Idaho and Critical Race Theory

[Terminal Blue]

I don't think it is possible. Humans don't work that way. So the term "utopia" is quite right. I could only imagine it in some vague dreamlike skipping-over-all-the-details way, which is not particularly useful.

I mean, let's take the above example. If you think that an irrational society is one where people sometimes act on emotion, presumably a rational utopia would be one where people never act on emotion. We all know that's impossible, you're not the only one who knows the actual meaning of the word utopia, but if you can imagine a scale with an irrational society on one side and a rational society on the other, then it follows that the scale possesses a hypothetical point of maximum rationality, a society where things are completely rational. Bear in mind, I'm assuming you think rationality and emotion are actually opposed, you probably don't, you probably just didn't think very hard about the previous answer, but who knows. These aren't rhetorical questions.

In fact, let's try another to make it more clear. Do you think that different societies can be more or less racist than each other? Does the amount of racism in a society vary depending on time and place? If you accept that that's a meaningful distinction, can there not be a hypothetical utopian society with no racism at all? If you think that racism is bad (and I assume you do) then it seems reasonable that that hypothetical society with no racism at all is better than the one we live in. Sure, maybe it's impossible. Maybe it's impossible to even imagine such a society except in a vague, dreamlike skipping-over-all-the-details way. Maybe we're all so immersed and saturated in racism that imagining a society without racism is genuinely hard, or even impossible. But if you don't like racism, are you not subscribing to the utopian ambition of bringing into existence that society without racism? Even if that ambition were impossible, would you not want to continuously draw closer to it?

This is what I mean when I say utopian. It's less grandiose than you're probably thinking but hey, welcome to critical theory. Contrary to popular belief, the philosophers of the radical Enlightenment didn't actually think that they lived in an age of perfect reason, quite the opposite, but they did think that society was moving in the right direction. Moving in the right direction implies a destination, however distant and far off and/or impossible. That's as true today as it ever was, it's just harder to agree on what the destination is.

And while CT is broad, extending it to basically all critique in philosophy seems way to broad.

Too broad for what?

I agree it's too broad for simplistic straw-man criticism or the creation of right wing boogeymen, but I don't really care about that. If you want to lump critical race theory and the Frankfurt school together, then you need to be honest about what the connections between them actually are, and in this case the connections between them really are so tangential that it really does come to down to "they both critique some aspect of society". Again, so do a lot of people, it's not a real connection.

 

[tstorm823]

Moving in the right direction implies a destination, however distant and far off and/or impossible.

Well that's not true. If you're fleeing a flood and making for higher ground, you can be moving the right direction without a destination.

 

[Hawki]

I'm sure some of them are conservatives. Like, the Republican Party is not now nor has ever been uniformly conservative. Over the last half century, there are and have been conservatives, progressives, libertarians, evangelical theocrats, neoconservatives (warhawk liberals)... it's a pretty big tent of people who don't like communism. Which if I might take a stab at your insistence on using wrong terms, you probably don't understand that there are hundreds of valid ways to not like communism. And then beyond that, Trump people willing to storm the capital building aren't a typical cross-section of the Republican Party, and need to be analyzed seperately still to understand what's going on. You don't want to understand what's going on. You want to group together everyone who doesn't like communism. You want to take FBI claims about "white supremacists" and substitute the word "conservatives", cause it's all the same to you.

-Most Americans in general (as far as I can tell) dislike communism - far more than what I've ever encountered over here. I don't think that makes the Republican Party unique.

-The people who stormed the White House may or may not have disliked communism, but that's beside the point. They were people who claimed the election was stolen, and stormed the seat of power as a temper tantrum (frankly, that's the most generous way I can put it).

-I, for one, would never equate conservatives with racists, or fascists, ipso facto. However, the FBI is clear in its assessment that right-wing terrorism in the US is a major threat, far more than any other kind of terrorism. It wasn't communists who stormed the White House, no matter how many people may claim it was a "false flag."

 

[Satinavian]

I mean, let's take the above example. If you think that an irrational society is one where people sometimes act on emotion, presumably a rational utopia would be one where people never act on emotion. We all know that's impossible, you're not the only one who knows the actual meaning of the word utopia, but if you can imagine a scale with an irrational society on one side and a rational society on the other, then it follows that the scale possesses a hypothetical point of maximum rationality, a society where things are completely rational. Bear in mind, I'm assuming you think rationality and emotion are actually opposed, you probably don't, you probably just didn't think very hard about the previous answer, but who knows. These aren't rhetorical questions.

I didn't write that emotion and reason are opposed. But in caes where they actually are, giving in to your emotions against your own better judgement would be irrational, yes. And it still happens all the time.

In fact, let's try another to make it more clear. Do you think that different societies can be more or less racist than each other? Does the amount of racism in a society vary depending on time and place? If you accept that that's a meaningful distinction, can there not be a hypothetical utopian society with no racism at all? If you think that racism is bad (and I assume you do) then it seems reasonable that that hypothetical society with no racism at all is better than the one we live in. Sure, maybe it's impossible. Maybe it's impossible to even imagine such a society except in a vague, dreamlike skipping-over-all-the-details way. Maybe we're all so immersed and saturated in racism that imagining a society without racism is genuinely hard, or even impossible. But if you don't like racism, are you not subscribing to the utopian ambition of bringing into existence that society without racism? Even if that ambition were impossible, would you not want to continuously draw closer to it?

Sure, societies can be more or less racist. I mean, there was a time when race theory (not CRT, just race theory) was taught in schools. But a hypothetical society without racism? difficult. I read that the same brain chemistry that enforces bonds with aquintances and identification with groups automacially makes humans distrustful and hostile to strangers and thus succeptable to prejudice. If true, any real non racist society can only be a huge bunch of loners.
I mean, it is a scientific fact that humans have hardly any genetic variety and that he concept of human races is stupid, but that is somehow not really enough to end racism, is it?

Still, trying to reach a less racist society is certainly not a bad goal. But most people manage to agree on that without any philosophy and i am more than sceptical that philosophy can provide any meaningful help getting there.

I agree it's too broad for simplistic straw-man criticism or the creation of right wing boogeymen, but I don't really care about that.

I don't care for the Frankfurt school, that is tstorm.

 

[tstorm823]

-I, for one, would never equate conservatives with racists, or fascists, ipso facto. However, the FBI is clear in its assessment that right-wing terrorism in the US is a major threat, far more than any other kind of terrorism. It wasn't communists who stormed the White House, no matter how many people may claim it was a "false flag."

Nobody here is claiming communists stormed the capital. Someone is claiming conservatives did.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm sure some of them are conservatives. Like, the Republican Party is not now nor has ever been uniformly conservative. Over the last half century, there are and have been conservatives, progressives, libertarians, evangelical theocrats, neoconservatives (warhawk liberals)... it's a pretty big tent of people who don't like communism. Which if I might take a stab at your insistence on using wrong terms, you probably don't understand that there are hundreds of valid ways to not like communism. And then beyond that, Trump people willing to storm the capital building aren't a typical cross-section of the Republican Party, and need to be analyzed seperately still to understand what's going on. You don't want to understand what's going on. You want to group together everyone who doesn't like communism. You want to take FBI claims about "white supremacists" and substitute the word "conservatives", cause it's all the same to you.

But neither I nor the FBI said white supremacists, it's right-wing terrorism. And if you're yelling MAGA, it's hard to say you aren't conservative.

 

[tstorm823]

But neither I nor the FBI said white supremacists, it's right-wing terrorism. And if you're yelling MAGA, it's hard to say you aren't conservative.

Right-wing =/= conservative. MAGA =/= conservative. As stated earlier, reactionary is a better description. Reactionary =/= conservative. Learn words.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Right-wing =/= conservative. MAGA =/= conservative. As stated earlier, reactionary is a better description. Reactionary =/= conservative. Learn words.

Oh MAGA definitely is conservatism, it's all in the name, make America like it was, stop with the change.

 

[tstorm823]

Oh MAGA definitely is conservatism, it's all in the name, make America like it was, stop with the change.

That sentence is self-contradicting: you can't both stop with the change and make America something it currently isn't. Hence, reactionary, a word for people who seek to go back to a prior state, as opposed to conservative, a word for those who resist major changes.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That sentence is self-contradicting: you can't both stop with the change and make America something it currently isn't. Hence, reactionary, a word for people who seek to go back to a prior state, as opposed to conservative, a word for those who resist major changes.

But they are literally resisting major changes. Just because they failed before and are now using violence to impose their ideals doesn't mean they aren't conservative.

 

[tstorm823]

But they are literally resisting major changes. Just because they failed before and are now using violence to impose their ideals doesn't mean they aren't conservative.

What changes? What ideals? Is Joe Biden being in office any real change? Is the ideal they're fighting for "Trump as President". Is anyone who has ever supported an incumbent conservative then, or do political naming conventions relate to policy positions rather than individual politicians?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

What changes? What ideals? Is Joe Biden being in office any real change? Is the ideal they're fighting for "Trump as President". Is anyone who has ever supported an incumbent conservative then, or do political naming conventions relate to policy positions rather than individual politicians?

You know you don't have to play dumb about Trump's platform and why people rallied around him. I know you aren't that, you don't have to deflect.

 

[tstorm823]

You know you don't have to play dumb about Trump's platform and why people rallied around him. I know you aren't that, you don't have to deflect.

Joe Biden is more conservative than Donald Trump.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Joe Biden is more conservative than Donald Trump.

That is only correct insofar as Trump is more of a petty crook than any ideologue, but his platform is sold on conservatism. And the mob that stormed the capital was definitely doing so on the promise of Trump's conservative platform.

 

[tstorm823]

That is only correct insofar as Trump is more of a petty crook than any ideologue, but his platform is sold on conservatism. And the mob that stormed the capital was definitely doing so on the promise of Trump's conservative platform.

Which just circles us back to you not having any definition of conservative, you're just conflating terms you don't like.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Which just circles us back to you not having any definition of conservative, you're just conflating terms you don't like.

No, I'm painting the people that want to go back to the 50's as conservative because that's what they are, conservative.

 

[tstorm823]

No, I'm painting the people that want to go back to the 50's as conservative because that's what they are, conservative.

If you want to go back to the 50s, that is wanting drastic change, that isn't conservative.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you want to go back to the 50s, that is wanting drastic change, that isn't conservative.

It is, in fact, conservatism. Reactionary conservatism, but conservatism nonetheless. It wells up from the same source, appeals to tradition.

 

[tstorm823]

It is, in fact, conservatism. Reactionary conservatism, but conservatism nonetheless. It wells up from the same source, appeals to tradition.

That's not reactionary conservatism. It's just reactionary.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That's not reactionary conservatism. It's just reactionary.

It's reactionary conservatism. Repellent to change. And universally tied to maintaining the status quo.