Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,412
2,223
118
Country
United States
So, how do you think social justice-y types would broadly respond if someone were to start pushing on the fact that by most measures of criminal justice inequality men are are worse off than women, often by a larger margin than the racial one (the two notably "stack" - that is both apply meaning that specifically black men get screwed the worst by the system while white women [especially young and/or pretty ones] get handled with kid gloves). And that accordingly maybe we should be looking at how the system treats men, given they're a much larger cohort subject to similar or worse treatment in most cases? Give you a hint, from experience the result is a whole lot of arguing how any given criminal justice statistic split by race is absolute proof of prejudice, discrimination and oppression while that same statistic split by gender is either the fault of those men or masculinity as a whole.
Good news: that's called "intersectional feminism". You might've heard of it from right wing weirdos with rantsonas a few years back
Screenshot_20210715-191854_Firefox.png
We're in a capitalist society. That's the ONLY metric in a capitalist society.
I'm surprised that this idea is even under contention. It's the specific premise behind "Get Woke Go Broke"
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,296
1,500
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
First of all, that's a rediculous argument, and I'm going to credit you with knowing that.

Second, CRT has nothing to do with history. Whatever historical tidbits you or anyone else may have picked up from it is incidental. There's no shortage of history that I picked up when studying non-history subjects at school, that doesn't make them historical subjects.

Third, if you're discussing what history should and shouldn't cover, that's an entirely different discussion. Most countries are going to study history from their own perspective - for instance, at school, I took "Asian Studies" as an elective, whereas in places like Singapore and China, "American/Australian Studies" are electives. That doesn't rule out outside history from being incorporated in a core curiculum to some extent, but there's only so many hours available in history, so teachers are going to make a choice as to what to include, and on how much time to spend on it. Yes, there might be overlap (for instance, Asian Studies covered China up to the 19th century, whereas Modern History covered China in the 20th century), but the overlap may be incidental (I learnt some Roman history via Latin, but didn't choose Ancient History as a subject, and again, see the Animal Farm comparison).

Point is, CRT has nothing to do with history.
Maybe…. Read some CRT stuff instead of relying on what the media portrays it as? A LOT of it is history

Also, when you suggested Ethnic Studies as good place for that sort of history, what did you think you meant?

Edit: Another gripe I have with CRT is linking stuff constantly to US slavery… They’re continually tying their ideologies to past transgressions. Like, WAY too frequently it get ridiculous
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,412
2,223
118
Country
United States
Point is, CRT has nothing to do with history.
The point is that there is no difference between "Americna History" and "Ethnic Studies" with regards to black history in the United States. Black people have always been here, their history is inexorably linked to "white" history. Damn near every formative event in US history is deeply connected with race.
If you're teaching that WW2 GI benefits helped build the strong middle class of the 50s-60s but you aren't teaching how many GIs did not get those benefits and why, what are you actually teaching?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Maybe…. Read some CRT stuff instead of relying on what the media portrays it as? A LOT of it is history
I have read some CRT stuff, and I have seen CRT scholars give interviews/debate. It's not completely removed from history, but it's a framework for viewing society.

If CRT is history by your definition, then a lot of subjects suddenly became historical.

Also, when you suggested Ethnic Studies as good place for that sort of history, what did you think you meant?
That if you feel there's certain groups that don't have enough historical focus, there's alternatives to CRT, and frankly, better ones.

Again, back to the examples at hand. I didn't study Latin to learn Roman history. Whatever Roman history I learnt as part of it was fairly incidental. If I wanted to learn Roman history, I would have chosen the Ancient History elective. Similarly, whatever I learnt about the Stolen Generations in English (pertaining to works by indigenous Australians) was fairly incidental compared to what we learnt in Modern History.

The point is that there is no difference between "Americna History" and "Ethnic Studies" with regards to black history in the United States. Black people have always been here, their history is inexorably linked to "white" history. Damn near every formative event in US history is deeply connected with race.
If you're teaching that WW2 GI benefits helped build the strong middle class of the 50s-60s but you aren't teaching how many GIs did not get those benefits and why, what are you actually teaching?
What does any of what you said have to do with CRT?

Is this thread about history, or CRT?

I mean, technically neither, since this thread started off about FNAF, then became about cancel culture, and now we're discussing CRT and history, but fine, okay.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,383
484
88
It's funny how illegal immigrants is such an abused term. Yes there are illegal immigrants. Also, not all refugees are illegal immigrants. In fact its hardly any. If you would like to see what happens when you pretend something is an illegal immigrants when, in reality, it isn't, might I suggest you look up the detention centres I just spoke of. There is a reason why Australia cant shut down it's detention centres. And it's not from new 'illegal immigrant' arrivals, as we havent had any in 7 years. It's because they were never illegal. See also the camps at the US border. Most of those people are refugees and cant be turned away.

Are you pretending he never talked about race? Maybe look up some of what he said? MLK was still far more hated than what CRT ever has been. Also, what has that got to do with CRT? Judging character based on the colour of their skin is the opposite of what they preach
There's not way to actually know they are refugees without checking stories etc. During the Syria war there were people who were economic migrants joining in with those fleeing the war to try and get in more easily.

There's also supposed rules round refugees and migration that they're meant to settle in the first safe country they reach or apply for asylum there. Now I know Mexico isn't exactly the safest place but unless they're fleeing the cartels then Mexico is likely safer than war zones.

MLK did talk about race but his idea and dream was that it wouldn't matter in the future.

CRT at least how it's being used by some presents broad brush strokes comments about people of different races. E.G. the idea of white privilege etc.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,104
615
118
Country
United Kingdom
Second, CRT has nothing to do with history. Whatever historical tidbits you or anyone else may have picked up from it is incidental. There's no shortage of history that I picked up when studying non-history subjects at school, that doesn't make them historical subjects.
CRT is a theoretical perspective. It doesn't entail a fixed historical curriculum, but it does have everything to do with history.

I mean, if your argument is that history can be divided into regional specializations, then how do we teach the history of Britain, or Australia, without necessarily requiring a conversation about race? How do we teach the history of Africa without mentioning the impact of European colonization and the racialized component of colonial policies in Africa? How do we explain the Imperial history of Britain without understanding the racial hierarchy of the empire and its impact on those affected by it? Can Australian history ever be complete without an understanding of the segregated history of indigenous Australians? Thanks to CRT, we increasingly understand that these things are not incidental or exterior to mainstream history, as comfortable as that idea may be. They are actually integral to any kind of comprehensive historical understanding, so when do we teach them?

Opposition to CRT in education seems to be almost entirely motivated by the desire to avoid subjects which make white people feel bad. But who actually cares if white people feel bad? Why are the feelings of white people important to the historical curriculum or the historical narrative? It happened, feeling bad about it is a choice.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
CRT is a theoretical perspective. It doesn't entail a fixed historical curriculum, but it does have everything to do with history.
If it does, then by definition, practically every subject has everything to do with history.

I mean, if your argument is that history can be divided into regional specializations,
How is there an argument that it can't be?

You can break down history pretty much ad infinitum. That's why historians tend to specialize in given subjects and/or time periods.

then how do we teach the history of Britain, or Australia, without necessarily requiring a conversation about race? How do we teach the history of Africa without mentioning the impact of European colonization and the racialized component of colonial policies in Africa? How do we explain the Imperial history of Britain without understanding the racial hierarchy of the empire and its impact on those affected by it? Can Australian history ever be complete without an understanding of the segregated history of indigenous Australians? Thanks to CRT, we increasingly understand that these things are not incidental or exterior to mainstream history, as comfortable as that idea may be. They are actually integral to any kind of comprehensive historical understanding, so when do we teach them?
This isn't an argument against history, it's an argument that CRT is somehow required to teach these things. I mean, I could go into each of those examples, but let's go with the Australian one. That indigenous Australians were treated poorly wasn't some big secret. We learnt about segregation, and violence, and the Stolen Generations, and the 1960s referendum, and the Mabo Decision, and culture, and lots of other stuff. Of course, that's just me, and if you want to argue that we aren't/weren't taught enough, I actually agree. I can only speak for myself for what I learnt, that's just one experience out of many (dare I say, "lived experience?" Bleh.). But again, that's a question of history - what's taught, how's it taught, how much of it is taught. Somehow, we studied all that without CRT.

This isn't an argument against CRT per se (I'll get to that in a bit), but if you're making the argument that it's somehow necessary? Then no. I don't agree. Same way I disagreed with Obsidian way earlier on that you need to study works of fiction to understand history. Yes, to use the specific example, the multiple indigenous texts we studied helped an understanding of history, but I'd keep English as English, and history as history.

Opposition to CRT in education seems to be almost entirely motivated by the desire to avoid subjects which make white people feel bad. But who actually cares if white people feel bad? Why are the feelings of white people important to the historical curriculum or the historical narrative? It happened, feeling bad about it is a choice.
Well first, there's no shortage of non-white people who oppose CRT. Second, I don't care if white people feel bad. "Feeling bad" isn't an argument against not teaching something. That goes for every person, everywhere. By extension, my dislike of CRT isn't about "feeling bad." I've had my share of "feeling bad" for most of my life, by virtue of history - if that's the worst thing that happens to me, I'm lucky. My dislike of CRT is that I fundamentally disagree with a number of its theses, and how it's practiced. Y'know, dividing students by race, the emphasis of "racial affinity groups," segregated parent-teacher meetings, and everything else (including, but not limited to, the racialization of learning, "ways of knowing," the "2+2=5" controversy), and these are concerns that have been echoed by various people of various skin colours.

This isn't a call for a ban for CRT (it's a field of study that can be studied/used like any other), but far as I can tell, it's been a disaster in the primary school level (elementary school? I think that's what they call it in the US).
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,191
1,439
118
Country
USA
Second, I don't care if white people feel bad.
Yes you do because that's the sole reason for opposing CRT. White people are terrible at talking about race and most of them have no desire to get any better at it.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Yes you do because that's the sole reason for opposing CRT. White people are terrible at talking about race and most of them have no desire to get any better at it.
You know, that argument might have actually held up if opposition to CRT didn't come from so many non-white people as well, or that the framework can be applied to pretty much any muti-ethnic society.

But that aside, that isn't an argument. You're basically relying on the tactic of "nuh uh, this is your argument." The terrible application of CRT in the classroom aside, this isn't an argument against teaching CRT per se, but its in-built premises, namely:

-It's unfalsifiable: It holds that any disparity in society is down to racial discrimination, when that's a thesis that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny when you get away from broad generalizations.

-It emphasizes microaggressions, which are a terrible concept

-It's anti-liberal - this isn't saying that liberalism (when I say liberalism, I'm referring to the idea of individual rights/responsibilities) is above scrutiny, but CRT explicitly rejects it in favour of group solidarity.

-It emphasizes "lived experience" and the use of storytelling over scientific rigor

-It's pro-racialism, and rejects colour-blindness

There's also a lot of other spin-off issues that I wouldn't say are CRT per se, but certainly come off as its bastard offspring. You can see this in the proliferation of recent ideas such as "ways of knowing," "intent doesn't matter, only impact does," the oppressor/oppressed dynamic, demands for self-segregation, etc. Call it wokeism if you want, call it whatever, but there's been no shortage of kooky ideas that have really come into vogue in the US and UK in the last half-decade, and yeah, they'd be kooky no matter who was applying them.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,383
484
88
Apparently there is according to you - if they request a change in the menu after weeks of eating the same thing.
You mean objecting to the world class chefs world class cooking because you claim other countries did it better?
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,630
1,997
118
Country
United States of America
If it does, then by definition, practically every subject has everything to do with history.
would you not expect this of something as wide-ranging as an account of everything that has happened?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
would you not expect this of something as wide-ranging as an account of everything that has happened?
No.

History is history, as a subject. That historical tidbits may be relevant in other subjects does not make them historical subjects.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,412
2,223
118
Country
United States
No.

History is history, as a subject. That historical tidbits may be relevant in other subjects does not make them historical subjects.
Laws, the specific thing that CRT explicitly covers, are based almost entirely on historical precedents.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Laws, the specific thing that CRT explicitly covers, are based almost entirely on historical precedents.
CRT covers far more than just laws, and even if it did, if that's your standard, then pretty much every social science field is historical.