What Everyone Gets Wrong About "Critical Race Theory"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2024
- The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/t1j06211
"Critical Race Theory" is the newest political buzzword floating around both on and offline. But few people seem to know what it really means.
HOW TO FOLLOW/KEEP UP WITH ME:
Subscribe ► goo.gl/qVF6Cu (and click the bell)
Website ► t1j.site
Twitter ► / the1janitor
Instagram ► / the1janitor
HOW TO TALK TO ME/ASK ME STUFF:
Say hi ► www.the1janito...
Business inquiries ► t1j@standard.tv
Curiouscat ► curiouscat.me/t...
Leave me a Voicemail ► 205 - 433 - 9516 (ONLY If you agree to the terms below)
FAN COMMUNITIES
Discord ► the1janitor.com/discord
Subreddit ► / t1j
NEW HERE?
New Viewer Playlist ► bit.ly/3fbNIPy
Livestreams ► goo.gl/VfK2vP
HOW TO SUPPORT ME:
Become a Patreon Homie ► / the1janitor
Become a UA-cam Homie ► the1janitor.com...
PayPal► the1janitor.com...
Merch ► the1janitor.com...
Amazon Wishlist ► a.co/5jRUmEa
AFFILIATE LINKS:
Literally Everything I use for UA-cam/Streaming ► amzn.to/39E7DFQ
Budget UA-cam Starter Kit ► amzn.to/2XnJZZt
Budget Streaming Starter Kit ► amzn.to/2DhRnhs
FAQS/MISC:
Help caption/translate my videos► goo.gl/x4eewf
What is HAKO? ► www.the1janito...
Why I Disable Likes/Dislikes ► goo.gl/pkdAa9
FAQs about T1J ► www.the1janito...
TERMS OF CALLING THE VOICEMAIL:
By calling or texting this number, you agree to allow me to record your voicemail and use the recordings and texts for personal and commercial use. I agree, however, not to give or sell any of your information to any parties unafilliated with video production on this channel.
1. No one will ever answer this number, it should always go straight to voicemail, so don't expect to talk to a human.
2. It is very, very, unlikely that anyone will call or text you back. If you get a response, it will be in a public way, such as when part of a video.
3. There's a caller ID, so I will generally be able to see the number you called from. As mentioned above, none of this information will be shared or used, but if that makes you uncomfortable then I suggest not calling. I also suggest that you do not share any unecessary personal information.
4. Your basic rates and charges for calls, whatever they may be, will still apply.
5. Your voicemail might be used for or responded to in a future video!
Did you see a unpleasant ad on my channel? Let me know: www.the1janito...
If would like a source for or elaboration of a claim made that is not listed here, email me.
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Edited by John Ivory
Outro Music by John Ivory: www.soundcloud.com/kingjohnivory
#T1J #the1janitor #CriticalRaceTheory
/ the1janitor
Gonna pin this because I think I am going to get Eskimo comments forever until the end of time if I don't. So as most of you understood, I was quoting the book when I used the term; it's probably not the terminology I would use myself. For what it's worth, the book was written in 2001, and while I'm pretty sure the controversy around the term "Eskimo" existed then, it was probably not as well known that some people find the term offensive. That said, many (although I'm guessing not most) natives still to this day refer to themselves as Eskimo. It's similar to the term "Indian" when describing Natives. Many natives refers to themselves as Indian - but I acknowledge that, in general, we should probably use better terms than Eskimo and Indian. I always raise an eyebrow when a bunch of (generally white) people jump at the chance to be the social justice police on behalf of another group - e.g I've learned recently that "Latinx" is a great example of white people trying to force something that the actual group in question mostly doesn't give a shit about, but would love a perspective from anyone who is actually from the group in question.
It's difficult because many indigenous people are also quite racist when you get down to the history of their interactions with other tribes, and really, the best way to refer to them would likely be to address them by virtue of their tribal affiliations which can fuel those tensions for those who are so inclined. I think the standards should always be to elevate the conversation to address everyone as respectfully as possible, despite their unknown designations, beliefs or past.
After all, everyone becomes a better person by virtue of the respect they are given, not by blind admiration or condemnation. That said, we should be quicker to apologize prior to the conversation becoming difficult, (which is exactly what you did in this post), when the conversation is already addressing a scale too massive to elucidate in detail.
A good faith response about Logic/Reason being 'white':
Rich and poor are both able to be arrested for sleeping under bridges.
This is perfectly logical even reasonable.
Not sure if you have ever argued with a liberal...but im sure you have been in a place when you criticize a racist thing someone said and they react as if you struck them directly. Because for that person logic dictates that only a racist can say racist things and they are no racist.
Context helps makes the examples
Also the whole thing about logic/reason and crt is that this is at the expense of empathy/sympathy.
Its actually kinda explicit that they talk about the inhumanity and coldness of logic and reason.
It would be like.....saying the response to stealing bread should be to chop off the offending hand.
Logic/reason dictates we should take every offending hand
CRT advocates would, before all else, ask....why was he stealing bread?
It's honestly very frustrating that white people are trying to be this champion of anti-race rhetoric because it very much hinders our ability to listen to others and communicate. The latinx thing confuses me a lot because of this, as I've seen it be used and rejected by people in that community, but it's always white people that take charge of the conversation when we butted in in the first place.
I just want to communicate the right way damn it.
@@justjess6636 from a purely statistical standpoint, there are more of them technically speaking. They are the majority within this country.
The LatinX thing is in part academic thing like a lot of other terminology and that almost never translates well into the proper Material World of people excluded from those places and the disingenuous in those places. Like some who at a glance are Latino or Mexican actually arent and so when "everyday" people use these terms they fuck it up a bit because they generalize too much. Something like latinX is more useful and more used by americanized young people up to age 24. Older than that and its a known concept maybe but unless you are super progressive and also academically into it, you prob wouldnt use it for yourself.
Don't shoehorn people.
And if it matters to you, i aint white
If Jessie Gender can talk about Star Trek and trans rights, you can talk about Marvel, Smash and race.
+1
honestly, that comment is kinda funny to me bc jessie gender regularly perpetuates enbyphobia. I, as a nonbinary person, really dont think you should be using her as a model for anything.
Hbomberguy is another great example. Or he would be if he actually put out videos...
@@amiaswolfgang really? I've only seen a few of her videos and enjoyed them and I didn't pick up on that. That's really unfortunate
OMG I DIDNT REALIZE PEOPLE WATCHED HERRRR
Every time I hear CRT I think of old TVs…
I keep hearing "stop teaching CRT in schools" and think it's about the Chinese Remainder Theorem
ua-cam.com/video/NPPL7caYFmg/v-deo.html
@@toatoa10 I also think of the old TVs and computer monitors. I was like huh? Are y'all still using the 90s technology textbooks those were old when I was in school!
@@toatoa10 No, they actually mean cardiac resynchronisation therapy. To be fair, students should at least be taught basic anaesthesiology and suturing before they start practising pacemaker installation on each other.
cathode ray tube, love it.
I'm not always in the mood for this channel and its extremely serious topics, but when I am, I'm unfailingly impressed by your ability to be so fair and reasonable about the subject matter. It's been that way for years. The intricate logical labyrinths you take us through are always fantastic.
Also, I'm very intellectually stubborn, yet somehow you've managed to change my mind on a few things. That alone deserves a medal or something. A+
Maybe you'll like Khadija Mbowe aswell.
@@jchagasla yes, another awesome channel :D
@@jchagasla she’s awesome
totally the OP masturbachating. The critical race theory is stupid and from drug addicts. There is only ONE human race it just comes in a bunch of colors and sizes, but they're all human.
@@kushieuzimakeke oh god
White middle aged male in Mississippi here. Thank you so much for this video and helping me understand more about CRT. I can't tell you how valuable your videos have been to me, and how much they have taught me about race relations in America. Please don't ever stop, and if you end up in my neck of the woods you'll have a beer waiting for you.
I really am impressed that you are doing research
yes! these types of comments are always good to see as it's great to see people doing research on their own. in my opinion, anti-intellectualism is one of the major problems we face today, and us taking our time to inform ourselves is a big way of fighting back against that
It’s b.s. and very abusive and damaging. I experienced it, from the source, within Academia as a professor. It’s pure evil.
Hmmm...
So, the problem with "reason and logic" is not that it is something only white people can practice, but that when someone leaning heavily into white supremacist ideology, whether consciously or subconsciously cites it, it ignores that often times the "facts" they reference aren't free from white supremacy. I think it's kind of silly and very reductive to argue that people are wrong to point this out. Popular example: "America is only 13 percent black, but black people are over represented in prisons" or whatever diatribe they often give. That's a reference to statistics that may indeed be true, but it also completely ignores how black folks are over policed, how white folks are under policed and how black folks often receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts. People will point to those "facts" as proof and evidence that black folks are just more naturally predisposed to violence and criminality, but that's ignoring so many other factors. White supremacy influences so much in this country and at the end of the day, the vibe I get from people who criticize CRT is that they simply don't want to acknowledge that.
💖 thank you
Are you alluding to the way conservatives will scoff and say "facts aren't racist" and then you have to explain that statements of fact seldom if ever occur in a vacuum, and that the context might make the statement of such a fact (not the fact itself) racist.
E.g. discussing 13/50 in good faith and coming to an understanding of why black Americans disproportionately commit violent crime through a lens of their socio-economic conditions is perfectly fine as opposed to for instance, posting 13/50 memes with no further discussion of the issue.
@@mrsuperguy2073 That's what she's saying yeah
BOTH sides misrepresent "facts"
I don't think that's what he was saying. More that there are numerous principles that were the basis of the founding of the US, and not all are inherently based on racism. Of course, those basic principles can be manipulated to suit an assholes agenda, like logic, but the use of logic is still a positive thing when used with a proper ethical compass.
That's more or less what I got it out it.
I may not be the norm here but I'd love to here you talk about marvel movies and smash!
Would love to get his opinion on the MCU
I definitely could imagine him talking about stuff like marvel.
I would, too.
This could be a amazing second channel or post more content that you like! You are absolutely interesting and if you want to deliver your opinion in another topics, this can be great!
Perhaps there needs to be a T2J channel? And one of these topics can be migrated? That way anyone who cares about only one can subscribe to just the one they care about, while folks who just like whatever is being said by this HAKO human can subscribe to both. :)
"it's not slavery... was an involuntary unpaid internship..."
joke apart, spot on. will re watch in a while
That lasted several generations.
@@TheNeodarkwing and lots of whipping no one consented too
@@jacksparrowismydaddy Unfortunately, over time, everyone forgot the safe word.
@@RichWoods23 I actually lol'd at that.
Accidental tourism. ..
English teacher in florida here: there is no CRT curriculum. But you’re right; “Florida Edition” textbooks, particularly American literature & American history, are whitewashed. Small mentions or straight up omissions of the “darker” parts of American history. Or in the case of American literature...American genres such as Southern Gothic are referred to “an American southern tradition using gothic tropes” than “exposing the ills of the Jim Crow South using horror tropes.” Small word changes like that, glossed over details, or convenient omissions is rampant in red states, particularly Texas and Florida.
No it isn’t. I went to high school in florida and we learned about slavery, jim Crowe and even the Tulsa race massacre .
@@billsimms2511 I'm not even from the USA and even I know of the bullshit USA has done, without requiring CRT to elaborate on how USA itself figured out how bad some of it's shit were and changed.
CRT is not about learning the past, but learning the past through a racists lens
@@billsimms2511 it depends on the school, the south has always been known for not showing the full truth or even spending enough time on it not to mention it sometimes not even taught in the first place.
@@D44RK_Iced_Yogs
It is in the Texas curriculum & staying there. A lot of news putlets falsely reported that Texas was banning Civil Rights history, when they were actually banninf the racist parts of CRT.
America Uncovered did a good video on it.
@@D44RK_Iced_Yogs
Yeah racism exists & the US has a history of racial supremacy (& now racial guilt & resentment in my upbringing & generation), no shit.
But please realise the huge difference between what CRT say to the public & media VS their own central writings. The always use DOUBLE WORS MEANINGS depending on who they are talking to.
CRT is in total conflict with the Foundations of Civil Rights, by their own sources:
ua-cam.com/video/c0RLQXL92Zs/v-deo.html
I NEED videos like this. I am a white guy in small town rural Ohio with little to no exposure to other than white people. Most people around me are happy being oblivious to issues facing people outside of our bubble and little sympathy for other races. I appreciate you providing an easily digestible explanation of CRT. Excellent video, thank you.
You're awesome dude. That's such a good attitude. Be a positive beacon to everyone around you.
I also live in a small town in rural Ohio where everyone in my family except my liberal grandma has Fox News on all day, every day. I think in the 5 minutes I've walked through the house and was within earshot of the living room TV, I've heard CRT mentioned 7 times.
You better not be in my small town in Ohio. Diversity is not a strength, no argument can prove it is. Food is not an argument.
@San Te 1) That's not an argument 2) You will have to make me "stfu"
@@davecoil4962
stfu
Probably the most clear, rational, even-handed, generally non-stupid treatment of CRT I've seen.
Fr its crazy how much both sides have been talking about crt even though nobody even knows what it truly is
This is my comment exactly. I am spreading this video out there.
I actually agree with T1J on most of his criticisms.
This.
This was great. Can't wait to see how it's taken out of context.
You can combine two subjects by talking about Ta-Nahesi Coates run on Captain America.
YEAHHHHHHHH
just like with every truly controversial thing ever: it's complicated
And there are no easy answers.
"there is always a well-known solution to every human problem-neat, plausible, and wrong."
--H L Mencken
" it's complicated" Thats not an answer to anything!
The right wing is making a problem out of an issue that will not affect 99% of people's lives.
This is not complicated
@@jst25 "And there are no easy answers." Saying "there are no easy answers" IS an easy answer. Your statement is self-contradicting
thanks so much for covering this! I actually studied critical race theory in undergrad and it makes me so frustrated when people say it's bad when they haven't ever read any Kimberle Crenshaw or understand anything about the actual philosophical ideas underpinning critical race theory. Your video is obviously a very simplified version, but I'm so glad you're making content like this and I hope it reaches people who will then go and read on their own. A good place to start, for anyone who's interested, is with the Combahee River Collective Statement
You know this for a fact?
The next worst thing is when people claim they're doing CRT, and then they just do racism but from the left
It must be very frustrating to Scientologists that those that have not read the works of L.Ron Hubburd still form opinions about his alien conspiracy theories. They need to do their homework about the actual philosophical ideas underpinning Scientology. A good place to start is Dianetics.
There is no need for Scientologists to provide actual evidence of anything while debating. Just assert stuff and then make some vague reference to some alleged "expert"... that most accredited experts would probably dispute their arguments and objectivity. And if no one believes them... Scientologists can always cry perscution.
Hey T1J, as someone who graduated with a science degree, I can say that science is not nearly as simple as "What do the data say?" The collection of data itself contains preconceptions, because no-one just does things at random. You're always asking a question, or looking at a specific environment, or going off a specific theory. The scientist approaches the construction of the experiment with some mindset, and many of the base assumptions a scientist makes will align with the interests of the dominant culture. Hence why eg. oil companies fund studies with the aim of casting doubt on climate change, because you can easily construct studies which make things ambiguous.
Does this mean we should throw away science? No! Reason is an indispensable tool for humans. It means we have to be critical in engaging with science, because it is not as simple as true/false. "Just the facts" is a barren concept, all facts have context. And, as you can see from conservative discourse, "just the facts" is typically employed in order to silence people questioning the established order.
i don't disagree and I don't think I said anything contradictory to this in the video. CRT and other postmodern philosophies are very specifically hostile to the idea of objectivity and often use it as as a bludgeon to dismiss their critics. Facts and data can be misused, this is clear. But some things are true, full stop. And it's our job to figure out what those things are so we can make sense of the world. If this wasn't the case then there would be no reason to participate in science or logical reasoning. CRT very specifically and literally opposes that idea.
@@T1J I don't think there is anything that is true independent of any human filtering -- at least, from the perspective of someone who is a human and so can't think outside of that experience. But, that isn't something to hash out in a youtube comment, or even as a footnote in a youtube video!
I think you did a good job introducing CRT overall, I zeroed in on the area that touched on my specific experience (speaking as a white person).
@@T1J I don't think that is what he is saying. he isn't saying that data "can be misused" (of course it can, but isn't the case here), he is saying that data, even in good faith, pass trought some human filters. in real science, there are too many variables, and what you think it's relevant to certains context pass some filters. no one, even the "postmodern philosophers" are saying that 1+1=2 is subjective. 1+1=2 and that is a fact, no one is arguing that. but some "objective" science will have subjective points. ex: standard deviation. how we consider a standart deviation to be significant or not? there's no "objective" way to do it, in some point we have to make a decision, a choice, and it will be subjective, necessarily. or we will make test on a new droug. even in a double blind, we have to choose how many people will participate, the type of people, what we will be monitoring in this peopleetc. if the droug have side effects, the point where it's acceptable, what can be "not good" but still "not unhealthy". even if it standart, we all make a collective decision in where this points is, it still a choice, and could be different and equal valid.
even the "post modern philosophers" are not saying something much different than that. just that some "facts" are different in different context. that the context and the point of view are determinant to what is "true".
ex. I'm brazillian. what you say it's extremist or radical seems to be pretty normal to me. what is radical to you depend of your point of view, that is different of mine. to americans, anything that envolve Marx is extremist, but isn't. a lot of his work is just normal as Weber, for ex.
I can be wrong, but I never see a "post modern author" that is "hostile to the idea of objectivity" in this way...
I suppose this is why the methodology portion of a paper turns out to be the most important part. We need to see and understand the filter.
It's too bad it's also the part that people skip the most. Oof, statistical analysis. 😂
@@T1J As another STEM guy (mathematician), I have to disagree. I don't think there'd be no reason to do maths and science if we didn't deem them absolutely objective.
As the famous saying in stats goes:
"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."
*"It wouldn't be color-blindness after all it would be just one color... White."*
Yup! That's what happens when people see white as the default and other races are classed as "political"
I've been trying to change this, but I've noticed that when someone is talking about another person and refers to them as "a guy", I paint a picture of them in my mind as white until I'm notified otherwise. I think its a pretty toxic belief to hold that white is the default, I definitely agree with your sentiment.
Color is not culture. Even if people were to perfectly assimilate, their color would remain the same.
I think that's really interesting and probably has something to do with whiteness = not being discriminated against in the U.S.A. for race. So in a way it makes sense that colorblindness assumes whiteness. *as that would mean that everyone is being treated as white aka, not being discriminated against
*
It's obviously not good, but i think that could be some of the logic that goes into that?
@@azules2688 white people are discriminated against, too. There is no comparing the magnitude of the harm; however, it still exists.
@@possiblylogical Yes white people are discriminated based on other factors like class and sexuality but not based on their race
This is what happens when people start using academic jargon outside of acadamia.
Every damn time. Academics should be able to see this coming by now.
It doesn’t help that the left is also terrible at branding.
@@Phreemunny I think our main strategy is "Controversial Strawman!", "Reasonable Questions", "Actually my position is much more nuanced and if you just listened, hey where are you going?".
Our worst has to be statements like "Reason and Logic are racist", I get what they mean our understanding of these concepts are tinged with white supremacy in how they are taught and understood but you say that to any normal person and they will look at you like you're from Mars. I've done it before and lost the room completely.
Honestly kinda medium is "ACAB". Might set off a few alarm bells for alot of white people, and it should. But I imagine alot of minorities, black, trans and Joseph Joestar, could probably get it real quick. Optics shouldnt just be about white people. Might not help that some minorities are also cops.
The best is "Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police" for different reasons. Black Lives Matter is a completely correct statement that only someone acting on racial bias or deliberately acting in bad faith could misconstrue. Like you cant look at that and go "wow how controversial" and not be racist.
"Defund the Police" is probably another of our best because while it's not uncontroversial it is self explanatory and you dont really have to go to far out of your way to explain it. A completely neutral m bystander can catch it pretty quick and alot of black people or other minorities would be really amicable.
"Abolish The Police" is similar and a way harder sell, black or not. Beyond having to educate people on a)systemic reasons why the police are bad, you've got to b)alternatives on it, and c)other things that would need to be abolished.
Not saying it's not unnecessary or wrong. Just that you got be a fucking masterclass salesman to get it sold.
EXACTLY. It always been an issue for so long online with people on the left overusing and misusing the terminology. And then it gets antagonized by people on the right 🤦
@@FusionFullForce First rule of rhetoric; know your audience.
First rule of online leftism; (50 paragraphs with footnotes and citations)
I loved the point you made about statistics and facts being a useful tool for discourse on racism. That was what convinced me that racism was real (embarrassing, I know), and that it isn't an opinion or political stance. Racism can be measured in real and tangible ways. I remember reading about an experiment conducted where resumes were sent in for a job that were identical in all but one way; the first kind had white sounding names, and the second kind had black sounding names. Wouldn't you know it? The white ones got picked more. Horrible..
I kinda wonder to what degree class played into that. I know with white names, there tend to be lower class names, middle class names, and upper class names. I don’t know what middle class black names are, but I think it would be interesting to add the class element to the study. My guess would be that lower class black names receive the most discrimination.
right, i understand that racism can be so subtle its hard to prove, but there is undeniable evidence that it does exist in other facets. Its not a fairy tale.
The resume experiment has been repeated over and over in many metropolitan areas since the 80's, it's sort of an "old reliable." ☹️
@@seanmatthewking for over 10 years I lived in an area known for low-income housing and my maiden name is a common black surname (Ross). I could never get a bite by resume submission. I always had to drop it off personally to get an interview.
A book called 'How to Lie With Statistics' should be read by everyone
Thank you for this. I saw a bunch of people on Facebook having a knee jerk reaction to CRT being banned in schools. They were all just saying "its teaching the real history of racism" and I took that info at face value. I like your take of "this has some good take aways, but I don't agree with the whole thing". It really helped me understand this issue that I previously knew very little about
look into house bill 3979, texas passed it and texas makes the textbooks for America, no wonder history class is a complete disaster, they are just following the daughters of the confederacy I suppose.
CRT is racist Marxist garage.
T1J is very biased and paints it in a positive light.
@@akhost3929 you’ve said a whole lot of nothing. Can’t even make a well defended argument for your stance
Yeah the issue is kind of that conservatives don’t want to just ban CRT, they want to ban any acknowledgement of systemic injustice by defining it as CRT and banning CRT. I’m pretty sure that “acknowledgement of systemic inequality” is like literally DeSantis’s legal definition of “wokeness.”
On the empathetic argument
I would like to use a quote from Kwame Ture
"In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none."
While people individually may have empathy, the systems do not, and a majority of those in power do not, and this isn't just in regard to race, it is in terms of caring for those without power.
If they actually did care there wouldn't be a constant assault on blacks, Asians, Hispanics and poor people.
Well that sounds very conveniently framed and "confirmation bias"-y. Your last sentence is a non-sequitur, and also not as factually obvious as you seem to imply that it is.The quote is also has a strong starting-with-the-conclusion vibe (aka. how do I justify my urge to be violent?). And finally, what would it even mean for a system to have empathy?
@@alexkaapa One can easily observe that the treatment of poor people, and minorities (particularly blacks) have always been treated as second class citizens, and people with money and who are white are favored. Just like during the founding era of this country of you are not white and land-owning/have money, you are not the focus of America. This has not changed.
Also a quick Google search will tell you Kwame Ture advocated for Pan-Africanism, and to return to Africa. His stance of violence, though, is one of common sense. If you are being violently treated by America and her people, is the only way just to try to empathize with the violent oppressor? That's not rational imo. If someone is actively trying to kill me, and has multiple attempts on my well being, and I've already tried to bargain with them, it's time to fight.
The current structure has sympathy for white people with money. There is systemic issues that create unnecessary barriers for those who are not white or do not have sufficient funds. For example, 2008 housing crisis, who gets bailed out? The people with money and have power, and predominantly white. Who didn't? The Poor and disproportionately black. This same thing happened the past year. Who are more likely to get audited by the IRS. Who can ask for a 10billion dollar loan to go to space, when they are the richest person in America? Who is more likely to get sentenced to longer sentences for any crime? Who can openly storm the capital while having security let them in, and receive minimal punishment? Who can't ever peacefully protest without getting tear gassed?
@@MrSunshiney you're jumping a little, so i will first only respond to one thing, to avoid rsiking not getting anywhere.
most people have been treated worse than second-class citizens for most of history. there was never any grand old time where people were most equal, or rather that time is now. and we have seen that self-correcting structures in our system have worked to improve the state for most people, including the ones you falsely claim are not considered. the fact that wealth and power are what our system favours is really very basic, almost any system would work like that that isn't heavily regulated (which would create a whole wealth of problems of its own). the degree has CLEARLY changed. our world is the most equal it has ever been, and while the western world is indeed dealing with new sources of inequality, particularly pertaining to wealth, framing it as cynically as you have is just not helpful, other than feeding a greivance narrative.
@@alexkaapa @alexkaapa So if I'm getting this correct, your arguing that right now is an acceptable amount of equality to strive for, and we should let the system handle the rest? The system is self-correcting and required no outside intervention? No years and years from multiple activist advocating for change? The system, which is mostly comprised of wealthy white men who prioritize profit over everything else will advocate for improvements in working conditions, civil right, pay equity, and a host of other afflictions that predominantly affect those without power?
Am I getting that right?
I think your argument boils down to "Oh well, inequality is there, we will let the people in power fix it".
During the time when the system was heavily regulated we saw one of the most prosperous times in American history (Post-New Deal), just saying.
@@MrSunshiney no, this is not a "our system is great as it is". i am just pointing out that sentiments like "nothing has changed", "our system only focuses on/sympathises with group x" are not tenable positions. i am NOT saying that the way the system currently works is optimal. the point of pointing this out is so one can ackowledge what works and what doesn't and ditch what doesn't and keep what does.
also, when i was talking about "heavily regulated", i was talking totalitarianism, where nothing is left to the system's "automatic" responses etc., but everything is consiously trying to be manipulated to get a desired outcome, which i think we both agree, isn't desirable.
If CRT didn’t exist, the right would have just picked a different academic philosophy that acknowledged systemic racism. In fact, the misrepresentation on both sides actually makes CRT an even better scapegoat - the more meaningless the phrase becomes, the more the right is able to imbue it with falsehoods until the term is completely poisoned
Much like the terms radical, socialist, communist, Marxist, anarchist, etc. These are bad words now and you nearly have to separate your ideas from their label otherwise you’ll be immediately shut down.
@@RosalioRedPanda that's a good thing, just like Nazism is treated with disdain. And now you're going to tell me that real communism and Marxism hasn't really been implemented. Well they can never be, and the theoretical ideas will always fail in the real world because Maxism doesn't take into account how power ALWAYS corrupts.
No, the right has used CRT as an umbrella term for all of the race ideology being taught in schools. They could call it ‘radical social justice’ or ‘wokeness’ but they settled on CRT. Christopher Rufo covers all of this brilliantly
Bye it’s not just the right that is against CRT. Many of my leftist friends are opposed to CRT teachings.
I'm a sociologist and every time this happens I wonder why they didn't pick functionalism 🙄I mean if we're throwing darts at a board of social theories...
Marxism was actually more systematic oriented.
"To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them."
~Capital Volume I; Preface to the First German Edition; Marx: 1867
The whole thing with "capitalists are evil!" was more part of the agitation of the communist political organizations to make it a bit more spicy and to get angry people more involved.
You've said this better than I could. I was immediately reminded of not just the bourgeois, but the petit bourgeois. It's not just one class and another class. It's individual people.
Yeah, pretty sad that he doesn't understand Marxism. There're things on alienation that say capitalists are also alienated by capitalism and suffer under it (esp petite bourgeois).
Him saying that "he doesn't like" class analysis as if Marxists just randomly chose a form of division of ppl to be upset over is like denying slaves exist exactly and precisely because slave owners benefit from their oppression and exploitation.
Except by his own admission the assessment boils things down to economics, sans understanding of individuals beyond that. CRT has the same problem, only its way worse because the baseline is race.
@@MrCurbinator Idealistic Liberals "boil things down", Marx as a materialist built his understanding from the ground, from the most basic elements of what it is to be a living breathing human.
@@Edelgeist clearly not given his own admission of the issue with the theoretical lense
I am 100% down for a T1J channel that's pop culture based. Please give me your thoughts on the latest marvel movie lmao.
Second channel T2J
Yesss
@@pamagers a whole T#J universe.
I'm sorry I'm probably putting more on this than what you said but what I read just then was BLACK MAN stay in your lane...why can't HIS Channel talk about anything everything... whatever he's feeling like...I don't know for some reason your statement just kind of rub me the wrong way...so if I'm wrong about what you're implying or you're saying... my bad
@@pkizzy8325 bro they're literally encouraging him to talk about his other interests.
19:52 the problem is, when you live in the south (Florida in my case), most white people (who may feel they're honest and good faith, and are generally the kind of people who wouldn't hurt a soul) simply do not believe these *true facts* (such as the higher rate of incarceration of people of color) because it goes against who they believe themselves to be. and because most of us are not even exposed to the most minimum of history (such as the Tulsa Race massacre or the Marais des Cygnes massacre), there's no need to question or criticize your beliefs about race. this problem is currently being played out all over latin america where people still cling to the importance of their european ancestors aka colonizers
Finally someone fucking mentioned that morbid obsession many south Americans have with being white or having European heritage and they feel better than others.
The question is does higher incarceration have to do with white people or does it have to do with Democrats, and the answer if we're speaking factually is Democrats.
And as far as massacres those didn't happen in the north, they happened in the south aka where Democrats lived. Now the south is Republican and Democrats are on the other side, and you can tell that they're on the other side because they act the exact same way. Biden, hullary, Warren, ect all people who were racist southerners in the 60s are now pushing critical race theory. While people in "florida" want to give everyone an equal chance at success and don't judge white OR black people because of their skin. Isn't it funny how things work sometimes?
@@pikachuuprising637 we wuz kangs and shyt give us reparations crack -some random white guy with a normal life and family
You do realize you aren't making much sense right?
“It has “race” in the name ergo it’s divisive”
- Conservative logic
Why would a form of Marxism not be divisive in America?
@@ironmagma What do you mean by “form of Marxism,” and what in particular is your issue with it?
Ending slavery was divisive, so I don’t think that’s a great way to evaluate an idea.
@@ironmagma What does "a form of Marxism" mean? They called Obama a Marxist, socialist, communist.....every evil Red Scare -ist in the book.
The fact that this one is Marxist-adjacent doesn't give the conservatives a good excuse. They've been crying foul since Reagan.
@@seanmatthewking Critical Race Theory is derived from Critical Theory, which is the Western-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School (circa 1937 and the likes of Horkheimer, Fromm, and Marcuse). In other words, it's literally a form Marxism.
"JUST LET US DO COMMUNISM" -leftist argumentation theory
I am a 37yo white, straight, rural Republican. I voted for trump. I’m loyal to my woman and I don’t hate anybody solely based on their color, creed, or sexuality. I give everybody a fair shake. That being said, I have been of the opinion lately that the majority of Liberals are extremists and batshit crazy. It’s channels like this one, with well-thought, concise, reasonable ideas that have proven to me that the media that I consume lies to me about Liberals, just as the Liberal media lies to them about us.
What I’m saying is, I’ve always said I don’t hate anybody. But if I’m guilty of any prejudice, it has most likely been towards Liberals and I am figuring that out for myself and no longer following any media blindly. I wish more people would do the same because I truly feel like neither side is the “correct” side, but rather the “correct” way lies somewhere right in between.
Questioning beliefs oneself has had, especially for years, is an admirable step towards comprehending the larger perspective of human existence.
To understand that biases you've been exposed to is indicative (reflective) of both your upbringing and the culture of those you're around you. I implore you to search for more videos by left-leani g creators such as John Oliver, some more news, David pakman and secular talk.
If you get deep into the intellectual discourse of many followers of the left you'll find that the main discussions about policy and economics lean towards reducing unnecessary systemic suffering and shattering untrue divisions of thought around class, race and humanity itself.
We are all the same species. Humans. And there a there are some evil people, some good people, and an overwhelming majority of people who exist on the spectrum of morality. With both good and bad traits. Hateful and living ideals. Racists can love their family and saviors can hold deep seeded, unfair feelings.
I would love to discuss further with you political discourse with human well-being at the forefront.
You can see how the ideology that the orange fascist drumpf (trump) further pushes supremacist ideology a d unfounded, unreal feelings of superiority for his followers. All are brains are flawed, and people love the dopamine rush that comes from feeling better than another. But humanity is so complicated and shifting that to ascribe a worth to a person based on some unimportant biological fact such as eye color, hair color or skin color isn't reflective if real people and their beautiful and horrific possibility.
Lastly, I'll admit myself I'm very, very negative of the democratic party. I despise corporate shills and many Democrats will call for unity then dismiss real human suffering. But, as the discourse stands, as of 2022, the Democrats are the better option in response to far right republicans with false notions of American identity and just vile disdain for people born in the other side of an imaginary line drawn between nations.
As a bi-racial person, I really find issue with the hard lines of definition, especially in an age that is trying to view things in a spectrum. It perpetuates the fear of "the other", and being that it is a line based on race, it can entrap people in social stigmas and cultural boxes rather than allowing coexistance.
Very true, all of these hardline categories can leave those who are on mid-points in limbo
This is part of the wider problem because, as wrong as it is, anyone who ia not 100% white is seen as non-white. So if you are half white, then you are considered non-white and will be treated as such.
Just look at how half-white Barak Obama was treated when he was president.
I've thought about this a lot as well, and I feel like it's a legacy of a hyper-segregationist culture that had to legally plot people into one of 3 or 4 racial categories.
You can see it play with ethnic groups who don't fit well into our racial frameworks as well, such as the shifting racial status of Americans of Middle Eastern decent.
@@TheMightyMcClaw id agree with that, it is a bit easier to classify race when you look at the black & white historical norms, especially when those norms considered "one drop" of blood enough to classify someone as non-white not even 65 years ago
Well said
I don't think most Marxists agree that attacking individuals based (only) on the social class they belong to is okay
In my experience that is true, however, like with most things, there are the very radical who do and they tend to speak louder over the less radical.
Yes, Marxists and CRT Neo Marxists are constantly fighting over this
never heard anyone say eat the rich before
@@watcher190 I hear it all the time
Even Marx himself said that the boug were prisoners of their own system. His examples were marriage for benefits. Malatesta has a beautiful quote. I can't find it directly but it's something along the lines that the proletariat and the boug have different problems, not better ones.
My understanding about the 'reason and logic' thing is that there's a difference between reason and logic, and 'Reason' and 'Logic'. The set definitions and associations that have been baked into those words through use by white european philosophers and politicians may be the issue. Thus, also, CRT may not neccesarily be saying that all of those concepts of america are white supremacist, but they have *the potential to be*, and thus should be examined to see if they are, rather than assuming they aren't.
No, CRT is making the strong statement, i.e. assuming they are white supremacist because they stem from white cultures. Checking whether some of our concepts have cultural baggage is all well and good, but assuming that there is and taking every denial/refutation of that assumption as further evidence for that assumption is definitely not how to move forward. Also, it's not necessarily a red flag that certain ideas were cultivated more/most in certain cultures. "White european philosophers" have done a tremendous job is cultivating our understanding of objectivity/reason etc., almost no other cultures focused on this topic to this depth. That our current understanding of these things is strongly informed by their insights, needn't be an issue at all. Pointing out the cultural basis of something is no argument in and of itself, but it is currently viewed as a "mic drop"-type argument. To take another example, insights into introspection and meditation are also primarily East Asian in origin, are we going to criticise these ideas on the basis of that?
I'm still lost as to what CRT will change for the black community. Or if its intention is to change anything at all.
As someone who is very found of rhetoric, modes of persuasion, molding consensus, etc, I do not believe that the conversation will change anything.
For instance, I saw a celebrity draw and publish a BLM book for kids. And I also saw that most of the buyers of the book were African Americans. Meaning, that the books aim isn't to persuade another to one's cause, but to express or highlight the struggles of the group to, let them know that they're not alone I guess?
I think CRT lacks the emotional, intellectual and persuasive traction needed to change anything. It's just a gospel for the choir. It's a convo that probably needs to be had as long as its here and there, but in terms of molding consensus and persuasive value, its more on the "venting" and "self indulgent" side.
@@alexkaapa those concepts aren't comparable because the Logic and Reason ideology that's seen as the backbone of "Enlightenment thinking" necessarily negates the meditative and introspective ideology of East Asian cultures. This is exactly the issue, seeing ideas as inherently divorced from the culture and ideology they exist in. You cannot fully understand the philosophies of other cultures through the ideology of western lense and vice versa. There is no objectivity or ideology free perspective, and that's the point.
@@alexgaggio2957 this is the ultrasimplistic view of "everything is a social construct, and therefore there is no objectivity", which is obvious bullshit. seeing that everything is a product of culture is not the end of the observation. it is blindingly obvious that there are more or less objective statements about the world. this is why science works. thinking one has in any way nullified something by pointing its cultural origins is lazy and outright erroneous thinking. to show how certain ideas are a function of culture A LOT more has to be shown, e.g. that they don't apply in other cultural contexts and that these cultural contexts have just as useful a framing of the concepts that underlie those ideas. and that enlightenment ideals necessarily negate introspective insights is just demonstrably false, given how science very much can "test" introspective claims
@@alexkaapa mate, read Kuhn and his discussions on Incommensurability. There is no objectivity, good science education with tell you that. There's degrees of usefulness for sure but we cannot know if our observations represent "objective truths" since as subjective beings there's no way to compare. Also naive realism in general is becoming more and more untenable. And no mate, these modes of understanding do negate one another. Just because we can look through an MRI machine and see different blood flows when someone is meditating does not mean we're understanding the the actual ideologies of introspective and meditative practices. What we're instead doing is looking at it through our own particular lense, which is fine but it's not the same. This is also an argument in anthropology, that you cannot understand a culture/ideology/practice until you've experienced it yourself, 3rd person observation has its limits.
50-year-old white dude here, just wanted to affirm that hell yes putting your perspective out here matters and helps. I can't necessarily point to anything you've directly changed my mind on, but you're one of the people I watch because I consistently feel like I understand the world and my place in it just a little bit better when I listen to what you have to say. Thank you, and keep up the good work.
Very interesting and nuanced video
From someone who has studied this I have some points though - when intersectionality is applied with CRT as some newer scholars have been doing, it removes the sort of ‘pitting one against the other idea’ because there is the recognition that we can be simultaneously oppressed and the oppressor and we are all privileged and not privileged in some ways.
Also with the race conscious bit that you said, particularly ‘why should avoid preventing harm to privileged groups because there is less of it’ CRT scholars have pointed out the idea of interest convergence, and if you read Derek Bell’s theory on it, as well as ‘a Critical Race Theory of Evidence’ in conjunction with things like the statistic that the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action programs have been white women you’ll start to really appreciate intersectionality and also see how institutions have subtle ways of reverting back to reproducing and reinforcing white supremacy. It’s almost like white supremacy is the true north of the compass in the western world. When initiatives aren’t race conscious, or don’t get to the heart of the issue ie how these systems are racialised and how this is reproduced, generalising everyone’s experiences continue to mean the experiences of marginalised groups are brushed under. I particularly like ‘A Critical Race Theory of Evidence’ because it actually shows you step by step examples of how the criminal justice system can produce racist outcomes with the assumption of white experiences as the norm and it’s implications, even though the laws or norms that affect that outcome might not explicitly mention race. If you happen to read this I love your content, and the discussions you open up!
Disclaimer: just graduated and did my undergrad thesis on it! Not claiming to be an expert
This. I'd also like to add that the one thing missing from this video is placing critical theory into context... Where is it used, by whom and why. Critical theory is a requirement for literature majors (it was one of my senior courses) and studying Marx and the different branches of theory really gives people lenses to examine structures or texts. One doesn't have to subscribe to every tenet of every theorist to find the critical lenses useful for conversation. And these conversations are exactly what moves us forward. Finding ideas threatening is the most close-minded, useless enterprise. People on the fringes with radical ideas is exactly how we open up new conversations and eventually make progress.
@@AliciaJohnson17 Was looking for this type of comment thread on here, thanks. One can always expect academics, who are paid and trained to think, professionally, and especially so in the humanities, to have thought of every theoretical nuance and critique that even this fair-minded video puts forward.
And yes, this media panic and line of policy, over ideas and teachings, is petty and needless. Theory and past teaching is at such a remove from most people's later professions. Moreover, mere ideas will always find some other way to still survive, especially when banned in public. And anyway, every modern person should agree that this is a primary good, to have as many ideas and factoids as possible floating around, on hand for any random emergency.
Critical race theory is mostly just theory. These backlash folk should just let it be, and deal with it if it actually ruins things more concretely some day. Or just preserve it, so they can still get behind it if it some day proves useful in some unforeseen situation.
@@pebblesace67 question: doesn't the fact that you have a degree make you an expert?
+
First Conservatives complain "why is there no White History month?", now they're complaining that we're studying White History.
They just want their kids brainwashed by the same old lies and propaganda they were brainwashed by
i feel like US education is one year long white history month lol
I mean “white” is kinda of a catch all term for all the ethnic groups in Europe. They all have a unique history that they brought over to America. People need to be more specific about what they are talking about. WASP’s were the ones classically ruling American society, but even then the wealth gap between the ruling class and poor was massive. It’s more complex than that, we just need to be honest about what actually happened
Are you living in America? Then of course the majority of the history is of white Europeans .
@@ThrowAway-gu2lw if you are living in the west then that’s what it should seem like. If you lived in China you’d study history that is mostly of Asian descent .
Critical [Race] Theory is just one lens with which to view the world; it needn't be the sole lens, however.
it shouldn't. it is wholly useless on its own. alone, it will inadvertantly foster horrible social cognitive pathologies.
It's a poorly made lens covered in mud. People can use it if they want but their sight would be much clearer without it.
This is only the second video of yours that I’ve seen. I’m very glad I subscribed after the first. I knew nothing about CRT other than the broad (and apparently incorrect) assertion that it merely seeks to teach about the history of race and racism in America. Now that I know that’s a misconception I feel much better equipped. I’m black myself, and only just starting to learn about systemic racism, anti-racism, so-on-and-so-forth. This video has helped a lot.
then i advise you to check out John Mcwhorter and Glenn Loury and Coleman hughes and what they have to say on this CRT abomination .
CRT is bs and the "intellectuals " who have defined it refuse to debate intellectuals that are against it . A knight in shining armor is a someone who has never had his metal truly tested thats what CRT representatives are
@@pgrmoja I’m going to disregard your advice, since I didn’t ask for any. Also because I don’t need opinions about CRT; just basic facts. I can form my own opinions from there, thank you. T1J presented what seems to be a nuanced, closer to neutral explanation of what CRT is and isn’t, using info taken from the originators of CRT. You, on the other hand, made your personal bias apparent. I can’t expect you to be objective on the matter.
@@gido9467 I think you should check out what these people have to say. I’m fairly neautral on CRT but I can agree with some of their criticisms like how CRT teaches black people that the system is rigged against them, this is an unhealthy way to look at things. I think statistics and data should be taught but they should also put more of an emphasis on ways to solve these problem rather than just pointing them out.
@@bradtaylor77 Ah, well yes, I suppose saying, “the system is rigged against black people,” would be misleading, and unhelpful; a crude way of explaining systemic racism. I feel like systemic racism is much more nuanced than, “the system is rigged.” Is that what CRT says?
@@gido9467 I would suggest you watch the UA-cam video "Your Neighbors are at War" by PF Jung, he references this video along with others. Its not exactly a neutral stance but it does point out what is wrong with CRT and what would be a better idea.
17:44 - They don't have 26 words for snow. It's just that in their language words can be combined to form new words. I agree with the rest of the video.
The argument about CRT rejecting reason and logic because it's supposedly a Western value is misrepresented I think. In my experience, most theorists don't see reason and logic as white, it's more a criticism of the philosophical framework of the West which presents the (white) Western enlightenment as the pinnacle of philosophy and reason; while simultaneously degrading, or outright ignoring philosophical frameworks of reason from other cultures.
In my politics course at college, the first theorist we learned about was John Locke and his 'state of nature' argument which supposedly justifies the existence of a central government.
His was the only voice we heard, with no opposition, and assumed to be correct. His strong and overt racism against Africans was never even mentioned, so of course the ways in which his racism (and views of Africans being savages) influenced his politics was never discussed.
Racism is baked into a huge amount of Western philosophy, directly and indirectly. It's kind of impossible, and silly, to overlook this. It's not that logic and reason are inherently white or racist. It's the fact that the specific Western brands of logic and reason are automatically deemed to be correct and superior which is the problem, especially with the vast majority of these frameworks having been established by racists.
Linking back to the John Locke point, a lot of us are taught to believe growing up that the state is a justified and necessary power, that we would all be wild savages killing each other without it. But this view actively erases all of the societies and civilizations that have operated on egalitarian and democratic principles, with flat power structures or the absence of them all together. This was the case for a huge number of native people's before Western colonialism. Framing human nature as inherently evil, and 'civilized' reason as superior in this case does carry a huge amount of racist baggage; because a lot of these ideas were directly used as justifications for various attrocities, during and after colonialism.
Sorry for the super long comment. I know you said you were trying to simplify the concept, so I appreciate you couldn't go into a huge amount of detail. But this criticism felt a little bit like you put it in there to seem balanced, while misrepresenting the CRT perspective in the process.
Racism is baked into Western framework and reasoning.. why is it then that most Americans believe Native Americans were bamboozled and slaughtered, yet very few have heard of the Jamestown Massacre of 1622
Yeah, I didn't know much about CRT and enjoyed T1J's breakdown. But I was like, there's no way one of its core tenets is "logic and reason = bad, because White"??? Thanks for the clarification! That makes a lot more sense
Thank you for the clarification! This is why I always go to the comments of videos like these because there are always a few gems that help me think about things from a different perspective.
@@russellm2555 that's a question of the history curriculum, not philosophical frameworks...
this is a really important point! Rationalist/Emiripcist/Scientific theories and practices have existed outside of the western enlightenment, whether your talking about the very similar (in terms of western science) natural philosophy doctrines of medieval Islamic cultures, the somewhat different classical Chinese scholarly traditions, or the very different observational ecological traditions of indigenous tribal cultures everywhere in the world. In many ways, modern global sciences have long ago abandoned many of the western enlightenment frameworks, but the understanding of science in the popular consciousness is still caught up in something like a 19th century western schema of science as western mans struggle to uncover an immutable, mechanistic truth.
As a sociology PhD student and law student idk I felt like this was pretty dismissive of CRT still and got some of the very basic ideas left out and some things wrong. For example Derrick Bell’s main argument was not that we should focus on building Black schools but rather that interest convergence is what has occurred in modern “racial progress.” Interest convergence meant that progress for Black people and other racial minorities only comes when it’s convenient for white people and for liberalism. Therefore something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or even Brown v Board would not have happened it white people did not have something to gain (for example looking bad to the world during the Cold War when we were supposed to spread “democracy.”) The conclusion can therefore be to focus on building Black schools and institutions but that wasn’t his point. It was that we should focus on creating progress that is for Black people and not one that is convenient for white people too.
Hey I'm a complete layman so I very much appreciate thus clarification!
"Therefore something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or even Brown v board would not have happened if white people did not have something to gain."
This is what I see as incredibly divisive. It's taking people who really believe in racial equality, and dismiss their support just because of the color of their skin.
And this is the type of ideas that the vast majority of people see as harmful in CRT.
Good clarification thanks :)
That rather asummptive of intent
@@josh_final TO´quote Ben Shapiro "facts dont care about your feelings". The truth is that it was small minority of whites that believed in racial equality. The vast majoioryt of whites opposed MLK. Even 2 years after he was killed at least 60% of whites still opposed him and his marches (some numbwra say it was 80). IF the truth and facts is divisive then so be it.
Make stuff you like. You’d be surprised how much people would enjoy them
i was raised in a very conservative bubble and have a hard time finding people who will explain these kinds of concepts in a way that's easy to understand (and isn't snarky lol looking at you tiktok). you're really good at explaining these things!!! i'm glad the algorithm suggested your channel
Hi I really like the way you discussed this and gave references.
The first time I heard of CRT, I thought it was another name for 'scientific racism' such as phrenology, IQ tests, etc. 'We must critically examine the skulls and lower incomes of those Other races to decide if they should be allowed to live in Our neighborhoods.'
I think there's a nuance with the 'white supremacy of logic' argument that's getting dismissed though. It's not claiming that _being a thinking human_ is white supremacist nonsense, it's saying that white supremacist institutions will neglect to gather the data that proves their own white supremacy. Studies into such subjects will be denied funding. Our country has admitted in the court of law that it assassinated major civil rights leaders, kept those admissions classified for a generation, then lifted the classifications so much later that nobody cares anymore. The objection isn't that facts are bad, it's that _the country won't let facts about racial oppression be referred to as 'facts.'_ It's claiming that compromised, corrupted power structures have a monopoly on information; thus, it's automatically suspect when those same structures suppress information that challenges their utopian claims and puts them on trial. Then, with the facts in support of civil rights defined out of existence by the state, we'll have to rely on testimony, which opponents will dismiss as anecdote. Anecdote is, for some reason, a dirty word. At this rate, no amount of racial abuse will ever face actionable seriousness. I don't think it's hypocritical to point this out.
There is a form of logically-suspect 'rationalism' that thinks 'objectivity' means 'figuring out which facts you are permitted to ignore.' They'll argue that unjustified killings of Black people are 'rare enough' not to be addressed, but rarity has never meant _not addressing a problem._ Adrenocortical cancer is rare but we still try to cure it. Even if police violence wasn't a massive issue for the Black community _per capita_ -- which, crucially, _it is_ -- even if there was only a single case every hundred years, _that single case would be worth looking at._
White supremacist societies have fallaciously declared that 'logic' means 'ignoring the plight of the few' because that version of 'logic' benefits a society that mistreats minorities, and it is _that version of logic_ that must be rejected.
I thought it meant the same thing at first, lmao. Also, that second part was a really good explanation of a nuanced often overlooked part of the issue 👍
The assumption that police violence is only an issue in the Black community is an example of the foolishness of CRT
@@russellm2555 good thing I never said ‘only.’
‘Disproportionately’ would be the word.
@@russellm2555 lol, read the comment again
Russell M who the heck said police violence was ONLY a problem in the black community?
It’s not only a problem for them, other groups deal with it too, it’s just that police violence disproportionately affects black people enough that you can’t properly talk about police violence in America WITHOUT addressing the racist elephant in the room.
Seems like you’re the one making assumptions, here.
My way to understand Marxism is the conflict around the private property of the means of productions.
So race (or gender, or LGTBIQ+ issues) cannot be reducted to class. But is undeniable that apliyng the class framework to race or gender or LGBTIQ+ issues gives you a better understanding of what's happening.
Like if womans are paid less than man. That's not a class thing, but if you understand that the people who decide what wage should be paid are the people who owns the means of productions, thats gives you a more complete perspective to understand the issue.
It's almost like there is a kinf of intersection between race, gender and class. But I don't know, I don't live in USA, maybe things are different there.
The irony is that Intersectionality Theory got the same "brownwashing" by the reactionary right as CRT is getting now. The truth is that most don't want to see anything wrong with the status quo, especially if it means change. That's why they don't invest time actually fully understanding what they critique. Change frightens a lot of people, even more so when their lives are increasingly precarious. So, getting past their emotional barriers - inchoate fear, anger, and resentment - to get them engaging with the reality of how injustice is being perpetuated on others is the real issue. They really have no idea how bad things are and how bad they can get.
@@BigHenFor another irony is that crt is in conflict with intersectionality, which is one quite valid criticism of the theory imo.
I just wanted to point out that race and gender don't work the same way. A black person is on average born poorn than someone who's white. However your sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't make you poor. All the push backs you face are soceital.
It makes more sense to tie race issues to class issues than it is to gender with class. Now that doesn't mean you remove the soceital component of it, it just means you deal race issues as both.
Great video, dude. Subbed.
Oh shit it's Jeremy! I love your content chulito
Oh damn! You’re a critical role fan too! Only discovered your channel in the last month or two and it’s fantastic. Have you watched EXU yet?
We need an animated series of the MN too!
I like the video, though it's worth mentioning that Marxism's reason for breaking down class relations is not to make people hate capitalists or whatever, though I know reddit tankies might lead you to believe otherwise. Class analysis is actually supposed to, as you said, focus on systems rather than people. Marxists usually advocate the abolition of the system that divides people by class, not hunting rich people for sport like some teenaged redicals who just skimmed the Communist Manifesto for the first time might imply.
Maybe, but Marx leaned pretty heavily into the idea that only violent revolution (which is inseparable from its effects on rich humans) would be the only way out.
@@fellinuxvi3541, I would add that the Marxist class critique is not as simple as businessman bad; worker good. And Marx's own position was not as simple as lets choose to use violent means to punish the oppressor class. A big part of the Marxist-Leninist tradition as a whole is recognising that Capitalism is bad for nearly everyone. It's about recognising that capitalists are totally subservient to capital; they aren't the ones making the choices - it's capital itself.
Suppose I'm an inventor, and I make a wonderful, cheap, ecologically friendly, labour-saving device that will make everyone's life 10% better - under Capitalism. I'm going to either have to give up control of my idea, directly exploit a workforce, or indirectly exploit a workforce down the supply chain. If I don't, then one of two things will happen; either I won't be able to sufficiently scale up production and my brilliant idea will go to waste until the copy-write expires, or my business will be outcompeted by a rival who gains access to (or replicates) a similar technology. If I don't continue to try and increase my profits and pour more capital into the business, I will be outcompeted; if I don't try and reduce production costs as much as I can, I will be outcompeted, If I don't try to maximise sales, I will be outcompeted. And as a capitalist - when you lose market share, your competitors have the opportunity to grow and centralise. When capital consolidates itself, it becomes more and more powerful, giving that unscrupulous businessman who can make it to the top more agency and more power. Now yes - he might choose to do the nice thing a pull the leaver marked "give 'em fluffy puppies" - instead of the one marked "drill them to the marrow" - but our girlboss/boyboss has been trained by the system, they know that if they pull the nice leaver, they lose market share, and if they pull the horrifying leaver they gain market share. This is why I think the most crucial word in all of Marx's writing is "tendency". Each individual capitalist will have to justify their actions based on their own moral and ethical limits. Still, if you are good enough at lying and are so amoral to functionally care about nothing at all - you'll go far. And even if you're a saint, the system will ratchet you to do more and more explorative practices.
So it doesn't matter if you are a morally good capitalist or a morally bad capitalist - it's not you or your personal decisions that are the problem. Engles! By all accounts - lovely boss, morally good capitalist - not a fantastic businessman. Did Marx ever ask him to divest his property or become a hermit? Nope. Is that hypocritical? Nope. But, most of the Majoraritarians in the RSDLP were middle class! Doesn't matter. Even if you are the nicest, kindest capitalist who ever did live, the system requires you to exploit at least a bit; it then gives you the recurring option of failing or exploiting more. To make a genuine change, it would be idealistic to expect the capitalist class to do anything. Instead, Marxism ask us to consider our role in the cycle - where are we contributing to the system - and where (as a class) do we have the power to withdraw that contribution.
Then - does it make sense to apply this framework to race? Yes - but not wholesale. (And as far as I can tell, CRT does not do this). Marxism is built on dialectics (the key one referenced above is between the exploiter and producer, each applies opposite force to the object of the commodity - but each is fundamental to its existence, they can not (under the current conditions) be separated without destroying the whole. This is the requirement of violence that Marx speaks of.
So what are the dialectics at play in white supremacy? I honestly don't know - I'm trying to work it out, but I am a slow reader with a long reading list, and to quote Mao, "The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality: it emphasises the dependence of theory on practice, emphasises that theory is based on practice and serves practice.
" And my theory is currently sorely lacking practice.
@@nithingr4359 I would wager nothing about Marxism-Leninism (or Maoism) ought to be taken seriously other than perhaps, Lenin's critique of banking (which even some libertarians share, so it's not exclusive to him at all). But that's kind of a personal attack, so I'll still go over some points in your comment.
The idea that capitalism is "bad" for everyone is an inherently normative and moralistic value judgement that does not apply to Marx's descriptive aspect. He did espouse personal political and normative beliefs (violent revolution) but his main analysis was impersonal and scientific.
Arguing that capitalists are not making the choices does not mean it is bad for them. It is strangely dogmatic to believe that making your own choices is always the supreme good. Not to mention, you *are* making choices, capitalists and workers under capitalism are "free" to make their/our own choices, the thing is, we have to weigh the consecquences of those choices. You're not free from consequences, and while we can fix the system to be more fair, we can't do away with consequences. What capitalists experience is freedom, constrained by the material conditions of capitalism, yes, but primitive communists were also constrained by their conditions (and any future attempt at communism would be the same way). If that constriction is grounds for declaring choices 'unfree', then there is no freedom, it's impossible.
Let's take your example about this miraculous device. You have an option over all of those things. You can start a co-op. Pay your workers in shares and let them have a vote. That way, you all own the company together and make decisons together. You might argue this is socialism, but bear in mind, this can be done (and is done) under capitalism all thr time, same material conditions apply.
But let's see the examples one by one. If you can't scale production, and someone else gains access to similar technology, surely the important thing is that the people get that technology, right? What does it matter if it's not your idea? If someone else sells your idea better, more people will have access to that thing, and roughly, things will be 10% better.
Then, you say if you don't continue to invest in your buisenesss to increase profits, you'll be outcompeted, but this isn't really true. If your product satisfies more needs, it will still sell. The economy can hold sustainable niches. Mom and Pop shops for instance, don't have to expand their profits year after year because they fulfill a need niche that is stable. If you have such a revolutionary product (essentially a monopoly) you don't have to care about competition, no monopoly ever does. As long as people have a reason to buy your product, you'll have your maket share.
The same is true of your lever analogy. If it were true that nice things are uncompetitive, things would aways get worse under capitalism. However, millennials are the first generation to have it worse than the previous one, up until now, things were looking up (and even then, it was due to deliberate policies that things got worse, not through a natural tendency of the economy). Lead was removed from gasoline in one of the must succesful environmental pieces of legislation in history. Nice things can thrive under capitalism very well.
If the system always pushed you to be more exploitative, co-ops would always fail, yet we see them sometimes outperform traditional companies. If we take the logic in this, we can see individual capitalists raise the pay of their workers significantly without detriment, (and this does happen, Kyle and Krystal recently interviewed one such capitalist.
Engles could have done more, it is hypocritical to ask less.
You then don't elaborate on why it would make sense to apply this to race, but I'd be interested to know your take.
@@fellinuxvi3541 I'd advise giving Mao and Lenin a second look, but then again, I would, wouldn't I? So, to start things - I owe you an apology; lazy writing breeds correction, correction requires time, and time constraints breed lazy writing. If I keep it up, the whole world will be spent correcting my mistakes.
So, what in gods name did I mean? (I'm a bit old fashioned when I start a new sentence, I normally mean to change the subject, but - as mentioned 'lazy writing') First, Capitalism having a progressive detrimental effect on the material conditions and (thereby the impact of those material conditions) mental conditions of the majority of people, and the Capitalist being subservient to the wants of capital itself are distinct terms. Capitalism is not bad (necessarily) because it restricts the Capitalist's freedom to do moral good; it is fundamentally a bad system because it demands perpetual capital growth, which in turn requires exploitation, which in turn worsens the material conditions of the greatest majority, including most of the Capitalists (though to a significantly lesser degree).
Here is where, in all good conscience, I should have left it. Everything that followed was only elaboration and repetition. So what is left? Well, only unpicking the tangle that remains. I now make myself subservient to your response.
A co-op is not a solution, and it is not an exception. Unless you manage to enclose your entire supply chain (communism), your coop's best interest will be in the minimisation of its expenses; this will give preference to the cheaper and predominantly more exploitative suppliers. Yes, it is "nicer" to the direct employees, but you are still harming the material conditions of a great number of people down the supply chain. This also does not exempt you from the competition. Even if your product makes peoples lives 10% better, it still must compete in an open market - a market that will not realistically punish theft and imitation if that imitation and theft are more profitable and hence more exploitative. No technological monopoly holds out for very long if it either oversteps the current 'acceptable' levels of exploitation or if it fails to make a sufficiently aggressive profit.
It is here that I should complicate the image a little. I will do this in two ways, first by the introduction of time (a notion surprisingly absent thus far), then by the introduction of the rest of the world (here is where seriously reading some Lenin and Mao might be useful). Once I have done this, I will come to my position and understanding of the relation of CRT and Marxism (as forewarned - it is a little loose as practice is the foundation of good theory, and I have little to no relevant practice and have yet to synthesis theory in reading).
It is important to remember that the system of capital first outlined by Marx is a progressive one. Like the flowing of a viscous fluid downhill, if sufficiently thick, it looks static, but if we examine it over time, we see its momentum. To stretch this analogy, we can also see bubbles in the fluid. Individual actions and brief periods of time that contradict the downhill motion of the fluid. But these are the exception and can never be the rule. Instead of changing the martial of Capitalism, they only serve to displace it at the moment. The greatest example of this kind of bubble would be the period of the late 1930s to mid-1970s in America. A period - as you tangentially mentioned - of great growth and prosperity. It is here that we must consider the rest of the world.
You see, Marx was not universally correct; he examined a system of Capitalism that had grown around him in the Ruhr valley and the further stage of development of that system in Great Britain and America. The west - in short. What he did not examine was the growing globalisation of the capitalist sphere (at least not fully) - that this system had grown to the point that it could envelope whole civilisations as raw-goods supply companies. It is in this frame that Mao and Lenin saw the equity of the peasant and the worker. That the peasant had (if not identical then) very similar relations to Imperial capital as did the proletariat of the subject state; as a producer of raw goods to be processed by the workers to be sold by the Capitalist. In this regard, we see the bubble of the 1930s to 70s as an exportation of the worst conditions of capital from the imperial core to its peripheries. In this regard, I would ask you to examine the function of small Mom and Pops and Co-ops, not as individual entities - separated from their supply chain; not as fresh saplings, but as small green shoots on an otherwise dead tree.
But we should not make too many excuses for Marx, the systemic use of those Imperialist modes was well established in his time, and it is here that I feel the overlap appears. I would suggest that it is useful to think of the progress of slavery, through Jim Crow, to national subservience and co-isolation as comparable to a sort of internal Imperialism. That it functions as a profitable - and therefore predominantly defended - institution within the west as an extension of that same Leninist scene of Imperialism as the separation of the global proletariat and therein the exportation of the worst excesses demanded by capital. In this sense, the Black American Nation exists as an expendable safety valve in the system - whose use and higher level of exploitation is both excused in an ideological sense and maintained by internal institutional borders. In this regard, I would suggest that it is useful to consider the White working class, not as analogues with the capitalist class. But, the relation between these two - often-times artificial separated - classes is closer to the subject proletariat and the imperial proletariat; that the relation between the Black bourgeoisie and the White bourgeoisie is analogous to that of the subject bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie of the imperial metropole. Where I would say that this is insufficient is the fact that these two national identities co-exist. That the system cannot simply ask the imperial proletariat to ignore the existence of the Black working class, it must actively reinforce a sense of moral or material inferiority, and that this requires the extra-capital exploitation of the Black bourgeoisie.
So why all the rest of it - couldn't I just have written the first two paragraphs and the last? Yes. But what I am trying to get across is that Marxist class analysis is not about direct forces applied to individual persons, but that the momentum of a class as a whole is found in the balance of posing forces and interests, but that some of those forces are supported by the structure of the system, while others are dis-incentivised. It is not that the White working class is predatory, more that it is (under the rules of the current system) stated to be in its interest to either accept or support white supremacy. It is in the algebra of Marxism that we call this an oppressive class - the subject being the class as a whole within the system, not the individual within that class.
@@nithingr4359 Okay, I like your clarification, it is by far the most eloquent and clear correction I've ever received for a comment.
However, I still disagree with its content.
Capitalism only 'demands' that growth be infinite in so far as positive measures threaten market shares, but this can be corrected via government policy. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws can protect companies from being bought out, and with it, alleviate one of the most pressing needs to further exploitation. Demanding worker representation on the board can also put large and small companies on similar footing, without the risk of labor-friendly companies being outcompeted by the worst ones.
Secondly, there is an extremely fluid relationship between exploitation and material conditions. Ever since the massification of credit, people can access goods far greater than their current buying power. And both new optimists like Pinker and his most promiment critics have acknowledged that the middle class has seen substantial increase in their living standards. In fact, the pandemic is the only time since the late 80's that proportional global poverty has increased. If your assesment of capitalism were true, the growth of capital would mean worsening conditions worldwide, but this hasn't actually happened, at least certainly not linearly.
While it is true that exploitative products tend to be cheapest, it is not a hard rule. Co-ops can reinvest in themselves, and work with other co-ops. Again, co-ops, which are a fundamentally non-exploitative form of production, can outcompete traditional companies, this puts a serious question mark on wether the assumption that 'the most exploitative will dominate the market' is actually true (it does not seem to be).
Marx's conception of history is also very dubious. A mistake which neither Lenin nor Mao (to my knowledge) correct either, is the conclusion that advanced, capitalist nations would revolt first. Marx's predictions conclusively failed, the third period never came, and the only societies to try his ideas were near-feudal, peasant societies, not industrialized, proletariat societies.
Moreover, as you mention, they equated them, however, they clearly weren't equal, or we would have seen Maoist and Leninist developments in industrialized society.
The root of this misdiagnosis, in my opinion, is a dogmatic belief in capitalism meaning suffering. The root of the argument assumes capitalism has a set of fixed suffering that it can only displace, never reduce. At most, it can be 'contracted' but not eliminated. I disagree with that analysis, and would furthermore argue it is backwards.
For example, let's take a look at the Nordic countries, with their exploitatiom or reliance on the global south being greatly exaggerated.
Exploitative productions lead to low prices, whereas compensating workers increase prices. However, Nordic countries are designed to sustain a high cost of life, which means pricier products. Countries like the U.S, which exploit workers to a far greater degree, force their workers to buy cheap products, which are more exploitative. I would see then, that suffering is not offshored, but rather reverberates from one country to another. Countries which increase exploitation within their borders increase it abroad, and while countries which reduce it within their borders don't necessarily lessen it abroad, they *can* lessen it abroad.
I will admit, however, that your analysis of black/white relationships and imperialism is nothing short of genius. It is definitely the most succint and clever analysis I've ever read on race and Marxism. My only problem with it, isn't really with it, it's with Marxism's ability to deal with the problem, which I don't trust.
I understand your distinction between classes and individuals, but I don't think it fully adresses T1J's point. At the end of the day, we're individuals, and classes must use individuals to affect the material world, they cannot do so in the abstract. This essentially forces opressor classes to be predatory, and if they're not, well, there are dimensions the theory just doesn't understand, and T1J is rightful to be critical of it.
I see the recent Critical Race Theory controversy as reminiscent of how the Frankford School became the boogieman of the right. A real yet controversial movement within academia that can be demonized as revolutionary indoctrination because most people haven't actually read any of it. I find Gen Milley's response to Matte Gatze informative because it shows a well read man who actually know what CRT is dealing with a politician who is trying to invoke a boogieman.
@Daniel Berger I wasn't defending racism or CRT, I'm not even a full supporter of CRT because I do have qualms about the ultimate academic ethics of some of the postmodernist critiques of liberalism they deploy. Why are you proposing that I made my comment disingenuously, you dont know me or my political philosophy? If there are "hundreds" of videos of classroom abuse then please link them; otherwise it is your good faith I must be forced to call into question.
I don't think any legitimate advocate of CRT argues against "logic" and "facts". Its more about laying out the whole context of a situation rather than just reading off a bunch of numbers and statistics. For instances the right's favorite black crime statics crutch ignores the context of poverty and low economic mobility among some black communities.
I m rather disappointed the T1J rushed into this "facts" and "logic" trope as he did. Seems like T1J here is more concerned about emphasizing his liberal perspective than assessing CRT in an open minded way.
Marxism, at least not as originally conceived, never describes things as a oppressor vs oppressed dichotomy.
Class is very broad in Marxism and really only capture those that survive by ownership and those that survive by work (which would include doctors as much as steel plant employees). He never does this on an individual or liberal basis (personal responsibility to not be racist, etc) but in a way we would might call systemic today. The oppression Marx writes about really comes in when the state is utilized to keep to enforce class through ownership (property) rights. "Marxists" will therefor write about how policing will be utilized to "clean up" neighborhoods by real estate developers and therefore the state ends up oppressing working class inhabitants through violence (in cities these tend to be black folks because, well, history).
It should be said none of this is terribly fantastical logic as most Marxian notions are. Indeed the main reason why Marx is invoked today by CRT critics is because we, somehow, still live in a red-scare climate in America where citing a 19th century sociologist is equated to 20th century disasters (Stalinism, etc.).
That's a great observation about separation into psuedo-Marxist "oppressor" and "oppressed" classes. It's also why there's so much opposition to it. The average white person thinks "I'm not actively engaged in racism, but you're labeling me as an oppressor. Therefore, I not only disagree with your conclusion based on MY lived experience, but I also take it as a personal insult." You're absolutely correct that the problem is in systems, rather than some group of people. No solution can get anywhere when you start just by pointing the finger at somebody and declaring them the problem.
I think the problem is that white people don't live the experiences of nonwhites. They usually don't get the economic/social and lived expectations and realities people of color endure or how systems which they personally never built, but benefit from harm nonwhites. For example my grandma is a 100. She lived through the racism, bigotry and oppression of my Puerto Rican people. She can tell you stories which can break your heart. My parents who are in their 60s can share with you horrifying things of life in the 1970s-1990s. I grew up in the 1990s/2000s and I can share you stories of being the first Latino kid in a white neighborhood being bullied and having the cops called at me at 10 years old for riding my bike and playing with my sister outside. Being called, "bastard spic" and other unpleasant experiences... Most whites don't know or care or understand my lived experiences or that of my parents and grandparents. To them, Jim Crow was not a factor in their lives. Forced sterilization never happened to them. Being humiliated and punished for just walking while white never happens to them. So they dismiss it. Worse they get angry, then blame us for our own perceived suffering or experiences. This is the nature of being a Person of Color in America in 2021.
@@jalicea1650
That is a huge problem, but it can't be solved by saying "white people are the problem." White people are the majority, so blaming them isn't going to do shit.
What we need to do is figure out how to get white people to actually listen to black people when they talk about issues that affect them directly. Because that's the only way they'll ever learn to be better.
@@elbruces As a White Man, The idea of blaming someone for something base on their skin tone is counter productive, and only serves to further divide people. While I don’t agree with everything about CRT, I do agree with its criticisms of American culture and views on race. We shouldn’t see race in the way we treat people, but we should also be aware of potential cultural differences (tho I’m not a fan of the “authentic” talk in the theory as I feel like that puts people in a Box).
I've tried to get a handle in CRT, but have not been able to find a single coherent and consistent definition for it that even left of center folks can agree on. Part of the problem IMO is the use of terms like "white supremacy" and "racism" to refer to very different things than the phenomena CRT is using these same words to represent. As far as I can tell, "white supremacy" is an example of ethnocentrism. Using a word that originally mean the ideology of groups like the KKK to transforms a natural human tendency that many societies possess into a malignant force.
Interested to see your take since I heard critical race theory every other day at my job (Tech at a small school district) we were very much in the parrot words and talking points without ever changing our actions outside of more lip service. Ended up having racism problems against every group at different points so needless to say we didn't really get much from it but hard to imagine admins took time to care and understand what they were preaching.
@Elemental Pee no it's not. It's being taught to ALL employees at progressive school districts because WE ARE the system
I have the same experience as Ember. They forced us through awkward accidentally racist trainings ("go ask your person of color to fill out this privilege form and compare it to yours") and then did the same racist stuff they always do because they're racists. And the same ableist, middle-class, sexist stuff. We've been working on this for several years and nothing is any better
Halfway through the vid. I hope you touch on Eduardo Bonilla Silva's racism without racists. I plan to do a vid myself on the topic, CRT is a minefield which is why it's become an easy boogeyman from the right. Racism without Racists is probably more useful for addressing these problems as a whole since it takes a more empathetic stance on how systemic racism is maintained and reproduced.
Probably one of the most enlightening books you’ll read. It’s amazing
I appreciate T1J's perspective on things, even if I don't fully agree (I usually do, but some things I may think/have thought differently), because it at least leads to me being aware of angles to discussions I might not have previously thought of. That's the big reason why it's important to discuss issues, as you may be introduced to concepts, comparisons, or perspectives you didn't have previously, which leads to a broader, more aware understanding of an issue.
As a public school teacher, both sides have been criticizing us without fully knowing or understanding the context. The conservative side is pretty vocal right now, so that one's obvious, but the left keeps telling teachers that we are perpetuating racism or not teaching about ___ when, in fact, many of those people aren't in classrooms watching what is being taught and how. Furthermore, many current teachers were not trained to teach their subject with CRT in mind, so either argument is moot.
It's not a dismissal of data. Objectivity does not exist in the way that is generally understood. That isn't just a philosophical stance. The most important part of the scientific method is the interpretation of data and acknowledging that cognitive biases cannot be divorced from the way we interpret data and the data we chose to collect in the first place. Everything touched by humans is subject to fallacy. That is the struggle of science. But it's also where it thrives. When we acknowledge our own biases we can then question the world around us and begin to innovate.
I am not the best informed.
I don't always do due diligence to defend my ideas.
But one of my struggles with the various groups that call outselves "lefties," is. Many of us support harm reduction in terms of drug addiction, but. Not. In other ways.
Listen. I can't speak to race. But, for trans stuff? Someone misgendering me less often is GOOD. Someone getting my name right? GOOD. People getting kicked out of their homes less? More accepting families? That's GOOD. Like. Idk if I want to completely assimilate, and leave those who can't, behind. But, less bad can still be good. At the very least, it could give us more potential bandwith to fight for bigger changes.
I am in no way saying "settle." Or that people shouldn't be frustrated if we have gone over something 100 times. Or that it shouldn't be more. We should stop telling folks to wait for the progress.
But. There is an end game. Improving lives. And sometimes, making shit less bad, does do that. Hard reduction, as a metaphoric philosophy/ approach, I think is underrated.
No one solution is enough. But enough small ones? Enough workers not wanting to work for shit pay? Enough scientists and officals that take reducing and clearing up waste more seriously? More sustainable options, and more efficient and safe ways to make them? Like. The more of these things we stack together, the more the change comes.
Incremental steps are still steps and every step counts.
Incremental steps while also not getting too drawn into an individualistic approach so that we can address issues at a systemic level where the roots of the problems lie.
and not letting neoliberal corporations pacify movements by co-opting them for the purposes of increasing profits.
In the words of Rage Against The Machine,
The main attraction distraction
Got you number than number than numb.
**Empty your pockets son they got you thinkin' that What you need is what they sellin' Make you think that buyin' is rebellin'**
From the theaters to malls on every shore
The thin line between entertainment and war
The front line is everywhere there'll be no shelter here
Still burn the nightmare works you pushin' for,
I'm a snap of the whip, the true feather to tar
Memroy erased and promise gone,
Tradin' your history for a V.C.R.
Cinema simulated life in trauma
Forth Reich culture, Americana
Chained to the dream they got you searchin' for
The thin line between entertainment and war
There'll be no shelter here,
The front line is everywhere. X4
Hospitals not profitful
The market bulls got pockets full
To advertise some hip disguise
View the world from American eyes
The parmagon keep fiendin' for more
The thin line between entertainment and war
Fix the need, develop the taste,
Buy the products, or get laid to waste
Coca-cola was back in the veins of Saigon
And Rambo troops We got a dope pair 'a Nikes on
Godzilla pure motherfuckin' filler
Get your eyes on the real killer,
Cinema simulated life in trauma
Forth Reich culture, Americana
Chained to the dream they got you searchin' for,
The thin line between entertainment and war.
There'll be no shelter here,
The front line is everywhere. X4
American eyes, American eyes,
View the world from American eyes,
Bury the past, rob us blind,
leave nothing behind. X2
Just stare. X4
Or live the nightmare.
I can't speak to issues that disproportionately affect others, rather than me.
But I will say, for issues for me? I care less about incremental vs revolution. I want a specifc, actionable thing I can do. And do it. And repeat that process. Not waiting for a full revolution. But doing things to make it come, even if it doesn't come tonight.
At least in theory.
@@stoodmuffinpersonal3144 That is certainly understandable. The common thinking is that revolutions are spontaneous, sudden, and without too much planning. It’s commonly thought that they are sparked without a specific group working day in and day out to get us there. This is absolutely wrong. There’s work going on RIGHT NOW that is getting us closer to revolution AND making those incremental gains. The left has a wide array of beliefs and people with different approaches and talents. While you or I may think that another person’s approach is inefficient, we shouldn’t discount and discourage them. Ultimately, we all want relatively the same thing. Incremental vs revolutionary steps to change the system isn’t a binary choice.
Y’allidarity,
Your favorite Texas Marxist 🤠
✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯
I think there was a problem with how you defined Marxist framework, which involves this tool of analysis called dialectics. Basically, it looks at power dynamics that take the form of structures and systems within a society. The system of power imbalance in society creates disparate material interests, which then go on to impact different groups within that society. Marxism is not a want to vilify another demographic, but to change the systems and structures in society to be more equal and equitable for all within that society in order to maximize positive freedoms.
You've made a rly good video that will inform more people about CRT and that is a very powerful thing to do with your platform, I think it also includes a mischaracterization of a key leftwing concept that might scare people from coming to complete conclusions about the world they live in. Take care, T1J
I like this overview.
It seems like if there's one rule about making sense of the world (especially in the modern social-media ecosystem), it's that whenever a new culture-war flashpoint appears, you gotta avoid getting your outrage engines running before really understanding what's being claimed and whether or not it represents what's actually happening. I think this kind of thing is helpful for that.
It's difficult to make that happen broadly though because it's genuinely hard work -- we don't all have the time or expertise to truly dig into and analyze everything, so we look to voices that we trust to summarize stuff, and it's very hard to recognize when someone we generally agree with is presenting a warped view of something.
Take Jon Oliver's show, for example. It takes the time to explore single issues relatively deeply (for that kind of show) and seems well researched and broadly factual. I like it. I find him compelling and earnestly trying to shine light on things he thinks are important.
But, of course, he focuses almost exclusively on the facts that support the point he's trying to make. He's an advocate, not an educator, and his segments are great introductions to topics but aren't a comprehensive view of it. And it's hard to acknowledge but sometimes I think some of his minor omissions or whatever are misleading, or misrepresent the people he disagrees with.
I guess ultimately if we want to understand and have conversations about hot button issues with people who disagree with us (assuming everyone's acting in good faith) we've got to start from a position of humility. Like - acknowledge the limits of our understanding and unpack the fundamental assumptions in the shorthand arguments we use. It's hard though, when there's often real hostility between people who disagree (whether its driven by fear or frustration or just people wanting to "destroy" someone online).
The only Critical thing I love is the Critical Role wallpaper in the background.
I kid, great video, you’re one of the most level-headed dudes on this site.
I got so excited when you said the acronym for critical race theory, cause i was like "yooooo crash team racing" but no
Damn I was just hearing all about this wild backlash to CRT, and I was just about to learn about it. Thanks for the info!
Guess I'll send this to my conservative dad next time he sends me unhinged rants like this
"Part of the civil rights movement was desegregation. Now they need safe spaces and want to be with other black folx. Which is self-segregation. Also spitting on MLK's struggle."
Do try to be understanding, his view of CRT is warped, in sure he means well!
@@OlaAremu It's really fucking hard sometimes. It was practically impossible last year.
There is a group called the Freedom Georgoa Initiative that wants to create their own city of just black people. So yes, your dad is right that SOME people want to create their own segregated safe spaces: www.the-sun.com/news/1475654/freedom-georgia-black-families-trolled-segregation/
@@josh_final I hope you realize self-segregation is different from forced segregation. Self-segregation can be a means of survival and liberation for some when those in power are making things a living hell. Of course the goal is to ensure liberation is achieved without needing to self-segregate, but you can hardly blame anyone for wanting to do this when it may be the only chance to experience some semblence of freedom. Until you have been there, you don't get a say. I'm Black and trans and fear for my life every damn day. Best believe I would self-segregate if my life's work ends up not coming to fruition.
Came for the nerd talk, stayed for the philosophy.
Thank you. Please have more on these subjects. For me, I think you explain these complex topics very well.
8:33 This is a common misreading of Marxism. The Marxist concept of dialectical materialism and the struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed are not about pitting two groups against each other and making the oppressor the enemy. It's about dismantling the material conditions that led to this conflict in the first place. So when any critical theorist analyzes these struggles, whether through the lens of class, race, or gender, they are doing so within the broader context of the society that drives said struggles. I would argue that it doesn't even make any moral prescriptions but simply descriptions of cultural and socioeconomic issues. There are some self-proclaimed Marxists that do believe that "Oppressor = Bad, Oppressed = Good" but they are not true Marxists.
Anyways, everything else was pretty spot on. Definitely sharing this with people that could use a lil crash course in CRT. 😂
I think this is an interesting distinction when talking about the Marxist influence of CRT. The idea that "Oppressor = Bad" in the case of CRT would essentially be saying "White people = bad", which I would imagine most white people wouldn't be totally on board with. However, by trying to take an honest inventory of who's among the oppressed and who's among the oppressor classes as objectively as possible, it might make the conversation easier for those who find themselves in the oppressor class. Ultimately, the goal is to liberate all people from an oppressive system, right? Or am I missing the point?
@@PenStab Exactly the point. If you look at the history of what "whiteness" even is, you'll find that it is rooted in racism and the desire to keep black people oppressed by uniting all European identities and placing them highest on an arbitrary racial hierarchy. So yes, it is to liberate people from the oppressive system of racism that leads to some white people internalizing racist ideology because of "white" identity. And that's only one example of where CRT can be applied.
@@lancewalker2595 Not sure what you mean by that. There are some pretty key distinctions between Marxists and non-Marxists. Many people that don't claim the label of Marxism could most certainly be classified as such if their analyses of society aligns with the material dialectic for example. Marxism is an abstract lens of analysis but one that definitely has legitimate signifiers.
Thank you for this informative video. (P.S. It was your D&D video that brought your channel to my attention).
I hope I'm not the only retro gamer in T1J's audience that kept having to remind themselves that CRT is not just an acronym for the type of display people like to play old video game systems on.
I'm really glad I found this video. I've been struggling with how to talk about a need to reject the classification of whiteness without it coming across as me attempting to escape culpability as a white guy. I particularly latched on to the bit about racial empathy and how refusing to acknowledge race imposes whiteness on everyone. I'm a first generation American on my dad's side(in fact he still lives in Belfast) and while the Irish in Ireland can talk some pretty bigoted and xenophobic trash, they don't have anything on the American Irish. I've always been deeply saddened that a colonized people who were robbed of their language, their native religions, their traditional food and dress, and the very landscape of their homeland(over 99% of Ireland's forests where razed to the ground due to British Colonization) could get off a boat fleeing British Imperialism and then immediately take up their oppressor's cause here in America. There should have been no group of immigrants more sympathetic to native and black Americans... and yet. My hypothesis is that by being accepted as white(at least within the American paradigm) served to erase our connection to the colonized because now we got to be on the "winning side." I've often heard people talk about how whiteness being extended to the Irish and Italians proves that it is a meaningless or arbitrary classification, but I think that the ever expanding nature of whiteness demonstrates that it is a malignant force. Anyway, I could go on, but the important thing is that I'm grateful for the perspective and nuance that you brought to the conversation. I'm now better informed than I was prior to watching and that's pretty neat. Thank you!
I was browsing a bunch of recommended channels, and hesitated when I came to this one because of the topic list. Race and racism are difficult topics, and can be exhausting to engage in. I decided to give this video a shot and am so happy I did. Your presentation is balanced, and I appreciate you including aspects you both agree and disagree with. I'm looking forward to more content and learning more about your perspectives on these complex topics.
One thing: the Marxist approach doesn't pit people against people. It is, and always has been, about systems of oppression.
This summary of yours needs to be put in writing. (I tried to show my wife, but she's very visually oriented and wants to be able to read it.) I'll see what I can do with the auto-generated transcript...
kinda weird how the quote about different kinds of racism is itself an example of unintentional racism in that it uses a racial slur in reference to the Inuit people
Being what, Eskimo?
@@seanmatthewking Bingo!
@@seanmatthewking Yes. Eskimo is considered a derogatory name by the Inuit people. It’s a name thrust upon the native people of the Arctic instead of one chosen by them and has negative connotations linked to it.
I love this video so much!! I really appreciate the way you handle such complex and intricate topics in a way that listens to both sides and hears many perspectives and as someone who watches your channel I can confirm that racial empathy is certainly possible and you are helping to educate your viewers on serious topics in a mature and methodical way!
I feel that you may be misunderstanding the Marxist framework of CRT: the enemy of people is not other people as you say, but rather systems that allow for oppression (and in fact necessitate an oppressor class versus an oppressed class).
The alternative you offer right after saying that is exactly what they're doing
@San Te You can't change human nature but you could attempt to enslave most of humanity.
@San Te
There is not a single example of marxian ideas every producing anything other than poverty, oppression, destruction and unhappiness.
If you had real world evidence of marxism at least “not being evil,” you would have an argument.
@San Te I know I am. And I'm telling you, child, that you are acting in your own self interest even right now. You couldn't even rid yourself of worldly desires, much less someone else.
@San Te
China has moved to nazism a similar thing to marxism. Except hitler defined the collective as a race rather than a class.
@San Te
Nationalization of unions, appropriation of property from out groups, party control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth and forced labour camps. All hallmarks of socialism in practice.
What does this guy mean when he says "liberals"? Because he said "liberals say stay out of my way and dont bother me" which I thought is the conservative view.
About your pinned comment: When the Latinx term started popping my co-workers and myself were so confused about this because it was a contradiction. Spanish is a heavily gendered language using "-o" (male implied) and "-a" (female implied) as a basis for the language itself. So Spanish won't translate all the well if you try to throw an "-x" in order to neutralize gendered words. So good luck with that I guess? Although there isn't a lot of wiggle room for those who identify as an different gender within Mexican culture in general, not just within language but within general acceptance. But Central and South America are incredibly diverse within the topics of race as well. People forget that Mexico is a nation not a race like the US but we use a similar line of logic: "Our family is from America, so we're American" so therefore "Our family is from Mexico, so we're Mexican". This video by Masaman breaks down this concept beautifully: ua-cam.com/video/HOSPD4K1ymg/v-deo.html
This is definitely one of the best explanations of CRT I've seen, thank you! I do think you fall into one of the issues that critics of CRT fall into: the idea that questioning something is the same as rejecting it. Questioning the tools of data/reason/science and their role in upholding or rejecting white supremacy is not the same as rejecting the use of those tools wholesale. Anyone who has ever questioned their faith, only to come out more faithful in the end, should intuitively know that questioning != rejecting. But I have this argument all the time with (bad faith) people on the right, who reject CRT because it rejects reason and data as concepts (which would be wild, of course, if it did that, but it does not)
It falls into the problem of assuming things that aren't supporting them to be from racism. It runs into the same problem as conservatives with "everything that isn't showing that that america isn't great is biased". Instead its "every that isn't showing that america isn't horrible is biased."
Knowing that I was able to afford the down payment on my first house because my grandfather invested some money intelligently when I was born is individual history.
Acknowledging that he received college for free in finance that allowed him to become a banker because of his service in ww2 and the GI bill is U.S. history.
Recalling that black servicemen were explicitly excluded from the GI bill and if my grandfather had different colored skin I would not own a house is critical race theory.
No, your example is not an application of CRT. What you are describing is that historical injustices can have an effect over long periods of time, but not necessarily. That this exists is not new and no critic of CRT who has even a little brain in his head would deny it. We in Germany have a whole series of white immigrants with different social and cultural backgrounds. What they all have in common is that they came to Germany without any assets. Nevertheless, the social camp of the different immigrant groups is very different after a few years. By the way, the same is true for the native German population after the war. In particular, the boom years after the wars shook up the old social hierarchy. No, the money you got from your grandfather is not the reason why you have house and land wealth today. Nor your skin color, but the mentality, the values, the attitudes that you were given in your family have led to the fact that your grandfather and also you have seized the opportunities offered to you. Besides, who then says that it is desirable to own a house? Doesn't that have to do with your family and your culture of origin?
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I think the central tenet of CRT is correct, racism is baked into the system.
Just the simple act of redlining for a few generations would do that by it self. The lack of the ability to pass along generational wealth and to use it to climb the social/economic ladder has a massive effect on out comes today.
At this point with out some system of addressing it people need luck to brake out of their historical place in the world. This effects everyone that gets trapped into the system set up like this.
And to make it worse we are all less well off because of it. If all people had access to the same opportunity to climb the ladder imagine how the number of discoveries we would have at this point. The level of lost potential is staggering.
Great job man! I'm not sure if I'm the only one that noticed the connection between the Critical Role background at the beginning and the constant use of the word Crit, but it was lowkey my favorite bit.
I just discovered your channel today and clicked subscribe. You’ve produced a lot of content that I look forward to watching. I noticed how you shift to black/white or insert an obvious edit pause or zoom in to capture interest or highlight a key point. You also referenced a source on CRT as well as offering your personal insights in a deliberate and thought provoking way. Thank you T1J.
Have you read the book: Becoming Superman…My journey from Poverty to Hollywood by J. Michael Straczynski?
You mentioned wanting to do more content on fantasy which makes me think you’ll love this book if you haven’t already read it. Gritty and inspiring. Anyway, great job shedding some light on CRT. Cheers.
I'm sure you've heard this before but from what I can gleam about your qualms with Marxism I think you'd like the anarchist approach of viewing political struggles as primarily a result of power structures rather than the specific people within them. I myself moved away from marxism and toward anarchism as a political framework because I saw a false dichotomy in the way it addressed different classes rather than a more nuanced look that places the blame on the larger systems instead of the people in charge of or benefitting from those systems and offers the solution of total egalitarianism by eliminating hierarchy wherever possible
Really great commentary. Cuts through all the BS and gets to the facts.
Not really, it is not very objective or critical of CRT, and he puts it in the best possible light.
I really like the quote about snow. It catches the essence of how complicated racism is. It also ignores those complications since "Eskimo" is a racial slur.
there is no complication only dumb people trying to be a part of something rather than try to just let other people live in peace
I always appreciate your research and balanced approach to these types of topics. You're not just spouting off random opinions and pushing a talking point. You make these topics easier to chew and think about. Thank you for your work!
great video. well spoken and thought out. appreciate it. subbed
You do not really seem to understand Marxist analysis, nor do you seem to be able to put it into its proper context.
Doesn’t understand it even remotely. That would require (and forgive me for painting a group with such a broad brush) not being a liberal
I must point out that CRT ignores the loved experience of the "majority".
Not all white people have lived a life without facing ethnic discrimination.
Those whom have grown up in the poorer inner city areas have faced such bigotry their whole lives, just for having a specific skin color.
All people, regardless of their skin color, are 1 race. The HUMAN race.
Oh God, not the "human race" thing.
@@lunayen oh god, someone apparently refuses to accept biological science, and doesn't understand biological taxonomy.
@@nobodyshome6792
You mean the same taxonomy whie people were quick to ignore when they separated races into different categories based on whatever ideas they saw fit? Yeah, ok. 🙄
@@lunayen the same taxonomy that about half of global Caucasian population ignores. (And the total global Caucasian population is under 700 million.)
Just because people ignore the fucking facts and science, doesn't mean that you can apply that to an ENTIRE class of individuals.
The white people aren't the only people ignoring the science.
And kindly take your BIGOTED views elsewhere.
Im a right of center black kid and I was VERY anti-CRT before this. However, I'm probably about as subscribed to it as you are...
Thanks for this, it actually took a bit of effort to tap on the video, I was about to confirmation bias myself out of watching.
Thanks for being reasonable and open, man!
You're doing good work here!
can you explain why you were against it?
@@polin1710 It's mostly because of what I'd heard about it, nobody ever really went into detail and usually only talked about the points that were particularly extreme, the ones that I'm still against, btw. (I'll be honest, I was too lazy to actually research it myself)
How crazy is it that a fantastic statement from a CRT introduction uses the word "eskimo", wow
I was looking for this comment
Commenting cause I want the smash content. Fantastic video as always. Thanks for doing your research and helping to inform!
While I feel like you took the time to explain things in a digestible way, I do feel like you oversimplified some of the frameworks that are inherent in CRT. Especially in regards to its ties to marxism or what sources/data are trust worthy or worth using. Sorta like how racist use the 13/50 stat to imply that blacks are inherently prone to criminality, certain stats are used to prop up racist talking points, and what CRT, and other marxist/intersectional frameworks do is provide language and research that examine the material conditions in the data to provide info and insight so we can learn how these things happen. I'm not saying data isn't important. Actually the opposite, but we need to truly examine things in an intersectional or marxist framework to understand how the systemic oppression connects to certain individual experiences, or experiences of sub groups of marginalized people, black women, trans black women, etc. Lastly in regards to marxism, the oppressed and oppressor class narrative is to an extent an oversimplification, people who adhere to marxist principles understand that the social and economic landscape we live in is very different, we just use some of its ideas to, again, understand how these structures work, systemically and inside small communities.
My feelings exactly
The way I see it, science and logic can't be declared objective a priori. And things which are wrong generally aren't self-correcting, they require some external concepts or frameworks to challenge them. I think race consciousness can serve this role when challenging and updating concepts like neutrality, justice, rationality, etc.
@@StNick119 yup
That intro is on point. I saw the words "critical race theory" And "t1j" today and clicked without even thinking about it. Had it been marvel... Probably not. But maybe!
Ironically, CRT isn’t even taught in grade school.
14:38 There are SOME schools starting to teach CRT in grade schools! In Portland, OR are starting teach that kids are members of the majority race and they have to overthrow the system:
"Building on some of the same pedagogies and educational theories as in Tigard, Beaverton teachers designed and began teaching a new racial curriculum for every grade level, including kindergarten.... One family that had moved to Beaverton partly for the city’s highly rated public schools sent me a folder of lessons being taught to their third-grade child. ... The teacher explains to students that “race is a social construct,” created by privileged white elites who use these categories “to maintain power and control of one group over another.” ... To accompany the lesson, the teacher includes a video presentation in which the speaker directly accuses the children of being racist themselves: “Our society speaks racism. It has spoken racism since we were born. Of course you are racist. The idea that somehow this blanket of ideas has fallen on everyone’s head except for yours is magical thinking and it’s useless.”"
www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-portland-public-schools?
@@josh_final THAT isn't CRT. CRT is NOT taught in public schools--it just ISN'T. It's taught in law schools. It's looking at existing laws and how they impact minorities. The Republicans are misrepresenting it and parents are freaking out! Have you heard them at these school board meetings? It's embarrassing! I feel sorry for teachers, principals and school board officers. Do your homework parents BEFORE you go to school board meetings!!! And stop screaming at the top of your lungs--it doesn't make you right.
@@josh_final this whole thing is an astroturf campaign by Rufo. manufactured consent. not only is teaching students that race is a social construct not CRT; it's scientifically and objectively true. ask any geneticist. and CRT explicitly shifts focus from individuals to SYSTEMS and laws. what you're describing isn't CRT.
@@josh_final I'm gonna back you up, but will contend that @Bwen Luck and @GT Knight are /technically/ correct. The definition though is a slippery thing. It's the eskimo analogy again: it's a big subject, and words aren't precise enough. Luck and Knight are constricting to a very narrow definition, (and I think perhaps a very defensible definition, sorta a motte). However, it doesn't match what people are using and actually against (to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt). The legal, academic study that they define as CRT isn't what people are opposed to, and the opponents don't really care, I imagine. What the opponents are opposed to are certain elements of critical methods, certain controversial points (such as the contention of America as an intentionally racist regime). Things like that. And that is a real concern. The 1619 project has a school curriculum that is being taught, and the 1619 project is based on controversial critical methods and points. It's those controversial points that are what is being referred to as "CRT", because it comes from Critical Theorists - "Building on some of the same pedagogies and educational theories..." .
So Think the responses to your statement are more pedantic than they are actual arguments. You gave a definition, and they only rejected the definition itself, not the point you were trying to make. Frustrating, I know. Sorry guys, no points to you yet... but if you make a good faith argument, and listen first, I'll give you double :)
@@josh_final The replies that are like, "this isn't CRT!!" seem to miss the point entirely. Who cares what the name is? Who cares whether that's 'technically' CRT? The point is that racial rhetoric like that is apparently starting to be taught to young children in at least some areas of the country, and that, itself, is concerning and it's not surprising that there's a lot of people saying that they don't support it.
It seems obvious to me that rhetoric like that would lead to more racial tension and potentially psychologically damage a kid of any race who is in that class.
hey, just a thing about marxism: it's not about pitting people vs other people; in fact, the moral character of individual capitalists doesn't concern me and i don't think they're all evil. it's just that their power and wealth stems from an exploitative system where the majority of people don't own the means of production.
I recommend you reading Paulo Freire... he´s got a very good point on oppressed-opppresive... basically not in a "dividing" way but basically you can be both depending on the context
Absolutely.
I’m only halfway through the video and my head already hurts. This topic is hard
it really is lol
Still kinda wild how many white people see it as a personal attack on them though, to acknowledge that racism…exists 🤷🏼
zoe bee actually did a great video on how fact care about feelings. I would also like to draw a distinction that liberals and leftists aren't really in the same sphere as liberals are generally right wing in actuality progressives are typically what you would call a leftist.
progressives are more like center-left. socialism, communism and anarchism are the actual left.
@@loadedpainted7040 I mean yeah your pretty much right in that. Personally I am a socialist I believe it's the only way for society to improve.
@@Phil9874 I agree. its basically just 'do u believe the workers should own the means of production?' if yes, ur left wing, if no, ur right wing. I suppose a social democrat would be the true centrist.
@@loadedpainted7040 Yep
I’d love to see marvel and smash videos.
Same here. Maybe a second channel is the way to go about things?
damn, that unexpected intro hit home. wasn't even what i clicked on the video for, but already i'm reminded why i've watched your videos when they've popped up on my feed from time to time. you've got a good head on your shoulders, i respect your opinions, and i've gone through (and am going through) exactly what you spoke of during that first minute.
that was the straw that broke the camels back, as they say. i'll sub now.
...and resume watching the other 24 minutes of this video.
Also Samuel R. Delaney has a great story on this in relation to being queer. He was a gay man, a bear who grew up pre Stonewall. He explained that the lack of language to accurately describe his experience as a gay man, since gay (linked with effeminacy), queer (A slur) and homosexual (A term for a mental disorder) all had inaccurate definitions at the time. After Stonewall those words were reclaimed and made useful.