Trump Directs FEDs to End Racial Bias Training In Move to Further Inflame Racial Tensions.

[SupahEwok]

One of the reasons I became an academic was precisely because I didn't have to wear a suit for work...

You could wear a Hawaiian shirt underneath the jacket.

 

[Hawki]

Okay, that's a more interesting notion. But isn't it sensible to consider that when we want to discuss real people's lives, the perspective of the people living them should occupy a distinct and important place in our understanding - or, if you like, have a form of authority?

Some authority? Yes.

All authority? No.

The flipside of what you're talking about is people being told what their lives are about by others. Isn't that what "mansplaining" is?[/quote]


Mansplaining is a useless term. It describes behaviour that both genders can display. And as the above video demonstrates, it makes everyone stupider and wastes time.

We can be absolutely sure that most denizens of this forum would do so in the blink of an eye, because they have faith in the authority of studies (including in an extreme form scientism). And this faith might be why a critical theorist could argue that science and rational thinking can be a form of oppression. And it even has a real history of being used to justify oppression, such as the grim history of racial IQ studies and so on.

I would obviously not argue that there's an improvement through making identity or personal subjective experience the be all and end all either, but I have no objections to it existing parallel with others.

Okay, yes, science can be used to oppress and do terrible things. But what has more weight? Personal experience or statistics?

This can even go both ways. For instance, here's some stats I recall from awhile back (I don't know if they're still true), that in Australia, one woman is killed every week via domestic violence, and one man is killed every month by the same violence. Ergo, statistically, women are 4x more likely to be murdered.

My "lived experience" includes encountering two women who've suffered from domestic violence, and one man. Yes, this is "experienced" versus murdered, admittedly. So if someone says that women experience domestic violence four times more than men, I could respond by saying "well in my lived experience, women only experience it at only twice the rate" or "I don't know anyone personally who suffers domestic violence, so how can it be that big a deal?" Many more people can come forward and share their "lived experience," but at the end of the day, an average has to be measured. And that's important, because with Covid, not only is domestic violence rising, but there was an ABC report recently that domestic violence shelters for men are close to bursting because there was an underestimate of how many men were experiencing it. CRT and its associated theories however, would place far more value on the testimony of women as the oppressed group. Which, to be clear, they are, in as much that women suffer from domestic violence far more than men. That shouldn't be controversial to say. But does that give a female inherent moral authority to speak on the subject? Because by that logic, men therefore have more 'moral authority' to speak on homelessness. Or maybe they don't, because they're the oppressor group rather than the oppressed group.

It's the equivalent of saying "climate change doesn't exist, because it's freezing here." No-one would take such a claim seriously. But the postmodernist approach discards any idea of objective reality.

The TL, DR version is that averages and statistics will always give us a clearer picture of reality than narratives. Otherwise, everyone's living in their own bubble of reality. Which sounds eerilly familiar to the idea of news bubbles.

 

[tstorm823]

Some would argue that being critical of an established system is the very first step toward solutions, in which case CRT is an important tool.

I know the word is in the name, but you don't in any way need critical theory to be critical of something. Critical theory is specifically analysis hunting for structural issues, with the assumed hypothesis that problems are caused by structures, rather than nature or individual people. Like, when you say:

The issue is rather that those with power are relying on a system that is structured in such as way as to disenfranchise, discriminate, and exclude some people who could gain power. This lays the foundation for a series of speculations on whether or not that is true, whether their deriving power from a discriminatory system inherently make them complicit, whether or not we can provide incentives for those with power to change, and a slew of other questions that we should ask.

You are just carrying forward the assumptions within critical theory. Actual critical thinking has to ask in each situation "is the problem structural, is the problem natural, is the problem bad actors". Critical theory jumps that part, and goes straight to "problems are structural." You say it lays the foundation for asking if that's true, but it patently does not do that. Once someone suggests a structure is racist, look at what happens if anyone suggests otherwise.

But the statement "all white people are racist", while sounding aggressive, is an excellent way to engage people and get them thinking. Even if your first thought is "Hell no, you're just plain wrong." You've still had an emotional response and connected with the subject. Using a provocation/provocative statement to further debate and engagement is a commonly used tactic in education.

It may be commonly used, but it's not a good tactic. When you say something aggressive and provocative, you're more likely to trigger psychological reactance than you are to inspire reassessment. The first thought is "hell no, you're just plain wrong", and then the thoughts after that become dedicated entirely to how wrong you are. And when it turns out the thing you said was, in fact, wrong, they're never going to want to agree with you ever again.

Let's be more precise: critical theory is about identifying and analysing oppressive structures in society that limit people's freedoms in order to propose improvements. What's wrong with that?

It isn't about identifying and analyzing oppressive structures. It's about identifying structures period, and then rationalizing how they are oppressive. It's literally argument by correlation. "Well, we live in a country where white people are dominant, and it's also a representative democracy, therefore representative democracy is a vehicle of white supremacy."

 

[dreng3]

I also think that you're skipping over an important part in your depiction of CRT as claiming that "those with power can do no good". The issue is rather that those with power are relying on a system that is structured in such as way as to disenfranchise, discriminate, and exclude some people who could gain power. This lays the foundation for a series of speculations on whether or not that is true, whether their deriving power from a discriminatory system inherently make them complicit, whether or not we can provide incentives for those with power to change, and a slew of other questions that we should ask.

You are just carrying forward the assumptions within critical theory. Actual critical thinking has to ask in each situation "is the problem structural, is the problem natural, is the problem bad actors". Critical theory jumps that part, and goes straight to "problems are structural." You say it lays the foundation for asking if that's true, but it patently does not do that. Once someone suggests a structure is racist, look at what happens if anyone suggests otherwise.

Starting with a "truth" and then considering implications and trains of logic that leads to said "truth" is a pretty basic part of science. We form a hypothesis and then seek to prove or disprove it. I am not carrying forward an assumption, I am taking the premise of the theory and then exploring whether or not said premise is false. The bolded part even begin with the question of whether or not the basic assumption is true.

It may be commonly used, but it's not a good tactic. When you say something aggressive and provocative, you're more likely to trigger psychological reactance than you are to inspire reassessment. The first thought is "hell no, you're just plain wrong", and then the thoughts after that become dedicated entirely to how wrong you are. And when it turns out the thing you said was, in fact, wrong, they're never going to want to agree with you ever again.

My degree in educational theory disagrees with you on the point of it being a bad tactic, and your second point only ever comes into question when dealing with fools that demand someone be perfect in order to even consider some of their ideas.

People are still agreeing with the dumbass in charge and he has consistently proven himself to be plain wrong, and while people should be more sceptical of the idiot us reasonable people are still willing to consider whether or not he is correct in some of his doings.

 

[Hawki]

Starting with a "truth" and then considering implications and trains of logic that leads to said "truth" is a pretty basic part of science. We form a hypothesis and then seek to prove or disprove it. I am not carrying forward an assumption, I am taking the premise of the theory and then exploring whether or not said premise is false. The bolded part even begin with the question of whether or not the basic assumption is true.

Except CRT kind of holds these 'truths' to be givens.

I'm not sure how anyone can say "all of group X are Y" and expect not to get pushback. X doesn't even have to be negative. But, look, if someone says "all men are sexist," then don't be surprised if you get pushback. In contrast, if you say "all men are intelligent," you might not get as much pushback, but anyone who's sane would question that assertion. Certainly I would.

But fine, let's go with the example given. "All white people are racist." I'm not even sure how we'd expect this conversation to go, but I can guess it would include:

-Traditional Definition: "A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others" (if this is true, then this proposition doesn't hold water for any group of people in the world)

-Spinoff: Hatred or intolerance of another race or races.

-Prejudice Plus Power Definition: Racism requires power. Minority groups don't wield power. The majority group does. Ergo, in (Western) society, only white people can be racist, because they are the majority group, while minorities can only be prejudiced, not racist (there's so many loopholes in this idea, I don't have the time or inclination to debate it)

-A whole lot of time being wasted, as people go into semantics, start screaming, being told to leave the room, or check their privilige, or whatever.

Thing is, I'm not even sure what the assertion is meant to achieve. If the traditional definition is correct, then I don't believe I'm racist. If the PPP definition is correct, then I am racist. If the spinoff definition is correct, then I don't believe I'm racist, but I do admit I'm prejudiced, because regardless of anything else, I don't think it's possible for a human being to not be prejudiced (that, and I know my own prejudices). What I want to know is, what's the point? Because a lot of the time, this seems to get people debating over semantics at best, and falling into identitarianism at worst.

And, look, I can't speak for everyone, but lets use the United States as an example, since it's where this idea came from. I'd state that:

-White people (Group A) can experience racism (Problem X)

-POC (Group B) can experience racism (Problem Y)

-POC will experience the effects of racism far more severely than white people.

-Problem Y is a bigger problem than Problem X. Ergo, far more attention should be spent on Problem Y than Problem X, while still accepting that Problem X exists and address it where appropriate.

CRT however, would disagree with this. By CRT, Problem X doesn't exist, and all of Group A are, willingly or not, keeping Group B down. And CRT breaks down even further when you consider the international level, not to mention that I think "white" and "POC" are both terms that, ideally, shouldn't have to be used.

I guess the TL, DR version is that absolutism rarely works when it comes to such dynamics. I'd like to remind you that not too long ago, there was common refrain that "not all Muslims are terrorists," as people pointed out, correctly, that the actions of Islamic terrorists shouldn't be held as being representative of the wider faith (or at least its adherents). But in this case, the dynamic changes, and we're supposed to accept that there's no difference between the Nazi skinhead yelling blood and soil, and your everyday person with non-melenated skin. From a practical standpoint, you can argue, correctly, that the Muslim living in a non-Muslim country is far more vulnerable. But from a moral standpoint? That's harder to defend. But even if we do confine this to the practical standpoint, the bias training sessions mentioned apparently aren't working.

 

[Agema]

Some authority? Yes.

All authority? No.

Sure. But that's what we'd mean. There is an authority to lived experience, but not the final authority.

Okay, yes, science can be used to oppress and do terrible things. But what has more weight? Personal experience or statistics?

This can even go both ways. For instance, here's some stats I recall from awhile back (I don't know if they're still true), that in Australia, one woman is killed every week via domestic violence, and one man is killed every month by the same violence. Ergo, statistically, women are 4x more likely to be murdered.

My "lived experience" includes encountering two women who've suffered from domestic violence, and one man.

That's not a lived experience. What you're doing is arguing against a large quantitative analysis from a third party with a smaller quantitative analysis from your personal encounters. A lived experience is qualitative data of a first hand experience. It would be asking a victim of domestic violence what their experience was like, what they remembered happening, how they felt, how they think it has changed them, etc.

As you say, there is definitely is room for blending qualitative and quantitative approaches. The obvious thing to do is run a quantitative study with representative qualitative experiences to illustrate the dry figures. And indeed, many researchers do this.

It's the equivalent of saying "climate change doesn't exist, because it's freezing here." No-one would take such a claim seriously. But the postmodernist approach discards any idea of objective reality.

Yes and no. Postmodernism taken to an extreme can end up with this. But if I were to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, all philosophies pushed to their absolute logical conclusion end in absurdity or atrocity: so there's no reason to single out postmodernism as if specially flawed. It is not worth assessing philosophies by their extremes when the bulk of their application isn't extreme.

 

[Silvanus]

Okay, yes, science can be used to oppress and do terrible things. But what has more weight? Personal experience or statistics?

This can even go both ways. For instance, here's some stats I recall from awhile back (I don't know if they're still true), that in Australia, one woman is killed every week via domestic violence, and one man is killed every month by the same violence. Ergo, statistically, women are 4x more likely to be murdered.

My "lived experience" includes encountering two women who've suffered from domestic violence, and one man. Yes, this is "experienced" versus murdered, admittedly. So if someone says that women experience domestic violence four times more than men, I could respond by saying "well in my lived experience, women only experience it at only twice the rate" or "I don't know anyone personally who suffers domestic violence, so how can it be that big a deal?" Many more people can come forward and share their "lived experience," but at the end of the day, an average has to be measured. And that's important, because with Covid, not only is domestic violence rising, but there was an ABC report recently that domestic violence shelters for men are close to bursting because there was an underestimate of how many men were experiencing it. CRT and its associated theories however, would place far more value on the testimony of women as the oppressed group. Which, to be clear, they are, in as much that women suffer from domestic violence far more than men. That shouldn't be controversial to say. But does that give a female inherent moral authority to speak on the subject? Because by that logic, men therefore have more 'moral authority' to speak on homelessness. Or maybe they don't, because they're the oppressor group rather than the oppressed group.

It's the equivalent of saying "climate change doesn't exist, because it's freezing here." No-one would take such a claim seriously. But the postmodernist approach discards any idea of objective reality.

The TL, DR version is that averages and statistics will always give us a clearer picture of reality than narratives. Otherwise, everyone's living in their own bubble of reality. Which sounds eerilly familiar to the idea of news bubbles.

Why is it an either-or between qualitative (lived experience) and quantitative data? Presumably we need both to form a well-rounded picture. Quantitative data gives the broadest data-set by far, but it also only tells us about prevalence. Very little else: it tells us nothing of severity, or personal impact. Without testimony on those things, knowing the prevalence of something loses a lot of its value.

Actual critical thinking has to ask in each situation "is the problem structural, is the problem natural, is the problem bad actors". Critical theory jumps that part, and goes straight to "problems are structural." You say it lays the foundation for asking if that's true, but it patently does not do that. Once someone suggests a structure is racist, look at what happens if anyone suggests otherwise.

There is nothing inherent in Critical Theory that suggests it is the only possible valid framework. It's not so much saying, "The problems are structural", as saying, "If we presume the problems are structural, then..."

Nobody is inviting you to disregard the first step, determining whether it actually is structural at all. You've inferred that, but it wasn't implied.

 

[tstorm823]

Starting with a "truth" and then considering implications and trains of logic that leads to said "truth" is a pretty basic part of science. We form a hypothesis and then seek to prove or disprove it. I am not carrying forward an assumption, I am taking the premise of the theory and then exploring whether or not said premise is false. The bolded part even begin with the question of whether or not the basic assumption is true.

Making and testing a hypothesis is a pretty basic part of science. Defaulting to the null hypothesis in absence of significant evidence is also a pretty basic part of science.

My degree in educational theory disagrees with you on the point of it being a bad tactic, and your second point only ever comes into question when dealing with fools that demand someone be perfect in order to even consider some of their ideas.

People are still agreeing with the dumbass in charge and he has consistently proven himself to be plain wrong, and while people should be more sceptical of the idiot us reasonable people are still willing to consider whether or not he is correct in some of his doings.

Do you not understand people? The entire Trump movement is reactance. Media and politicians have been continuing to lie so blatantly in an era where people have other (often better) sources of information at their fingertips, that a huge number of people voted for honest spite. Trump is wrong or dishonest about lots of things, but the spite for the media is genuine. How many people have to say "well I voted for Trump because he's a straight shooter who tells it like it is" before people realize "oh, it's because the established players won't stop lying." Is Trump actually a straight shooter who tells it like it is? Not about most things. But the people trying to get emotional engagement through moralizing nonsense or engineer new Overton windows by constantly lying are just worse.

 

[tstorm823]

There is nothing inherent in Critical Theory that suggests it is the only possible valid framework. It's not so much saying, "The problems are structural", as saying, "If we presume the problems are structural, then..."

Nobody is inviting you to disregard the first step, determining whether it actually is structural at all. You've inferred that, but it wasn't implied.

There is no functional difference between those if you never presume the problems aren't structural.

 

[Agema]

There is no functional difference between those if you never presume the problems aren't structural.

So what exactly is the problem with an analysis based on structural factors? Why is it invalid? Why aren't you ripping the shit out of other theoretical models that focus on other things as well?

I can't actually see a specific objection that really comes to anything other than "I don't like some conclusions some people who use it come to". But that's not enough, is it?

 

[tstorm823]

So what exactly is the problem with an analysis based on structural factors? Why is it invalid? Why aren't you ripping the shit out of other theoretical models that focus on other things as well?

If there even exist theoretical models that focus exclusively on one possibility, they have no prominence.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If there even exist theoretical models that focus exclusively on one possibility, they have no prominence.

So you've rejected arguments that various social problems are caused by the structure of society rather than... something else, whatever that might be. And so you've concluded that analyses of how the structure of society causes those social problems is worthless.

OK.

The thing is, all it takes for a problem to be structural is for it to be solvable by changing the structure. It is indeed incredibly difficult for a problem not to be structural. So, a theory that focuses on structures can hardly be too narrow. It is possible to do the analysis badly, but the entire premise is quite sound. For any "oh, no, this is just how humans are" there's a "but we can still adjust the structure of society to accommodate."

 

[Agema]

If there even exist theoretical models that focus exclusively on one possibility, they have no prominence.

I think what you mean by "no prominence" is that no-one's very publicly waging a political war over them, so unless you're involved in the relevant academic fields you just don't know about them. Yet they are most surely influencing how people think about the world: these concepts are taken up by and inform think tanks, politicians, journalists, etc. and they then pass the fruits of those theories onto you and I.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

There's actually growing evidence to show that these kind of sessions actually make tensions worse or at least, any gains are quickly wiped out.

What’s unconscious bias training, and does it work?

Starbucks is giving this training to its employees, but it’s still so new that there’s no standard format and little research yet on whether it’s effective.

theconversation.com

Also, I can't help but wonder if those millions could be spent elsewhere. Not even necessarily on the police. But one thing I do know is that US police spend much, MUCH more time on weapons training than in other areas (such as negotiation). That's something I think could definitely reduce police fatalities.

Plus it seems reasonable to think that this sort of thing - teaching people to not be racially or otherwise biased - would begin in our education system, not to mention our own homes, right from the start. If we aren’t learning it young then we’re doing it wrong.

 

[lil devils x]

Plus it seems reasonable to think that this sort of thing - teaching people to not be racially or otherwise biased - would begin in our education system, not to mention our own homes, right from the start. If we aren’t learning it young then we’re doing it wrong.

The problem is though when we have racists and white nationalists parents, they are teaching their children this as well so how do we actually address the children who grow up thinking this is normal if we do not actually have the cooperation of the parents or even the schools in specific regions without having it addressed in the workplace? The schools in certain regions teach the same things that the kids are learning at home. Then of course you get teachers like this as well:

Reading, writing and racism? Florida teacher hosted white nationalist podcast

A Florida school district said it removed teacher Dayanna Volitich amid an investigation that she hosted a white nationalist podcast, which she called 'satire.'

www.nbcnews.com

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

The problem is though when we have racists and white nationalists parents, they are teaching their children this as well so how do we actually address the children who grow up thinking this is normal if we do not actually have the cooperation of the parents or even the schools in specific regions without having it addressed in the workplace?

Understood, but pointing out that sadly by that point it’s often too late to change people’s attitudes. Which ties into the other comment made on the first page of these training sessions having the opposite of the intended effect.

 

[lil devils x]

Understood, but pointing out that sadly by that point it’s often too late to change people’s attitudes. Which ties into the other comment made on the first page of these training sessions having the opposite of the intended effect.

I don't think that is always the case. Not everyone is a" lost cause". One of my friends Dad was literally KKK, he was taught that crap from the time he was born. He HATED his dad for what he did to him when he realized it was all BS. People can be reached, it is just a matter of not giving up on them. It is also a matter of how they go about doing this. Like I stated earlier it should be intertwined into everything they do rather than a blow off 2 hour course then go back to business a s usual.

 

[Silvanus]

There is no functional difference between those if you never presume the problems aren't structural.

There's an obvious difference. To say "the problem is structural" is to make a specific factual claim on the matter (which seems to be what you believe critical theorists are doing). To say "If the problem is structural, then..." is to investigate one possibility.

Should we ignore that possibility instead? Or should we only build frameworks that take all possibilities into account at once?

I mean, it's quite obvious that you just don't like it, and that's pretty much all there is here.

 

[tstorm823]

There's an obvious difference. To say "the problem is structural" is to make a specific factual claim on the matter (which seems to be what you believe critical theorists are doing). To say "If the problem is structural, then..." is to investigate one possibility.

Should we ignore that possibility instead? Or should we only build frameworks that take all possibilities into account at once?

I mean, it's quite obvious that you just don't like it, and that's pretty much all there is here.

Let's approach this a different way. A geologist is someone who studies geology. There are plenty of lenses from which to view the area of study, but your expertise is the object, not the specific view. Economics, sociology, medicine... we study things as fields of study with varied methodologies. Courses to learn things are specialized to subject matter. Experts are experts in subject matter. How often do you see the inverse, where courses and experts are categorized by their methodology as applied to a broad range of topics? Mathematics, communication, and critical theory? The first two are factually part of everything, and the third shamelessly inserts itself into everything.

 

[Silvanus]

Let's approach this a different way. A geologist is someone who studies geology. There are plenty of lenses from which to view the area of study, but your expertise is the object, not the specific view. Economics, sociology, medicine... we study things as fields of study with varied methodologies. Courses to learn things are specialized to subject matter. Experts are experts in subject matter. How often do you see the inverse, where courses and experts are categorized by their methodology as applied to a broad range of topics?

Well, critical theorists tend to specialise; individual academics don't often go applying it to Romantic poetry one day, and then futurist economics the next.

Experts classified by their methodological expertise are very common. A geologist is somebody who studies geology. But within geology you could have a chemical analyst, an expert categorised by their expertise with a specific methodology. A medical doctor is somebody who applies medicine professionally... but an anaesthetist is a specific expert categorised by their specific role and tools. A physical therapist is an expert categorised by their specific approach.