallen out of fashion, as the current definition is more like prejudice plus power