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

[Agema]

I can't say for certain if the training sessions as described even existed before this memo...

Given that this has come via the president from Fox News, as opined by the same bullshitting talking heads who don't care to check their facts and want us to believe there's a "cultural Marxist" commissar appointed in every government office to censor output, I don't think the chances look good that such training existed.

The memo states:

"All agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on 'critical race theory,' 'white privilege,' or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil," it says.

In other words, this is almost certainly a stupid nothingburger waste of government employee time. Undoubtedly government agencies have ordinary, boring diversity training. Inevitably diversity discussion is going to involve some input from critical race theory because it's a whole area of thought that cannot have failed to come up with at least something useful which will contribute to mainstream thought. But the memo is actually specifying much more than that - training that claims that the USA or certain races are inherently evil or racist. I am highly skeptical any significantly exists.

 

[tstorm823]

In other words, this is almost certainly a stupid nothingburger waste of government employee time. Undoubtedly government agencies have ordinary, boring diversity training. Inevitably diversity discussion is going to involve some input from critical race theory because it's a whole area of thought that cannot have failed to come up with at least something useful which will contribute to mainstream thought. But the memo is actually specifying much more than that - training that claims that the USA or certain races are inherently evil or racist. I am highly skeptical any significantly exists.

I disagree. Critical race theory has never contributed something useful to mainstream thought.

 

[dreng3]

I disagree. Critical race theory has never contributed something useful to mainstream thought.

Are you actually arguing that the notion of examining racism, not as an individual action or choice but as a societal structure with basis in historic treatment of the oppressed, is useless?
It is one of the tools that should be used to examine problems such as police brutality or racial bias in sentencing.

 

[tstorm823]

Are you actually arguing that the notion of examining racism, not as an individual action or choice but as a societal structure with basis in historic treatment of the oppressed, is useless?
It is one of the tools that should be used to examine problems such as police brutality or racial bias in sentencing.

I didn't mean specifically that, but I very well would argue that. Examining racism as a societal structure is nonsense. Racism is belief. Acts being racist implies intent. Societal structures aren't people, they don't have beliefs or intent, nothing will ever be gained by examining them that way. It's one thing to ask "why is this thing this way?", find out it was made to disadvantage black people, and then try to undo that. But that train of logic is perfectly traditional logic. You don't need critical theory nonsense to want to change things that unfairly disadvantage a group, whether or not that advantage was intentional.

What critical theory does is retroactively apply blame or intent to whoever benefits or whoever has authority. That's nonsense. Anachronistic nonsense. And police are the perfect example:

America does have a history of slavery, segregation, and prejudice. That's economically injurious to black Americans, concentrates them in poor neighborhoods, incentivizes criminal enterprises over legal ones. Hence, you get more crime by specifically black men, not because of anything specifically wrong with black men, but rather the circumstances they're given. That's structural, but I don't need critical theory to make that assessment, that's a perfectly traditional perspective of cause and effect. But continuing down the chain of effects, I see people who commit crime more engaging with the police more frequently. And by the same logic that it isn't the black population's fault, it's not the police's fault. It's not police choosing to put black people in that position, it's police dealing with the circumstances that society has pushed onto them. The police in black communities have their problems caused just as much by the legacy of racism as the black communties themselves.

But not in upside-down critical theory world. In upside-down critical theory world, the police are the authority therefore everything is their fault. Critical race theory has policing as racist, which somehow makes black people into criminals, which is the cause of their economic woes. Cause and effect just went totally inverted. In reality, police and black people are dealing with the same issues. Even in the literal sense, police officers are a higher percentage black than the overall population. If you want race-based instructions for police to help black communities, you can give them the genuine truth that the black communities deal with the same problems the police do. But in critical theory world, the police have the power therefore they are the cause of the problems, and instruction based on critical race theory is only going to ingrain in people the idea that police and racial minorities are opposing forces. Why would you teach police that racial minorities are their opposition?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

How does the response going against Games Workshop saying something slightly woke? "Gatekeeping is good, they're ruining our game, get rid of all the people who dont think like us" etc.
How is the conversation going over Anime? "No, you need to accept that weeb life is the only life. You can't have you're version of anime" - which you can see on the couple threads just on this forum, which is a very tame forum.

No I'm pretty sure you're the one saying your brand of anime is the only one there should be. One side is saying, "Stop trying to get rid of this thing I like." While the side you're arguing for is saying, "Get rid of this thing I don't like." Which one sounds more like it's saying it can't have a version of anime it likes?

 

[Agema]

I disagree. Critical race theory has never contributed something useful to mainstream thought.

If I thought you knew anything significant about it, I might think your opinion held some sort of weight. For instance:

Racism is belief. Acts being racist...

You've contradicted yourself: if acts can be racist, then racism is necessarily more than just belief. This then also means the claim that racism implies intent is untrue.

If we take your argument that a social structure cannot be racist, then the institution of American slavery prior to the 1860s, and subsequent Jim Crow laws, were not racist. Is this really a plausible thing to claim?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

If I thought you knew anything significant about it, I might think your opinion held some sort of weight. For instance:



You've contradicted yourself: if acts can be racist, then racism is necessarily more than just belief. This then also means the claim that racism implies intent is untrue.

If we take your argument that a social structure cannot be racist, then the institution of American slavery prior to the 1860s, and subsequent Jim Crow laws, were not racist. Is this really a plausible thing to claim?

......... Dude, you cut off the end of his sentence, " Acts being racist implies intent." It doesn't contradict itself if you keep the whole sentence. Why are you doing this?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I don't know why, but I feel the current state of police violence might be better if the cops had to act like pro-wrestlers: "You better drop that weapon mister, or I'm gonna put a hurtin on you so bad your momma is gonna wince, and then you're going down, not downtown but six feet underground!" Then his partner comes in and drops a flying elbow on the suspect from the top ropes.
I'm reaching a dangerous level of shitposting, someone send help!

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I don't know why, but I feel the current state of police violence might be better if the cops had to act like pro-wrestlers: "You better drop that weapon mister, or I'm gonna put a hurtin on you so bad your momma is gonna wince, and then you're going down, not downtown but six feet underground!" Then his partner comes in and drops a flying elbow on the suspect from the top ropes.
I'm reaching a dangerous level of shitposting, someone send help!

 

[Agema]

......... Dude, you cut off the end of his sentence, " Acts being racist implies intent." It doesn't contradict itself if you keep the whole sentence. Why are you doing this?

Doesn't matter. If racism is belief, then acts cannot be racist: only the motivation for an act can be racist. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's actually an important distinction.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Critical anything theory is a load of crap where rather than actually analyzing cause and effect, you try to justify how everything is the fault of people with authority.

Actions and decisions by people with authority tend to cause a great many effects, the existence of other material explanations earlier in the chain of cause and effect notwithstanding.

I see people who commit crime more engaging with the police more frequently. And by the same logic that it isn't the black population's fault, it's not the police's fault. It's not police choosing to put black people in that position, it's police dealing with the circumstances that society has pushed onto them. The police in black communities have their problems caused just as much by the legacy of racism as the black communties themselves.

But not in upside-down critical theory world. In upside-down critical theory world, the police are the authority therefore everything is their fault. Critical race theory has policing as racist, which somehow makes black people into criminals, which is the cause of their economic woes.

The disparity in treatment of populations can't be explained by differences in criminality; studies typically account for that and still find significantly different treatment.

Weirdly, the argument you claim critical race theory makes with respect to "the police are the authority therefore everything is their fault" cannot be found in the first google result of "critical race theory police brutality".

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325419487_A_Critical_Race_Perspective_of_Police_Shooting_of_Unarmed_Black_Males_in_the_United_States_Implications_for_Social_Work

So one might read that instead of one forumer's strawman. (I was going to quote a section, but I bumped into the 10000 character limit so screw it.)

 

[Trunkage]

No I'm pretty sure you're the one saying your brand of anime is the only one there should be. One side is saying, "Stop trying to get rid of this thing I like." While the side you're arguing for is saying, "Get rid of this thing I don't like." Which one sounds more like it's saying it can't have a version of anime it likes?

I think you need to read what you said over that thread.

You personally took me from being tolerant of it to outright against... well mainly you.

Most of that thread was you saying anime had to be a certain way. I'm not interested in that nonsense

 

[Trunkage]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I've no doubt that Trump is doing this out of spite. But it's a rare case where while I don't agree with him per se, I have to ask about the rationale for spending millions on a program that doesn't even seem to work.

Which, according to Jeff Daniels, is arguably a Republican thing to do. 0_0

What makes you think it doesnt work? What KPIs does this program have?

 

[tstorm823]

If we take your argument that a social structure cannot be racist, then the institution of American slavery prior to the 1860s, and subsequent Jim Crow laws, were not racist. Is this really a plausible thing to claim?

Yes. As you say, it's being nitpicky. Those things were done by racists with racist intent. That being said, slavery and segregation have existed many places without racism as the cause. The structures themselves aren't racist, they have no intent, but rather how they are used is the question.

You may think "duh", and I agree, but critical race theory has lead people to some conclusions that are, shall we say, super dumb. I know this is a bit on the nose, but this particular chart from the National Museum of African American History and Culture both reaches some ridiculous conclusions with critical race theory, and spells out the ways it reached such ridiculous conclusions.

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/926/d5f/a334baf0d43cd480b3ea93582d7e80f8dc-white-culture.w710.jpg

You might think things like "self-reliance is whiteness", or "rational, linear thinking is whiteness", or "hard work and planning for the future are whiteness" would be obviously dumb and racist, but when the same graph tells you that "intent mattering in justice" is just whiteness or "cause and effect relationships" are just whiteness, it becomes really obvious how they reached such a stupid position. The answer is critical theory. They started with the conclusion that white people are ahead in the US, and then rationalized how every aspect of US culture exists to ensure that continues in perpetuity. That's critical race theory, blatant shameless rationalizing of how the structures of society exist to promote white supremacy, with complete disregard for history or causes and effects. It's not limited to policing, they reach the same dumb conclusions about, ya know, science and reason.

 

[Agema]

Yes. As you say, it's being nitpicky. Those things were done by racists with racist intent. That being said, slavery and segregation have existed many places without racism as the cause. The structures themselves aren't racist, they have no intent, but rather how they are used is the question.

You are making nothing but a semantic argument, using a restrictive definition of racism that very few people would uphold.

You may think "duh", and I agree, but critical race theory has lead people to some conclusions that are, shall we say, super dumb.

I may as well point to Catholicism and say "Crusades, Inquisition, Counter-reformation: QED Catholicism is about mass slaughter": anyone can cherry pick evidence to make their point. That an ideology or intellectual process can reach error is not remotely the same thing as it always leading to error, or that it is valueless.

 

[Hawki]

What makes you think it doesnt work? What KPIs does this program have?

I don't know about this specific program. What I do know is that not too long ago, there was a wide collection of articles (the Conversation is one of them) that all said the same thing. That racial bias training often failed to make a dent, or worse, had backfire effect. That if you set people down, and say that they're prejudiced, and keep saying that they're prejudiced even if they insist that they're not, they're going to end up becoming prejudiced, because those prejudices have been activated. It's the "don't think of elephants" paradox in effect.

Now, before you say anything, I'll point out that we all have prejudices, and it's good to be aware of them, and try and keep them in check. But the most recent data I read indicated that this particular method was having poor results, and results that at least in this case, were having millions thrown at them.

You may think "duh", and I agree, but critical race theory has lead people to some conclusions that are, shall we say, super dumb. I know this is a bit on the nose, but this particular chart from the National Museum of African American History and Culture both reaches some ridiculous conclusions with critical race theory, and spells out the ways it reached such ridiculous conclusions.

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/926/d5f/a334baf0d43cd480b3ea93582d7e80f8dc-white-culture.w710.jpg

I'll take the whiteness chart, and raise you an Alien and Predator.

How Hollywood’s ‘Alien’ and ‘Predator’ movies reinforce anti-Black racism

Anti-black violence exists against the backdrop of the political and cultural dehumanization of Black people. How did this happen and where do we go from here?

theconversation.com

Honestly, the whiteness thing was too bizzare for me to be offended by it.

 

[Hawki]

But the memo is actually specifying much more than that - training that claims that the USA or certain races are inherently evil or racist. I am highly skeptical any significantly exists.

 

[Agema]

snip

And? Discrimination is primarily due to powerful groups leveraging that power for the own advantage. It's not the same thing as saying any groups are "inherently" racist or evil.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't know about this specific program. What I do know is that not too long ago, there was a wide collection of articles (the Conversation is one of them) that all said the same thing. That racial bias training often failed to make a dent, or worse, had backfire effect. That if you set people down, and say that they're prejudiced, and keep saying that they're prejudiced even if they insist that they're not, they're going to end up becoming prejudiced, because those prejudices have been activated. It's the "don't think of elephants" paradox in effect.

Now, before you say anything, I'll point out that we all have prejudices, and it's good to be aware of them, and try and keep them in check. But the most recent data I read indicated that this particular method was having poor results, and results that at least in this case, were having millions thrown at them.

The important question isn't 'is the program not working well'. The important question is 'what are the trade offs by having this program.' I.e. what are its pros and cons. Focusing on just negatives doesn't tell us anything. Property rights has a whole bunch of negatives, but there are many more positives that outweigh the negatives.

 

[Hawki]

And? Discrimination is primarily due to powerful groups leveraging that power for the own advantage. It's not the same thing as saying any groups are "inherently" racist or evil.

Not according to CRT theory, or any similar analysis. It's why people can say, without irony, that all men are sexist, or all whites are racist, because conciously or not, they can't help but benefit from and perpetuate their sexism/racism/ableism/cishetropatriarchy. It's why there's the idea of "intent doesn't matter, impact does" floating around (which is in sharp contrast to how law usually operates). It's why "racism = prejudice plus power" is a thing, despite all the contradictions that entails. It's why the chart, among other things, can claim that Christians are the oppressor group, when by raw numbers, Christians are the most oppressed religious group in the world.

CRT's a dead end, because all it offers is broad generalizations of oppressor and oppressed. By the very chart, I fall into one oppressed group (non-Christian), but I'd apparently stop being oppressed if I converted. Likewise, I'm an oppressor by being able-bodied, but I could disable myself and fall into the oppressed group. And if I was feeling pretty down, I could leave Christianity and make myself more oppressed, while changing my gender and likewise make myself further oppressed as well, before starting a business from home, and leaving the middle class to become an oppressive capitalist.

You may think I'm exagerating, but this is the kind of absolutism I've seen preached, and have showcased before (e.g. the "all white people are racist" article). It's why Antia Sarkeesian can state "there’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society," which means that men I've experience suffering domestic violence, or struggling to find language classes because the only ones available were women only, weren't actually experiencing any hardship, and that a recent investigation into the lack of domestic violence shelters for men was a waste of time, because men, by definition, cannot suffer in such a manner.

If you want to state that women, on average, experience more disadvantages then men, then yes, I completely agree. But if you want to say that group identity is the be all and end all of whether you're oppressor or oppressed, then I'm afraid I don't. Call me old fashioned, but I'm inclined to believe that a lot of these isms require intent, even if I can still acknowledge that some groups may have it easier than others.

The important question isn't 'is the program not working well'. The important question is 'what are the trade offs by having this program.' I.e. what are its pros and cons. Focusing on just negatives doesn't tell us anything. Property rights has a whole bunch of negatives, but there are many more positives that outweigh the negatives.

By the indications I've mentioned, such programs AREN'T working.

Again, if you start a program to combat bias, and all the program does is make people more biased, then how can it be considered a success or cost-effective?