I read this: "People on the left believe that while mankind cannot be perfect, behavior can be made to be "perfect" with sufficient assertion of power."
I don't know anyone who thinks that way. I'm on the left. I certainly don't think that way. I know plenty of people who would like to change other people's minds through persuasion. Of co…
I read this: "People on the left believe that while mankind cannot be perfect, behavior can be made to be "perfect" with sufficient assertion of power."
I don't know anyone who thinks that way. I'm on the left. I certainly don't think that way. I know plenty of people who would like to change other people's minds through persuasion. Of course, that's what Evangelicals are all about, right? Changing people's hearts and minds? I think what you mean is that we on the left would like to convince people on the right that white privilege is a real phenomenon, and that you don't have to have individual racists to have institutional racism in a society. But we're not using force to do it. Unless you're referring to social pressure. as "force". Is that what you meant to say?
It would take me an hour to explain. I started by reading the major themes of CRT at wikipedia. But one example: They question the value of basing everything in life on reason alone. They see this as a sort of White way of seeing the world. This might sound odd, but Buddhists (and other religious traditions) question the value of reason, artists question the value of reason, athletes and musicians go by intuition more than reason. They have a point.
I should add that I asked for the "reason" why CRT is positive. Since you can't think of any (if you can't describe any social idea succinctly and clearly, rest assured that it is generally BS), you embarked on attacking 'reason' itself. Nice segway, Matt!
I can understand that artists and religionists would have an issue with reason as the foundation of their ideas are subjective, psychological, and emotion-based. Theology ultimately rejects reason or it would not survive.
To call reason 'whiteness' is extremely condescending and quite reactionary. I come from the Middle East where Islam and 'spiritualism' rules. The result has been poverty, hunger, backwardness, and illiteracy. So much for non-reason. Despite this, 'reason' is held at the highest level by the masses, and is taken for granted and a necessity as a matter of discourse. What is 'whiteness' about that? Are you saying that reasoning is dismissed in non-white societies? Tell that to any person in the 3rd world and they will call you a racist and a colonialist.
You have to understand that non-reason may be acceptable at the individual level (artists, spiritualists, athletes, etc.). But at the socio-political level, non-reason leads to injustice and totalitarianism. At the economic level, non-reason leads to poverty. Surely you rather be treated by a surgeon than a witch doctor. Even in sports, physics (reason) is 99% of the works. Music is based on mathematical structures. So don't let anyone sell you this snake oil and call reason whiteness. As an individual, you are protected to act as irrationally as you wish (as long as you don't harm the rights of others). Liberal democracy guarantees that, because it is based upon an enlightened reasonable moral code. The minute society does away with reason, you will be thrown into the depths of barbarianism, fascism, communism, abject poverty, insecurity, and naturally totalitarianism.
They aren't suggesting that we abandon reason altogether, just that we question whether or not it should be the basis of every decision we make. You seem to be intent on not understand the point they are trying to make. You have to approach this with an open mind. You seem to have already made up your mind on the subject. So there's no point in trying to explain it.
So please do explain where non-reason is superior to reason in the context of CRT? You want non-reason? Go and become an Islamic fundamentalist. You'll love it. As said before, social discourse MUST be based on reason. Otherwise you are advocating fascism.
The questioning of reason is not a new phenomena and pops its head in every age. Earliest mention of that goes back to the Sophists of Greece at the time of Socrates. As you can imagine, it is a favorite tool of sophistry.
Questioning of reason has a new philosophic name: post-modernism. It was developed in literary and artistic circles of post-WWII France, and its luminaries were Derrida and Foucault. CRT has actually borrowed this tenet from the post-modernists, and it is not an invention of CRT per se. But is used by CRT to deflect criticism that address its inconsistency and its dependence on subjective phenomena. I think it suffices to say that honest Marxists such as Habermas, Chomsky, and Zizek are the strongest critics of post-modernism, as being "reactionary". The central reason that humanity has progressed to achieve enlightenment, liberalism, and civil society is because discourse has been based on reason. Imagine if in a court of law, the judge ruled based on his/her whims and what was had for breakfast.
You have it mostly correct. But, in fact, the left believes you can force people to perfect their behavior (your twisted obsession with "white privilege" is just one example), with perfect defined solely by the left and subject to change at a moments notice. Tyranny always begins with "social pressure". When people lose their job for asking a question, or disagreeing: when mobs use the threat of violence (urged on by leaders of the Democrat party) to achieve their ends: when people get harassed for simply not taking a stand that leftists want them to take: that is "force". The left is clearly, quickly, and undebate-ably taking the US down the road to tyranny. In short, the guiding philosophy of the left is now "might makes right". Keep this in mind - moral superiority is fleeting; they will eventually come for you, too.
I, too, Neil have felt a sense of demand for "instantaneous" conformity. It is truly baffling to me that any critically thinking person can believe that this would bring about LASTING change.
All living things, that I'm aware of, need a period of growth before coming to full fruition.
My opinion here: the left doesn't want to change "hearts and minds"; they want control. They can make their desired change in behavior last as long as they have power. They truly do not care about individuals (look at the history of governance and policy in democrat led cities - leadership that has been for decades: abysmal on every front) and their route to power is to turn groups against each other. But for that to be stopped, nearly all groups have to recognize that; groups on the left do not, from what I see.
Again, we are starting to see glimmers of change and I hope this grows to be a force that outweighs that of the dividers. But I will not unilaterally "disarm" in hopes the the other side will reciprocate. It's going to be small steps.
I hear you, Neil, and very much appreciate your observations. I have so much catching up to do in relation to the history of politics and leadership in our country! I have heard over and over about the Democratic Leadership in the most troubled cities from so many sources. There has to be more than a kernel of truth in this assertion when it is repeated so often.
They say that "Ignorance is bliss", and I agree to a very limited degree. I believe that "Ignorance" (which is a word I am not offended by and use to describe myself on different topics) is a big part of what the "haters" are playing on.
The Scriptures elude to your point:
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as wary as serpents, and as innocent as doves."
~ Matthew 10:16
Loving others does not require being anyone's "victim". I understand and admire your caution.
I believe that anything TRULY done in "love", and not selfishness, has the power of connection when those involved are open to receive it.
And yes, it will take TIME, one step after another. That is where those of us fighting for our democracy for ALL people can lead by example. Unlike the DEMANDS being made for IMMEDIATE CHANGE, we must thoughtfully and prayerfully order our steps, not for expediency, but for lasting change. And should change come quickly, all the better, but I believe that patience will serve us well. When we, through anxiety, RUSH what cannot be rushed ("No wine before it's time"), we slow the process.
I read this: "People on the left believe that while mankind cannot be perfect, behavior can be made to be "perfect" with sufficient assertion of power."
I don't know anyone who thinks that way. I'm on the left. I certainly don't think that way. I know plenty of people who would like to change other people's minds through persuasion. Of course, that's what Evangelicals are all about, right? Changing people's hearts and minds? I think what you mean is that we on the left would like to convince people on the right that white privilege is a real phenomenon, and that you don't have to have individual racists to have institutional racism in a society. But we're not using force to do it. Unless you're referring to social pressure. as "force". Is that what you meant to say?
Matt -- How is it that you avoid telling us what is so positive about CRT, and the reasoning behind it?
It would take me an hour to explain. I started by reading the major themes of CRT at wikipedia. But one example: They question the value of basing everything in life on reason alone. They see this as a sort of White way of seeing the world. This might sound odd, but Buddhists (and other religious traditions) question the value of reason, artists question the value of reason, athletes and musicians go by intuition more than reason. They have a point.
I should add that I asked for the "reason" why CRT is positive. Since you can't think of any (if you can't describe any social idea succinctly and clearly, rest assured that it is generally BS), you embarked on attacking 'reason' itself. Nice segway, Matt!
I can understand that artists and religionists would have an issue with reason as the foundation of their ideas are subjective, psychological, and emotion-based. Theology ultimately rejects reason or it would not survive.
To call reason 'whiteness' is extremely condescending and quite reactionary. I come from the Middle East where Islam and 'spiritualism' rules. The result has been poverty, hunger, backwardness, and illiteracy. So much for non-reason. Despite this, 'reason' is held at the highest level by the masses, and is taken for granted and a necessity as a matter of discourse. What is 'whiteness' about that? Are you saying that reasoning is dismissed in non-white societies? Tell that to any person in the 3rd world and they will call you a racist and a colonialist.
You have to understand that non-reason may be acceptable at the individual level (artists, spiritualists, athletes, etc.). But at the socio-political level, non-reason leads to injustice and totalitarianism. At the economic level, non-reason leads to poverty. Surely you rather be treated by a surgeon than a witch doctor. Even in sports, physics (reason) is 99% of the works. Music is based on mathematical structures. So don't let anyone sell you this snake oil and call reason whiteness. As an individual, you are protected to act as irrationally as you wish (as long as you don't harm the rights of others). Liberal democracy guarantees that, because it is based upon an enlightened reasonable moral code. The minute society does away with reason, you will be thrown into the depths of barbarianism, fascism, communism, abject poverty, insecurity, and naturally totalitarianism.
They aren't suggesting that we abandon reason altogether, just that we question whether or not it should be the basis of every decision we make. You seem to be intent on not understand the point they are trying to make. You have to approach this with an open mind. You seem to have already made up your mind on the subject. So there's no point in trying to explain it.
So please do explain where non-reason is superior to reason in the context of CRT? You want non-reason? Go and become an Islamic fundamentalist. You'll love it. As said before, social discourse MUST be based on reason. Otherwise you are advocating fascism.
The questioning of reason is not a new phenomena and pops its head in every age. Earliest mention of that goes back to the Sophists of Greece at the time of Socrates. As you can imagine, it is a favorite tool of sophistry.
Questioning of reason has a new philosophic name: post-modernism. It was developed in literary and artistic circles of post-WWII France, and its luminaries were Derrida and Foucault. CRT has actually borrowed this tenet from the post-modernists, and it is not an invention of CRT per se. But is used by CRT to deflect criticism that address its inconsistency and its dependence on subjective phenomena. I think it suffices to say that honest Marxists such as Habermas, Chomsky, and Zizek are the strongest critics of post-modernism, as being "reactionary". The central reason that humanity has progressed to achieve enlightenment, liberalism, and civil society is because discourse has been based on reason. Imagine if in a court of law, the judge ruled based on his/her whims and what was had for breakfast.
You have it mostly correct. But, in fact, the left believes you can force people to perfect their behavior (your twisted obsession with "white privilege" is just one example), with perfect defined solely by the left and subject to change at a moments notice. Tyranny always begins with "social pressure". When people lose their job for asking a question, or disagreeing: when mobs use the threat of violence (urged on by leaders of the Democrat party) to achieve their ends: when people get harassed for simply not taking a stand that leftists want them to take: that is "force". The left is clearly, quickly, and undebate-ably taking the US down the road to tyranny. In short, the guiding philosophy of the left is now "might makes right". Keep this in mind - moral superiority is fleeting; they will eventually come for you, too.
I, too, Neil have felt a sense of demand for "instantaneous" conformity. It is truly baffling to me that any critically thinking person can believe that this would bring about LASTING change.
All living things, that I'm aware of, need a period of growth before coming to full fruition.
My opinion here: the left doesn't want to change "hearts and minds"; they want control. They can make their desired change in behavior last as long as they have power. They truly do not care about individuals (look at the history of governance and policy in democrat led cities - leadership that has been for decades: abysmal on every front) and their route to power is to turn groups against each other. But for that to be stopped, nearly all groups have to recognize that; groups on the left do not, from what I see.
Again, we are starting to see glimmers of change and I hope this grows to be a force that outweighs that of the dividers. But I will not unilaterally "disarm" in hopes the the other side will reciprocate. It's going to be small steps.
I hear you, Neil, and very much appreciate your observations. I have so much catching up to do in relation to the history of politics and leadership in our country! I have heard over and over about the Democratic Leadership in the most troubled cities from so many sources. There has to be more than a kernel of truth in this assertion when it is repeated so often.
They say that "Ignorance is bliss", and I agree to a very limited degree. I believe that "Ignorance" (which is a word I am not offended by and use to describe myself on different topics) is a big part of what the "haters" are playing on.
The Scriptures elude to your point:
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as wary as serpents, and as innocent as doves."
~ Matthew 10:16
Loving others does not require being anyone's "victim". I understand and admire your caution.
I believe that anything TRULY done in "love", and not selfishness, has the power of connection when those involved are open to receive it.
And yes, it will take TIME, one step after another. That is where those of us fighting for our democracy for ALL people can lead by example. Unlike the DEMANDS being made for IMMEDIATE CHANGE, we must thoughtfully and prayerfully order our steps, not for expediency, but for lasting change. And should change come quickly, all the better, but I believe that patience will serve us well. When we, through anxiety, RUSH what cannot be rushed ("No wine before it's time"), we slow the process.
Thanks for your ongoing contributions, Neil.