@cyberghduck@capetownbrown CRT was meant as a critical study of race theory and its manifestations and functioning in US law.
Some of their views are pretty solid, some are shared with other historical traditions, and some are novel. Let me find you a thread from someone who actually knows what it is.
@cyberghduck@capetownbrown Here you go (better than just listening to a critic). He's also got a thread describing the views of CRT from actual CRT people.
@cyberghduck@capetownbrown Here's that thread. I don't agree with all of CRT's positions, but some of them are just obvious (like the social construction of race and rejection of racial essentialism)
It's really ridiculous how many biological race realists and hereditarians are on the advisory board of the supposedly "antiracist" FAIR
The whole effort is just a cynical farce.
Even without looking through all the "Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism" board advisors, I can recognize at least 2 people who say systemic racism doesn't exist.
Look at bio race realist John McWhorter's assessment of racism in America. 🤡
If you create an organization like FAIR and build it with people who believe "black" people are naturally different types of humans than "white" people and that these natural physical/mental differences explain social inequalities, don't be surprised no one takes you seriously.
Andrew Sullivan knows that his racial hereditarian views are public. There's little value in him pretending the rest of us can't read.
The number of Andrew Sullivan's claims about "race differences" are legion. Everyone knows he's a member of the caliper crew, and that's not the only head measurement he's famous for.
Hey @sullydish, do we need to keep going about demonstrating your racial hereditarian views, or do you want to keep thinking we can't read?
Racist stereotypes are much easier to reinforce in a person's mind than they are to refute.
Most of the evidence for this claim is from John Ogbu who studied a couple cities in the early 2000s and generalized. So here's another city, more recently.
Other researchers have investigated the claim that smart black kids are ostracized for being smart. It's been bunk for years.
I post this because a lot of people liked the initial tweet, seeing it as a cute platitude.
No. It's telling you that "race" cannot "explain" any outcome. The politics of a society is what explains those outcomes.
No child does anything "because they are black", because no child "is black". That doesn't deny that society labels that child as black and acts upon that racialization. It doesn't even deny that the child reacts in response.
Rorschach Tweet - tweets containing enough social cues to be read 100% accurately by groups A and B, with both groups having violently conflicting reads.
A Rorschach Tweet example.
X: "fjlsuk adrhl chdet jdtyuf."
Group A: "Yeah, dogs are totally cute!"
Group B: "This monster wants to kill cats!"
I have felt frustrated seeing tweets that make sense to me, and others also think it reasonable.
Then, I see others without those cues who have reads that I think are ridiculous. But are their reads really invalid?
I have zero moral high ground on this. I've been on both sides.