What I'm getting from this is you're incapable of learning about these things, and are stuck on what people like Crowder think about CRT, instead of what it actually says.

You're basically just replacing intersectionality with CRT and then applying all the same buzz words that have been thrown around for the last 10 years.

yeah but that's the thing. you guys play video games while the real problems happen in real time. You guys won't be able to make a change from Orgrimmar so whatever you guys debate bout, having the answer won't change the fact most people expect things to change by posting youtube comments or talking bout it online while they tuck it back irl and admire themselves without their balls.

CRT in practice leading to mandatory whites only meetings is a giant red flag to me
https://nypost.com/2021/04/13/nyc-teacher-were-damaging-kids-with-critical-race-theory/?utm_source=reddit.com
Recently, I raised questions about this ideology at a mandatory, whites-only student and faculty Zoom meeting. (Such racially segregated sessions are now commonplace at my school.) It was a bait-and-switch “self-care” seminar that labelled “objectivity,” “individualism,” “fear of open conflict” and even “a right to comfort” as characteristics of white supremacy. I doubted that these human attributes — many of them virtues reframed as vices — should be racialized in this way. In the Zoom chat, I also questioned whether one must define oneself in terms of a racial identity at all. My goal was to model for students that they should feel safe to question ideological assertions if they felt moved to do so. It seemed like my questions broke the ice. Students and even a few teachers offered a broad range of questions and observations. Many students said it was a more productive and substantive discussion than they expected.

However, when my questions were shared outside this forum, violating the school norm of confidentiality, I was informed by the head of the high school that my philosophical challenges had caused “harm” to students, given that these topics were “life and death matters, about people’s flesh and blood and bone.” I was reprimanded for “acting like an independent agent of a set of principles or ideas or beliefs.” And I was told that by doing so, I failed to serve the “greater good and the higher truth.” He further informed me that I had created “dissonance for vulnerable and unformed thinkers” and “neurological disturbance in students’ beings and systems.” The school’s director of studies added that my remarks could even constitute harassment

Comparing CRT with intersectionality is like comparing shit with diarrhea.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000605

White liberals are taught about "white privilege", and they emerge thinking poorer of under-privileged whites. That is their takeaway. Not some attribution of mine to them, or whatever Crowder happens to believe.



It's not by mistake. Whites have privilege. Black people do not. Ergo, poor whites must be to blame for their negative circumstances. There can't be "external attributions", because they're white.

It is the natural consequence of teaching people that individuals can be essentially reduced to their race. It is racialism.

Your interpretation of the data is flawed. People aren't being reduced to their race. Their race is a part of their circumstances. A poor white person has more responsibility for their condition than an equal black person, but that doesn't mean its being taught or interpreted that those people are only their race. You're taking the most extreme possible interpretation when the data can be explained with a much more mild way.

Race is a part of the whole of circumstance.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 6 2021 12:42pm

There's very little to be interpreted. White liberals become significantly less sympathetic to poor whites when they are exposed to modern left racial ideology. Race achieves primacy. All of those other factors, of which they were previously aware, fade in comparison to the "privilege" these otherwise poor, economically disadvantaged groups experience.

A poor white person has no more or less responsibility. The Deep South is poor for historical, cultural, and geographic factors completely outside of the control of those alive today. Whether or not your average black is poorer than your average white (he/she is) has nothing to do with individual agency and control over circumstances.

Your study doesn't say race achieves primacy. It says that compared to black people white people are given less sympathy because they see less structural disadvantages. It also doesn't say other factors fade.

You are taking a radical conclusion that isn't supported by the data you are using. Something interesting that it does say, however, was that social liberals are more sympathetic to the poor than conservatives.

You are being obtuse.

White liberals are "particularly receptive to structural explanations of inequality". However, they experienced a shift "in sympathy... associated with greater punishment/blame and fewer external attributions for a poor White person's plight". Why? Because they were taught that the most important consideration is race.