US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread III

[Neutraligon]

Ok, I have no idea who she is, and have not read her book, nor do I plan to. I have no idea why she is all that important either. Nor do I know why you linked her except as an example of someone who has a particular philosophical thought. I have no idea if her particularly ideology is common, or intrinsic to Critical Race theory or not.

She is one of the largest, most well known, and central figures to the modern take on Critical Race Theory. Her book White Fragility, from which those quotes are taken, is coursework in Critical Race Theory courses and education across the country.

Good to know. I do not pay much attention to critical race theory.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

What's funny is that critical race theory is about the big systems that enforce racism in society, not individual actions. Critical race theory is about looking at things like the sentencing disparity between convictions for possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine, and how this creates racist outcomes without explicitly targetting any race. They aren't saying that individual white people need to feel guilty, not remotely.

“All white people are invested in and collude with racism” - Robin DiAngelo, Major Proponent of Critical Race Theory, in the book “White Fragility”.

Is this acceptable?

I’m sure you know better than this, Gallo.

[Fahran]

Ok, I have no idea who she is, and have not read her book, nor do I plan to. I have no idea why she is all that important either. Nor do I know why you linked her except as an example of someone who has a particular philosophical thought. I have no idea if her particularly ideology is common, or intrinsic to Critical Race theory or not.

At the moment, it may well be the most popular book advancing critical race theory. It was well-received by journalists, reviewers, and critics as well, mostly receiving blowback from conservatives. I plan to give it a read when I'm less busy solely for those reasons.

[Neutraligon]

Ok, I have no idea who she is, and have not read her book, nor do I plan to. I have no idea why she is all that important either. Nor do I know why you linked her except as an example of someone who has a particular philosophical thought. I have no idea if her particularly ideology is common, or intrinsic to Critical Race theory or not.

At the moment, it may well be the most popular book advancing critical race theory. It was well-received by journalists, reviewers, and critics as well, mostly receiving blowback from conservatives. I plan to give it a read when I'm less busy solely for those reasons.

And how is it received in academia? All too often I see books well received by journalists and the like, and absolutely torn apart by academia. At least in the sciences that is.

[Galloism]

She is one of the largest, most well known, and central figures to the modern take on Critical Race Theory. Her book White Fragility, from which those quotes are taken, is coursework in Critical Race Theory courses and education across the country.

Good to know. I do not pay much attention to critical race theory.

It's pretty horrible theory by any unbiased accounts. In the general sense (this is from wikipedia):

Critical race theory has stirred controversy since the 1980s over such issues as its:

deviation from the ideal of color blindness;

You should forget trying to treat people equally. You should judge them based on their race (with preference for minorities, of course).

promotion of the use of narrative in legal studies;

This is in place of logic or reasoning or statistics or facts. Narrative based argumentation instead of logical reasoning.

advocacy of "legal instrumentalism" as opposed to ideal-driven uses of the law;

Basically, instead of using justice as a set of scales, you should use it as a hammer. Instead of trying to achive fairness under law, use the law to achieve your stated ends. It's a weapon and a tool, not an arbiter.

analysis of the U.S. Constitution and existing law as constructed according to and perpetuating racial power; and
encouragement of legal scholars to be partial on the side of promoting racial equity.[45]

This one is probably fairly ok, although there's a major push and pull between "equality" and "equity" in a lot of cases.

After all, if a black man rear ends a white man with his car, and the white man sues him for his injuries, to promote equality you would find the black man responsible for his damages. To promote equity, you would find him not responsible, to avoid further shifting economic resources from black people to white people. One of these makes for a far better functioning legal system.

[Galloism]

“All white people are invested in and collude with racism” - Robin DiAngelo, Major Proponent of Critical Race Theory, in the book “White Fragility”.

Is this acceptable?

I’m sure you know better than this, Gallo.

?

[Galloism]

At the moment, it may well be the most popular book advancing critical race theory. It was well-received by journalists, reviewers, and critics as well, mostly receiving blowback from conservatives. I plan to give it a read when I'm less busy solely for those reasons.

And how is it received in academia? All too often I see books well received by journalists and the like, and absolutely torn apart by academia. At least in the sciences that is.

A brief google search suggests she's used to commanding $50,000-75,000 per speaking engagement, and she usually talks at universities.

I don't think you'd pay someone $50,000+ to speak if you didn't like what they had to say.

https://keyspeakers.com/bio.php?4602-ro ... lo#feenote

Honestly, this is closer to religion than science. Things don't get torn apart so easily in religions.

[Neutraligon]

And how is it received in academia? All too often I see books well received by journalists and the like, and absolutely torn apart by academia. At least in the sciences that is.

A brief google search suggests she's used to commanding $50,000-75,000 per speaking engagement, and she usually talks at universities.

I don't think you'd pay someone $50,000+ to speak if you didn't like what they had to say.

https://keyspeakers.com/bio.php?4602-ro ... lo#feenote

Honestly, this is closer to religion than science. Things don't get torn apart so easily in religions.

There are many people who can and do speak at universities, and who command a great deal for speaking fees, that does not mean she is well received in academia.

[Galloism]

A brief google search suggests she's used to commanding $50,000-75,000 per speaking engagement, and she usually talks at universities.

I don't think you'd pay someone $50,000+ to speak if you didn't like what they had to say.

https://keyspeakers.com/bio.php?4602-ro ... lo#feenote

Honestly, this is closer to religion than science. Things don't get torn apart so easily in religions.

There are many people who can and do speak at universities, and who command a great deal for speaking fees, that does not mean she is well received in academia.

I don't know how to prove that one way or the other. I find mostly fawning garbage from the media when I search, but not much in the way of academic feedback.

[Fahran]

And how is it received in academia? All too often I see books well received by journalists and the like, and absolutely torn apart by academia. At least in the sciences that is.

It seems a bit more mixed on that front. I know at least a few political science and sociology professors critiqued the book negatively. It appears a bit better received among women's studies and critical race theory professors, and has been regularly cited as an authoritative book in the curriculum of critical race theory courses. That points to it being acceptable as a representation of critical race theory, but critical race theory itself ruffling some feathers in broader academia - at least at a cursory glance.

[Neutraligon]

And how is it received in academia? All too often I see books well received by journalists and the like, and absolutely torn apart by academia. At least in the sciences that is.

It seems a bit more mixed on that front. I know at least a few political science and sociology professors critiqued the book negatively. It appears a bit better received among women's studies and critical race theory professors, and has been regularly cited as an authoritative book in the curriculum of critical race theory courses. That points to it being acceptable as a representation of critical race theory, but critical race theory itself ruffling some feathers in broader academia - at least at a cursory glance.

Good to know.

[Salus Maior]

What's funny is that critical race theory is about the big systems that enforce racism in society, not individual actions. Critical race theory is about looking at things like the sentencing disparity between convictions for possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine, and how this creates racist outcomes without explicitly targetting any race. They aren't saying that individual white people need to feel guilty, not remotely.

“All white people are invested in and collude with racism” - Robin DiAngelo, Major Proponent of Critical Race Theory, in the book “White Fragility”.

Is this acceptable?

Those damn Finns and their investment in colonialist-derived racism.

[Kowani]

“All white people are invested in and collude with racism” - Robin DiAngelo, Major Proponent of Critical Race Theory, in the book “White Fragility”.

Is this acceptable?

Those damn Finns and their investment in colonialist-derived racism.

About that.

Anyway, onto the broader discussion about Robin DiAngelo…the interesting thing is, she’s not taken seriously in progressive politics at all. Her main audience is liberals-and a very specific sort of liberal, the half-caricature of the self flagellating “white guilt” liberal.
Now, white fragility is technically an existing phenomenon, but as far as I know, DiAngelo’s book doesn’t go into that at any level beyond the superficial.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Friendly reminder that cops enforced a system that inspired the Nazis back in the day.

It's almost like America was a different place in the 1930s.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Those damn Finns and their investment in colonialist-derived racism.

About that.

Anyway, onto the broader discussion about Robin DiAngelo…the interesting thing is, she’s not taken seriously in progressive politics at all. Her main audience is liberals-and a very specific sort of liberal, the half-caricature of the self flagellating “white guilt” liberal.
Now, white fragility is technically an existing phenomenon, but as far as I know, DiAngelo’s book doesn’t go into that at any level beyond the superficial.

I have actually read articles criticizing it from that angle.

[Kowani]

About that.

Anyway, onto the broader discussion about Robin DiAngelo…the interesting thing is, she’s not taken seriously in progressive politics at all. Her main audience is liberals-and a very specific sort of liberal, the half-caricature of the self flagellating “white guilt” liberal.
Now, white fragility is technically an existing phenomenon, but as far as I know, DiAngelo’s book doesn’t go into that at any level beyond the superficial.

I have actually read articles criticizing it from that angle.

It does seem to be a very common criticism, yes.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I have actually read articles criticizing it from that angle.

It does seem to be a very common criticism, yes.

Secular Talk also accused it of preserving the system and focusing too much on individuals when it is the economic system that is to blame. I'm not progressive, but I agree with Kyle there. Our economic system is a problem.

[Kowani]

It does seem to be a very common criticism, yes.

Secular Talk also accused it of preserving the system and focusing too much on individuals when it is the economic system that is to blame. I'm not progressive, but I agree with Kyle there. Our economic system is a problem.

Okay see the thing is Kyle Kulinski is an idiot about 70% of the time, but he can still have a point on occasion.

That said, I’m not entirely sure that’s a valid critique. The thrust of the book-as much as I can remember-is the way individuals contribute to a larger culture of white supremacy. I am not certain DiAngelo assigns blame so much to the individual as she does to the wider cultural lens they are seen through and (according to her) perpetuate.

[Salus Maior]

Those damn Finns and their investment in colonialist-derived racism.

About that.

Anyway, onto the broader discussion about Robin DiAngelo…the interesting thing is, she’s not taken seriously in progressive politics at all. Her main audience is liberals-and a very specific sort of liberal, the half-caricature of the self flagellating “white guilt” liberal.
Now, white fragility is technically an existing phenomenon, but as far as I know, DiAngelo’s book doesn’t go into that at any level beyond the superficial.

I mean, Finns were also a subject people for most of their history. Either by Sweden or Russia.

Even in America they were treated as lesser than other "white" people.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Secular Talk also accused it of preserving the system and focusing too much on individuals when it is the economic system that is to blame. I'm not progressive, but I agree with Kyle there. Our economic system is a problem.

Okay see the thing is Kyle Kulinski is an idiot about 70% of the time, but he can still have a point on occasion.

That said, I’m not entirely sure that’s a valid critique. The thrust of the book-as much as I can remember-is the way individuals contribute to a larger culture of white supremacy. I am not certain DiAngelo assigns blame so much to the individual as she does to the wider cultural lens they are seen through and (according to her) perpetuate.

I rarely agree with him. I just watch him to be exposed to different opinions.

[Kowani]

About that.

Anyway, onto the broader discussion about Robin DiAngelo…the interesting thing is, she’s not taken seriously in progressive politics at all. Her main audience is liberals-and a very specific sort of liberal, the half-caricature of the self flagellating “white guilt” liberal.
Now, white fragility is technically an existing phenomenon, but as far as I know, DiAngelo’s book doesn’t go into that at any level beyond the superficial.

I mean, Finns were also a subject people for most of their history. Either by Sweden or Russia.

Even in America they were treated as lesser than other "white" people.

Well, yeah. America had a batshit crazy racial hierarchy for a long time.
Still does, though perhaps with less white infighting over who’s closest to the dem Negroes.

Okay see the thing is Kyle Kulinski is an idiot about 70% of the time, but he can still have a point on occasion.

That said, I’m not entirely sure that’s a valid critique. The thrust of the book-as much as I can remember-is the way individuals contribute to a larger culture of white supremacy. I am not certain DiAngelo assigns blame so much to the individual as she does to the wider cultural lens they are seen through and (according to her) perpetuate.

I rarely agree with him. I just watch him to be exposed to different opinions.

That is fair enough, yes.

[Fahran]

It does seem to be a very common criticism, yes.

I know a number of left-wing sociologists critiqued it as "basically irrefutable", which I hardly need tell you is a bad thing since you should be able to refute a hypothesis. I believe some have accused it of infantilizing black people as well. That said, it does have some academic currency at the moment.

[Kowani]

It does seem to be a very common criticism, yes.

I know a number of left-wing sociologists critiqued it as "basically irrefutable", which I hardly need tell you is a bad thing since you should be able to refute a hypothesis. I believe some have accused it of infantilizing black people as well. That said, it does have some academic currency at the moment.

Give it 3 years, call me then.
Anti-racist literature has picked up large amounts of credibility for the same reason we have 3 of these threads.

[Fahran]

Give it 3 years, call me then.

Only if you promise that the conversation will be in proper Spanish.

Anti-racist literature has picked up large amounts of credibility for the same reason we have 3 of these threads.

That's a fair point. And her theory is a bit different from the ones proposed by others. That said, this could begin a lot of problems in the academic field if it isn't nipped in the bud.

[Kowani]

Give it 3 years, call me then.

Only if you promise that the conversation will be in proper Spanish.

O granaíno o ná, ya’tá
[quote{

Anti-racist literature has picked up large amounts of credibility for the same reason we have 3 of these threads.

That's a fair point. And her theory is a bit different from the ones proposed by others. That said, this could begin a lot of problems in the academic field if it isn't nipped in the bud.[/quote]
I expect the downstream effects of this to eventually self correct, but that will almost certainly take longer than it otherwise should.