Bad News Thread

Grace T. said:
If you believe in "colorblindness" then you fundamentally disagree with what those pushing CRT (and their associated fellow traveler philosophies, whatever wants to call them these days) are saying. They'd say your colorblindness is actually racism, because you are ignoring certain historical and systemic systems of oppression that oppress people of color. Colorblindness merely serves as a way for white people to get others to ignore the oppression of people of color because if we can't see color, we can't acknowledge the grievances. MLK/colorblindness is a modernist principle of equality. The post modernists CRT & others want to see race because that's the only way to tear down the system of oppression and create equity (which is different than equality). They are 2 fundamentally different ways of viewing the world.
Click to expand...
Maybe you could explain to hound what he is missing about CRT?
 
Grace T. said:
If you believe in "colorblindness" then you fundamentally disagree with what those pushing CRT (and their associated fellow traveler philosophies, whatever wants to call them these days) are saying. They'd say your colorblindness is actually racism, because you are ignoring certain historical and systemic systems of oppression that oppress people of color. Colorblindness merely serves as a way for white people to get others to ignore the oppression of people of color because if we can't see color, we can't acknowledge the grievances. MLK/colorblindness is a modernist principle of equality. The post modernists CRT & others want to see race because that's the only way to tear down the system of oppression and create equity (which is different than equality). They are 2 fundamentally different ways of viewing the world.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "those pushing CRT"?
 
Grace T. said:
As usual, you pull a Magoo and the point goes sailing right past you. Nazism is to fascism as fuchsia is to red. It has some elements of red but also some elements of purple and pink too.
Click to expand...

your attempt to dismiss my point with ad hominems only demonstrates the paucity of your position.
 
espola said:
your attempt to dismiss my point with ad hominems only demonstrates the paucity of your position.
Click to expand...
I didn't just dismiss it. I responded to it by saying your analogy missed the point, which is typical of you, which is why we call you Magoo and I set up the proper analogy.
 
espola said:
Based on her recent postings, she doesn't get it either.
Click to expand...

I think the label CRT isn't particularly useful, particularly given the deliberate shell game ("it's not CRT!") going on with the left right now. I prefer post-modernist racial theories. Not leveling a critique here of them either (though I am as modernist as a modernist can get). The critique doesn't really interest me. It's purely a philosophical exercise for me as to where all these lines of thought relate to one another, where they come from through historical trends, and why they have a hard time seeing passed one another. it's an academic, not a political, exercise for me.
 
Grace T. said:
If you believe in "colorblindness" then you fundamentally disagree with what those pushing CRT (and their associated fellow traveler philosophies, whatever wants to call them these days) are saying. They'd say your colorblindness is actually racism, because you are ignoring certain historical and systemic systems of oppression that oppress people of color. Colorblindness merely serves as a way for white people to get others to ignore the oppression of people of color because if we can't see color, we can't acknowledge the grievances. MLK/colorblindness is a modernist principle of equality. The post modernists CRT & others want to see race because that's the only way to tear down the system of oppression and create equity (which is different than equality). They are 2 fundamentally different ways of viewing the world.
Click to expand...
I guess some people see things in terms of "sides", I don't. Those people try to define things in terms that set you on a side, or guilt you to a side, but I'm not bothered by their definitions, never mind where their definitions might put me in their heads.

I like to think that I can look at something objectively and come to my conclusion of right/wrong. That's all I got, my conclusion. I can try to explain it and others can agree or not, or just ignore me.

I'm not someone else's label though. So colorblind, to me, just means people. If it means something else to someone else, then OK - that's them.
 
Grace T. said:
fine: amended to read "those who believe in CRT (and their associated fellow traeler philosophies, whatever wants to call them these days) are saying."
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "believe in CRT"?

Reminds of people who argued with thermometers, right here on this forum (or, more accurately, one of its predecessor incarnations).
 
Grace T. said:
I didn't just dismiss it. I responded to it by saying your analogy missed the point, which is typical of you, which is why we call you Magoo and I set up the proper analogy.
Click to expand...

You can call me all the names you want, but that doesn't make your statement any truer.
 
whatithink said:
I guess some people see things in terms of "sides", I don't. Those people try to define things in terms that set you on a side, or guilt you to a side, but I'm not bothered by their definitions, never mind where their definitions might put me in their heads.

I like to think that I can look at something objectively and come to my conclusion of right/wrong. That's all I got, my conclusion. I can try to explain it and others can agree or not, or just ignore me.

I'm not someone else's label though. So colorblind, to me, just means people. If it means something else to someone else, then OK - that's them.
Click to expand...
Oh let me be clear in case I've been misunderstood. I wasn't talking about "sides". The philosophical pyramid is a pyramid of ways of looking at the world. People can be all over the place, though some, like Trump, Thatcher, Stalin, or Franco might have isms named after them if they make a large enough historical impact. I was talking about the colored glasses through which you and everyone else view the world. If you really believe in colorblindness, odds are you are a modernist. That view will dictate how you come to your conclusions or right/wrong but ultimately you are right, they are your conclusions, since outside of a handful of true believers and historical figures, no one really is just an ism.

The pyramid is centuries older than you and reflects the way western (and by that virtue, former colonial) societies have been shaped and has been evolved (Asia is a separate fascinating discussion....it has its own figure which folks have been arguing about for decades now, in part because its been tainted by the influence of western philosophies). It has its origins in the Renaissance and was given shape in the French revolution (where Jacobinism, monarchism, and liberalism definitively split into different visions of what the world should be and then even turned on each other [fighting for example over whether the otters should control the answer to the great question]). But yeah, while you are an individual and have your individual thoughts and ideas, the pyramid influences how you view your world and come to those conclusions (whether you like it or not).
 
espola said:
Based on her recent postings, she doesn't get it either.
Click to expand...

Grace T. said:
I think the label CRT isn't particularly useful, particularly given the deliberate shell game ("it's not CRT!") going on with the left right now. I prefer post-modernist racial theories. Not leveling a critique here of them either (though I am as modernist as a modernist can get). The critique doesn't really interest me. It's purely a philosophical exercise for me as to where all these lines of thought relate to one another, where they come from through historical trends, and why they have a hard time seeing passed one another. it's an academic, not a political, exercise for me.
Click to expand...

q.e.d.

That wasn't even hard, since she did the work for me.
 
espola said:
What do you mean by "believe in CRT"?

Reminds of people who argued with thermometers, right here on this forum (or, more accurately, one of its predecessor incarnations).
Click to expand...
It's not important to me. Which is why I have the expanded paren afterwards and why I prefer the term post modernist racial theory.
 
espola said:
q.e.d.

That wasn't even hard, since she did the work for me.
Click to expand...

You seem to think I'm trying to level a critique of CRT or something. Again, I'm not. CRT doesn't really interest me. It's just a very small subset of postmodernist thought. Again, my interests aren't political, but academic.
 
Grace T. said:
So no critique on the substance. Got it.
Click to expand...

I already gave you the first line. You responded by calling me names, dulling my enthusiasm to proceed further.

I don't have the inclination or the time right now to condense more than 5 centuries of European history into a single paragraph. I'll have more time next week (catsitting for my daughter (I hope she has A/C))
 
Grace T. said:
You seem to think I'm trying to level a critique of CRT or something. Again, I'm not. CRT doesn't really interest me. It's just a very small subset of postmodernist thought. Again, my interests aren't political, but academic.
Click to expand...

You use the term in the same manner as, for example, Tucker Carlson does. Do you mean the same thing he does by it?
 
espola said:
You use the term in the same manner as, for example, Tucker Carlson does. Do you mean the same thing he does by it?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen what Tucker Carlson said about CRT. Again, its not a topic that interests me. CRT has a very defined and limited explanation. What seems to be going on though is the right is labelling every racial theory as "CRT" in an attempt to create a boogeyman, even though such racial theory may not technically be CRT. But the left is doing the same and saying "oh we aren't pushing CRT....CRT is this very specific thing...we just want to make sure history talks about racism", which is a disingenuous shell game since they aren't just pushing facts about historical racism but very specific philosophies (there's more than 1 at play here but they are all related) related to how to view the world through a post-modernist framework.
 
espola said:
What do you mean by "post modernist racial theory"?
Click to expand...

I'll respond the same as you did: I'm very busy right now and don't have the time to condense more than 5 centuries of western philosophical discourse into a several pages long treatise. The division is very broad and impacts things like religion, art, music and architecture as well. I posted a good summary a while back (I think from city journal) but it itself is like 40 pages long. If you a really interested, go look for it. Or, Jordan Peterson has some pretty good lectures on the stuff (I don't like it when he gets into politics, but his philosophy is pretty solid). If you were more agreeable of a person I would offer to have a long discussion on the evolution over tea some day, but frankly you are a disagreeable person who gets his jollyies over trolling, and whose breadth of thought (while it might have been formidable once) is very limited now, so no thanks. So I'll leave you with a thumbnail: various philosophies of thought which emphasize racial equity instead of equality and rooted in the belief that the world operates through systems of racial oppression having a basis in the evolution of post-modernist thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top