My friend, a philosophy major, once said that there's this funny game on the faculty when one didn't read the book that's being discussed, so they squirm pathetically trying to make it seem like they did. They win if they aren't caught, 'cause that likely means the other party didn't read the book either.
"The dialectic ... is a method of logic as clearly laid out in books like "The Phenomenology of Spirit" and "The Science of Logic." False. Nothing in Hegel's books is laid out clearly.
@@MrKIMBO345 He's making a pun about Cathode Ray Tube televisions, the original TV design, which has since been replaced with TVs that just use pixels.
"This video is sponsored by Keeps. Baldness is inherently bad, and we can make it not happen to you!" I see we learned a lot from that 'How men's wellness exploits insecurities' video from last month
Ah but maintaining the ad after creating and posting that video is a micro lesson on how capitalism drives us against our own moral compasses for basic survival.
My dear wife teaches first grade. The only things she is teaching six year olds are reading, writing, addition, subtraction, a little bit of science, how to keep your hands to yourself, and how to stay awake after lunch recess.
That's a great a anecdote. I can point you to a reddit full of public school teachers who will clearly explain to you how they are being forced to study and teach this shit to public school children, if you like.
Word are defined by the meanings they are used to convey, and over time those meanings can shift, or can be used different ways by different groups. Since we all agree that conservatives aren't talking about a semi-obscure branch of legal analysis when referring to CRT, maybe it would be worthwhile to know the specifics of what they actually mean when seeking to ban "CRT." To me, the best approach there would be to look at what anti-CRT bills actually prohibit and take those things to be examples of the sorts of things they mean when they refer to CRT in a K-12 sense. Looking at the bills, it prohibits (for example) stuff like teaching melanin theory or trying to instill white guilt in students. Each attempted or passed anti-CRT bill is a bit different, but practically all of them give an explicit list of tenets or beliefs that are considered not acceptable to teach most of which aren't terribly long. The two examples I gave fall afoul of every such bill I read, as teaching inherent racial superiority of any race or the need for racial guilt were on their respective lists.
If you replace "class" by "race", "black" by "proletariat", "white" by "bourgeoisie" in CRT , it is just another version of Marx's class struggle theory which caused mass killings under communist regimes for the past hundred year. The Red guards in cultural revolution during Mao's era even killed the "class enemies" and ate their flesh in order to show the "hatred" towards them !
@@galaxy-star-me Marxist class analysis is very specifically defines the bourgeoisie as those who live off of owning capital and the proletariat as those who do not own capital so must make their living off of selling their labor to capitalists, with "class struggle" being the inherently antagonistic interests of those two groups based off the exploitation and alienation inherent to the transaction. There is no equivalent in CRT. You literally have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
When you learn about philosophical concepts like Hegelian Dialectics as a teen not from school but from a militaristic dictator in a video game with sex robots.
@@Staniel08 it can get pretty annoying having to remember citation rules. But nowadays many articles and other academic texts already come with its citation so there really is no reason not to use them.
I just wanted to take a moment to say Thank You to the people of Wisecrack. Your channel has educated me and shared viewpoints I might never have been exposed to had I not watched your videos. Good work and again Thank You.
Maybe it's because I live in the south, but as an educator who (just last week) had two different instances where I had to tell students to not use "gay" as an insult.... young kids aren't learning how to be "woke." You'd be surprised, but many students' ideologies are influenced by their parents and peers WAY more than they are by what they learn in school.
@@sleepyartsstudent874 Mmm, very naughty of you. Do you think that it's important for him to not say the rest of what he said? Do you think it has negative consequences? Or are you just interested in his motive?
Like most philosophy books, just kidding, I never really read any philosophy books beyond my school text books, I tried to read Beyond Good and Evil once but I didn't understood a thing. Philosophy really isn't my thing.
@@peaksingularity3032 But Bertrand Russell was going for clarity. Except when he wrote the Principia. In which he not only managed to obfuscate the f**k out of basic arithmetic, but he was ultimately on a fool's errand anyway, as shown by Godel et al.
Just when CRT TVs stopped getting made, making fighting game tournament organizers sweat. Too bad I donated my pristine condition Sony Trinitron to a nursing home 6 years ago 😩 Nowadays, they probably have more LCD TVs than they know what to do with. The CRT would have served the fighting game community better, but I didn't know better at the time 😩
"You know a lot about this" was actually a dogwhistle insult. If you missed it, imagine they were talking about whiskey instead of philosophy. "You sure know a lot about this" basically means "you're clearly an alcoholic."
That is true and in the entire world critical anti-intellectualism theory could be a thing. It's ingrained so deeply in all cultures that we hardly notice it at all and we definitely don't take it seriously when someone makes such a remark. I do hope that some day it will be as frowned upon as much as we now frown on someone being overtly racist or sexist.
Yeah, I agree that it was probably intended that way. But "You sure know a lot about whiskey" can also mean "You know a lot about whiskey (and I don't)."
I took it more as, his standards of knowledge while on live media were higher than previously thought. He was expecting talking points and not elaborations.
Thanks for all the analogies. Now I have to imagine an Orc with a bob cut yelling at a Genasi store clerk about why they can't return 40 rolls of toilet paper they bought at a different store 6 months ago.
I think that when a philosophical or legal theory and framework has been largely co-opted by people without studying what they were used for, the debate is largely ineffective. People with an agenda will use whatever language they want to enforce their viewpoint. It's the people without an agenda that mindlessly follow along that are all the more dangerous.
It's been co opted on both sides, republicans are using it as a fear tactic to gain support and liberals use it to indoctrinate young people and upper middle class students since Marxists have given up on going after the working class ironically, these days Marxism is about well off college students feeling like they've been oppressed while getting their masters 😂😂 as if they aren't already 20 times more well off than actual lower class and working class people this guy did the same thing in this video the Republicans do all the time, misrepresented their argument all the while pretending teachers are teaching CRT from simply a theory perspective, it's literally being taught in kindergartens in California and that is a fact. One of the focal points of communism is bringing the system down from the inside, I can link multiple verified articles where children have been specifically told NOT TO TELL THEIR PARENTS WHAT THEYVE BEEN LEARNING. If these people had nothing to hide and it was just a "theory", they wouldn't be telling children to hide things from their parents. This guy is just as much of a bozo as the alt right
As a Canadian try looking at your own backyard. If the PM is re-elected canada will be a communist country by the end of his term. He has already forced through most of the laws for turnkey tyranny to happen. So many benefits rights and privilege's are already based on race and gender. An able bodied woman will get social housing long before a disabled male on a pension will. Women are still receiving affirmative action when they are 60% of the graduates. Look at family law it would take the rest of the day to list all the biases that benefit some in sexist or racist ways. Women are treated like children and given the responsibility of children. They get the consequences like they are children. Most policies put women and minorities in the same category as the mentally retarded and disabled. Canada has been all about CRT for a very long time.
I am happy to say that I have never once held a hastily made handheld sign to champion the cause of anything I just heard about 2 hours ago on the news.
Well, objective fact according to Experts/Studied/Everything-valid is that some White have indeed manipulated History, hence why Students often have gotten Misinformation. Racism is not a ‚Ever done learning about it’-Topic anyway, so what? Sunday Towns and what is generally known about them are a good Example for this. 'Illuminatinaughtii' just made a video named 'Sunday Towns / Prism of the Past' about it. Worth checking out...
@Andrew Sokolowski Marxism is exclusively about class but the fact that you can even draw a parallel between class and race shows how fucked America is. CRT is about trying to dismantle a system of prejudice and discrimination. Marxism is about a whole dismantling of everything in our modern capitalist lives. If you think a racist system is important to our capitalist lives then you're even more left than me lol.
Side note, if anyone has a hard time understanding Hegelian Phenomenology, there's an essay by Maurice Merleau-Ponty called "The World of Perception" (which is itself kind of like a synopsis for Merleau-Ponty's "Phenomenology of Perception"). It's a lot less dense and easier to get into phenomenological thought processes as a primer to understanding Hegel.
@Susan VanDeventer Iverson Anti-Critical Race Theory person: "What do you mean you think the sky isn't blue?" Me, living down wind of a giant wildfire: "I dunno, man. It looks pretty red to me." I think this is an adequate metaphor for the current state of the country.
Critical race theory (CRT) is a study of learning regarding 20th century legal academia programs (Delgado and Stefancic) taught at a college level. I am pretty sure that most everyone using this term does not understand it. It’s goals are to transform and understand the relationship between: race, racism and power….
I'd say the best criticism of CRT that I've heard is the recognition that you can't separate white privilege from majority privilege, or black marginalization from minority marginalization. No matter what country you go to, if you are not part of the predominate in-group of the country, you will very much be rejected and be treated as an outsider. This is because of the way the human brain works on a psychological level. It's part of the evolutionary biology that makes us prioritize those within our in-group from those outside of it. It's also somewhat just a functional issue with the way we work as trying to treat everyone as part of your in-group will lead to people you don't want sneaking their way in and sabotaging it from the inside, typically socio/psychopaths for typical hierarchies. Now, this isn't to say it's just or that it's ok, but it does have a reason outside of racism. Simply put, a lot of the things being declared as racism, while definitely unfair in many aspects, are not because people think lesser or poorly of any particular race. It's simply that the brain uses visuals first to gain assessments of those around us, and frustratingly enough, the brain simply does not treat people of a different skin tone the exact same way you treat someone with your skintone. This is perfectly exemplified in the way that the Japanese treat their half blooded members of society. If you are half-Japanese in Japan, if you look predominantly Japanese, have a Japanese name, and speak fluent Japanese, you are treated as Japanese without issue by your peers. On the flip side of the coin however, if you don't inherently look Japanese, don't have a Japanese name, or cannot speak fluent Japanese, you are treated as gaijin, and are typically not given the same respect or level of comfort as a full blooded Japanese person. This, I feel, is a perfect encapsulation of the problem with the way CRT is often discussed and taught. The problems presented by CRT are encapsulated in a pretty simple point, "Minority races in America have been treated poorly in that past, and it is important to look how that past has affected the modern generations of those populations." Now, the problem is that this is entirely true, minority races HAVE been treated poorly in the past in America, and it is indeed important to know how that previous treatment has affected the modern generations of those groups, but it would be a falsehood to say that every one of the unfair treatments, and or inequalities, are due to racism. And this is where the highly valid criticism of CRT basically lies. The core concept of CRT is true, but its presuppositions are left open enough that it can be abused and twisted horribly. All one must do is point at an inequality between the races, and say that, due to the horrible treatment of that minority in the past, and the fact that they were not given the same rights, at the same time, with the same money, as white men, that the fact there is still an inequality is an example of there still being systematic mistreatment of that group either in the legal or social systems. You can point at any disparity between groups and call it racism, and by that logic, every country, nation, person, and culture is racist. Because as it turns out, people want, suffer from, value, and do very different things than other people. And never forget, that there are more differences within groups than between them. I really hope this was at least interesting for anyone who had to sit through my long winded explanation. Thanks for your time, and thank you if you leave any comments.
That's the "best" argument youve heard? How about "everyone is equal under the law, *regardless* of skin color." The idea that we even need to consider skin color is how we got into this mess.
@@CorwinTheOneAndOnly That would be nice if it were true, but if you actually study American history, its very self-evident that law has been used as weapons against non-white persons. Read The Colour of Law (written by Richard Rothstein) and he lays it out pretty clearly. It's well documented history. Don't feel too bad for being ignorant; I didn't know about a lot of this before I started researching American history. Those racist Americans were very crafty in their use of legislation as weapons. It's a good thing modern day right wingers are so dumb and are so transparent when they attempt similar things in modern times. The age of the internet also makes it a lot harder legislate as they did without everyone calling them out on it; hence why basically everyone in the western sphere knows that the GOP has been trying to make it harder for ethnic minorities to vote and for women to have autonomy over their own bodies. They might have been able to do these things quietly as they did with de jure segregation, achieved via redlining communities, industrial lot conversion and using housing associations to enforce segregation and control community migration and property prices. That's when they don't rely on violence of course; which is the bread and butter of the right wing ideology. It's a very fascinating topic if somewhat morbid when you look through relatively recent American history and its effects on modern day America.
@@Lord_of_Dread I don’t think OP is arguing that the practice of law in the US historically isn’t racist, but simply that as it enters the general consciousness it has been oversimplified to the point that it loses accuracy and meaning. For instance while African Americans are disproportionately jailed for drug charges, drug charges in general target the lower class and African Americans are disproportionately poor. As a result it becomes difficult to say definitively that this constitutes legal systemic racism in this case (or at least a definitive quantification) as opposed to a consequence of previous systemic racism that lead to the wealth inequality which itself is the primary driving factor behind drug related incarceration. As I’m certain you know the war on drugs *was* intentionally designed to target minorities, but it becomes difficult to quantify the level of systemic legal racism when factors of even previous generations’ racism play a large role.
I’m interested where you’ve heard that criticism from? Funny enough it sounds similar to something I’ve said in the past and you’re the first outside myself to mention the similarities between “majority privilege” and racism. The problem with this argument though is it justifies racism and violence as simply human nature. If that’s the case then it also signifies a general hypocrisy with regards to our other belief systems such as with religion and subsequently the courts which would inevitably result in their collapse as morality is a core tenant of them both. To put it simply, it destroys the idea that people are inherently good and that we strive to do good things and thus both are just corrupt systems of control. Ultimately though this doesn’t in either case discredit CRT, as it’s simply an coalition of facts and ideas based on our lived experiences. Information in other words and this information at the end of the day is just a tool, like the GOP claim guns to be, and it’s up to us as people to decide how to use it. I personally though don’t believe burning books is the way to go.
@@advancedlamb yes, true. Pretty ironic that anti-intellectuals have found a way to intellectualize simple empathy into oblivion. Edit: after reading more of these comments... yeah, I rest my case.
"Hegelian Dialectical mode" is one of the first things kids are taught in French public schools because philosophy classes are mandatory once in highschools. However, that's also changing because the current government thinks that wokism is a "real" threat to national French identity and its spotless universalism...
Oof, Hegel. I struggled with him as a first year. I remember cursing the names of all German philosophers in my history class when my prof explained a Hegelian dialectic by drawing a spiral on the board and saying, "get it?" No... I guess the anti-socialism rhetoric in the US was getting tired. Gotta spice it up with confusing Hegel to get people all riled up. Look, I'm a public school teacher. I teach high school history. I do not have the time or patience to even attempt to explain Hegel to kids. I'm busy desperately trying not to breath too deeply while surrounded by 30 masked teenagers in a germ fermentation box and also teach them about the electoral process.
This exactly. I’m a sub teacher. Kids barely understand what reconstruction is, they aren’t going to get or care enough to try to get the ideas behind the Frankfurt school.
@@The6thMessenger nice moving the goalpost. How do you practice a legal system of analysis in a fucking high school? If you think black kids get away with shit more than white kids do or something like that I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Disclaimer: Black guy raised in upper middle class. I am personally undecided on CRT as I don't know much about it and agree it is used as a boogie man, but at the same time all I saw were examples of people talking around it and not actually what it was. You did briefly touch upon on it, but I would have liked to see a deeper dive of what these philosophies would look like in practical use and also criticism. In the future I would like to see good faith criticism of certain philosophies as most have serious flaws or issues that need to be considered as well. Though I do agree, often times CRT and the other topics such as socialism and Marx are miscategorized and misused though personally I disagree with both.
The idea why no one knows what crt is is because so that they can rewrite it at any time someone wants to criticize it. It is impossible to fight something you can't pinpoint. I don't know if this is true
the reason people tend to relate this to Marx (and this is coming from a right winger so Im biased to a certain degree) is because it switches the opressor-opressed Marxist ideology with a new opressor but its not the burgoise or the rich is the white man. If thats not racist I dont know what is
So this video was very informative, but leaves me with one last unanswered question: why is this being ushered into mainstream consciousness at this point in history?
I won’t really be able to answer this in a way that’s unbiased, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I’ll also try to shorten it down (there’s a TL:DR at the bottom). So for as long as conservatism has been a thing, it’s always been about preserving the past/present. Today’s current conservatives have little positives to none to offer, so instead of focusing on that, they’ll very often focus on what *could* happen. And since their whole ideology is based around keeping the past intact, society shifting in new, unusual ways is scary and uncomfortable to them. Enter CRT, the idea that in order to properly fix systemic racism, it needs to be addressed and that whether we intend to or not, racist ideas have been normalised and taught throughout generations. For a lot of people (typically privileged), this is very uncomfortable. The thought that they could have unknowingly been racist for years is a lot to handle. So usually, you’ll have two groups, those that decide to confront reality, which isn’t easy to do, and those who decide to ignore it. Conservatives decide to ignore it. And so, with that fear already put into conservatives, who typically tend to be older folk, their politicians will go “not only are you right, but these radical leftists really *are* coming to get you. And only I can solve that problem for you.” So TL:DR, conservative politicians seek to scare their base, telling them that new things should be rejected, as change is scary. Right now, they’re trying to scare their base with CRT.
@@dantejackson8670 No worries. :) Just remember that if a politician is saying something will “destroy the foundation of America”, they’re very likely bullshitting lol.
The other comment explained it much better, but to add an addendum, there was this one conservative grifter who went on Fox News and brought it up, and directly said that Trump needs to address "government facilities teaching CRT" - when literally all that was happening was pretty ineffective and kinda cringe racial bias trainings that don't work were being presented to people, which isn't even CRT - and the talking point very quickly was picked up by everyone in the republican party to stoke the extreme racial animosity they'd harbored since George Floyd (and long before, that was simply the event which recently heavily increased it) So yeah, literally, random dude trying to get Big Oil money or whatever ends up as the spokesperson for the biggest non-issue of all-time. Wild shit.
Might be off-topic here but regarding four hour podcast I highly recommend the ones by Lex Fridman - more often 2-3 hours but he is an amazing host always leading an insightful discussion that doesn't bore at all.
People always misreference the 3/5 compromise. The video says that its reasonable to look at the historical and structural racism built into the legal system to fix it because, "It was not that long ago that black people were legally considered 3/5th a person." I just wanted to clarify the 3/5 compromise because people seem to misunderstand it. When forming the constitution, it was actually the South that wanted Slaves to count as a full person for the purposed of a states total population because that would mean they had more seats in the House of Representatives. Free states did not want slaves to be counted as a full person because that meant the Slave states would have more influence in the federal government. The compromise was that 3/5 of each state's slave population counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. This rule only applied to slave populations, not free black people. It did not mean that black people as individuals only had 3/5ths the legal rights of a person, whatever that would mean. It was actually in a slaves best interest not to be counted as a person for the purposes of apportionment. It would make more sense for the video to say, "its not that long ago that we had racial slavery in this country." The 3/5 compromise doesn't really apply to what he is talking about. As a side note, I miss Jared.
The idea of slavery conflicted with the founding fathers idea of America, that of a country devoted to liberty. The southern delegates (rich plantation owners) did not want to let go of their slaves, after all that’s how they got so rich. They threatened to secede if America was to get rid of slavery. So it was decided to let the south have slaves in order to keep America whole. When it came to representation in government there were two different ideas. The Virginia plan meant representation in proportion to the states population or wealth. You can imagine why the south would want this, they were rich and had plenty of slaves (slaves outnumbered the white pop.) Or the New Jersey plan, which gave states equal representation. There was a compromise, and now we have the House of Representatives (proportionate representation in the house) and Congress (two senators for each state). The matter of how to determine population was anything but trivial. Having failed to secure the abolishment of slavery, some delegates from the Northern states sought to make representation dependent on the size of a state’s free population. Southern delegates, on the other hand, threatened to abandon the convention if enslaved individuals were not counted. Eventually, the framers agreed on a compromise that called for representation in the House of Representatives to be apportioned on the basis of a state’s free population plus three-fifths of its enslaved population. This agreement came to be known as the three-fifths compromise. It it important to note that racial prejudice against black people has existed for a long time. Although free, black people did not always have the same freedoms as white people. I also think it’s safe to say an enslaved black person would’ve wanted to be considered a whole person and be free.
Wait, so are you actually trying to say that a country that counted it's black SLAVES as 3/5th's of a person wasn't being racist or monsterous because this was about how they counted their ENSLAVED population?? Are you for real trying to justify why counting a person as not a whole person is okay?? Even if you're just looking at this from a stats perspective it's inherenetly racist & harmful. Slavery inevitabley makes everything it touches evil. Even just things like population counts.
@@lorianabanana6066 Lol that’s not at all what I’m saying, and I don’t know how you could interpret it that way. Weird how people today immediately have an instinct to impose the worst possible interpretation of what people are saying. It’s a small line in the video, but I think the video miss references the 3/5ths compromise, and I wanted to clarify what it means. Im saying the video should should have said, “It wasn’t that long ago that we had racial slavery in this country, and this country didn’t consider these black slaves as people AT ALL.” I think the video was referencing the 3/5ths compromise to try to sound smart, but got it wrong. Which is ironic because the whole video is about criticizing someone for referencing philosophy to try to sound smart when criticising CRT, but getting the philosophy wrong.
4:16 "a *FOUR HOUR* podcast on CRT" I get the feeling they purposefully make these social media posts as long as possible. It's not meant to be concise, the whole point is to dilute the conversation
Check out Ryan Chapman then. Lindsay's podcasts are so long because he actually reads through the books while offering his analysis and critique. Chapman goes through the texts too, but his videos are meant to highlight key points rather than dig into the minutia like Lindsay does. Only other thing I can say is, don't criticize people for presenting a shallow understanding and then criticize those who go in depth. Hopefully you only choose to critique the people who go in depth and instead check out Ryan Chapman.
You are doing a lot of work to respond to something that most people don't actually understand. People aren't upset about CRT because of any rational substantive reason. They are upset about what they believe CRT to be because they are told to be upset about, and afraid of, whatever fictional ramifications its widespread teaching would allow.
?? I love how everyone here is just straight up misrepresenting why rational people would be against "crt" just strawmanning using some crazy Florida protesters as an example of all critics to say they're all irrational and have no reason lol. You know some people think for themselves right? they're not told "to be upset" about crt, they formed those opinions all on their own after listening to the absolute lunatic teachers who teach it in their classes. Ye sorry I'm rational enough to listen to these people literally say they'll be teaching equity and white privilege to their students as part of a crt curriculum and come to the conclusion that they're racist extremists all on my own. People think they can gaslight parents into thinking this stuff isn't what they think it is so they can slip in their gross political rhetoric without them knowing. Like even if you go by and preach the legal definition of crt that's about "improving" the justice system based on race, you still come off as an absolute lunatic to me because the implication is that you're going to somehow alter the justice system based on race quotas, based on a false belief about the system being against specific groups, like how are you gonna do that? Let people go based on skin color? "Ohhh you murdered someone but you're X race so you're free to go, we're sorry for racism" you know how crazy and racist that sounds?
@@thekamotodragon Nice job proving the point of the original comment. You have no idea what CRT is, let alone the fact it’s only taught in University. Did you get triggered over Mr Potato Head and Dr Sues as well?
@@alexj7440 they literally explained what crt was in the beginning of this video and ive heard many more explanations from the "left" that said the same but they also have said different explanations aswell that dont match what crt is supposed to be. so who the fuck knows what it is when i get a different answer from both sides. his comment doesn't prove the comments point, you're just not understanding what hes saying
As a teacher and philosophy grad, that hurt my head. Where are people learning Hegel in k-12? I also got traumatic flashbacks of having a paper due on Hagel and I definitely didn't do the reading 😭😭😭🤮
Nice dissection of points. But, you didn't cover the main thing that I heard about that made me go "WTF?!" about CRT. There was some discussion about trying to get a certain children's book (think it's called "Not My Idea") to be taught to extremely young students in certain school districts. To inaccurately paraphrase, the book basically tells kids that to be white is to be the devil, take advantage of minorities, and a couple other ridiculous things. And I don't know if this was true but it seemed to have been true in some sense, some school districts seemed to be considering adding it to curriculum according to different articles about it. THAT put me up in arms about CRT. Not this philosophical stuff.
You will get pushback from dishonest or stupid people saying, "That's not CRT" or "That's a basterdization of it." What CRT does it teach people how to draw these conclusions like the one in the book you mentioned. CRT is the theory behind systemic discrimination. CRT praxis, though, is then taking what you've learned from CRT and figuring out how to combat said discrimination. So the results of CRT are things like the book you mentioned.
@@ForOrAgainstUs No, you'll get stupid or dishonest people like yourself claiming it is. Its a legal theory it looks at the legal system. The fact is the CRT hysteria is all artificially constructed by conservatives to galvanise their voting base. That's it. You'll actively fabricate things that aren't happening to perpetuate it.
@@InterestingHerbs yeah I've been thinking of unsubbing for a while now because the channel has been showing to be less and less centrist and objective. I just wanna hear about symbolism in comic book movies, man. Not this guy fucking creaming all over Marx whenever he gets the chance to.
@@tinkdnuos did I say that? I said centrist *and* objective. Two different things. That being said, a centrist is what one ought to be if they intend on remaining objective. When you identify with any particular party you are more likely to put reason aside and choose just to believe whatever arguments your "side" puts forward. Liberals just hate on centrists because they're not liberal enough for them. It's dumb.
Heyo, I know this is a Philosopher Reacts video so maybe this suggestion doesn't fit the format, but maybe when you're looking at dense sub-topics to explain larger culture trends in the future, it would be better to start with those videos about what the larger culture trend actually is and then go into the theory, rather than putting the basic explanation at like 14:00. That would be easier for me at least to put the rest of it into context? Idk
Yeah but supporters of this stuff purposefully make it confusing. If they laid out their entire spiel clearly for people, everyone would rightfully be outraged and make moves to shut this bullshit down. So they misdirect, mislead, lie, obfuscate, etc..
@@SineEyed they do lay it out clearly, it'd be evident to everyone if this philosopher actually gave a good faith presentation on James Lindsay's arguments.
@@TheFleckboyz if you're referring to instances in the literature of critical social justice where they clearly outline their beliefs, values, and goals, then I can't really disagree. I guess what I was saying is that those instances are peppered in to a large set of rather obscure academic articles which most people are never gonna read. Like... 99.5% of people will never read them. And 99.9% will never read each one that contains an individual instance of their goals or whatever, such that they'll put together a comprehensive view of those things in their heads. I was imagining taking all of those instances where they show their hand, laying them out all next to each other or formatted in a way that any average Joe or Jane wouldn't have any trouble seeing exactly what's going on. That's what I meant by "laying out their entire spiel clearly for people"..
The problem with CRT is not the philosophy itself but rather how it's applied. Take, for example, how it was applied at Evergreen College, especially a couple years ago, the students taking over the campus and imposing an authoritarian imperative that the school adhere to their view of the world, literally, holding the president hostage in a classroom, not allowing him to go to the bathroom, calling him on "micro-aggressive " hand gestures. It made national news and did nothing to further critical race theory as a particular, reasonable pov. Check out what happened at Evergreen College a couple years ago, there are plenty of videos on it. Fox News picked up the debacle as a way of discrediting the left." ... Authoritarian leftism uses critical race theory to further a military, exclusionary, self-righteous intolerant methodology. The average person sees this and says: look at the left, look how race is being used. Post-modernism contains a growing number of people who are aut4horitarian leftist and that's doing no good for what genuine leftist movements are hoping to accomplish.
That's exactly what genuine leftists are trying to accomplish. I don't like looking at people in a simplistic manner, but sometimes it's as simple as simple can get. This is one of those cases. Voters support politicians to gain access to promised "benefits", no matter the party. Politicians then work towards the promise if it's beneficial to their gaining of power, if not, they discard it like they discard other promises they make. That's why I think politicians should legally declare their promises before running so they think twice before lying or exaggerating.
I think this misses a lot of the point of the issues on the ground like who’s more oppressed than who, teaching people to focus on skin color instead of character, and indoctrinating children in schools that they are inherently racist just because of their skin color, and so many more real impacts to society.
Liberal anti-racism isn't the same thing as CRT, not by a long shot. Your understanding of CRT is way off base and more closely matches the intentionally made-up conservative definition of CRT, which was created to act as a scapegoat for white grievance issues. The entire point of _actual_ CRT is that race is socially constructed, and quite closely mirrors the beliefs of Martin Luther King, Jr. But you don't need to take it from me. Here's one of the right-wingers responsible for intentionally misleading people about what CRT means: "We have successfully frozen their brand -- 'critical race theory'-- into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand categry. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory'. We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans." -- Tweet by Christopher Rufo, conservative CRT "expert", on Mar 15, 2021
@@IAmNumber4000 bullshit. In CRT texts MLK Jr and the social rights movement he lead, is explicitly denounced. They outright reject his methodology, believing it to be inaffective..
@@SineEyed Which CRT texts? Name them. The commodified MLK Jr. that you know, the one who appeared out of nowhere to say “Be colorblind and don’t think about race” then died, is fake. The real MLK Jr was a based as fuck radical socialist who knew that one of the central causes of racism in America was the alienation caused by capitalist wage labor. Read Our God is Marching On. He was just as anti-capitalist as any CRT theorist and based his understanding of racism on a material analysis of the political economy. Same as CRT theorists. The people who say he and CRT were somehow opposed to one another never went out of their way to learn about either.
@@IAmNumber4000 you may be 100% correct but I still think a video about crt if it’s going to be any more use than philosophers winking at each over theories must deal with the implementation on the ground. Even if it’s a completely different topic I think people really want to understand the connection and why it’s being implemented the way it is and what the real honest pros and cons are. As it is this video feels like it side stepped the issue to avoid offending some viewers who subscribe to liberal ideologies.
If you define CRT as a discipline that shows to people that slavery and racism was accepted and incetivided in the past and that it still has ramifications today... go for it, we even have holidays for that. If you define CRT as a discipline that teaches that your skin collor defines if you are in a group of oppressors or oppressed, based on some variation of historical materialism (aka class warfare)... then we might have some kind of cultural Marxism there. Either way, even scholars can't define it so 🤷
The point is, it perpetuates race hatred between everyone by constantly bringing up. You're talking to someone then all of a sudden you get accused of white privilege for having a better job and that makes everyone mad. We need to look at people as individuals not by race. This ideology will start a violent conflict where people will be shooting each other over skin color. And skin color cannot be hidden. Children are not racist. They have to be taught to be racist and that's what CRT does. A child just sees another child as a different person, as they think the skin color is as varied as eye color or height or voice. When they go to high school, that's where they have enough life experience to notice skin color the most.
Yep, and all the opponents of it only see the second definition, cause wokeness is being pushed to their children (supposedly) with all the graphs and stats showing black - oppressed and good and white - oppressive and bad or some shit i dunno xd anyway disliked the vid
I was convinced about the talking heads on fox about Marx until when I took philosophy and actually read Marx. The idiots throwing out Marxism around loosely like it’s profanity remind me of the allegory of the cave as the idiots who see the shadow and don’t complete understand , not just Marxism but philosophy in a broad sense
@@jackrodriguez3404 So you don't understand Marx. His works talk about concepts like the idea of workers owning the means of production instead of just some rich asshole. So quite a lot about his work you don't understand clearly. There's literally nothing in there that's remotely evil or nefarious, you've been lied to and indoctrinated about Marxism for decades and you somehow think its the Marxists that control education.
It is you who do not understand. Yes I read it. But it isn't in dispute that he had a noble ideal. The problem is human nature. If you give people the extreme of socialism, it disincentivizes them to strive for the exceptional, they end up just being a bunch of lazy bums. And if you let the state do everything, it does it very badly. Those are details that were not even in the scope of consideration of Marx. Humans thrive in a bit of adversity. Tough love. Suffer if you don't earn your keep, and keep the products of your own labor. And if you let the government do everything, then everything becomes like the DMV. There are some things that should be socialized, and there are some things that should be left to the free market.
It wasn't literally explained, it was a video defending it for 20 minutes. We have eyes and can see exactly what it is. It's idiots like you that believe it's benign and useful to our society.
@@thrawncaedusl717 There has to be an academic term, or body of expository thesis’s on the phenomenon you’re describing. Wherein something such as CRT is co-opted by special interests or sub-cultures, and is precision weaponized as a sort of Trojan horse for sociopolitical change the general public would reject and actively oppose.
Somehow you forgot to mention marcuse calling for revolution, Delgado and Stefanic saying CRT is revolutionary, Gramsci saying the learning institutions must be used to instill communist ideology in the culture, and how Kimberlé Crenshaw clearly said it is important a person identify as a black person rather than a person who happens to be black. You also ignored the difference between theory and praxis.
It's no surprise that someone within the cult doesn't think that the cults ideas are dangerous or inconsistent. Constantly shifting definitions to deflect any criticism isn't academically honestly
When I was writing my MA thesis about racial disparity in the US education system, I somehow remained uniformed about CRT despite all my research (although my field is language education specifically, so I’ll give myself a break). In fact, it wasn’t even until all the controversy over the issue surfaced when I finally looked into the theory for myself. I found that CRT parallels many of the themes I discussed in my thesis. As an educator, this video emphasizes my desire to inform people about systemic racism while also highlighting my frustrations towards certain parts of the population who use misconceptions about C(R)T to justify their own racial biases and maintain the status quo. But more importantly, I don’t understand why closed-minded individuals insist this is being taught in a K-12 curriculum? Like I the didn’t start using complex theoretical framework to construct arguments until well into college.
The current issue with CRT is nothing more than Right-wing conspiracy talking point against the left! Germany teaches their children about the history of the Nazis to ensure something like that doesn't happen again. Racism, White Supremacist, white nationalism is not socially accepted in our Democratic Society; however, since the reign of the narcissist in chief his behavior, demeanor, and his unwillingness to refute racism in America during his term in the highest office in the land has given the fascist, KKK, and White Nationalist a platform and they no longer feel they need to hide in basements.
The local parents’ group (not the sane parents, the anti-mask, anti-vaccine, Trump-won people) insists that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs = CRT
I think the key word these folks are missing is "empathy". The dialectic is intellectually empathizing with an opponent's position and presenting it in good faith to 100% of your ability. Otherwise dialectics become strawman fallacies.
But when they capitalizing on fear, (fear of being shot so they bring guns, fear of damaging there liberty and what they have so they oppress the one who threatens it, fear that an apocalypse created by there God and fear of going to hell) well its kind of hard to be empathetic when you are also fearful. So you won't be emphatic to someone you fear of.
You’re gonna talk about willful mischaracterization and then in the very next breath pretend you don’t get what Lindsay means when he uses the word religion in this context? C’mon bro
@@juliencotton3095 Lindsay means that most ‘woke’ people dogmatically hang on to their critical views with unjustifiable certainty (which are not based on empirical evidence or the epistemically theory of empiricism at all), believe and espouse a kind of eschatology, believe in and espouse a kind of “original sin,” -!: engage in intense self-flagellation. At least, that’s what I THINK he means.
@@nei892 Because Hegel's premise is that you can explain the world apriori. That means it's not based on any empirical observations. That means it's Scientism.
@@lLenn2 I agree. I work in applied sciences and listening to all this crap and I feel if I was to show them a math book or a physics book, they would cry in pain. I now know where to hide my money.
Very annoying to see alot of comments not even trying to discuss CRT or critique it in their own comments to give their opinions to educate anyone or correct anything in this video, but just throw out blanket complaints. I want to read paragraphs about why they think it's wrong or link more videos to the topic. As someone who isn't white or black and don't particularly care in either case, I would appreciate the topic being discussed more in the comments.
...because people care so much about an essentially marxist doctrine that theyd be willing to write an essay for a random non-white non-black person on the internet to read? Jesus...
I got you bruh, personally I agree with the premise of the video that what CRT actually is, is not being taught in school or is widely subversive; it is just a tool. Now I do think that it is a tool that many have used to argue shit that either does nothing to help POC (see the pyramid of radicalization, that one display on "What is Whiteness?" that was in the Smithsonian.) or outright hurt us (separating people is what leads to a lack of people understanding our experiences.) Now to be fair; every ideology will have some crazies in it pushing BS. I just worry that since the vast majority do not know what the underlying theory is or its history; it is used as carte blanche to lump in whatever radical ideals the person believes. and as usual; have white people speak for us.
So let’s tell the whole definition instead of the soft shoe version “A. What Is Critical Race Theory? The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” Excerpt From Critical Race Theory (Third Edition) Delgado, Richard; Stefancic, Jean; Harris, Angela
I seriously want to thank you for this video. Although I may not and probably won't be a communist, self identifying myself with social democracy viewpoints, this really clarifies what CRT is, and what or how marxism has to do with it. Not much, but I do know now that marxism wasn't really more of a call for violence than it was an in-depth study and critique of capitalism, and predictions on how the working class would have to or want to spark a revolution. This is really informative.
This videos doesn't actually clarifies anything about CRT. It's yet another video of a apologist trying to tell us that what we're seeing in front of our eyes isn't what we're seeing in front of our eyes.
CRT is anti Communist because no communist nation would put up with it. Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro would never let guys Shaun King, and Hassan Piker walk around free
I think many people have issues with it due to its extremely narrow focus on race, which forces its adherents to assume that x action is due to racism as opposed to any of the 1000s of other reasons for x. Many people believe that CRT hypersensitises people to race, skewing their objectivity by biasing their perception. They worry that teaching people to focus on race will increase racism. There is good psychological backing for this, check the availability bias. If you are repeatedly told to consider things from a racial perspective, then it means you will be more likely to think the reason behind any problem is race because it will be the reason that becomes immediately available to you. Almost like intuition. You're going to see race and racism everywhere. This is also supported by neuroscience, mainly the idea that a brain is a prediction machine. Much of our perception is built from the top-down (from predictions within) rather than bottom-up (from senses). In fact, some prominent neuroscientists suggest that sensory input works as an error correction mechanism for our predictions. If this model is true, and then you feed the brain CRT, it is very likely going to start predicting racism, and if sensory information doesn't produce a large enough error signal, then the perception of racism continues. This is troublesome seeing as there is rarely an overt sensory signal that counters perceptions of racism. Take the example of a white man shouting at a black man in the street. In this example there may not be any obvious sensory cue to know what caused the shouting, meaning that a brain trained with CRT would like to assume racism as there is nothing to dissuade them from this conclusion. However, if you were there for longer it may turn out that the white man was shouted at first and was simply returning in kind. Or perhaps if you get close you could hear the content of the shouting and realise it's all about money. There may be no racial component to it at all, but lacking an overt sensory signal the prediction of racism would persist. CRT critics think it narrows thinking by trying to simplify incredibly complex problems, and even more complex systems into a nice, simple, unidimensional answer. Unidimensional thinking isn't the best way to solve a problem. Especially one that hypersensitises people to race. Not to mention the division such thinking produces. If categorisation is the source of all discrimination, it doesn't seem evident that reinforcing categorisations such as race is antidiscriminatory. The solution to the racism problem in my opinion is to stop focusing on race. CRT tells people to do the opposite. No matter the intentions, or the pretty words used to dress it up, it still remains a system of thinking that hypersensitises people to race, and I don't think that is justifiable. Also, 'teaching' doesn't necessarily mean as part of the syllabus. The opinions of teachers do trickle into their students, in much the same way that parent's sports preferences trickle down to their children. You obviously know this so I'm curious why you never even mentioned this as the possible mode of memetic transmission. I believe that you began this video with a specific intent to discredit CRT opponents using strawmen. For example, just because James Linsey may not have the best understanding of Hegel doesn't necessitate that the remainder of his thinking is wrong. That is an obvious fallacy. Nor is cherry-picking lone 'critics' from the news a valid rebuttal to the critics of CRT.
I think CRT is perfectly suited for college learning as all philosophies should be explored in a mature way in college. I don't agree that youngsters should delve deeply into CRT. Also, Wisecrack said that it hasn't been very long since PoC were 3/5 of a person; 1877 was quite a long time ago. There is no excuse for slavery.
@@brauliob I agree with all of that. So long as the college students are being taught in an objective, non-biased way. I have reasons to suspect this isn't so. hahaha yes, 1877 is quite a long time ago indeed, especially when we consider it relative to societal change.
Except the entire point of CRT is that race is socially constructed. MLK Jr.'s beliefs are very close to CRT, and if you don't agree then you likely haven't gone out of your way to learn about either one. The current mainstream conservative "critique" of CRT deserves no serious consideration because right-wing pundits deliberately made up their own definition of CRT to act as a scapegoat for white grievance issues. That's the only reason you're hearing about it at all. "We have successfully frozen their brand -- 'critical race theory'-- into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand categry. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory'. We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans." -- Tweet by Christopher Rufo, conservative CRT "expert", on Mar 15, 2021
@@brauliob What did the mayflower have to do with me or my ancestors? As black children all we do is learn y'all history. But when it's time for children to really understand slavery and how that has an impacted our lives today is bad? It should be taught in college? So what another white kid can shoot up a black church? And while being 3/4s a human was changed. That didn't not change all the lynching of people kids and businesses. We have always been treated as second class
I'm of the opinion that Cathode Ray Tubes certainly had their uses, but LED / OLED screens are far cheaper and easier to work with. ...Wait a minute, this isn't The Ben Heck Show
Marx would likely only understand/focus on the class reductionist lens of racial conflict, as opposed to focusing on the racial component at large, as Marx’s biggest problem was that he was tunnel-visioned on class conflict more than anything else.
I'm not much of a Marx ultra fan myself, there's something... Off about the Marx worship. Man wasn't perfect within theory or without, and I agree with you for the most part. Buuuuuuut, I'd still argue that class struggle has the lions share of "things that would pave the way for equality" in my book too.
@@brutusmagnuson315 It was kind of his biggest flaw. It's subjective of course (man's was a bit rac1st himself) but his focus on class conflict with little to no intersectionality was a huge bullet in the foot of him being universally accepted in progressive ideology
@@Onii_Chan_Kenobi Probably because "intersectionality" is meaningless. The only oppressor is he who has either political power or access to means of production; in other words, the ruling class. No inherent characteristic of oppressors is politically and socially relevant other than their temporary status as a member of the ruling class. "Intersectionality" is one of the reasons why the proletariat is weaker than ever, reaching dangerously low levels of class awareness since they are now bombarded with meaningless grouping such as those based on ethnicity or sexuality. The rejection of traditional marxist philosophy by the modern left has been central in the degradation of workers rights and benefits and the lack of resistance against the ever increasing political control of corporations. The modern left is, wittingly or unwittingly, an ally to the ruling class.
Marx was a German author and heavily influenced by the society he grew up in. Working class people in Germany back then were the descendants of commoners, serfs and classless people, whereas the bourgeoisie were nobles. Said nobles generally believed that they were genetically superior to working class people, using this belief as a justification for their power during the 19th century. In German racism, "race" is mainly tied to class rather than skin color which is also why German racism is strongly targeting people who aren't Western Christian as non-Christians were considered classless during the rule of nobility.
I teach high school science. I don't remember ever learning about Hegel during my master's program. The idea that we are teaching CRT in public school is absurd. James Lindsay is a mathematician, not a philosopher. People are just afraid of confronting their implicit bias and privilege.
i learned about it in middle school. that was when my mother went to law school and i helped her study because i wanted to be a lawyer just like her. can confirm this is not taught to k-12.
to be fair, just because they've mislabeled their problem as a problem with CRT doesn't negate their underlying argument, I think a better approach would've have been to reframe your own understanding to align with their new interpretation so that the discussion is based more from the new commonly accepted point of view rather than trying to base your critiques on whether or not their use of CRT as a label of their grievances is strictly philosophically/historically accurate, because at the end of the day whether or not their use of that label for the issues they're attributing to CRT is accurate is besides the point
@@kylepickett2862 I'm using the phrase 'commonly accepted view' to describe a false or inaccurate belief or viewpoint a group has, for example if some people believe getting some treatment will possibly result in unlisted side effects, whether or not they're correct in thinking that you can't dismiss their argument or how it makes them feel, so in that sense if you want to effectively communicate with them you really need to reframe your argument to adopt and truly empathize with that new point of view in mind, dismissing it outright will only serve to alienate said group, leading to an echo chamber that further entrenches sides
But (teacher here) the “commonly accepted view” seems to be whatever a few very loud, easily offended parents who want lots of attention at school board meetings want it to be. The local parents’ group against “CRT” in my area is angry about: sex ed, social emotional learning, LGBTQ+ acceptance, vaccines, masks, diversity programs, equity training, grading and testing methods, bathroom policies… you name it, if they dislike it, they will complain it is CRT.
@@jglobetrotter2830 yeah, I get it, I used to be a teacher's aide and a tutor, and that's obviously absolutely correct, the loud boisterous self-obsessed parents are the ones redefining, deflecting, and controlling the conversation, it can be hard to empathize with people who have zero interest in empathizing with you or the context of the larger issue beyond their own myopic agenda, but you have to, however thankless that might be
We have to refute their ideas on some level, because they're factually incorrect. It's alarming that something so objectively wrong becomes a commonly accepted point of view.
I recommend watching the full Marc Lamont video at the end. Wisecrack used a short clip that really lacks context and misses the questions James Lindsey posed to Marc at the end.
For me as a German it would be funny to look at American "politics" and lough about how ridiculous it is if it weren't for its influence on the whole world. Call us Communists but our political middle is where Bernie Sanders stands.
Yes, but the Americans call what we do in western Europe socialism, while socialism has a super wide definition that includes borderline communism. That's dangerous. They should adopt what we do, social policies with a capitalist system to pay for them, not communism.
@@Lilliathi the Cold War has completely warped how US citizens view and discuss ideologies and philosophies. It might take another whole generation before these conversations become less nonsensical and filled with straw
@@Lilliathi some stupid boomercons may call it that, but most people on the US call it democratic socialism, which europeans self identify as. You are 20 years late in your analysis.
Thank you for not having me write the same thing. And everybody who has lived in Europe knows that one can be very very racist towards another even though the ethnicity is practically the same. But reducing anything to the lens of skin color is barbaric racism, less nuanced. We have to ask ones heritage before we can effectively be racist. So as usual, we are culturally way more developed than the Americans ^^ (the one thing we were embarrassingly behind on was same-sex marriage) Oh no... oh no, I see gendering on the horizon...
I think a point of confusion on CRT is the pop-verion of CRT that is most often encountered in day-to-day social and para-social interactions; and the academic theory which is nuanced enough to have both positive and negative evidence for and against it. The pop-version is almost always used as a gotcha argument in a post-hoc fashion. In the hands of the public CRT has become a tool of the political tribe with which to bludgeon to death opposition; mirroring the way in which pop-psychology and pop-sociological have been used historically. To those being bludgeoned the origins of the tool and its merits are lost in the more immediate desire to end the bludgeoning. The irony being that much like calls for disarmament and legal paternalism that the right so eagerly call out as authoritarian is remarkably similar to the logic they to apply to that which poses a threat to them. The Right treating CRT like the left treats firearms; by ignoring the person misusing the thing. XD
Pop progressivism... Yea, you're right that's a huge part of the problem... We see it in the other movements too, where once the members gain a semblance of equality they begin to engage in narcissistic special pleading in order to maintain the tool of the movement as a weapon....
The academic version is just more careful about not sounding extremely racist. It's not nuanced, guy, it's word play and extremely racist! You probably sat there thinking that positive discrimination isn't a zero sum game right? lol
in fact i would say you all need to watch this video. It explains a lot of things and why as a matter of fact the three of you are wrong (all people until now except for quidnunc). ua-cam.com/video/OxR0gbnfWKQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Wozzock
@@quidnunc01 I actually do encounter it fairly regularly, where people spout some talking point they learned from pop culture but which they dont actually comprehend, usually as a means to silence or attack the 'Other'.... Really its just classic human behaviour and its absurd that anyone expects any different, even from those who were historically marginalized etc.... They're still just humans, so once they do 'defeat' systemic issues they will attempt to maintain anything which provides advantage at that point, just like all humans have since civilization started.... Of note is that just because the systemic issues are still extant doesn't mean that one cannot fall to the same personal failings which may occur after those issues are resolved, meaning that even now people will twist the very real academic discourse for their own purpose (consciously or otherwise). All this to explain the part of the source of the implicit bias of the people discussed, in that they will engage in lie by omission or other maleficence in order to maintain their personal status quo - effectively a form of conservatism, regardless of how liberal the person claims to be.
@@quidnunc01 Go read this, guy: "Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory: Looking back to Move Forward Commentary: Critical Race Theory: A Commemoration: Forward Commentary: Critical Race Theory: A Commemoration: Lead Article" It by one of the founders of CRT and she can't keep complaining about "colorblindness" not allow her to implement racist policies.
It makes no sense to disregard CRT criticism basing it on an analysis of a dumb guy's podcast. Also, although it started as a legal term, CRT's use has broadend to education, so it also doesn't make sense to disregard the discussion based on its origin and not its development. I'd suggest to anyone who is truly interested on this debate to watch the Munk Debate on this topic, as it is explored by two people who are a bit more informed on what they're talking about than said podcaster.
In the full video ua-cam.com/video/lJObwe259CQ/v-deo.html after james sais "You know a lot about this, actually." he continues "..i have a question for you then.." as in 'if you know so much about it you should be able to answer this '. It makes me really sad to see what this channel has become after jared left.
Themes of CRT as listed in "Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography" by Delgado and Stefancic: 1. Critique of liberalism 2. Storytelling/"naming one's own reality" 3. Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress (1619 project; anti-incrementalism) 4. Greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism ("systemic" racism found everywhere they look) 5. Structural Determinism (where anti-meritocracy comes from) 6. Race, sex, class and their intersections ("intersectionality"/queer theory) 7. Essentialism and anti-essentialism (identity politics) 8. Cultural nationalism/separatism (including "black insurrection")
I understand that CRT could be defended from a philosophical stance, and maybe James Lindsey is technically wrong about what's happening in the classroom. What's missing, or is misunderstood is the use of CRT praxis both in K-12 and universities. Find some articles about the "Sokal Squared" hoax. You don't have to be a theologian to be a Christian or to be an evangelist for that religion, this is what's happening in schools.
Often true, but not always. The big problem with the "yelling really loudly" form of argumentation is that it basically becomes a type of bullying others into agreeing with you or staying silent, which causes dissent and anger instead of constructive discussion. And this is done by people on all sides of the political spectrum.
That's often true, if you need to yell your point louder means you're frustrated and it might stem from lack of arguments. Which is precisely why the figure of the 'provocateur' exists (aka trolls). People like Jordan Peterson have made a career of saying extremely provocative/obnoxious things while appearing calm and composed. Imagine having Holocaust survivor family members and having listen as someone describes the Holocaust as a side effect of Hitler's obsession with cleanliness, despite well-documented pogroms and religious antisemitic propaganda for 2000 years. Not all who are outraged are wrongly so. You have to consider whether the person that's doing the provocation is being intelectually honest or looking for attention or making their debater look bad.
Thank you for this content. In the USA, every time a breakthrough occurs in civil rights, a reaction takes place that attempts to either erase or distort it into unintelligibility. This is an Hegelian tension (lol).
Critical race theory will be left in the ash can of History no matter who ends up running the country. It simply is not compatible with the values of liberalism has exposed by John Stewart Mill.
Actually it’s an example of a dialectic’s thesis-antithesis in action! I mean that sincerely. No new idea comes rapidly into the public consciousness without an equality or perhaps more extreme reaction opposing it. And over time the concern about the idea and those pushing for the change eventually articulate themselves in view of the public in media and discourse, we end up with a synthesis in the mainstream and reasonably moderate acceptance of the change is desirable and fair. Yea, we always will have extremes pushing for crazy stuff like the existential suicide version of eco politics in the anti-Natalists, or the white identity ppl who want to make a “divided but equal” realignment of the states populations, and these ppl will probably never accept anything reasonable from anyone, but your average American truly is live and let live. I think it’s pretty visible if just go out and talk to most people.
@4:40 As James Lindsay was a part of the trio that did the Grievance Studies Affair or "Sokal Squared" back in 2017-18 and has continued his study of it since then, it is quite reasonable to be an expert on it. Also, at the end, you did not include his response to the long-winded question, which is somewhat deceptive.
It is deeply disappointing the way you are treating this debate. You start by defining CRT in the broadest terms possible, saying no more than it looks at the racism and tries to improve things. Then you take literally ONE SENTENCE and dissect it in a way that willfully disregards context and the intent of the speaker. You are a Chanel devoted to intellectual discussion. You guys could have laid out exactly what CRT means and says, then evaluated the good faith arguments being made against it. You could have provided a source of real understanding for a topic you clearly know there’s a lot of confusion around. But you decided it was better to make your own snarky reaction video, relying on bad faith interpretations of cherrypicked statements made by people with the most extreme stances. You are a philosophy channel, you know how to spot bad arguments and how to make good ones. Turn a critical eye to your own work and do better.
Check out Thomas Sowell’s book “Intellectuals and Race,” which was released in 2013. Critical Race Theory is explored in it. It will certainly help frame things in a much better fashion for you. The jovial gloss of this video was entertaining for sure, but the idea and issue is worth a clearer and less biased gaze.
@@noeltaylor3594 CRT is what happened to the natives-- leftists only replaced the church and residential schools on reservations. They only build cheap schools on reservations to deny special education needs of welfare cases multiplying unabounded. The few that do make it through are lobbied and ushered by there own professors into social justice where they return home unqualified to aid illiterate children with math. Youth are committing suicide with no history of abuse or drugs or alcohol at an unprecedented rate.
Imo it’s a deflection tactic. Pretending that criticism of societal norms is “fascist” is used to dismiss one’s role in the propagation and perpetuation of societal ills. If one is to acknowledge problems with societal norms, one must also recognize their role in the proliferation of said norms.
@Chris Gustafson Ironically, Nietzsche assigned "slave morality" to question Christianity, and how specifically in this instance that right-wingers like you want minorities to accept the prejudice and oppression forced upon them daily. Breaking free of the arbitrary limits imposed on minorities by a white supremacist system is the only way for humanity across the board to rise to the ideal of the overman But since quoting John C. Calhoun isn't sexy, you conservatards have taken to stealing the ideas of better men than you Fuck outta here
@@AlanWattResistance GOD seeing people like this are fucking infuriating lol you just stick ur head up ur ass and disregard all the evidence in front of you
@@AlanWattResistance You should really stop insulting white people as a whole by associating yourself with them Conservative whites to light-skinned people as a whole are like Staten Island to New York City
Answer: weaponized ignorance. edit: In light of Amy Coney Barret's remarks on the supreme court, could you discuss their judicial philosophies and how they may be/are influenced by the politics of their appointment?
And we can disagree with Socrates whilst listening to and considering his arguments, without resorting to making sure he's silenced by poison, whether of the literal or figurative kind. It's pretty obvious which side of that discussion the 'critics' of CRT come down on.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 sorry for no being a bit more clear about this. I adhere to the belief that Socrates and Plato were the same person, which I know it's a somewhat controversial topic for some
Yeah it's dunning Kruger effect. Dumb people are not capable of understanding that they are dumb. Smarter people are more aware of their own shortcomings.
@@JanLCn "Historical events" pah! That's a good one. It's anti-white narrative designed to abuse kids and teens so they support their own displacement.
@@quesocoatl21 that's what I said, a narrative is just a another way to tell a story. I rather people learn facts about events, and not about what who thinks what drives the motivations of people in history. Some of the worst kinds of history are done when people go like, oh Hitler became a sociopath because of an abusive father, but doted on by his mother.
@@quesocoatl21 - "It's anti-white narrative" Oh shut up, "white" doesn't even mean anything. Not too long ago Italians and Irish weren't considered "white". Are slavs white? What about Greeks? Spaniards? It just shows how arbitrary and pointless the "white" label is and how sensitive and fragile you are for being so offended that teachers are telling students historical facts about white colonialism and chattel slavery.
Also great work on the video on Neon Genesis Evangelion. It was amazing I do hope you do a wisecrack edition of, "Made in the ABYSS" and one explaining CRT for non-Philosophy majors like myself
You don't really need philosophy to understand CRT but he already explained it pretty well. Critical theory is basically an examination of society's power structures and how our culture/institutions reinforce them so we can liberate others and ourselves from their oppressive force. Critical race theory focuses on the racial aspects of that. People may throw their own thing into the mix but that's more or less it. The important part is it's definitely not what conservatives angry about it say it is.
critical theory sounds quite aligned socialism and yet he managed to say that in the video without saying it. They viewed capitalism as the "bad structures that needed to be called out". Michael even nods when she says they were marxists. But apparently that they wanted artistic revolution over a 'traditional' one means they're exempt? Yet also, he nods when she says they wanted to tear down and replace institutions... Seems like a conscious effort to downplay the socialist/Marxist aspect of critical theory, because we don't want to link CRT to Marxism. Why not just admit it's marxist, and argue that the marxism didn't transfer into CRT?
@@aceman0000099 because critical theory is only Marxist if you apply it through that frame work. Its a way of looking at societal structures and critique them for the injustices "you" perceive. Analyzing arrest records and court records to see that black people are prosecuted more often and given much longer sentences for the same crimes. To then point out that the system itself has built in racial bias is mutually exclusive from Marxism or even socialism. Those institutions have nothing to do with economic systems and could be reformed with in the existing capitalist structure. Even that simplified form its not taught in public schools. Its something taught in law school...So this whole movement is just fucking stupid. Its fear mongering to keep their voter base afraid of the weekly "boogeyman" so they can continue to cater to the donor class and not actually do anything productive for average Americans.
Philosophy by definition and principal is the discussion of everything. The fact that people are afraid of discussion its literally countrary to any intellectual instict. You don't want to be challenge, and that expose you mindset as weak, flaw and easily supplanted, and you know it subsconciously. You put yourself in a box and want to stay in that box, die in that box, protected from any challenge and suffering. Babies in a box
@@anonymousguy720 Did I use whatsboutism or straw-manning? I think you need to get your story straight before accusing me of something. I suggest you start by learning what those two terms mean. Because it's evident you don't know, as I've done neither.
Wait at 3:23 you say black men get sent to prison for drug charges 20 to 50 times as often as white men but the graph shows it's only 3 to 4 times as much
@@thelaughingman4791 That would mean black men are about 10 times more likely to get a prison sentence when they are arrested for drug charges? Seems pretty implausible to me. Why didn't he show the data that corroborates his "20 to 50 times" point?
what he means is that black man gets sent to prison for drugs charges more often so its the white man's fault obviously (lol), not the perpetrators. There you go
@@KaKam0u The person understands that, yet people often look at the law as if it's systems are inherently "racist" why can't black men in their communities get drug charges more than white men? This is never really explained yet some how that stat is there as if to show that the black men are the victims when in fact according to the graph they are the perpetrators. Even though on one end you have the fact that white men are more often to be victims of police brutality whereas that was supposedly a black issue.
I think the ideas are not inherently wrong but misused and misapplied, especially in countries with very different histories to the US, where many of us never had any kind of two-tier legal system and don't have a problem with police brutality. Some insights from personal experience. My mum went to a conference and had an interesting discussion with a specialist in CRT. Her version was very sensible, but she criticised it as being misused and used as too blunt a tool. Her example was that she came from Swaziland, where there was no apartheid, and when she went to South Africa, things were completely different, with their extreme racism and recent apartheid and its legacy. I also remember being called privileged, because I was a "middle-class white guy" by a black girl in my class at uni. My family was definitely better off than many. Still, we didn't have a significant disposable income, and I had to work for anything I wanted past the essentials as soon as I was old enough to get a paper. I was also discriminated against by teachers due to my neurodiversity. I wasn't taught for multiple years at primary school. I had to play catch up and then was denied a college placement (high school for any Americans) and had to teach myself my A-levels through distance learning. She, on the other hand, came from a wealthier family and was sent to a private school, and couldn't give a single example of racism she had experienced in her life (apart from some old ladies touching her hair on the bus, but this had also happened to me, so that's a stretch). The ideas are not necessarily wrong. But it is not the same across all regions and countries or experienced the same way by all individuals within said regions and countries.
Fabricated Panic Part 5000: CRT. Just like the War on Burgers, its another time Conservatives, the people behind such CLASSICS such as the D&D-Scare and the Pokemon-is-Demonic Debate, bring to you. Again: Its fabricated af. If you dont believe me: 'Some More News' proved it, and you surely wint run-away from a mere Video, right? No way you admit the Truth is completly opposed to your Position by having to back-off from a Video?
@@slevinchannel7589 Sorry, I don't follow? Who's running away from a video? What truth and position are we talking about and WTF is the D&D and pokemon scare? We didn't have ANY of that in the UK, and that's my point...
My friend, a philosophy major, once said that there's this funny game on the faculty when one didn't read the book that's being discussed, so they squirm pathetically trying to make it seem like they did. They win if they aren't caught, 'cause that likely means the other party didn't read the book either.
If you don't throw stones you can't hit windows.
@Andrew Sokolowski “How to Not Watch the Video Or Read the Source Text and Thereby Prove OP’s Point: A Case Study”
@Andrew Sokolowski So, You are a Marxist?
@Andrew Sokolowski lol
@R D marxists formed it but that doesn’t make it a marxist concept, any more than sharing = good is a marxist concept.
"The dialectic ... is a method of logic as clearly laid out in books like "The Phenomenology of Spirit" and "The Science of Logic." False. Nothing in Hegel's books is laid out clearly.
Lmfao I'm pretty sure the guy was an academic sadomasochist
The one good dunk on hegel in this comment section
Hypocritical Race Theory
@@Ben-rz9cf 1000000%. Tbh I'm half convinced it's a prerequisite of academic philosophy.
Lol, thank you, you made my day !
I totally agree with these people. CRT is outdated and should be thrown out of our schools.
HD TVs have been the standard for years
Explain.
@@MrKIMBO345 He's making a pun about Cathode Ray Tube televisions, the original TV design, which has since been replaced with TVs that just use pixels.
💀💀💀😂😂😂😂😂
badum tsss
Ikr. Plasma Flat Screens all the way!
"This video is sponsored by Keeps. Baldness is inherently bad, and we can make it not happen to you!"
I see we learned a lot from that 'How men's wellness exploits insecurities' video from last month
The exact thought I had the moment saw the advert
Gotta get them coins 🤟🏽
Ah but maintaining the ad after creating and posting that video is a micro lesson on how capitalism drives us against our own moral compasses for basic survival.
Integrity goes out the window whenyou're getting paid.
Shop Smart! Shop S-Mart!
Capatilism strikes again!!!
My dear wife teaches first grade. The only things she is teaching six year olds are reading, writing, addition, subtraction, a little bit of science, how to keep your hands to yourself, and how to stay awake after lunch recess.
Your wife is doing it right! ✌️
Nice, goes to show CRT isn't being taught schools and its nostly just somthing fox news made up to scare parents.
A little bit of science?! You Marxist, communist pigs!!!! 😂
Seriously though, props to her!
Ok but how do you stay awake after lunch recess?
That's a great a anecdote. I can point you to a reddit full of public school teachers who will clearly explain to you how they are being forced to study and teach this shit to public school children, if you like.
I'll miss the days when CRT refers to a type of computer monitor. Those big, chunky, space hogging monitors.
Hella good for retro gaming and vhs movie watching though.
When I was a kid, “CRT in schools” meant rolling out a media cart and watching a VHS tape.
@@blakebonanza Also see: Indoor tanning X Sterilization \s LMAO
That's what I think when I see CRT. Cathode Ray Tubes
There is PC and it means two different things AFAIK.
“All words are made up.”
- Thor
They are honestly.
"But some are more made up than others."
-George ThOrwell
Word are defined by the meanings they are used to convey, and over time those meanings can shift, or can be used different ways by different groups. Since we all agree that conservatives aren't talking about a semi-obscure branch of legal analysis when referring to CRT, maybe it would be worthwhile to know the specifics of what they actually mean when seeking to ban "CRT." To me, the best approach there would be to look at what anti-CRT bills actually prohibit and take those things to be examples of the sorts of things they mean when they refer to CRT in a K-12 sense.
Looking at the bills, it prohibits (for example) stuff like teaching melanin theory or trying to instill white guilt in students. Each attempted or passed anti-CRT bill is a bit different, but practically all of them give an explicit list of tenets or beliefs that are considered not acceptable to teach most of which aren't terribly long. The two examples I gave fall afoul of every such bill I read, as teaching inherent racial superiority of any race or the need for racial guilt were on their respective lists.
Well, this is basically (late) Wittgenstein ?
"Mind blown"
- Carol/Sheryl (Archer)
As a father, I *DEMAND* my children to be taught in the "Hegelian Dialetical Mode"!
Well, you are their parent. Do you want to teach philosophy to them?
Because you don't learn that in most standard curricula.
HD over CRT, 🤔 makes sense.
Slovaj Zizek nods uncontrollably in agreement and tells a dirty joke all his friends are OK with
If you replace "class" by "race", "black" by "proletariat", "white" by "bourgeoisie" in CRT , it is just another version of Marx's class struggle theory which caused mass killings under communist regimes for the past hundred year. The Red guards in cultural revolution during Mao's era even killed the "class enemies" and ate their flesh in order to show the "hatred" towards them !
@@galaxy-star-me Marxist class analysis is very specifically defines the bourgeoisie as those who live off of owning capital and the proletariat as those who do not own capital so must make their living off of selling their labor to capitalists, with "class struggle" being the inherently antagonistic interests of those two groups based off the exploitation and alienation inherent to the transaction. There is no equivalent in CRT. You literally have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
When you learn about philosophical concepts like Hegelian Dialectics as a teen not from school but from a militaristic dictator in a video game with sex robots.
Nier Automata or Metal Gear Revengeance?
@@lukeamparo6586 Fallout: New Vegas
Ave True to Caesar
Oooh
Titus, the cross, if you would
God i enjoy having a bibliography in the description section. Everyone should have a bibliography
*T H I S*
It's honestly so annoying how many of these "intellectual" channels post so many things that virtually comes out of their ass.
We need to normalize citation!
*useful citation.
Not just here's a long article or book. Find what I said somewhere in there🙄
I always HATED having to do them in school. Now that I'm older I can very, very clearly see the value and importance of them.
@@Staniel08 it can get pretty annoying having to remember citation rules. But nowadays many articles and other academic texts already come with its citation so there really is no reason not to use them.
I just wanted to take a moment to say Thank You to the people of Wisecrack. Your channel has educated me and shared viewpoints I might never have been exposed to had I not watched your videos. Good work and again Thank You.
Maybe it's because I live in the south, but as an educator who (just last week) had two different instances where I had to tell students to not use "gay" as an insult.... young kids aren't learning how to be "woke." You'd be surprised, but many students' ideologies are influenced by their parents and peers WAY more than they are by what they learn in school.
Well that’s gay
Yeah, cause nowadays not being an asshole apparently is "woke"
@@sgtkort97 You treat other people as human beings??? Sounds pretty gay.
@@sgtkort97 Y R yew gae?
Thank God
You can't overcome the inherent subjectivity when it comes to this stuff, people lose objectivity when it is convenient, some people never had it.
Exactly. Also subjectivity is intrinsically appealing to people on an inherent, lizard-brain level. Like tribalism.
Why did you keep going after, "You can't overcome the inherent subjectivity?" Could've just stopped there.
@@zxyatiywariii8 Pave that road to hell with some good intentions and let those reptilian brains lead the way! Good times!
@@sleepyartsstudent874 Mmm, very naughty of you. Do you think that it's important for him to not say the rest of what he said? Do you think it has negative consequences? Or are you just interested in his motive?
Uhm, the kind of people you're likely responding to are the ones putting the very claim of objectivity into question.
I have read 'phenomenology of spirit' and there is nothing clearly layed out in it.
Like most philosophy books, just kidding, I never really read any philosophy books beyond my school text books, I tried to read Beyond Good and Evil once but I didn't understood a thing. Philosophy really isn't my thing.
@@rafaelalodio5116 I recommend Bertrand Russel's *History of Western Philosophy* - it's surprisingly light reading for the first 3/4ths !
All continental philosophy is like that. You have to ease your way into it book by book.
@@rafaelalodio5116 lol you’re not kidding 🤐
@@peaksingularity3032 But Bertrand Russell was going for clarity. Except when he wrote the Principia. In which he not only managed to obfuscate the f**k out of basic arithmetic, but he was ultimately on a fool's errand anyway, as shown by Godel et al.
Ah nice a video about old televisions.
Just when CRT TVs stopped getting made, making fighting game tournament organizers sweat. Too bad I donated my pristine condition Sony Trinitron to a nursing home 6 years ago 😩
Nowadays, they probably have more LCD TVs than they know what to do with. The CRT would have served the fighting game community better, but I didn't know better at the time 😩
Yeah! I Find OLEDs offensive! We have to go back to Plasma TVs!!! I want screen burn back!!!
CRTs had the best color accuracy and the best frame refresh rate.
@@angelgjr1999 how dare you spread this kind of propaganda!
It's just your technological privilege
"You know a lot about this" was actually a dogwhistle insult.
If you missed it, imagine they were talking about whiskey instead of philosophy. "You sure know a lot about this" basically means "you're clearly an alcoholic."
That is true and in the entire world critical anti-intellectualism theory could be a thing. It's ingrained so deeply in all cultures that we hardly notice it at all and we definitely don't take it seriously when someone makes such a remark.
I do hope that some day it will be as frowned upon as much as we now frown on someone being overtly racist or sexist.
Yeah, I agree that it was probably intended that way. But "You sure know a lot about whiskey" can also mean "You know a lot about whiskey (and I don't)."
I took it more as, his standards of knowledge while on live media were higher than previously thought. He was expecting talking points and not elaborations.
I'm sorry but Kobolds are the master race.
The small size- Oh, we're not talking about role playing games
Just don't try to take their candles
The everlasting conflict between Kobolds and Goblins continues.
It is well known that Kobolts are best in caves
For sure, Half-Orcs are the best Critical Race, with 'savage attacks' on critical roles. At least, that's my theory.
Thanks for all the analogies. Now I have to imagine an Orc with a bob cut yelling at a Genasi store clerk about why they can't return 40 rolls of toilet paper they bought at a different store 6 months ago.
I think that when a philosophical or legal theory and framework has been largely co-opted by people without studying what they were used for, the debate is largely ineffective.
People with an agenda will use whatever language they want to enforce their viewpoint. It's the people without an agenda that mindlessly follow along that are all the more dangerous.
I think you just explained all the stupidity behind the whole crt imbroglio perfectly!
When you think about it, it's mind-numbingly stupid.
It's been co opted on both sides, republicans are using it as a fear tactic to gain support and liberals use it to indoctrinate young people and upper middle class students since Marxists have given up on going after the working class ironically, these days Marxism is about well off college students feeling like they've been oppressed while getting their masters 😂😂 as if they aren't already 20 times more well off than actual lower class and working class people this guy did the same thing in this video the Republicans do all the time, misrepresented their argument all the while pretending teachers are teaching CRT from simply a theory perspective, it's literally being taught in kindergartens in California and that is a fact. One of the focal points of communism is bringing the system down from the inside, I can link multiple verified articles where children have been specifically told NOT TO TELL THEIR PARENTS WHAT THEYVE BEEN LEARNING. If these people had nothing to hide and it was just a "theory", they wouldn't be telling children to hide things from their parents. This guy is just as much of a bozo as the alt right
As a Canadian looking in, I can only say this - the USA is a circus.
we have crt here
Relax corona man
As a Canadian try looking at your own backyard. If the PM is re-elected canada will be a communist country by the end of his term. He has already forced through most of the laws for turnkey tyranny to happen. So many benefits rights and privilege's are already based on race and gender. An able bodied woman will get social housing long before a disabled male on a pension will. Women are still receiving affirmative action when they are 60% of the graduates. Look at family law it would take the rest of the day to list all the biases that benefit some in sexist or racist ways. Women are treated like children and given the responsibility of children. They get the consequences like they are children. Most policies put women and minorities in the same category as the mentally retarded and disabled. Canada has been all about CRT for a very long time.
Our biggest export is our brain cancer, so laugh while you can.
I introduce you to your current Prime Minister, perhaps one of the most corrupt PMs that Canada has ever had!
I am happy to say that I have never once held a hastily made handheld sign to champion the cause of anything I just heard about 2 hours ago on the news.
Don’t you CARE?!?
@@davidgill3356 I only care about Elden Ring.
@@scotch4890 Probably healthier that way.
@@davidgill3356 my girl disagrees. But screw her, figuratively and literally
@@scotch4890 Try bannerlord next
4:30 You sir need to listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, all of his podcasts are 4+ hours and are glorious
As a fan of Tim Rogers videos, I also feel seen.
Well they started out as 15 Minutes ones and have been steadily escalating from there.
I love Dan Carlin! Solid reccomendation
Well, objective fact according to Experts/Studied/Everything-valid is that some White
have indeed manipulated History,
hence why Students often have gotten Misinformation.
Racism is not a ‚Ever done learning about it’-Topic anyway,
so what?
Sunday Towns and what is generally known about them are a good Example for this.
'Illuminatinaughtii' just made a video named 'Sunday Towns / Prism of the Past' about it. Worth checking out...
7:30,Dunning-Kruger strikes again
Michael, you're a liar. Everybody knows that nobody was born in Florida since 1860.
@Andrew Sokolowski lmao
@Andrew Sokolowski you're just wrong about the first point and the second point is just opinion
@Andrew Sokolowski Boo! Get new material!
@Andrew Sokolowski Marxism is exclusively about class but the fact that you can even draw a parallel between class and race shows how fucked America is. CRT is about trying to dismantle a system of prejudice and discrimination. Marxism is about a whole dismantling of everything in our modern capitalist lives. If you think a racist system is important to our capitalist lives then you're even more left than me lol.
@@maxmurray1347 you are correct, Marxism and CRT is not the same thing. This fact doesn’t mean that either one is right or wrong.
Side note, if anyone has a hard time understanding Hegelian Phenomenology, there's an essay by Maurice Merleau-Ponty called "The World of Perception" (which is itself kind of like a synopsis for Merleau-Ponty's "Phenomenology of Perception"). It's a lot less dense and easier to get into phenomenological thought processes as a primer to understanding Hegel.
Well-written comment. Thanks. I'll check out this literature when I get the chance.
If you can not explain your theory so a child can understand maybe you are just full of shit.
What.
@Susan VanDeventer Iverson Anti-Critical Race Theory person: "What do you mean you think the sky isn't blue?"
Me, living down wind of a giant wildfire: "I dunno, man. It looks pretty red to me."
I think this is an adequate metaphor for the current state of the country.
This guy uses big words. Everyone listen he’s wicked smart.
Critical race theory (CRT) is a study of learning regarding 20th century legal academia programs (Delgado and Stefancic) taught at a college level. I am pretty sure that most everyone using this term does not understand it. It’s goals are to transform and understand the relationship between: race, racism and power….
It needs a rebranding. Same with "defund the police". People leap to conclusions without ever investigating what these things mean.
I'm calling my block captain, and having my local People's Peace Officer Security Services, comrades.
Oh boy. This is gonna go over well...
Nah racist wouldn’t be watching wisecrack
@@siegebug doesn't mean they won't brigade
@@siegebug If you think opposing CRT means you’re a racist, you haven’t understood what CRT says about racism.
@@Le-cp9tr yes, if you oppose crt you are racist. You gonna cry about it?
…comment section locked in 3, 2…
I'd say the best criticism of CRT that I've heard is the recognition that you can't separate white privilege from majority privilege, or black marginalization from minority marginalization. No matter what country you go to, if you are not part of the predominate in-group of the country, you will very much be rejected and be treated as an outsider. This is because of the way the human brain works on a psychological level. It's part of the evolutionary biology that makes us prioritize those within our in-group from those outside of it. It's also somewhat just a functional issue with the way we work as trying to treat everyone as part of your in-group will lead to people you don't want sneaking their way in and sabotaging it from the inside, typically socio/psychopaths for typical hierarchies. Now, this isn't to say it's just or that it's ok, but it does have a reason outside of racism. Simply put, a lot of the things being declared as racism, while definitely unfair in many aspects, are not because people think lesser or poorly of any particular race. It's simply that the brain uses visuals first to gain assessments of those around us, and frustratingly enough, the brain simply does not treat people of a different skin tone the exact same way you treat someone with your skintone. This is perfectly exemplified in the way that the Japanese treat their half blooded members of society. If you are half-Japanese in Japan, if you look predominantly Japanese, have a Japanese name, and speak fluent Japanese, you are treated as Japanese without issue by your peers. On the flip side of the coin however, if you don't inherently look Japanese, don't have a Japanese name, or cannot speak fluent Japanese, you are treated as gaijin, and are typically not given the same respect or level of comfort as a full blooded Japanese person. This, I feel, is a perfect encapsulation of the problem with the way CRT is often discussed and taught. The problems presented by CRT are encapsulated in a pretty simple point, "Minority races in America have been treated poorly in that past, and it is important to look how that past has affected the modern generations of those populations." Now, the problem is that this is entirely true, minority races HAVE been treated poorly in the past in America, and it is indeed important to know how that previous treatment has affected the modern generations of those groups, but it would be a falsehood to say that every one of the unfair treatments, and or inequalities, are due to racism. And this is where the highly valid criticism of CRT basically lies. The core concept of CRT is true, but its presuppositions are left open enough that it can be abused and twisted horribly. All one must do is point at an inequality between the races, and say that, due to the horrible treatment of that minority in the past, and the fact that they were not given the same rights, at the same time, with the same money, as white men, that the fact there is still an inequality is an example of there still being systematic mistreatment of that group either in the legal or social systems. You can point at any disparity between groups and call it racism, and by that logic, every country, nation, person, and culture is racist. Because as it turns out, people want, suffer from, value, and do very different things than other people. And never forget, that there are more differences within groups than between them. I really hope this was at least interesting for anyone who had to sit through my long winded explanation. Thanks for your time, and thank you if you leave any comments.
That's the "best" argument youve heard?
How about "everyone is equal under the law, *regardless* of skin color." The idea that we even need to consider skin color is how we got into this mess.
@@CorwinTheOneAndOnly you made the same point as OP
@@CorwinTheOneAndOnly That would be nice if it were true, but if you actually study American history, its very self-evident that law has been used as weapons against non-white persons. Read The Colour of Law (written by Richard Rothstein) and he lays it out pretty clearly. It's well documented history. Don't feel too bad for being ignorant; I didn't know about a lot of this before I started researching American history. Those racist Americans were very crafty in their use of legislation as weapons. It's a good thing modern day right wingers are so dumb and are so transparent when they attempt similar things in modern times. The age of the internet also makes it a lot harder legislate as they did without everyone calling them out on it; hence why basically everyone in the western sphere knows that the GOP has been trying to make it harder for ethnic minorities to vote and for women to have autonomy over their own bodies. They might have been able to do these things quietly as they did with de jure segregation, achieved via redlining communities, industrial lot conversion and using housing associations to enforce segregation and control community migration and property prices. That's when they don't rely on violence of course; which is the bread and butter of the right wing ideology. It's a very fascinating topic if somewhat morbid when you look through relatively recent American history and its effects on modern day America.
@@Lord_of_Dread I don’t think OP is arguing that the practice of law in the US historically isn’t racist, but simply that as it enters the general consciousness it has been oversimplified to the point that it loses accuracy and meaning. For instance while African Americans are disproportionately jailed for drug charges, drug charges in general target the lower class and African Americans are disproportionately poor. As a result it becomes difficult to say definitively that this constitutes legal systemic racism in this case (or at least a definitive quantification) as opposed to a consequence of previous systemic racism that lead to the wealth inequality which itself is the primary driving factor behind drug related incarceration. As I’m certain you know the war on drugs *was* intentionally designed to target minorities, but it becomes difficult to quantify the level of systemic legal racism when factors of even previous generations’ racism play a large role.
I’m interested where you’ve heard that criticism from? Funny enough it sounds similar to something I’ve said in the past and you’re the first outside myself to mention the similarities between “majority privilege” and racism. The problem with this argument though is it justifies racism and violence as simply human nature. If that’s the case then it also signifies a general hypocrisy with regards to our other belief systems such as with religion and subsequently the courts which would inevitably result in their collapse as morality is a core tenant of them both. To put it simply, it destroys the idea that people are inherently good and that we strive to do good things and thus both are just corrupt systems of control. Ultimately though this doesn’t in either case discredit CRT, as it’s simply an coalition of facts and ideas based on our lived experiences. Information in other words and this information at the end of the day is just a tool, like the GOP claim guns to be, and it’s up to us as people to decide how to use it. I personally though don’t believe burning books is the way to go.
I used to hang with a philosophy professor who specialized in and exclusively taught Hegel.... one of the least "woke" guys I've ever met lmao
being woke literally just means caring about others and supporting equality. what kind of evil person doesn't support equality or care for others?
@@advancedlamb yes, true. Pretty ironic that anti-intellectuals have found a way to intellectualize simple empathy into oblivion.
Edit: after reading more of these comments... yeah, I rest my case.
@@advancedlamb all kinds of people unfortunately
Hagel, critical race theory and "woke are three different concepts.
@@Joso997 try explaining that to your average republican, their fucking head would explode
"Hegelian Dialectical mode" is one of the first things kids are taught in French public schools because philosophy classes are mandatory once in highschools. However, that's also changing because the current government thinks that wokism is a "real" threat to national French identity and its spotless universalism...
@свевский wtf are you talking about ...
Its all Psychohistory man, Hari Seldon is laughing in his fictional nonexistence.
@Susan VanDeventer Iverson lmfaoo.🤡
@@lostangel17 lol that emoji must represent yourself. People against CRT are fear mongering and or extremely ignorant.
@@SuperRONDALE keep projecting. Lmao.
@@lostangel17 I…I don’t think you understand what you just typed.
@@SuperRONDALE i don't think you understand. Try working on your comprehension skills.
Oof, Hegel. I struggled with him as a first year. I remember cursing the names of all German philosophers in my history class when my prof explained a Hegelian dialectic by drawing a spiral on the board and saying, "get it?" No...
I guess the anti-socialism rhetoric in the US was getting tired. Gotta spice it up with confusing Hegel to get people all riled up.
Look, I'm a public school teacher. I teach high school history. I do not have the time or patience to even attempt to explain Hegel to kids. I'm busy desperately trying not to breath too deeply while surrounded by 30 masked teenagers in a germ fermentation box and also teach them about the electoral process.
We thank you for your service.
This exactly. I’m a sub teacher. Kids barely understand what reconstruction is, they aren’t going to get or care enough to try to get the ideas behind the Frankfurt school.
@@Kaanfight 'care enough' being the operative phrase.
@@Kaanfight They don't have to teach CRT, they just have to practice it.
@@The6thMessenger nice moving the goalpost. How do you practice a legal system of analysis in a fucking high school? If you think black kids get away with shit more than white kids do or something like that I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Disclaimer: Black guy raised in upper middle class.
I am personally undecided on CRT as I don't know much about it and agree it is used as a boogie man, but at the same time all I saw were examples of people talking around it and not actually what it was. You did briefly touch upon on it, but I would have liked to see a deeper dive of what these philosophies would look like in practical use and also criticism. In the future I would like to see good faith criticism of certain philosophies as most have serious flaws or issues that need to be considered as well. Though I do agree, often times CRT and the other topics such as socialism and Marx are miscategorized and misused though personally I disagree with both.
I hope this video helps
ua-cam.com/video/UZhW1k_m7OY/v-deo.html
The idea why no one knows what crt is is because so that they can rewrite it at any time someone wants to criticize it. It is impossible to fight something you can't pinpoint. I don't know if this is true
the reason people tend to relate this to Marx (and this is coming from a right winger so Im biased to a certain degree) is because it switches the opressor-opressed Marxist ideology with a new opressor but its not the burgoise or the rich is the white man. If thats not racist I dont know what is
@@angrychair5864 stop playing you haven't read Marx
@@SlaughterHouseEducation thats true. But am I wrong tho ?
So this video was very informative, but leaves me with one last unanswered question: why is this being ushered into mainstream consciousness at this point in history?
I won’t really be able to answer this in a way that’s unbiased, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I’ll also try to shorten it down (there’s a TL:DR at the bottom).
So for as long as conservatism has been a thing, it’s always been about preserving the past/present. Today’s current conservatives have little positives to none to offer, so instead of focusing on that, they’ll very often focus on what *could* happen. And since their whole ideology is based around keeping the past intact, society shifting in new, unusual ways is scary and uncomfortable to them.
Enter CRT, the idea that in order to properly fix systemic racism, it needs to be addressed and that whether we intend to or not, racist ideas have been normalised and taught throughout generations. For a lot of people (typically privileged), this is very uncomfortable. The thought that they could have unknowingly been racist for years is a lot to handle.
So usually, you’ll have two groups, those that decide to confront reality, which isn’t easy to do, and those who decide to ignore it. Conservatives decide to ignore it.
And so, with that fear already put into conservatives, who typically tend to be older folk, their politicians will go “not only are you right, but these radical leftists really *are* coming to get you. And only I can solve that problem for you.”
So TL:DR, conservative politicians seek to scare their base, telling them that new things should be rejected, as change is scary. Right now, they’re trying to scare their base with CRT.
@@charltinion5615 well, this made a whole lotta sense lol, thank you very much!
@@dantejackson8670 No worries. :)
Just remember that if a politician is saying something will “destroy the foundation of America”, they’re very likely bullshitting lol.
@@charltinion5615 You created a hypothetical situation yet explained it as fact.
The other comment explained it much better, but to add an addendum, there was this one conservative grifter who went on Fox News and brought it up, and directly said that Trump needs to address "government facilities teaching CRT" - when literally all that was happening was pretty ineffective and kinda cringe racial bias trainings that don't work were being presented to people, which isn't even CRT - and the talking point very quickly was picked up by everyone in the republican party to stoke the extreme racial animosity they'd harbored since George Floyd (and long before, that was simply the event which recently heavily increased it)
So yeah, literally, random dude trying to get Big Oil money or whatever ends up as the spokesperson for the biggest non-issue of all-time. Wild shit.
Might be off-topic here but regarding four hour podcast I highly recommend the ones by Lex Fridman - more often 2-3 hours but he is an amazing host always leading an insightful discussion that doesn't bore at all.
10:50
Me(a new vegas veteran): oh he means Caesar. He definitely means Caesar.
WC: Marx
Me(an idoiot): oh yeah that makes a lot more sense.
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
... What in the goddamn?
People always misreference the 3/5 compromise. The video says that its reasonable to look at the historical and structural racism built into the legal system to fix it because, "It was not that long ago that black people were legally considered 3/5th a person." I just wanted to clarify the 3/5 compromise because people seem to misunderstand it. When forming the constitution, it was actually the South that wanted Slaves to count as a full person for the purposed of a states total population because that would mean they had more seats in the House of Representatives. Free states did not want slaves to be counted as a full person because that meant the Slave states would have more influence in the federal government. The compromise was that 3/5 of each state's slave population counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. This rule only applied to slave populations, not free black people. It did not mean that black people as individuals only had 3/5ths the legal rights of a person, whatever that would mean. It was actually in a slaves best interest not to be counted as a person for the purposes of apportionment. It would make more sense for the video to say, "its not that long ago that we had racial slavery in this country." The 3/5 compromise doesn't really apply to what he is talking about.
As a side note, I miss Jared.
The idea of slavery conflicted with the founding fathers idea of America, that of a country devoted to liberty. The southern delegates (rich plantation owners) did not want to let go of their slaves, after all that’s how they got so rich. They threatened to secede if America was to get rid of slavery. So it was decided to let the south have slaves in order to keep America whole.
When it came to representation in government there were two different ideas. The Virginia plan meant representation in proportion to the states population or wealth. You can imagine why the south would want this, they were rich and had plenty of slaves (slaves outnumbered the white pop.) Or the New Jersey plan, which gave states equal representation. There was a compromise, and now we have the House of Representatives (proportionate representation in the house) and Congress (two senators for each state).
The matter of how to determine population was anything but trivial. Having failed to secure the abolishment of slavery, some delegates from the Northern states sought to make representation dependent on the size of a state’s free population. Southern delegates, on the other hand, threatened to abandon the convention if enslaved individuals were not counted. Eventually, the framers agreed on a compromise that called for representation in the House of Representatives to be apportioned on the basis of a state’s free population plus three-fifths of its enslaved population. This agreement came to be known as the three-fifths compromise.
It it important to note that racial prejudice against black people has existed for a long time. Although free, black people did not always have the same freedoms as white people. I also think it’s safe to say an enslaved black person would’ve wanted to be considered a whole person and be free.
Wait, so are you actually trying to say that a country that counted it's black SLAVES as 3/5th's of a person wasn't being racist or monsterous because this was about how they counted their ENSLAVED population?? Are you for real trying to justify why counting a person as not a whole person is okay?? Even if you're just looking at this from a stats perspective it's inherenetly racist & harmful. Slavery inevitabley makes everything it touches evil. Even just things like population counts.
@@lorianabanana6066 Lol that’s not at all what I’m saying, and I don’t know how you could interpret it that way. Weird how people today immediately have an instinct to impose the worst possible interpretation of what people are saying. It’s a small line in the video, but I think the video miss references the 3/5ths compromise, and I wanted to clarify what it means. Im saying the video should should have said, “It wasn’t that long ago that we had racial slavery in this country, and this country didn’t consider these black slaves as people AT ALL.” I think the video was referencing the 3/5ths compromise to try to sound smart, but got it wrong. Which is ironic because the whole video is about criticizing someone for referencing philosophy to try to sound smart when criticising CRT, but getting the philosophy wrong.
4:16 "a *FOUR HOUR* podcast on CRT" I get the feeling they purposefully make these social media posts as long as possible. It's not meant to be concise, the whole point is to dilute the conversation
Check out Ryan Chapman then. Lindsay's podcasts are so long because he actually reads through the books while offering his analysis and critique. Chapman goes through the texts too, but his videos are meant to highlight key points rather than dig into the minutia like Lindsay does.
Only other thing I can say is, don't criticize people for presenting a shallow understanding and then criticize those who go in depth. Hopefully you only choose to critique the people who go in depth and instead check out Ryan Chapman.
You are doing a lot of work to respond to something that most people don't actually understand.
People aren't upset about CRT because of any rational substantive reason. They are upset about what they believe CRT to be because they are told to be upset about, and afraid of, whatever fictional ramifications its widespread teaching would allow.
?? I love how everyone here is just straight up misrepresenting why rational people would be against "crt" just strawmanning using some crazy Florida protesters as an example of all critics to say they're all irrational and have no reason lol. You know some people think for themselves right? they're not told "to be upset" about crt, they formed those opinions all on their own after listening to the absolute lunatic teachers who teach it in their classes. Ye sorry I'm rational enough to listen to these people literally say they'll be teaching equity and white privilege to their students as part of a crt curriculum and come to the conclusion that they're racist extremists all on my own. People think they can gaslight parents into thinking this stuff isn't what they think it is so they can slip in their gross political rhetoric without them knowing. Like even if you go by and preach the legal definition of crt that's about "improving" the justice system based on race, you still come off as an absolute lunatic to me because the implication is that you're going to somehow alter the justice system based on race quotas, based on a false belief about the system being against specific groups, like how are you gonna do that? Let people go based on skin color? "Ohhh you murdered someone but you're X race so you're free to go, we're sorry for racism" you know how crazy and racist that sounds?
@@thekamotodragon Nice job proving the point of the original comment. You have no idea what CRT is, let alone the fact it’s only taught in University.
Did you get triggered over Mr Potato Head and Dr Sues as well?
@@alexj7440 they literally explained what crt was in the beginning of this video and ive heard many more explanations from the "left" that said the same but they also have said different explanations aswell that dont match what crt is supposed to be. so who the fuck knows what it is when i get a different answer from both sides. his comment doesn't prove the comments point, you're just not understanding what hes saying
As a teacher and philosophy grad, that hurt my head. Where are people learning Hegel in k-12? I also got traumatic flashbacks of having a paper due on Hagel and I definitely didn't do the reading 😭😭😭🤮
It's the praxis of CRT that for sure has gotten into the lower education system. Parents everywhere are speaking out against it.
@@InterestingHerbs delusional racist
New Title - I react to some amateur philosopher that I don’t like’s 4 hour podcast on CRT
Nice dissection of points. But, you didn't cover the main thing that I heard about that made me go "WTF?!" about CRT. There was some discussion about trying to get a certain children's book (think it's called "Not My Idea") to be taught to extremely young students in certain school districts. To inaccurately paraphrase, the book basically tells kids that to be white is to be the devil, take advantage of minorities, and a couple other ridiculous things.
And I don't know if this was true but it seemed to have been true in some sense, some school districts seemed to be considering adding it to curriculum according to different articles about it.
THAT put me up in arms about CRT. Not this philosophical stuff.
You will get pushback from dishonest or stupid people saying, "That's not CRT" or "That's a basterdization of it." What CRT does it teach people how to draw these conclusions like the one in the book you mentioned. CRT is the theory behind systemic discrimination. CRT praxis, though, is then taking what you've learned from CRT and figuring out how to combat said discrimination. So the results of CRT are things like the book you mentioned.
@@ForOrAgainstUs No, you'll get stupid or dishonest people like yourself claiming it is. Its a legal theory it looks at the legal system. The fact is the CRT hysteria is all artificially constructed by conservatives to galvanise their voting base. That's it. You'll actively fabricate things that aren't happening to perpetuate it.
Would be cool to see a video on CRT itself, if you're going to do a react video on a philosophy programme.
He wouldn't be able to do that and push this sophomoric level of propoganda at the same time.
I agree.
@@InterestingHerbs yeah I've been thinking of unsubbing for a while now because the channel has been showing to be less and less centrist and objective.
I just wanna hear about symbolism in comic book movies, man. Not this guy fucking creaming all over Marx whenever he gets the chance to.
@@josh70924 imagine thinking centrist = objective
@@tinkdnuos did I say that? I said centrist *and* objective. Two different things.
That being said, a centrist is what one ought to be if they intend on remaining objective. When you identify with any particular party you are more likely to put reason aside and choose just to believe whatever arguments your "side" puts forward.
Liberals just hate on centrists because they're not liberal enough for them. It's dumb.
Anti-Hegelians never realize what they're doing when they think of Hegel in terms of what they believe 'debunks' his work.
Heyo, I know this is a Philosopher Reacts video so maybe this suggestion doesn't fit the format, but maybe when you're looking at dense sub-topics to explain larger culture trends in the future, it would be better to start with those videos about what the larger culture trend actually is and then go into the theory, rather than putting the basic explanation at like 14:00. That would be easier for me at least to put the rest of it into context? Idk
Yeah but supporters of this stuff purposefully make it confusing. If they laid out their entire spiel clearly for people, everyone would rightfully be outraged and make moves to shut this bullshit down. So they misdirect, mislead, lie, obfuscate, etc..
@@SineEyed they do lay it out clearly, it'd be evident to everyone if this philosopher actually gave a good faith presentation on James Lindsay's arguments.
@@TheFleckboyz if you're referring to instances in the literature of critical social justice where they clearly outline their beliefs, values, and goals, then I can't really disagree. I guess what I was saying is that those instances are peppered in to a large set of rather obscure academic articles which most people are never gonna read. Like... 99.5% of people will never read them. And 99.9% will never read each one that contains an individual instance of their goals or whatever, such that they'll put together a comprehensive view of those things in their heads.
I was imagining taking all of those instances where they show their hand, laying them out all next to each other or formatted in a way that any average Joe or Jane wouldn't have any trouble seeing exactly what's going on. That's what I meant by "laying out their entire spiel clearly for people"..
The problem with CRT is not the philosophy itself but rather how it's applied. Take, for example, how it was applied at Evergreen College, especially a couple years ago, the students taking over the campus and imposing an authoritarian imperative that the school adhere to their view of the world, literally, holding the president hostage in a classroom, not allowing him to go to the bathroom, calling him on "micro-aggressive " hand gestures.
It made national news and did nothing to further critical race theory as a particular, reasonable pov.
Check out what happened at Evergreen College a couple years ago, there are plenty of videos on it. Fox News picked up the debacle as a way of discrediting the left." ... Authoritarian leftism uses critical race theory to further a military, exclusionary, self-righteous intolerant methodology.
The average person sees this and says: look at the left, look how race is being used. Post-modernism contains a growing number of people who are aut4horitarian leftist and that's doing no good for what genuine leftist movements are hoping to accomplish.
That's exactly what genuine leftists are trying to accomplish. I don't like looking at people in a simplistic manner, but sometimes it's as simple as simple can get. This is one of those cases. Voters support politicians to gain access to promised "benefits", no matter the party. Politicians then work towards the promise if it's beneficial to their gaining of power, if not, they discard it like they discard other promises they make. That's why I think politicians should legally declare their promises before running so they think twice before lying or exaggerating.
I think this misses a lot of the point of the issues on the ground like who’s more oppressed than who, teaching people to focus on skin color instead of character, and indoctrinating children in schools that they are inherently racist just because of their skin color, and so many more real impacts to society.
Liberal anti-racism isn't the same thing as CRT, not by a long shot. Your understanding of CRT is way off base and more closely matches the intentionally made-up conservative definition of CRT, which was created to act as a scapegoat for white grievance issues. The entire point of _actual_ CRT is that race is socially constructed, and quite closely mirrors the beliefs of Martin Luther King, Jr.
But you don't need to take it from me. Here's one of the right-wingers responsible for intentionally misleading people about what CRT means:
"We have successfully frozen their brand -- 'critical race theory'-- into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand categry. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory'. We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans."
-- Tweet by Christopher Rufo, conservative CRT "expert", on Mar 15, 2021
@@IAmNumber4000 bullshit. In CRT texts MLK Jr and the social rights movement he lead, is explicitly denounced. They outright reject his methodology, believing it to be inaffective..
@@SineEyed Which CRT texts? Name them.
The commodified MLK Jr. that you know, the one who appeared out of nowhere to say “Be colorblind and don’t think about race” then died, is fake. The real MLK Jr was a based as fuck radical socialist who knew that one of the central causes of racism in America was the alienation caused by capitalist wage labor. Read Our God is Marching On.
He was just as anti-capitalist as any CRT theorist and based his understanding of racism on a material analysis of the political economy. Same as CRT theorists. The people who say he and CRT were somehow opposed to one another never went out of their way to learn about either.
@@IAmNumber4000 you may be 100% correct but I still think a video about crt if it’s going to be any more use than philosophers winking at each over theories must deal with the implementation on the ground.
Even if it’s a completely different topic I think people really want to understand the connection and why it’s being implemented the way it is and what the real honest pros and cons are.
As it is this video feels like it side stepped the issue to avoid offending some viewers who subscribe to liberal ideologies.
@@IAmNumber4000 So then you admit CRT is marxist. thank you
If you define CRT as a discipline that shows to people that slavery and racism was accepted and incetivided in the past and that it still has ramifications today... go for it, we even have holidays for that.
If you define CRT as a discipline that teaches that your skin collor defines if you are in a group of oppressors or oppressed, based on some variation of historical materialism (aka class warfare)... then we might have some kind of cultural Marxism there.
Either way, even scholars can't define it so 🤷
The point is, it perpetuates race hatred between everyone by constantly bringing up. You're talking to someone then all of a sudden you get accused of white privilege for having a better job and that makes everyone mad. We need to look at people as individuals not by race. This ideology will start a violent conflict where people will be shooting each other over skin color. And skin color cannot be hidden. Children are not racist. They have to be taught to be racist and that's what CRT does. A child just sees another child as a different person, as they think the skin color is as varied as eye color or height or voice. When they go to high school, that's where they have enough life experience to notice skin color the most.
CRT is exactly that, cultural marxism. Complete and utter garbage for morons.
@@FreshFriF there is no such thing as cultural marxism. Actually talk to a Marxist for once.
Yep, and all the opponents of it only see the second definition, cause wokeness is being pushed to their children (supposedly) with all the graphs and stats showing black - oppressed and good and white - oppressive and bad or some shit i dunno xd anyway disliked the vid
@@ginkiba3
Cultural Marxism refers to the idea of social equality instead of economic equality. It's not an academic theory, it's a term.
I was convinced about the talking heads on fox about Marx until when I took philosophy and actually read Marx. The idiots throwing out Marxism around loosely like it’s profanity remind me of the allegory of the cave as the idiots who see the shadow and don’t complete understand , not just Marxism but philosophy in a broad sense
What’s not to understand where Marx’s goes a famine follows
@@jackrodriguez3404 So you don't understand Marx.
His works talk about concepts like the idea of workers owning the means of production instead of just some rich asshole. So quite a lot about his work you don't understand clearly. There's literally nothing in there that's remotely evil or nefarious, you've been lied to and indoctrinated about Marxism for decades and you somehow think its the Marxists that control education.
It is you who do not understand. Yes I read it. But it isn't in dispute that he had a noble ideal. The problem is human nature. If you give people the extreme of socialism, it disincentivizes them to strive for the exceptional, they end up just being a bunch of lazy bums. And if you let the state do everything, it does it very badly. Those are details that were not even in the scope of consideration of Marx. Humans thrive in a bit of adversity. Tough love. Suffer if you don't earn your keep, and keep the products of your own labor. And if you let the government do everything, then everything becomes like the DMV. There are some things that should be socialized, and there are some things that should be left to the free market.
They afraid kids will learn that America's history isn't all rainbows and sunshine and g.i. joe real American heroes.
Critical Race Applied Principles
I love how CRT was literally explained, yet the comments still have people denying that and peddling nonsense...
Except it wasn’t explained, at all.
They know the truth behind it lol they just stuck in they ways.
It wasn't literally explained, it was a video defending it for 20 minutes. We have eyes and can see exactly what it is. It's idiots like you that believe it's benign and useful to our society.
Academic CRT (which I love) is very different from pop culture CRT (which tends to be more harmful than helpful).
@@thrawncaedusl717 There has to be an academic term, or body of expository thesis’s on the phenomenon you’re describing. Wherein something such as CRT is co-opted by special interests or sub-cultures, and is precision weaponized as a sort of Trojan horse for sociopolitical change the general public would reject and actively oppose.
Somehow you forgot to mention marcuse calling for revolution, Delgado and Stefanic saying CRT is revolutionary, Gramsci saying the learning institutions must be used to instill communist ideology in the culture, and how Kimberlé Crenshaw clearly said it is important a person identify as a black person rather than a person who happens to be black. You also ignored the difference between theory and praxis.
Communists are like toddlers with chocolate all over their faces, looking up at you and saying 'what cake? I didn't eat any cake!'
@@loud6037 and then saying, “Share your cake!” when you have no cake.
I know, right? very convenient.
@@KrovMalenkov301 I take comfort in knowing that at least they will be as miserable in their new utopia as the rest of us. 😭🤣
Yeah seriously, I don’t think this guy read any of the books on critical race theory. Sounds like he just read the wiki page.
There are so many Black people who are against this but are afraid to speak out.
It's no surprise that someone within the cult doesn't think that the cults ideas are dangerous or inconsistent. Constantly shifting definitions to deflect any criticism isn't academically honestly
What?
When I was writing my MA thesis about racial disparity in the US education system, I somehow remained uniformed about CRT despite all my research (although my field is language education specifically, so I’ll give myself a break). In fact, it wasn’t even until all the controversy over the issue surfaced when I finally looked into the theory for myself. I found that CRT parallels many of the themes I discussed in my thesis. As an educator, this video emphasizes my desire to inform people about systemic racism while also highlighting my frustrations towards certain parts of the population who use misconceptions about C(R)T to justify their own racial biases and maintain the status quo. But more importantly, I don’t understand why closed-minded individuals insist this is being taught in a K-12 curriculum? Like I the didn’t start using complex theoretical framework to construct arguments until well into college.
Does CRT imply that race is a social construct?
The current issue with CRT is nothing more than Right-wing conspiracy talking point against the left! Germany teaches their children about the history of the Nazis to ensure something like that doesn't happen again. Racism, White Supremacist, white nationalism is not socially accepted in our Democratic Society; however, since the reign of the narcissist in chief his behavior, demeanor, and his unwillingness to refute racism in America during his term in the highest office in the land has given the fascist, KKK, and White Nationalist a platform and they no longer feel they need to hide in basements.
If you come to similar conclusions or themes as CRT, bro, you need to rethink a lot of things and get better sources
@@enufots4621 literally nothing you said is true.
The local parents’ group (not the sane parents, the anti-mask, anti-vaccine, Trump-won people) insists that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs = CRT
Some people get immensely offended when you try to push selflessness and self awareness upon them. It’s truly something astonishing.
Or discrimination in the form of discriminaton
Critical race theory is about 'group' awareness, not self awareness.
We used to call this brainwashing, but I guess CRT sounds better
I think the key word these folks are missing is "empathy". The dialectic is intellectually empathizing with an opponent's position and presenting it in good faith to 100% of your ability. Otherwise dialectics become strawman fallacies.
Conservatives don't possess empathy for anyone but themselves and their immediate surroundings. Otherwise they wouldn't be conservatives.
But when they capitalizing on fear, (fear of being shot so they bring guns, fear of damaging there liberty and what they have so they oppress the one who threatens it, fear that an apocalypse created by there God and fear of going to hell) well its kind of hard to be empathetic when you are also fearful. So you won't be emphatic to someone you fear of.
Seems they missed quite a few words. jk
another left winger using the word empathy when there are no arguments lol
Im very empathetic. Now to take everything from my neighbors
You talk about Critical Race Theory, but my brain goes to cathode-ray tube monitors/tv sets. I'm getting old.
Don’t know why people are making a big fuss about Cathode Ray Tube monitors
You’re gonna talk about willful mischaracterization and then in the very next breath pretend you don’t get what Lindsay means when he uses the word religion in this context? C’mon bro
Well what did he mean? And does clarifying this mischaracterization make his points any more correct?
@@juliencotton3095 Lindsay means that most ‘woke’ people dogmatically hang on to their critical views with unjustifiable certainty (which are not based on empirical evidence or the epistemically theory of empiricism at all), believe and espouse a kind of eschatology, believe in and espouse a kind of “original sin,” -!: engage in intense self-flagellation. At least, that’s what I THINK he means.
I have read critical race theory. I do not wish to deconstruct Western civilization and replace capitalism.
I WISH THEY WERE TEACHING HEGELIAN DIALECTICS AT SCHOOL
Why? So you can do Scientism?
@@lLenn2 can you elaborate?
@@lLenn2 So they join Caesar's Legion
@@nei892 Because Hegel's premise is that you can explain the world apriori. That means it's not based on any empirical observations. That means it's Scientism.
@@lLenn2 I agree. I work in applied sciences and listening to all this crap and I feel if I was to show them a math book or a physics book, they would cry in pain. I now know where to hide my money.
Very annoying to see alot of comments not even trying to discuss CRT or critique it in their own comments to give their opinions to educate anyone or correct anything in this video, but just throw out blanket complaints. I want to read paragraphs about why they think it's wrong or link more videos to the topic. As someone who isn't white or black and don't particularly care in either case, I would appreciate the topic being discussed more in the comments.
...because people care so much about an essentially marxist doctrine that theyd be willing to write an essay for a random non-white non-black person on the internet to read? Jesus...
Agreed
Here's my opinion on CRT: Your user name is Light Yagami, yet your picture is the symbol used by L. Seems like Marxist propaganda to me.
I find that yt isnt really good for that. There is no way to check comment other then manually. so even if u r interests there is no point.
I got you bruh, personally I agree with the premise of the video that what CRT actually is, is not being taught in school or is widely subversive; it is just a tool. Now I do think that it is a tool that many have used to argue shit that either does nothing to help POC (see the pyramid of radicalization, that one display on "What is Whiteness?" that was in the Smithsonian.) or outright hurt us (separating people is what leads to a lack of people understanding our experiences.) Now to be fair; every ideology will have some crazies in it pushing BS. I just worry that since the vast majority do not know what the underlying theory is or its history; it is used as carte blanche to lump in whatever radical ideals the person believes. and as usual; have white people speak for us.
So let’s tell the whole definition instead of the soft shoe version
“A. What Is Critical Race Theory?
The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
Excerpt From
Critical Race Theory (Third Edition)
Delgado, Richard; Stefancic, Jean; Harris, Angela
Seriously, as a philosophy channel you'd think he'd be more willing to give the whole truth, not his handpicked version of it.
I seriously want to thank you for this video. Although I may not and probably won't be a communist, self identifying myself with social democracy viewpoints, this really clarifies what CRT is, and what or how marxism has to do with it. Not much, but I do know now that marxism wasn't really more of a call for violence than it was an in-depth study and critique of capitalism, and predictions on how the working class would have to or want to spark a revolution. This is really informative.
Great. What is it, then?
This videos doesn't actually clarifies anything about CRT. It's yet another video of a apologist trying to tell us that what we're seeing in front of our eyes isn't what we're seeing in front of our eyes.
@@edd1EroxPwDblah do you even know what CRT or are you just talking out of your ass?
@@edd1EroxPwDblah keep huffing that copium, racist.
CRT is anti Communist because no communist nation would put up with it. Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro would never let guys Shaun King, and Hassan Piker walk around free
That situation where the more you hear the person speaking, the more you realize they have less than zero understanding of what they are talking about
Dunning-Kruger effect 🤷🏻♀️
Are you referring to the former Philosophy prof or the former massage therapist with a PhD in math?
I think many people have issues with it due to its extremely narrow focus on race, which forces its adherents to assume that x action is due to racism as opposed to any of the 1000s of other reasons for x.
Many people believe that CRT hypersensitises people to race, skewing their objectivity by biasing their perception. They worry that teaching people to focus on race will increase racism. There is good psychological backing for this, check the availability bias. If you are repeatedly told to consider things from a racial perspective, then it means you will be more likely to think the reason behind any problem is race because it will be the reason that becomes immediately available to you. Almost like intuition. You're going to see race and racism everywhere.
This is also supported by neuroscience, mainly the idea that a brain is a prediction machine. Much of our perception is built from the top-down (from predictions within) rather than bottom-up (from senses). In fact, some prominent neuroscientists suggest that sensory input works as an error correction mechanism for our predictions. If this model is true, and then you feed the brain CRT, it is very likely going to start predicting racism, and if sensory information doesn't produce a large enough error signal, then the perception of racism continues. This is troublesome seeing as there is rarely an overt sensory signal that counters perceptions of racism.
Take the example of a white man shouting at a black man in the street. In this example there may not be any obvious sensory cue to know what caused the shouting, meaning that a brain trained with CRT would like to assume racism as there is nothing to dissuade them from this conclusion. However, if you were there for longer it may turn out that the white man was shouted at first and was simply returning in kind. Or perhaps if you get close you could hear the content of the shouting and realise it's all about money. There may be no racial component to it at all, but lacking an overt sensory signal the prediction of racism would persist. CRT critics think it narrows thinking by trying to simplify incredibly complex problems, and even more complex systems into a nice, simple, unidimensional answer.
Unidimensional thinking isn't the best way to solve a problem. Especially one that hypersensitises people to race. Not to mention the division such thinking produces. If categorisation is the source of all discrimination, it doesn't seem evident that reinforcing categorisations such as race is antidiscriminatory. The solution to the racism problem in my opinion is to stop focusing on race. CRT tells people to do the opposite. No matter the intentions, or the pretty words used to dress it up, it still remains a system of thinking that hypersensitises people to race, and I don't think that is justifiable.
Also, 'teaching' doesn't necessarily mean as part of the syllabus. The opinions of teachers do trickle into their students, in much the same way that parent's sports preferences trickle down to their children. You obviously know this so I'm curious why you never even mentioned this as the possible mode of memetic transmission.
I believe that you began this video with a specific intent to discredit CRT opponents using strawmen. For example, just because James Linsey may not have the best understanding of Hegel doesn't necessitate that the remainder of his thinking is wrong. That is an obvious fallacy. Nor is cherry-picking lone 'critics' from the news a valid rebuttal to the critics of CRT.
I think CRT is perfectly suited for college learning as all philosophies should be explored in a mature way in college. I don't agree that youngsters should delve deeply into CRT. Also, Wisecrack said that it hasn't been very long since PoC were 3/5 of a person; 1877 was quite a long time ago. There is no excuse for slavery.
Loser
@@brauliob I agree with all of that. So long as the college students are being taught in an objective, non-biased way. I have reasons to suspect this isn't so. hahaha yes, 1877 is quite a long time ago indeed, especially when we consider it relative to societal change.
Except the entire point of CRT is that race is socially constructed. MLK Jr.'s beliefs are very close to CRT, and if you don't agree then you likely haven't gone out of your way to learn about either one.
The current mainstream conservative "critique" of CRT deserves no serious consideration because right-wing pundits deliberately made up their own definition of CRT to act as a scapegoat for white grievance issues. That's the only reason you're hearing about it at all.
"We have successfully frozen their brand -- 'critical race theory'-- into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand categry. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory'. We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans."
-- Tweet by Christopher Rufo, conservative CRT "expert", on Mar 15, 2021
@@brauliob What did the mayflower have to do with me or my ancestors? As black children all we do is learn y'all history. But when it's time for children to really understand slavery and how that has an impacted our lives today is bad? It should be taught in college? So what another white kid can shoot up a black church? And while being 3/4s a human was changed. That didn't not change all the lynching of people kids and businesses. We have always been treated as second class
I'm of the opinion that Cathode Ray Tubes certainly had their uses, but LED / OLED screens are far cheaper and easier to work with.
...Wait a minute, this isn't The Ben Heck Show
This Cathode Ray Tube Theory is getting out of control.
I love this channel so much. And I love the fact that you've included bibliography even more. Geez, I'm falling hard for you.
re 4 hour podcasts: I strongly recommend hardcore history and anything else by dan carlin!
Marx would likely only understand/focus on the class reductionist lens of racial conflict, as opposed to focusing on the racial component at large, as Marx’s biggest problem was that he was tunnel-visioned on class conflict more than anything else.
I'm not much of a Marx ultra fan myself, there's something... Off about the Marx worship. Man wasn't perfect within theory or without, and I agree with you for the most part. Buuuuuuut, I'd still argue that class struggle has the lions share of "things that would pave the way for equality" in my book too.
@@Onii_Chan_Kenobi That’s absolutely true. Class and race interact pretty harshly, but I think Marx would not able to focus on anything else.
@@brutusmagnuson315
It was kind of his biggest flaw. It's subjective of course (man's was a bit rac1st himself) but his focus on class conflict with little to no intersectionality was a huge bullet in the foot of him being universally accepted in progressive ideology
@@Onii_Chan_Kenobi Probably because "intersectionality" is meaningless. The only oppressor is he who has either political power or access to means of production; in other words, the ruling class. No inherent characteristic of oppressors is politically and socially relevant other than their temporary status as a member of the ruling class. "Intersectionality" is one of the reasons why the proletariat is weaker than ever, reaching dangerously low levels of class awareness since they are now bombarded with meaningless grouping such as those based on ethnicity or sexuality. The rejection of traditional marxist philosophy by the modern left has been central in the degradation of workers rights and benefits and the lack of resistance against the ever increasing political control of corporations. The modern left is, wittingly or unwittingly, an ally to the ruling class.
Marx was a German author and heavily influenced by the society he grew up in. Working class people in Germany back then were the descendants of commoners, serfs and classless people, whereas the bourgeoisie were nobles. Said nobles generally believed that they were genetically superior to working class people, using this belief as a justification for their power during the 19th century.
In German racism, "race" is mainly tied to class rather than skin color which is also why German racism is strongly targeting people who aren't Western Christian as non-Christians were considered classless during the rule of nobility.
I teach high school science. I don't remember ever learning about Hegel during my master's program. The idea that we are teaching CRT in public school is absurd.
James Lindsay is a mathematician, not a philosopher. People are just afraid of confronting their implicit bias and privilege.
i learned about it in middle school. that was when my mother went to law school and i helped her study because i wanted to be a lawyer just like her. can confirm this is not taught to k-12.
to be fair, just because they've mislabeled their problem as a problem with CRT doesn't negate their underlying argument, I think a better approach would've have been to reframe your own understanding to align with their new interpretation so that the discussion is based more from the new commonly accepted point of view rather than trying to base your critiques on whether or not their use of CRT as a label of their grievances is strictly philosophically/historically accurate, because at the end of the day whether or not their use of that label for the issues they're attributing to CRT is accurate is besides the point
What is the commonly accepted view?
@@kylepickett2862 I'm using the phrase 'commonly accepted view' to describe a false or inaccurate belief or viewpoint a group has, for example if some people believe getting some treatment will possibly result in unlisted side effects, whether or not they're correct in thinking that you can't dismiss their argument or how it makes them feel, so in that sense if you want to effectively communicate with them you really need to reframe your argument to adopt and truly empathize with that new point of view in mind, dismissing it outright will only serve to alienate said group, leading to an echo chamber that further entrenches sides
But (teacher here) the “commonly accepted view” seems to be whatever a few very loud, easily offended parents who want lots of attention at school board meetings want it to be. The local parents’ group against “CRT” in my area is angry about: sex ed, social emotional learning, LGBTQ+ acceptance, vaccines, masks, diversity programs, equity training, grading and testing methods, bathroom policies… you name it, if they dislike it, they will complain it is CRT.
@@jglobetrotter2830 yeah, I get it, I used to be a teacher's aide and a tutor, and that's obviously absolutely correct, the loud boisterous self-obsessed parents are the ones redefining, deflecting, and controlling the conversation, it can be hard to empathize with people who have zero interest in empathizing with you or the context of the larger issue beyond their own myopic agenda, but you have to, however thankless that might be
We have to refute their ideas on some level, because they're factually incorrect. It's alarming that something so objectively wrong becomes a commonly accepted point of view.
I recommend watching the full Marc Lamont video at the end. Wisecrack used a short clip that really lacks context and misses the questions James Lindsey posed to Marc at the end.
For me as a German it would be funny to look at American "politics" and lough about how ridiculous it is if it weren't for its influence on the whole world. Call us Communists but our political middle is where Bernie Sanders stands.
Richtig
Yes, but the Americans call what we do in western Europe socialism, while socialism has a super wide definition that includes borderline communism. That's dangerous. They should adopt what we do, social policies with a capitalist system to pay for them, not communism.
@@Lilliathi the Cold War has completely warped how US citizens view and discuss ideologies and philosophies. It might take another whole generation before these conversations become less nonsensical and filled with straw
@@Lilliathi some stupid boomercons may call it that, but most people on the US call it democratic socialism, which europeans self identify as. You are 20 years late in your analysis.
Thank you for not having me write the same thing.
And everybody who has lived in Europe knows that one can be very very racist towards another even though the ethnicity is practically the same. But reducing anything to the lens of skin color is barbaric racism, less nuanced. We have to ask ones heritage before we can effectively be racist.
So as usual, we are culturally way more developed than the Americans ^^
(the one thing we were embarrassingly behind on was same-sex marriage)
Oh no... oh no, I see gendering on the horizon...
I think a point of confusion on CRT is the pop-verion of CRT that is most often encountered in day-to-day social and para-social interactions; and the academic theory which is nuanced enough to have both positive and negative evidence for and against it.
The pop-version is almost always used as a gotcha argument in a post-hoc fashion. In the hands of the public CRT has become a tool of the political tribe with which to bludgeon to death opposition; mirroring the way in which pop-psychology and pop-sociological have been used historically. To those being bludgeoned the origins of the tool and its merits are lost in the more immediate desire to end the bludgeoning.
The irony being that much like calls for disarmament and legal paternalism that the right so eagerly call out as authoritarian is remarkably similar to the logic they to apply to that which poses a threat to them. The Right treating CRT like the left treats firearms; by ignoring the person misusing the thing. XD
Pop progressivism... Yea, you're right that's a huge part of the problem...
We see it in the other movements too, where once the members gain a semblance of equality they begin to engage in narcissistic special pleading in order to maintain the tool of the movement as a weapon....
The academic version is just more careful about not sounding extremely racist. It's not nuanced, guy, it's word play and extremely racist! You probably sat there thinking that positive discrimination isn't a zero sum game right? lol
in fact i would say you all need to watch this video. It explains a lot of things and why as a matter of fact the three of you are wrong (all people until now except for quidnunc).
ua-cam.com/video/OxR0gbnfWKQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Wozzock
@@quidnunc01 I actually do encounter it fairly regularly, where people spout some talking point they learned from pop culture but which they dont actually comprehend, usually as a means to silence or attack the 'Other'....
Really its just classic human behaviour and its absurd that anyone expects any different, even from those who were historically marginalized etc.... They're still just humans, so once they do 'defeat' systemic issues they will attempt to maintain anything which provides advantage at that point, just like all humans have since civilization started....
Of note is that just because the systemic issues are still extant doesn't mean that one cannot fall to the same personal failings which may occur after those issues are resolved, meaning that even now people will twist the very real academic discourse for their own purpose (consciously or otherwise).
All this to explain the part of the source of the implicit bias of the people discussed, in that they will engage in lie by omission or other maleficence in order to maintain their personal status quo - effectively a form of conservatism, regardless of how liberal the person claims to be.
@@quidnunc01 Go read this, guy: "Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory: Looking back to Move Forward Commentary: Critical Race Theory: A Commemoration: Forward Commentary: Critical Race Theory: A Commemoration: Lead Article"
It by one of the founders of CRT and she can't keep complaining about "colorblindness" not allow her to implement racist policies.
It makes no sense to disregard CRT criticism basing it on an analysis of a dumb guy's podcast. Also, although it started as a legal term, CRT's use has broadend to education, so it also doesn't make sense to disregard the discussion based on its origin and not its development. I'd suggest to anyone who is truly interested on this debate to watch the Munk Debate on this topic, as it is explored by two people who are a bit more informed on what they're talking about than said podcaster.
I don't think CR Theory can even be considered a theory in the scientific sense.
It's not a scientific theory, it's a philosophical theory
It depends on what you mean by science. It's definitely not a hard science.
It's a philosophical theory my dude
In the full video ua-cam.com/video/lJObwe259CQ/v-deo.html after james sais "You know a lot about this, actually." he continues "..i have a question for you then.." as in 'if you know so much about it you should be able to answer this '.
It makes me really sad to see what this channel has become after jared left.
Marx overtly called for violent revolution
The means of production will not be seized by its self.
@@pathevermore3683 It'll never happen, LARPer.
@@eyedine that's what they said about the trump cult and a coup before last January.
He doesn't know anything. He is just another white guilt leftist who is trying to excuse his failed philosophy diploma learning about socialism.
@@danhair thanks.
Themes of CRT as listed in "Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography" by Delgado and Stefancic:
1. Critique of liberalism
2. Storytelling/"naming one's own reality"
3. Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress (1619 project; anti-incrementalism)
4. Greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism ("systemic" racism found everywhere they look)
5. Structural Determinism (where anti-meritocracy comes from)
6. Race, sex, class and their intersections ("intersectionality"/queer theory)
7. Essentialism and anti-essentialism (identity politics)
8. Cultural nationalism/separatism (including "black insurrection")
when you think your own version of an imagined table of contents counts as a critique
cringe
I understand that CRT could be defended from a philosophical stance, and maybe James Lindsey is technically wrong about what's happening in the classroom. What's missing, or is misunderstood is the use of CRT praxis both in K-12 and universities. Find some articles about the "Sokal Squared" hoax. You don't have to be a theologian to be a Christian or to be an evangelist for that religion, this is what's happening in schools.
I've honestly come to believe that those who yell the loudest are the ones who know the least
That's a BAR!!!
Often true, but not always. The big problem with the "yelling really loudly" form of argumentation is that it basically becomes a type of bullying others into agreeing with you or staying silent, which causes dissent and anger instead of constructive discussion. And this is done by people on all sides of the political spectrum.
That's often true, if you need to yell your point louder means you're frustrated and it might stem from lack of arguments. Which is precisely why the figure of the 'provocateur' exists (aka trolls).
People like Jordan Peterson have made a career of saying extremely provocative/obnoxious things while appearing calm and composed. Imagine having Holocaust survivor family members and having listen as someone describes the Holocaust as a side effect of Hitler's obsession with cleanliness, despite well-documented pogroms and religious antisemitic propaganda for 2000 years. Not all who are outraged are wrongly so.
You have to consider whether the person that's doing the provocation is being intelectually honest or looking for attention or making their debater look bad.
100%!!!
Thank you for this content. In the USA, every time a breakthrough occurs in civil rights, a reaction takes place that attempts to either erase or distort it into unintelligibility. This is an Hegelian tension (lol).
It’s because the days of old are in their death throes.
Critical race theory will be left in the ash can of History no matter who ends up running the country. It simply is not compatible with the values of liberalism has exposed by John Stewart Mill.
@@zaczane It's like a rabid dog in a way; always ever at its most dangerous just before it dies.
@@Iamwolf134 BINGO!
Actually it’s an example of a dialectic’s thesis-antithesis in action! I mean that sincerely. No new idea comes rapidly into the public consciousness without an equality or perhaps more extreme reaction opposing it. And over time the concern about the idea and those pushing for the change eventually articulate themselves in view of the public in media and discourse, we end up with a synthesis in the mainstream and reasonably moderate acceptance of the change is desirable and fair.
Yea, we always will have extremes pushing for crazy stuff like the existential suicide version of eco politics in the anti-Natalists, or the white identity ppl who want to make a “divided but equal” realignment of the states populations, and these ppl will probably never accept anything reasonable from anyone, but your average American truly is live and let live. I think it’s pretty visible if just go out and talk to most people.
I strongly suggest people watch Ryan Chapman's video about critical race theory to see how marxism and the new left of the 60s plays into it
Dammit, Michael. You had to bring the Astros into this. Truly hurt.
@4:40 As James Lindsay was a part of the trio that did the Grievance Studies Affair or "Sokal Squared" back in 2017-18 and has continued his study of it since then, it is quite reasonable to be an expert on it.
Also, at the end, you did not include his response to the long-winded question, which is somewhat deceptive.
It is deeply disappointing the way you are treating this debate. You start by defining CRT in the broadest terms possible, saying no more than it looks at the racism and tries to improve things. Then you take literally ONE SENTENCE and dissect it in a way that willfully disregards context and the intent of the speaker.
You are a Chanel devoted to intellectual discussion. You guys could have laid out exactly what CRT means and says, then evaluated the good faith arguments being made against it. You could have provided a source of real understanding for a topic you clearly know there’s a lot of confusion around. But you decided it was better to make your own snarky reaction video, relying on bad faith interpretations of cherrypicked statements made by people with the most extreme stances.
You are a philosophy channel, you know how to spot bad arguments and how to make good ones. Turn a critical eye to your own work and do better.
You discuss other, individual philosophical concepts more than CRT in a video about CRT.
idk having listened to their podcasts i think jared was the voice of reason so now that he's gone the channel has been getting uh....weird
@@AliasEliahus What do you think about illegal immigrants?
Check out Thomas Sowell’s book “Intellectuals and Race,” which was released in 2013. Critical Race Theory is explored in it. It will certainly help frame things in a much better fashion for you. The jovial gloss of this video was entertaining for sure, but the idea and issue is worth a clearer and less biased gaze.
Thomas Sowell? I thought you wanted a less biased gaze.
@@noeltaylor3594 well said. Thanks for helping me to see my own. All the best to you.
@@noeltaylor3594 CRT is what happened to the natives-- leftists only replaced the church and residential schools on reservations. They only build cheap schools on reservations to deny special education needs of welfare cases multiplying unabounded. The few that do make it through are lobbied and ushered by there own professors into social justice where they return home unqualified to aid illiterate children with math. Youth are committing suicide with no history of abuse or drugs or alcohol at an unprecedented rate.
Sowell unbiased lmao
It's incredibly disgusting how critics will call it fascism when a person dares to criticize societal norms
Imo it’s a deflection tactic. Pretending that criticism of societal norms is “fascist” is used to dismiss one’s role in the propagation and perpetuation of societal ills. If one is to acknowledge problems with societal norms, one must also recognize their role in the proliferation of said norms.
@Chris Gustafson Ironically, Nietzsche assigned "slave morality" to question Christianity, and how specifically in this instance that right-wingers like you want minorities to accept the prejudice and oppression forced upon them daily. Breaking free of the arbitrary limits imposed on minorities by a white supremacist system is the only way for humanity across the board to rise to the ideal of the overman
But since quoting John C. Calhoun isn't sexy, you conservatards have taken to stealing the ideas of better men than you
Fuck outta here
@@bluefacebaby9334 Obama was president for 8 years mate. At this point it's obvious that you just hate white people.
@@AlanWattResistance GOD seeing people like this are fucking infuriating lol you just stick ur head up ur ass and disregard all the evidence in front of you
@@AlanWattResistance You should really stop insulting white people as a whole by associating yourself with them
Conservative whites to light-skinned people as a whole are like Staten Island to New York City
Answer: weaponized ignorance.
edit: In light of Amy Coney Barret's remarks on the supreme court, could you discuss their judicial philosophies and how they may be/are influenced by the politics of their appointment?
To be fair Socrates was very much against democratic institutions
Scorates was all about the imagine secret world and wanted a philopelher rulling class. Yaa
And we can disagree with Socrates whilst listening to and considering his arguments, without resorting to making sure he's silenced by poison, whether of the literal or figurative kind. It's pretty obvious which side of that discussion the 'critics' of CRT come down on.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 we should ignore the Republic and his other works and embrace total skepticism?
@@xunqianbaidu6917 sorry for no being a bit more clear about this. I adhere to the belief that Socrates and Plato were the same person, which I know it's a somewhat controversial topic for some
@@yuvalgabay1023 Seems like you didnt understand Antigone at all.
Brings back my post grad memories. Good times indeed, reading the Frankfurt School and Critical theory.
Can you do an episode on one of my favorite anime shows “The philosophy of Black Lagoon”
Yeah it's dunning Kruger effect. Dumb people are not capable of understanding that they are dumb. Smarter people are more aware of their own shortcomings.
@@yoloswaggins7121 Are talking about CRT or the show I’m suggesting?
@@yoloswaggins7121 What an ironic thing to post in the wrong place.
I believe “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” applies when dealing with the CRT panic
I believe...it's antiwhite bullshit.
Well CRT is, after all, to let historical events be dominated by a racial narrative. Ultimately, CRT is just one of many ways to tell a story.
@@JanLCn "Historical events" pah! That's a good one. It's anti-white narrative designed to abuse kids and teens so they support their own displacement.
@@quesocoatl21 that's what I said, a narrative is just a another way to tell a story. I rather people learn facts about events, and not about what who thinks what drives the motivations of people in history.
Some of the worst kinds of history are done when people go like, oh Hitler became a sociopath because of an abusive father, but doted on by his mother.
@@quesocoatl21 - "It's anti-white narrative"
Oh shut up, "white" doesn't even mean anything. Not too long ago Italians and Irish weren't considered "white". Are slavs white? What about Greeks? Spaniards? It just shows how arbitrary and pointless the "white" label is and how sensitive and fragile you are for being so offended that teachers are telling students historical facts about white colonialism and chattel slavery.
Also great work on the video on Neon Genesis Evangelion. It was amazing
I do hope you do a wisecrack edition of, "Made in the ABYSS" and one explaining CRT for non-Philosophy majors like myself
I’m a simple man. I see a comment about Evangelion and I like.
You don't really need philosophy to understand CRT but he already explained it pretty well. Critical theory is basically an examination of society's power structures and how our culture/institutions reinforce them so we can liberate others and ourselves from their oppressive force. Critical race theory focuses on the racial aspects of that. People may throw their own thing into the mix but that's more or less it. The important part is it's definitely not what conservatives angry about it say it is.
critical theory sounds quite aligned socialism and yet he managed to say that in the video without saying it. They viewed capitalism as the "bad structures that needed to be called out". Michael even nods when she says they were marxists. But apparently that they wanted artistic revolution over a 'traditional' one means they're exempt? Yet also, he nods when she says they wanted to tear down and replace institutions...
Seems like a conscious effort to downplay the socialist/Marxist aspect of critical theory, because we don't want to link CRT to Marxism. Why not just admit it's marxist, and argue that the marxism didn't transfer into CRT?
@@aceman0000099 because critical theory is only Marxist if you apply it through that frame work. Its a way of looking at societal structures and critique them for the injustices "you" perceive. Analyzing arrest records and court records to see that black people are prosecuted more often and given much longer sentences for the same crimes. To then point out that the system itself has built in racial bias is mutually exclusive from Marxism or even socialism. Those institutions have nothing to do with economic systems and could be reformed with in the existing capitalist structure. Even that simplified form its not taught in public schools. Its something taught in law school...So this whole movement is just fucking stupid. Its fear mongering to keep their voter base afraid of the weekly "boogeyman" so they can continue to cater to the donor class and not actually do anything productive for average Americans.
@@bakernation yeah America is fucked always has been always will be
Sorry, even Washington Post admitted that CRT is being taught in Virginia schools. So yes, it is being taught in schools.
Philosophy by definition and principal is the discussion of everything.
The fact that people are afraid of discussion its literally countrary to any intellectual instict.
You don't want to be challenge, and that expose you mindset as weak, flaw and easily supplanted, and you know it subsconciously.
You put yourself in a box and want to stay in that box, die in that box, protected from any challenge and suffering.
Babies in a box
Out of curiosity, you think we should teach Hitler's philosphy from his perspective to kids?
@@R.E.E.D. straw man? He literally never said that?
@@anonymousguy720
Did I say he did?
@@R.E.E.D. you literally used whataboutism un-ironically, in an attempt to discredit the Original Commenter
@@anonymousguy720
Did I use whatsboutism or straw-manning? I think you need to get your story straight before accusing me of something.
I suggest you start by learning what those two terms mean. Because it's evident you don't know, as I've done neither.
As a teacher I can confirm Wisecrack has been killing it lately. Very happy to watch them evolve over the years.
Wait at 3:23 you say black men get sent to prison for drug charges 20 to 50 times as often as white men but the graph shows it's only 3 to 4 times as much
It's a graph of drug arrests, not prison sentences; It doesn't actually have any concrete relation to claim.
@@thelaughingman4791 That would mean black men are about 10 times more likely to get a prison sentence when they are arrested for drug charges? Seems pretty implausible to me. Why didn't he show the data that corroborates his "20 to 50 times" point?
what he means is that black man gets sent to prison for drugs charges more often so its the white man's fault obviously (lol), not the perpetrators. There you go
@@angrychair5864 Well his overall point still stands but so many numbers get thrown around on this topic it's hard to take it seriously sometimes
@@KaKam0u The person understands that, yet people often look at the law as if it's systems are inherently "racist" why can't black men in their communities get drug charges more than white men? This is never really explained yet some how that stat is there as if to show that the black men are the victims when in fact according to the graph they are the perpetrators. Even though on one end you have the fact that white men are more often to be victims of police brutality whereas that was supposedly a black issue.
I think the ideas are not inherently wrong but misused and misapplied, especially in countries with very different histories to the US, where many of us never had any kind of two-tier legal system and don't have a problem with police brutality.
Some insights from personal experience.
My mum went to a conference and had an interesting discussion with a specialist in CRT. Her version was very sensible, but she criticised it as being misused and used as too blunt a tool. Her example was that she came from Swaziland, where there was no apartheid, and when she went to South Africa, things were completely different, with their extreme racism and recent apartheid and its legacy.
I also remember being called privileged, because I was a "middle-class white guy" by a black girl in my class at uni. My family was definitely better off than many. Still, we didn't have a significant disposable income, and I had to work for anything I wanted past the essentials as soon as I was old enough to get a paper. I was also discriminated against by teachers due to my neurodiversity. I wasn't taught for multiple years at primary school. I had to play catch up and then was denied a college placement (high school for any Americans) and had to teach myself my A-levels through distance learning. She, on the other hand, came from a wealthier family and was sent to a private school, and couldn't give a single example of racism she had experienced in her life (apart from some old ladies touching her hair on the bus, but this had also happened to me, so that's a stretch).
The ideas are not necessarily wrong. But it is not the same across all regions and countries or experienced the same way by all individuals within said regions and countries.
Fabricated Panic Part 5000: CRT. Just like the War on Burgers, its another time Conservatives, the people behind such CLASSICS such as the D&D-Scare and the Pokemon-is-Demonic Debate, bring to you. Again: Its fabricated af.
If you dont believe me: 'Some More News' proved it,
and you surely wint run-away from a mere Video, right?
No way you admit the Truth is completly opposed to your Position
by having to back-off from a Video?
@@slevinchannel7589 Sorry, I don't follow? Who's running away from a video? What truth and position are we talking about and WTF is the D&D and pokemon scare? We didn't have ANY of that in the UK, and that's my point...
@@anonperson3972 People ru-away from actual CRT-Coverage like the One by 'Some More News'.