Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,412
2,223
118
Country
United States
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.
You are correct: pretty much every social science field is thoroughly grounded in history. Hell, all of the currently running social science theories are *explicit reactions* to previous social science theories.
You can't just make up a new social science whole cloth.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
You are correct: pretty much every social science field is thoroughly grounded in history. Hell, all of the currently running social science theories are *explicit reactions* to previous social science theories.
You can't just make up a new social science whole cloth.
Social science may be "grounded" in history, but that's so broad a term than by your definition, everything is "grounded" in history. Social science can specialize in history, but it can specialize in any number of subjects.


There's a reason why, in libraries for instance, the history and social sciences sections are kept separate. That doesn't mean in complete isolation, but these are different subjects overall.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,412
2,223
118
Country
United States
Social science may be "grounded" in history, but that's so broad a term than by your definition, everything is "grounded" in history. Social science can specialize in history, but it can specialize in any number of subjects.


There's a reason why, in libraries for instance, the history and social sciences sections are kept separate. That doesn't mean in complete isolation, but these are different subjects overall.
And the idea that you can fully understand any particular social science devoid of historical context is explicitly what critical theory is trying to correct
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,384
484
88
Go suck a dead cat you lying snake.
Now that's not very nice or constructive is it.
All because you chose to misrepresent things and I refused to accept your misrepresentation as truth.
So did you have a point to make or did you just getting irritable and seemingly lashing out?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
And the idea that you can fully understand any particular social science devoid of historical context is explicitly what critical theory is trying to correct
Then I'll agree to disagree.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,104
615
118
Country
United Kingdom
This isn't an argument against history, it's an argument that CRT is somehow required to teach these things.
Why do you even imagine I would be arguing against history? I'm arguing against your mistaken and rather silly assumption that history has nothing to do with critical race theory. They're not separate academic disciplines. One is an academic discipline and the other is a theoretical approach.

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.
Do you learn about these things in the context of a historical racism that continues into the present, or did you learn about them as abstract, anomalous events with no cause and no significance?

The factual information regarding historical events is very seldom a secret if you're willing to go look for them. What is often hidden or unacknowledged or in some cases intentionally distorted is the perspective through which those events are seen. Do we teach racism as a historical anomaly, or did we teach racism as it actually, factually is, as a necessary part of explaining the society we live in. Does our education system have a responsibility to allow people to feel good about the society they live in and proud of its supposed achievements, or do we have a greater obligation to the truth?

That is the real question which is at stake in this "critical race theory" debate, because let's be real. Noone is actually talking about academic critical race theory because noone has read it. Including you.

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.
To be honest, this still just sounds like a whole lot of white people feeling bad.

Students are already divided by race. It's likely that they will have experienced division on the basis of race since before they could speak. Standing in front of a class of children and trying to teach them about racism while pretending that they will have all had the same experience of racism is the absolute peak of white fragility. Imagine trying to teach racism while being afraid to acknowledge its existence.

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).
You literally can't teach CRT at primary school level.

You'd struggle to teach it to most undergraduates.

Again, we're talking about an entirely unrelated series of debates. One is whether history education should be framed in such a way as to present the nation in the best possible light. This one is frankly ancient, and has been going on since at least the 60s. The other is about the use and effectiveness of anti-bias programmes in primary school education. The thing is though, cherry picking examples of anti-bias education being applied inappropriately (or, at the very least, in a ways conservative parents don't like) does not really attest to its ineffectiveness, particularly when compared to the unacknowledged alternative.

Anti-bias training for young children exists for a reason, it exists because most young children clearly exhibit biases, including racial biases, which reflect the historical racial hierarchy in which they live. Why do you automatically assume that's a less serious problem than the vague possibility of anti bias education being applied crudely or inappropriately?

I'm going to be real here, and this could just as easily apply to the cancel culture thing. This is just the same recycled anti-SJW nonsense we've been dealing with for nearly a decade now. There's always going to be some imaginary attack on logic and reason. There's always going to be cherry picked, misrepresented examples which can be milked for cringe content. This is just how the right works now. It's predictable, and obvious, and it's sad that you can't see through it.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Why do you even imagine I would be arguing against history?
Why did you think I was saying you were?

I'm arguing against your mistaken and rather silly assumption that history has nothing to do with critical race theory. They're not separate academic disciplines. One is an academic discipline and the other is a theoretical approach.
Does CRT come under history or social sciences?

It's a simple question. One may not be isolated from the other, but how would you categorize it?

Do you learn about these things in the context of a historical racism that continues into the present, or did you learn about them as abstract, anomalous events with no cause and no significance?
Moreso the former, none the latter.

I think we can both agree that history isn't just anamolous events.

Do we teach racism as a historical anomaly, or did we teach racism as it actually, factually is, as a necessary part of explaining the society we live in.
Well clearly racism isn't a historical anomoly, since it's pretty much ingrained in the majority of human societies. In-group/out-group bias develops as early as 6 months of age IIRC.

Does our education system have a responsibility to allow people to feel good about the society they live in and proud of its supposed achievements, or do we have a greater obligation to the truth?
The latter.

That is the real question which is at stake in this "critical race theory" debate, because let's be real. Noone is actually talking about academic critical race theory because noone has read it. Including you.
If CRT had remained on the academic level, none of us would be debating it here at all.

To be honest, this still just sounds like a whole lot of white people feeling bad.
Really?

So 2+2 can equal 5, based on "alternate ways of knowing?"

We SHOULD embrace "lived experience" as being the equivalent of statistical evidence?

We SHOULD believe that racial groups are inherently suited towards different styles of learning based on inherent traits?

Students are already divided by race.
How, and where? Certainly not legally, bar the examples I've already cited.

It's likely that they will have experienced division on the basis of race since before they could speak.
Again, how? Are you referring to how different ethnic groups will generally form enclaves?

Standing in front of a class of children and trying to teach them about racism while pretending that they will have all had the same experience of racism is the absolute peak of white fragility. Imagine trying to teach racism while being afraid to acknowledge its existence.
Sorry, what does any of that have to do with separating students and meetings?

You can teach racism to a group of students, acknowledge that some are more at risk than others, and not deny its existence.

Bam. Solved it for you.

You literally can't teach CRT at primary school level.

You'd struggle to teach it to most undergraduates.
Literally can't teach practically, or legally? Because either way, it's being taught on the K-12 level.

Again, we're talking about an entirely unrelated series of debates. One is whether history education should be framed in such a way as to present the nation in the best possible light. This one is frankly ancient, and has been going on since at least the 60s.
Yes, history wars. Congratulations. You're talking about every country, ever, and the desire to focus on the good, and whitewash the bad. This isn't some new revelation.

The other is about the use and effectiveness of anti-bias programmes in primary school education. The thing is though, cherry picking examples of anti-bias education being applied inappropriately (or, at the very least, in a ways conservative parents don't like) does not really attest to its ineffectiveness, particularly when compared to the unacknowledged alternative.

Anti-bias training for young children exists for a reason, it exists because most young children clearly exhibit biases, including racial biases, which reflect the historical racial hierarchy in which they live. Why do you automatically assume that's a less serious problem than the vague possibility of anti bias education being applied crudely or inappropriately?
The alternative to segregating students based on race is to not segregate them. Pretty decent alternative. Certainly one I've used when conducting children's activities.

As for anti-bias training, first, anti-bias training is at best useless and at worst counter-productive. Best case results usually linger only a few days. Worst case results make the one who undertook it more biased. It's the "don't think of elephants" paradox in action.

You don't think that if efforts are having a backfire effect, that isn't cause for concern? You don't think it's slightly puzzling that in the 60s, people marched against segregation in the US, only for people to ask for it to be brought back in the 21st century? You don't think it's weird to see Afro-American teachers stress the need for segregated teaching because "black students learn differently from white and Asian students," which, half a century ago, would be the kind of thing you'd expect to hear from a white supremacist?

I'm going to be real here, and this could just as easily apply to the cancel culture thing. This is just the same recycled anti-SJW nonsense we've been dealing with for nearly a decade now.
Yes, anti-SJWs (or SQWs) have engaged in cancel culture. I don't give anyone a pass for carrying it out based on where they fall in the political spectrum (or anything else).

There's always going to be some imaginary attack on logic and reason.
Again, I'd like to remind you about the 2+2=5, the need for "different ways of knowing," "my truth," that "objective, rational thinking" are hallmarks of "white culture" debacle (I'm sure there'd be plenty of people who'd disagree, not least of whom come from East Asia), the Grievance Studies Affair, the Science Must Fall affair, the critique or very rejection on the concept of meritocracy, etc. Doesn't critical theory expressly reject the idea of objective truths?

Yes, there's always been an attack on logic and reason, and a lot of times, it wasn't imaginary. We saw it in the end of the Islamic Golden Age, we saw it in the counter-Enlightenment, we saw it in the 90s with the "Science Wars," we saw it in the 2000s with the push for Intelligent Design, and we're seeing it now. When logic and reason are demonized, I don't care who's doing it, there's no scenario where logic and reason can be considered negatives, and there's no scenario where degrading logic and reason ends well for society.

Granted, I say "we," when a lot of this was confided to the US, but the world doesn't operate in a vacuum.

There's always going to be cherry picked, misrepresented examples which can be milked for cringe content. This is just how the right works now. It's predictable, and obvious, and it's sad that you can't see through it.
Frankly, it's how everyone works. What's sad is that you think that such behaviour is only reserved for one segment of society.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,412
2,223
118
Country
United States
So 2+2 can equal 5, based on "alternate ways of knowing?"
Yes
We SHOULD embrace "lived experience" as being the equivalent of statistical evidence?
We have ~130,000 K-12 schools in the United States and we're arguing over the merits of a broad based spectrum of ideas over a handful of fumbled lesson plans, you tell me
We SHOULD believe that racial groups are inherently suited towards different styles of learning based on inherent traits?
Different groups of homogeneous people learn differently. Saying it's based on genetics instead of circumstance is like saying that Being Poor is an African American racial trait.
You're confusing correlation with causation.
Again, I'd like to remind you about the 2+2=5, the need for "different ways of knowing," "my truth," that "objective, rational thinking" are hallmarks of "white culture" debacle (I'm sure there'd be plenty of people who'd disagree, not least of whom come from East Asia), the Grievance Studies Affair, the Science Must Fall affair, the critique or very rejection on the concept of meritocracy, etc. Doesn't critical theory expressly reject the idea of objective truths?
I mean, the Grievance Studies Affair was a hoax that didn't gain traction, the Science Must Fall affair was college students being inarticulate, the "meritocracy" is a bad joke as long as wealth inequality exists, and the fact that we are both acting rationally kinda proves that objective truth doesn't exist. I mean, I think I'm acting rationally, I'm merely presuming that you think you're being rational. The idea that there's an Objective Rational Truth to the myriad of semi-accurate approximations that we're using to describe our world with our junky electro-jello brains is kind of a Western European thing. I mean fucks sake, we can see colors that don't exist on the visible electro-magnetic spectrum and we're pretending we can measure Objective Truth?
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,296
1,500
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
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.
'is history'? Where did I say that.

They just looking for historical events that back their view point

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.
I mean, I'm pointing to putting African/Native American history into American history class? Most of it has been removed for greater representation of a very small segment of the population. Where am I asking for 'CRT classes'?

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.
I wonder if you've caught on yet that we are talking about CRT specifically becuase people are trying to cancel others for 'using CRT'....
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,296
1,500
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
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.
Economic migrants.... got any proof? Especially after claiming there is 'no way to know.' That sounds like an unknown

The UK took 23, 000 refugees. So.. how many were 'economic migrants'? It must be all of them to have such a reaction. Also going to point out that number again... 23K. Most of them went to Scotland. Man, you guys must have been overwhelmed. (Note I realised that I recalled it wrong. There were 1.5k asylum seekers, another 11K refugees and the rest were immigrants who migrated normally. I don't feel like editing - whenever I said 23k, this is what I mean.)

If the refugees were illegal.... you can refuse them. If they aren't... you can't. So... if they were taken in by the UK, they were legally refugees. If they are later found out to falsify record, you can deport them. All you have to do is prove they came to the UK under false pretenses and they are gone. This is specifically the issue that Australia has. It pretend that a bunch of people immigrated illegally... but the reality was only a handful and they've already been deported. The ONLY reason we are illegally detaining them is to make sure there aren't any more boat people. Not because they have done anything illegal.

Also 'first country' thing is made up. They dont have to do any of that. Also, those first countries are still holding 7 million Syrian refugees almost a decade later. They cant hold the 13 million that are displaced.

Also, also 23K out of 13million is 0.0017% of just the Syrian refugees. The UK did so very little to help the situation.

Lastly, thank you for point out what I was talking about with Auschwitz. Europe has learnt nothing and are using the same rhetoric between the World Wars that got a bunch of Jews and undesirable trapped under Nazi rule.

You've done a very good demonstration of that. Thanks for your help

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.
White privilege exists. MLK spent his WHOLE time point this out. He spoke of nothing else.

What are you even talking about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jarrito3002

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Yes
I read the page and the twitter feed. It doesn't deal with the actual uproar that led to the debate (the idea that 2+2=5 is due to Western imperialism, notwithstanding that these are Hindu-Arabic numerals), and the thread itself relies on special circumstances to show the result of 2+2=5 rather than any mathamatical formula.

I mean, maybe there is a formula for that, but the thread doesn't display it. And if we can't agree that 2+2=4, then we're in a lot of trouble. Or at least we are for any profession that relies on mathematics.

We have ~130,000 K-12 schools in the United States and we're arguing over the merits of a broad based spectrum of ideas over a handful of fumbled lesson plans, you tell me
I'd say it goes beyond a handful. If this was "lived experience," all we'd need is one example that could run counter to any amount of statistical data.

Different groups of homogeneous people learn differently. Saying it's based on genetics instead of circumstance is like saying that Being Poor is an African American racial trait.
You're confusing correlation with causation.
Except I'm not the one making the argument. That African Americans don't do as well in school is likely due to, among other things, a greater chance of being in poverty. That ISN'T the argument that's being made.

As for different groups of homogenous people learning differently...okay, maybe, but how hemogenous are groups in a place like the US, and if so, how homogenous is it that people growing up in the same society end up having brains that are wired differently? Getting very close to racial determinism here.

I mean, the Grievance Studies Affair was a hoax that didn't gain traction,

Um, how did it not get traction? It went on for quite awhile.

the Science Must Fall affair was college students being inarticulate,
And was subsequently picked up in academic journals such as The Conversation, sparking all manner of debate.

the "meritocracy" is a bad joke as long as wealth inequality exists,
Well you're immediately running into problems there, because there's always going to be wealth inequality.

Generally speaking, people are going to have advantages and disadvantages, but when it comes to positions, it's pretty easy to evaluate someone's skills and experience. Or, not, which is why you see various examples of academic standards being dropped, including accelerated learning programs.

and the fact that we are both acting rationally kinda proves that objective truth doesn't exist.
How does that follow?

There's certainly objective truths that I think we'd all agree on.

I mean, I think I'm acting rationally, I'm merely presuming that you think you're being rational. The idea that there's an Objective Rational Truth to the myriad of semi-accurate approximations that we're using to describe our world with our junky electro-jello brains is kind of a Western European thing. I mean fucks sake, we can see colors that don't exist on the visible electro-magnetic spectrum and we're pretending we can measure Objective Truth?
It's hardly a Western European thing, unless you're claiming that Western Europeans have a monopoly on the scientific method. Which clearly isn't true, as any basic reading of history would tell you.

But yes, objective truth is something we should strive for, and that goes for all walks of life, from law, to science. Like in the latter, there's a reason why we don't teach Lamarkian evolution parallel to Darwinian evolution, because the general consensus is that the latter is correct, and the former isn't. We can't be 100% sure that Darwin was correct, but it's so far the best theory we have.

If we don't believe in objective truth, then all 'truths' are of equal worth. I mean, to cite an example here, there was an incident at a university where students and/or professors were instructed not to use the 60,000 year figure for the arrival of indigenous peoples on the continent. They were instead instructed to use the phrase "since time immemorial." Now, the PC aspects of that aside, you've got two competing claims. One claim is that a group of people arrived 60,000 years ago, based on all manner of scientific inquiry. The other is "time immemorial," which, based on our current understanding of time, would necessitate 13.7 billion years ago. However, that claim's running into problems that I shouldn't have to point out.

So, are both truths equal, or is one a scientific truth, and the other a matter of faith/religion? If we accept that they are both equal, then we therefore have to accept that something like intelligent design is just as valid a theory as Darwinian evolution, despite the former being unfalsifiable. I used the above example, because a lot of this comes off as intelligent design repackaged.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I mean, I'm pointing to putting African/Native American history into American history class? Most of it has been removed for greater representation of a very small segment of the population. Where am I asking for 'CRT classes'?
Maybe you're not asking for CRT classes, but let's use the above example. You're debating as to who's included in history. That sounds like a history debate, not a debate as to include CRT or not.

I have no way of knowing how much US education goes into those things, and I imagine it varies by school, but the question of what and who to include in history is a question of, well, history. Not social science.

I wonder if you've caught on yet that we are talking about CRT specifically becuase people are trying to cancel others for 'using CRT'....
First, that wasn't the original question. It was the question of who history covers, which again, is a question of history.

Second, I've already said that CRT shouldn't be banned. Certainly I've got concerns with how it's being taught on the K-12 level, and I've laid out why I disagree with its core assumptions, but this isn't a call to have something banned.

Third, doesn't change the weird sequence of events that led from FNAF to here, but sure, I mean, I got on the roller coaster, somehow I've stayed on, so that's partly on me.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,384
484
88
Economic migrants.... got any proof? Especially after claiming there is 'no way to know.' That sounds like an unknown
I said initially there's no way to know without checking stories etc or unless they actually have official documents with them which those wanting to claim asylum when they don't actually have ground to tend to like to destroy.


.....many asylum seekers travel in mixed-migration flows; not only do would-be refugees often travel along the same routes and by the same means as economic migrants, but they often have mixed motives, and some migrants attempt to gain asylum in a bid for legal residency status.
From the council of foreign relation


The distinction between "genuine" refugees and economic migrants is being seized upon as countries, weary of playing the good Samaritan, are now pushing to prevent asylum-seekers from reaching their soil in the first place.

According to the United Nations, a refugee is someone who is “unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” and has the right to asylum in another country.

An economic migrant is generally considered to be someone who leaves their country in search of work or a higher standard of living, not to flee persecution.

In a three-year period ending in 2017, 2.66 million people claimed asylum for the first time in the E.U. — with 1.4 million given the status, or around 53 percent.

The UK took 23, 000 refugees. So.. how many were 'economic migrants'? It must be all of them to have such a reaction. Also going to point out that number again... 23K. Most of them went to Scotland. Man, you guys must have been overwhelmed. (Note I realised that I recalled it wrong. There were 1.5k asylum seekers, another 11K refugees and the rest were immigrants who migrated normally. I don't feel like editing - whenever I said 23k, this is what I mean.)
Next to 0 of the UK ones were.
You know how I know?
The UK was heavily criticised at the time because the UK went sent people out to Syrian Refugee camps to offer people there residence in the UK. The thought behind it being those with money were better able to flee and pay people traffickers etc. Those at most risk and in most need would not be able to. The criticism was that the UK was "Picking and choosing" because it was refusing to take a portion of the groups of mixed migrants and refugees that had been crossing Europe and instead wen directly to Syrian Refugee camp on the edges of the conflict zones

If the refugees were illegal.... you can refuse them. If they aren't... you can't. So... if they were taken in by the UK, they were legally refugees. If they are later found out to falsify record, you can deport them. All you have to do is prove they came to the UK under false pretenses and they are gone. This is specifically the issue that Australia has. It pretend that a bunch of people immigrated illegally... but the reality was only a handful and they've already been deported. The ONLY reason we are illegally detaining them is to make sure there aren't any more boat people. Not because they have done anything illegal.
Well they have to be processed and the issue I'd imagine Australia has is one many places have of if they're rejected from their asylum status they get deported but those who are faking it will use the time while they're case is looked into the prepare to disappear for a while meaning immigration services have to chase them down to deport them. Add in things like certain human rights laws and all the person has to do is find some-one to marry and start a family and then they can claim human rights violations if they're then attempted to be deported.

Also 'first country' thing is made up. They dont have to do any of that. Also, those first countries are still holding 7 million Syrian refugees almost a decade later. They cant hold the 13 million that are displaced.
It's actually not made up but due to the sheer numbers the EU were more open to sharing them round to a little more to try and ease the burdens on some countries.

Also, also 23K out of 13million is 0.0017% of just the Syrian refugees. The UK did so very little to help the situation.

Because we're also paying the bills for some of the stuff going on

The UK government has committed £2.46bn in aid to the Syria crisis since 2012, its largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis and considerably more than comparable European countries such as France. Its hosting of a conference in London last year galvanised other donors, although results at a follow-up meeting in Brussels this month were less impressive.

The government says the UK has contributed £1.1bn since 2012 on food, tents and other humanitarian aid.
It has also said the UK is giving a further £10m to help vulnerable refugee minors already in Europe.

Lastly, thank you for point out what I was talking about with Auschwitz. Europe has learnt nothing and are using the same rhetoric between the World Wars that got a bunch of Jews and undesirable trapped under Nazi rule.

You've done a very good demonstration of that. Thanks for your help
How has it not learned again? Because it won't operate an open door policy that would likely not be good for anyone?

White privilege exists. MLK spent his WHOLE time point this out. He spoke of nothing else.

What are you even talking about?
Did you forget about how he dreamed of people being judged on their character not skin colour and that was his ultimate aim?
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
1,460
911
118
Country
4
Now that's not very nice or constructive is it.
All because you chose to misrepresent things and I refused to accept your misrepresentation as truth.
So did you have a point to make or did you just getting irritable and seemingly lashing out?
You mean I accurately portrayed something you along with other racists twisted to create more racist propaganda and you refused to acknowledge the reality of your vile worldview?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,384
484
88
You mean I accurately portrayed something you along with other racists twisted to create more racist propaganda and you refused to acknowledge the reality of your vile worldview?
yeh no you didn't and to be quite honest I don't see you as engaging in good faith at all here so I bid you good day sir
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,191
1,439
118
Country
USA
White privilege exists. MLK spent his WHOLE time point this out. He spoke of nothing else.

What are you even talking about?
I guarantee you his knowledge of MLK begins and ends with a couple of excerpts from the I Have a Dream speech. The rest of us know that King was a radical who fucked up conservatives' shit so bad they had to assassinate him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jarrito3002

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,104
615
118
Country
United Kingdom
Does CRT come under history or social sciences?
Both and neither.

Again, it is a theoretical approach, not a mutually exclusive field of study.

Well clearly racism isn't a historical anomoly, since it's pretty much ingrained in the majority of human societies. In-group/out-group bias develops as early as 6 months of age IIRC.
Who on earth told you that racism is the same thing as in group bias.

Because You have fallen for some propaganda here. Racial biases are absolutely not in-group biases. In fact, they can explicitly run counter to in-group biases.

This idea that racism, and by extension all forms of prejudice, are just based on natural preferences towards those who are similar to us is intentionally blind to the actual reality of racism. Racism is not just a series of in groups of equal power not liking each other because of inherent in group bias. Racism is the remnants of a historical, hierarchical system of thought based on white supremacy and enforced across multiple societies around the world through education, laws and violence. The legacy of racism includes colonialism and a long history of material inequality which persists to this day.

It is not even remotely comparable to people simply disliking people who are different, even if that were a general historical truth (which, incidentally, it is not).

If you're not able to face the reality of racism actually is, then you don't really belong in this discussion.

If CRT had remained on the academic level, none of us would be debating it here at all.
I mean, it did and we are, so make of that what you will.

So 2+2 can equal 5, based on "alternate ways of knowing?"
Do you personally believe that people actually believe that 2+2 = 5 and want to teach it in schools?

What "alternate ways of knowing" lead you to that conclusion? What "lived experience" are you drawing on to make that claim?

Because the actual debate around 2+2 is an extremely abstract academic debate about the inherency or otherwise of mathematical truths, and even for those who argue that against the inherency of mathematical truths, the point is not that 2+2 = 5. The point is that 2+2 = 4 is a contingent statement, not a universal one.

So what does that mean? For you, it means absolutely nothing. Because even if mathematical truths are not inherent, that also doesn't mean they're wrong. It would be entirely consistent to argue, for example, that while mathematical truths may be contingent, alternate systems of mathematics should be avoided because they might be confusing or undermine the utility of mathematics as a form of communication. Again, this is a largely abstract debate. It has some relevance postcolonial theory and the understanding of epistemicde, because it shows how the material practice of epistemicide is ongoing.

But I really have to stress this. Noone is actually saying that 2+2 = 5. I'm curious where you got that from, and/or why you invented it. Are you really so prejudiced or so gullible that you've confused an abstract discussion of mathematical inherency (which is frankly outside of my pay grade, let alone yours) is actually an existential threat to the education system and deliberate attempt to not teach children mathematics? How exactly did you get to that point?

Again, how? Are you referring to how different ethnic groups will generally form enclaves?
No. I'm referring to the internalization of racial biases based on prevailing societal attitudes and norms.

Yes, history wars. Congratulations. You're talking about every country, ever, and the desire to focus on the good, and whitewash the bad. This isn't some new revelation.
...which raises the question of why it's causing a moral panic, and why it's being lumped in with "critical race theory".

As for anti-bias training, first, anti-bias training is at best useless and at worst counter-productive. Best case results usually linger only a few days. Worst case results make the one who undertook it more biased. It's the "don't think of elephants" paradox in action.
Anti-bias training aimed at adults in employment is typically ineffective, yes, although part of that is that the training itself tends to be short lived unchallenging and something companies do on a short-term basis primarily to facilitate their image. Anti-bias training aimed at children and which is integrated into the curriculum (which is actually what we're talking about) has a huge amount of evidence in support of its effectiveness.

Regardless, anti-bias education and critical race theory have nothing to do with each other. You can't teach children critical race theory anyway, it's not developmentally appropriate.

You don't think it's weird to see Afro-American teachers stress the need for segregated teaching because "black students learn differently from white and Asian students," which, half a century ago, would be the kind of thing you'd expect to hear from a white supremacist?
Is it actually the same though?

Are the reasons the same?

Do you understand the argument, or are you just having a knee jerk reaction to someone saying something that feels wrong to you?

Yes, there's always been an attack on logic and reason, and a lot of times, it wasn't imaginary. We saw it in the end of the Islamic Golden Age, we saw it in the counter-Enlightenment, we saw it in the 90s with the "Science Wars," we saw it in the 2000s with the push for Intelligent Design, and we're seeing it now. When logic and reason are demonized, I don't care who's doing it, there's no scenario where logic and reason can be considered negatives, and there's no scenario where degrading logic and reason ends well for society.
I knew it, the Mongol Empire was the real cancel culture.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,384
484
88
Yes
We have ~130,000 K-12 schools in the United States and we're arguing over the merits of a broad based spectrum of ideas over a handful of fumbled lesson plans, you tell me
Different groups of homogeneous people learn differently. Saying it's based on genetics instead of circumstance is like saying that Being Poor is an African American racial trait.
You're confusing correlation with causation.
I mean, the Grievance Studies Affair was a hoax that didn't gain traction, the Science Must Fall affair was college students being inarticulate, the "meritocracy" is a bad joke as long as wealth inequality exists, and the fact that we are both acting rationally kinda proves that objective truth doesn't exist. I mean, I think I'm acting rationally, I'm merely presuming that you think you're being rational. The idea that there's an Objective Rational Truth to the myriad of semi-accurate approximations that we're using to describe our world with our junky electro-jello brains is kind of a Western European thing. I mean fucks sake, we can see colors that don't exist on the visible electro-magnetic spectrum and we're pretending we can measure Objective Truth?
The 2+2=5 thing is one of those really really stupid things where on the most technical level it can be argued to be right but most of the people making that argument about it weren't meaning it from that perspective.

2+2=4 because that's how we understand the universe at present and under standard conditions yes 2+2 = 4.
The argument of 2+2=5 from most of those making it was that either it doesn't consider edge cases outside of what we'd define as standard conditions for counting or that we must adapt things to make room for our perception of the universe being wrong rather than wait to be proved wrong.

Our world presently works at the high end development level based on Schrodinger's cat all we know may be wrong but we can't be sure if we are right or wrong until evidence emerges so we have to operate under the assumption we're on the right track until evidence is found otherwise. We can't suddenly start modifying all calculations just incase we're wrong. Taking 2+2=5 well if some-ones orders 5 items and you put in 2 sets of 2 then they'll be 1 items short based on our present perceptions of the universe because the answer must also apply to our perceptions of the universe too. Just because Zarkwad from the planet Flump sees the harmonic resonance of items differently such that the dimensional oscillation of one object makes it appear as 2 it doesn't mean we as humans can count it as 2.


The Grievance studies essays were Hoaxes but were widely celebrated before being exposed as hoaxes and it shows a level of lax peer review in Social Science and a readiness to just readily believe whatever insane stuff is put forward if it appears to align with certain narratives. It gained enough traction that the people behind some of the papers were getting celebrated and praised for their work and approach to do talks and more stuff in the field.

Science must fall wasn't lack of articulation, it was lack of basic understanding and pushing "Indigenous Science" which isn't at all Scientific but it's a feel good hippy dippy new age thing mostly by people playing at being Scientists while not even knowing the basics as such.


The Science must fall thing is because some departments are teaching students seemingly or they're getting ideas from said field that some-one who has never studied Science knows more about actual Science than Scientists. Now Science isn't perfect I know but it's not so imperfect it's deliberately trying to hide evidence of magical powers that could (if real) help seriously solve the worlds energy crisis lol.
 

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
386
259
68
Country
United States
I guarantee you his knowledge of MLK begins and ends with a couple of excerpts from the I Have a Dream speech. The rest of us know that King was a radical who fucked up conservatives' shit so bad they had to assassinate him.
And only after their constant attempts to call him a USSR spy failed.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,412
2,223
118
Country
United States
I read the page and the twitter feed. It doesn't deal with the actual uproar that led to the debate (the idea that 2+2=5 is due to Western imperialism, notwithstanding that these are Hindu-Arabic numerals), and the thread itself relies on special circumstances to show the result of 2+2=5 rather than any mathamatical formula.

I mean, maybe there is a formula for that, but the thread doesn't display it. And if we can't agree that 2+2=4, then we're in a lot of trouble. Or at least we are for any profession that relies on mathematics.
I you believe that anybody is actually, literally saying that 2+2=5 in any and all literal mathematical circumstances, then you are the least credulous person on Al Gore's internet
As for different groups of homogenous people learning differently...okay, maybe, but how hemogenous are groups in a place like the US, and if so, how homogenous is it that people growing up in the same society end up having brains that are wired differently? Getting very close to racial determinism here.

Um, how did it not get traction? It went on for quite awhile.
One year is not "quite a while". Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent study that stuck around for a over decade, causing a massive surge in vaccine denial that's killed quite a huge number of people. Does that mean we should dismantle vaccine study as a medical discipline?

And was subsequently picked up in academic journals such as The Conversation, sparking all manner of debate.
Debate is good, generally speaking. Gotta examine your existing biases and beliefs to see if they still hold up.

Well you're immediately running into problems there, because there's always going to be wealth inequality.

Generally speaking, people are going to have advantages and disadvantages, but when it comes to positions, it's pretty easy to evaluate someone's skills and experience. Or, not, which is why you see various examples of academic standards being dropped, including accelerated learning programs.
If the starting line is not equal, you cannot have a meritocracy. The less equal the starting line is, the less meritocratic it is.

There's certainly objective truths that I think we'd all agree on.
You and I disagree on several of those "objective truths". Far as I can tell, we are both rational. Objective truth does not exist.

It's hardly a Western European thing, unless you're claiming that Western Europeans have a monopoly on the scientific method. Which clearly isn't true, as any basic reading of history would tell you.
Any basic reading of history would tell me that there were several centuries where Western Europe was running roughshod over other cultures, destroying their cultures and advances so that Western Europeans could snort dead people.
But yes, objective truth is something we should strive for, and that goes for all walks of life, from law, to science. Like in the latter, there's a reason why we don't teach Lamarkian evolution parallel to Darwinian evolution, because the general consensus is that the latter is correct, and the former isn't. We can't be 100% sure that Darwin was correct, but it's so far the best theory we have.
"The best theory we have" is not objective truth and to say otherwise is pure hubris
If we don't believe in objective truth, then all 'truths' are of equal worth.
False Dichotomy.