Critical Race Theory?

[ADigitalArtist]

That doesn't sound like a common definition at all. where did THAT come from?

Not only is it a common definition but it's become political satire at this point. Classical liberalism, which many center-right democrats and center-right republicans coopt in the US, is a sea of 'extreme centricism' which ends up getting absolutely nothing done in the name of 'anti-extremism' and so just push the status quo. It's full of golden mean fallacies and putting off actual social progress in the name of 'the US just isn't ready for that yet.' Including things the classical liberals purportedly agree on, like universal healthcare or universal basic income or even gay marriage back before it was politically safe on either side to be pro-gay marriage.

You can see this when any 'classical liberal' tries to court votes. They say 'universal healthcare alienates moderate voters' despite that it's broadly popular. They aren't left and they don't want to move left. They're center-right at best.

 

[icehorse]

This is what I like to call the "Good King fallacy" - arguments that major social problems can be solved if only a sufficiently good leader implemented reforms and told us what to do correctly, while leaving the socio-economic foundations that caused these problems entirely intact.

Some pretty iffy extrapolations there, but it seems there'll be no shifting your opinions.

Needless to say, I am not convinced that the exact socio-economic system that has been the primary cause of our current major global problems is going to play any significant factor in bringing about the solution - or even just the mitigation - of these problems. The idea that we're basically fine and our system only needs a few "tweaks" here and there is precisely what got us into this mess.

When you spin enough, to arrive at strawmen.

Unfortunately, your ideology remains one of the major stumbling blocks to people seeking to affect these changes.

Say more about this?

 

[icehorse]

Not only is it a common definition but it's become political satire at this point. Classical liberalism, which many center-right democrats and center-right republicans coopt in the US, is a sea of 'extreme centricism' which ends up getting absolutely nothing done in the name of 'anti-extremism' and so just push the status quo. It's full of golden mean fallacies and putting off actual social progress in the name of 'the US just isn't ready for that yet.' Including things the classical liberals purportedly agree on, like universal healthcare or universal basic income or even gay marriage back before it was politically safe on either side to be pro-gay marriage.

You can see this when any 'classical liberal' tries to court votes. They say 'universal healthcare alienates moderate voters' despite that it's broadly popular. They aren't left and they don't want to move left. They're center-right at best.

Are you saying that my post #279 describes "center-right"? Because I sure don't think so.

It seems to me that you're conflating goals with weak attempts at implementation. By no means am I arguing that our so-called leaders know what they're doing. For now I'm limiting myself to goals and values.

 

[Kooky]

It seems to me that you're conflating goals with weak attempts at implementation. By no means am I arguing that our so-called leaders know what they're doing. For now I'm limiting myself to goals and values.

So what is your position on companies being allowed to tell their employees how to behave when on the clock? Are they suppressing their employees freedoms or not? Are these employees free to do and say whatever they want, even if it makes customers or coworkers profoundly uncomfortable?

What do your classically liberal values tell you regarding this free speech issue?

 

[icehorse]

So what is your position on companies being allowed to tell their employees how to behave when on the clock? Are they suppressing their employees freedoms or not? Are these employees free to do and say whatever they want, even if it makes customers or coworkers profoundly uncomfortable?

What do your classically liberal values tell you regarding this free speech issue?

Do YOU think that the rules for speech in the commons should be the same as the rules for speech at work that a company might enforce?

 

[Kooky]

Do YOU think that the rules for speech in the commons should be the same as the rules for speech at work that a company might enforce?

I think that our "free speech", such as it is, exists primarily at the sufferance of private companies - be it our employers, or the media companies that mediate our "content" for public consumption.

The "rules" of free speech, therefore, exists primarily to shield these companies from consequences of media speech.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I consider myself to be a "classic liberal" and by that I mean things like affordable healthcare for all, protection for workers (e.g. unions, livable minimum wages), good stewardship of our ecology / environment, a tax system similar to what the U.S. had in the 40s and 50s, a defanging of corporations, a strong infrastructure, high quality, affordable education, and so on.

Aside from pushing higher taxes, little of this describes the platform of classical liberals, which would put free market economy ahead of most of those things. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia Any environmental platform likely to do a damn thing is labeled 'too extreme' and 'in violation of free market.' Classical liberalism is partially how we got into this capitalist hellscape to begin with. I just want to highlight one of the key phrases in that article:

Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from each other and that the purpose of government should be to minimize conflict between individuals that would otherwise arise in a state of nature. These beliefs were complemented by a belief that labourers could be best motivated by financial incentive. This belief led to the passage of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance, based on the idea that markets are the mechanism that most efficiently leads to wealth. Adopting Thomas Robert Malthus's population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, believed population growth would outstrip food production and thus regarded that consequence desirable because starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, believing it would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[11]

This paved the way for allowing wealth hoarding, which in turn allowed easier corporate lobbyists. And since free market was the goal of government in this philosophy, taxes went towards things that were most pro-corporate, such as military contracts and pharmaceutical titans.

 

[icehorse]

Aside from pushing higher taxes, little of this describes the platform of classical liberals, which would put free market economy ahead of most of those things. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia Any environmental platform likely to do a damn thing is labeled 'too extreme' and 'in violation of free market.' Classical liberalism is partially how we got into this capitalist hellscape to begin with. I just want to highlight one of the key phrases in that article:

This paved the way for allowing wealth hoarding, which in turn allowed easier corporate lobbyists. And since free market was the goal of government in this philosophy, taxes went towards things that were most pro-corporate, such as military contracts and pharmaceutical titans.

So perhaps we're just having semantic difficulties. When I say "classic liberal" I mean the list of things I mentioned a few posts back. I suspect my definition applies to more modern thinking, and as such I can see how the term "classic" is confusing. In my case, I mean classic as in "in the last 30 or 40 years or so".

If there is a better term, I'm happy to use it.

 

[icehorse]

I think that our "free speech", such as it is, exists primarily at the sufferance of private companies - be it our employers, or the media companies that mediate our "content" for public consumption.

The "rules" of free speech, therefore, exists primarily to shield these companies from consequences of media speech.

In this very thread, we've all been exercising our free speech rights in ways that would not be safe in many parts of the world.

 

[Kooky]

In this very thread, we've all been exercising our free speech rights in ways that would not be safe in many parts of the world.

Is that supposed to be a refutation of what I said? Because it's really not.

Like all online spaces - and indeed, media space in general - this forum has a limit as to what's allowed to be said and by whom.

Are you going to answer my questions, by the way?

 

[icehorse]

Is that supposed to be a refutation of what I said? Because it's really not.

Like all online spaces - and indeed, media space in general - this forum has a limit as to what's allowed to be said and by whom.

Are you going to answer my questions, by the way?

You know, I've grown weary of your constant snideness, have yourself a fine day.

 

[Friend of Mara]

That's a scary perspective, yikes!

The truth often is!

 

[Kooky]

You know, I've grown weary of your constant snideness, have yourself a fine day.

And once again, you refuse to clarify your own position on the issue. This is becoming a pattern.

 

[Revoltingest]

And once again, you refuse to clarify your own position on the issue. This is becoming a pattern.

It's clear to those of us who read
his posts with intent to understand.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm yet to encounter anyone upset about CRT who can coherently explain what it actually is or what part of the recognised body of work they disagree with. Plenty of bad analogies and strawmen though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have heard and considered all that before I spoke. I think it is a best but insufficient attempt at an explain-away of things some people are uncomfortable with. I believe not currently well understood genetics are a factor after listening to both sides of the debate for decades.

Then you don't know, because you admit it is not known.

Here is my take. I don't know if there are genetic factors, when it comes to race in regards to the value of humans. I treat all humans as having equal value regardless of their genes, because they are all humans.

So here is the end problem: Let us as that for different populations there is a genetic difference in intelligence. What comes next? What follows IFF it is so that there are genetic population differences in intelligence?.

 

[George-ananda]

Then you don't know, because you admit it is not known.

Here is my take. I don't know if there are genetic factors, when it comes to race in regards to the value of humans. I treat all humans as having equal value regardless of their genes, because they are all humans.

I agree about treating all humans as having equal value. But that doesn't imply everyone and every race is exactly the same genetically. Observation and consideration has led me to believe there are indeed some differences.

So here is the end problem: Let us as that for different populations there is a genetic difference in intelligence. What comes next? What follows IFF it is so that there are genetic population differences in intelligence?.

Well I think there are different types of intelligences but ethnic groups are similar enough that there is overlap in the Bell Curves of intelligences.

The policy I support is equal treatment for all. This argue against discrimination AND affirmative action social engineering. Color-blind treatment is what I would promote.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree about treating all humans as having equal value. But that doesn't imply everyone and every race is exactly the same genetically. Observation and consideration has led me to believe there are indeed some differences.
Well I think there are different types of intelligences but ethnic groups are similar enough that there is overlap in the Bell Curves of intelligences.

The policy I support is equal treatment for all. This argue against discrimination AND affirmative action social engineering. Color-blind treatment is what I would promote.

What is a race? Only a scientific definition please.

 

[George-ananda]

What is a race? Only a scientific definition please.

I am using the term as 'more closely related ethnic groups in genetic history'. It is certainly a spectrum without hard boarders.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The policy I support is equal treatment for all. This argue against discrimination AND affirmative action social engineering. Color-blind treatment is what I would promote.

So how do you address existing, entrenched and systemic racism?