Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:02 amIMO, at present I believe* the Right in the US, on average promote more rational and good sense than the Left [veered more to extreme leftism] in the US. [note on average].
* ultimately this must be supported by real evidences related to all critical variables.

For the purpose of balance, would it not be appropriate to compare "the Left [veered more to extreme leftism]" with the Right [veered more to extreme rightism] than simply "the Right in the US"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 5:26 am I wrote;

• It is very true there had been lots of progress with racialism throughout the world but the problem of racialism is still serious and prevalent in many countries in the world.

You ignore the second part of my statement and attack the first part.

You also wrote,

"The USA is 13th of 76 on the list. As I had stated, ALL humans are "programmed" with the tribalistic 'us vs them' program which is critical for survival but also came with its cons and one of the con is racialism. Because such a program is embedded in the DNA and deeply brain, racialism is not easy to get rid or be modulated as compared to say slavery."

I was disagreeing both that the study supported this view, (it doesn't) and that racism was a persistent problem in the US, anywhere near the levels you were suggesting. There are few racists left in America, so far as I can see, and nobody takes them seriously. They have no political party, no media outlets, almost no followers numerically, and one really has to dig around in the backwoods to find any at all.

Now, what you will find is no end of Leftists screaming that "white supremacy" is about to rise again and overwhelm us all, or that "systemic racism," a hidden, unfindable racism, is devouring the country. But they're creating that.

IC wrote:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:08 am
Racialism is still a big issue...

No, it's not.
We live in the most open, tolerant and racially-indifferent society in human history so far. What race problems remain are so small as to be laughable, actually. Nobody takes racists seriously anymore.

My estimate is, if long ago the state of racism was rated at 100/100, then now it would be 60/100 as a world average, with some countries above the average at say 80/100.

"World average"? That's a useless statistic. There are some places in the world that are very free and open...like the US. Then there are places that are absolute horror shows, like the Middle East, Somalia or China.

Averaging that out is useless. It tells us nothing. It suggests we should treat all such countries as "problematic," when there are clearly specific ones that are the issue. Before anybody points a finger at the US, they ought to be talking about Hong Kong, the Uighurs, the Untouchables, the plight of women in Islamic states, trans-Saharan slavery, sexual trafficking from places like the Balkans, and vicious tribalism in Africa. But the US is easy to pick on, because it has a conscience and will respond -- those other problems are real, serious and not so easy to tackle. And if there's one thing CRT people are not up for, it's any "justice" cause that involves actual work.

There's something very shallow, very spoiled, very lazy and very self-interested about a movement that will put forth effort only in developed, Western countries that provide them with abundant comfort, sympathetic governments and guaranteed public attention, and won't do one single thing for suffering a thousand times worse in the rest of the world. But that's CRT. It's not up for any tough battles.

I believe [from what I've read] the majority involved with CRT would indulge in Neo-Marxist strategies but not 100%.

You'll find that the entire ideology of CRT is Neo-Marxist. In fact, that's what its deep purpose is for: to save Marxism from justified rejection. For example, the founders of BLM all declare themselves proudly as "trained Marxists." Their followers don't all know this -- some would surely, and rightfully, be appalled at the very idea, and only think that they're joining some cause for "justice" -- but that's exactly where it's all coming from.

CRT just substitutes new allegedly "oppressed" categories, such as the fat, minorities, the disabled, females, the "trans" and practitioners of various sexual proclivities for "proletariat," but then says all the same sorts of things about them, about history, and about "justice" that the Marxists used to. It's really the same program run on new labels. And its chief proponents and advocates are proud to admit that very thing.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:14 pmCRT just substitutes new allegedly "oppressed" categories, such as the fat, minorities, the disabled, females, the "trans" and practitioners of various sexual proclivities for "proletariat," but then says all the same sorts of things about them, about history, and about "justice" that the Marxists used to. It's really the same program run on new labels. And its chief proponents and advocates are proud to admit that very thing.

You have walked straight into it Mr Can:
"Critical race theory refers to a theory that racism is systemic in the United States (not just a collection of individuals prejudices); (Christopher) Rufo described his strategy to oppose critical race theory as intentionally using the term to conflate various left-wing race-related ideas in order to create a negative association. According to Rufo, "The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Rufo
Well, he's got you doing his bidding. Baaaa!

• 0:00 - Introduction
  0:25 - The Origins of Critical Race Theory
  3:30 - Enter Critical Race Theory
  6:15 - Critical Race Theory as Public Policy
  8:41 - Why Critical Race Theory is Ascendant
  13:12 - Winning the Fight Against Critical Race Theory
  16:12 - The Future of Our Country

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:44 amThe last quote was from a writer in Washington Post!!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:44 amBy now, I am very familiar with the activism of Christopher Rufo -a conservative activist. As such he is obviously bias to conservative views.
But from a neutral and philosophical POV, the question is whether Rufo's arguments and views are objective and verifiable or not.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:44 amRufo's argument and intention is he want to expose CRT as a toxic ideology [his argument] like other toxic ideologies, e.g. Nazism, fascism, etc.
I personally agree CRT [whilst has some good] is overall very toxic for any society and humanity.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:44 amThe last quote was from a writer in Washington Post!!

The journalist Marisa Iati cited a tweet by Rufo:
The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 96352?s=20

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:44 amBy now, I am very familiar with the activism of Christopher Rufo -a conservative activist. As such he is obviously bias to conservative views.
But from a neutral and philosophical POV, the question is whether Rufo's arguments and views are objective and verifiable or not.

Of course not. He is manipulating your thoughts. The amazing thing is that he is so confident of your submission that he can tell you to your face that he is fucking with your mind...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:44 amRufo's argument and intention is he want to expose CRT as a toxic ideology [his argument] like other toxic ideologies, e.g. Nazism, fascism, etc.
I personally agree CRT [whilst has some good] is overall very toxic for any society and humanity.

...and still you believe what he wants you to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_philosophy
The critical philosophy (German: kritische Philosophie) movement, attributed to Immanuel Kant (1724–1802), sees the primary task of philosophy as criticism rather than justification of knowledge. Criticism, for Kant, meant judging as to the possibilities of knowledge before advancing to knowledge itself (from the Greek kritike (techne), or "art of judgment"). The basic task of philosophers, according to this view, is not to establish and demonstrate theories about reality, but rather to subject all theories—including those about philosophy itself—to critical review, and measure their validity by how well they withstand criticism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:09 am

Christopher Rufo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:24 am The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 96352?s=20

Yes, it is Rufo's tweet, but in context the 'something crazy' is with reference to the crazy ideas related to 'race' from the CRTists, i.e. note the list of crazy ideas here...

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:09 am

Christopher Rufo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:24 am The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 96352?s=20

Yes, it is Rufo's tweet, but in context the 'something crazy' is with reference to the crazy ideas related to 'race' from the CRTists, i.e. note the list of crazy ideas here...

He is controlling you so successfully that you cannot see what is right before your eyes. Look: "We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans." He is telling you to your face that he has changed the meaning of Critical Race Theory to include anything that will provoke a Pavlovian response in thick as shit right wing Americans. If you jump every time he says jump, that includes you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amIf you believe Nazism is evil, it is likely you were brainwashed into believing that?
I will insist if you persist on this regardless of the argument I presented, whatever you believe positively, you had been brainwashed with it including the present view.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amActually that is the real case, you have been zombied by the Washington Post and most of the left leaning medias.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amShow me proof that Rufo had changed the meaning of Critical Race Theory, else you are lying.

Christopher Rufo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:24 amThe goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amAs I had stated, I applied critical thinking before I arrive at any conclusion or agree with the views of others.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amBtw, you have not answered my question,
are you a CRT apologist?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:21 am I countered your 'No, it's not. '

Averages are merely crude signifiers but not useless

My point in this case if you cannot be hasty to jump to ALL [i.e. 100%] just because most are neo-Marxists.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amIf you believe Nazism is evil, it is likely you were brainwashed into believing that?
I will insist if you persist on this regardless of the argument I presented, whatever you believe positively, you had been brainwashed with it including the present view.

That may well be true, but if anyone had to persuade me that an ideology which resulted in a world war and attempted genocide was a bad thing, I really can't remember that they had to push very hard.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amShow me proof that Rufo had changed the meaning of Critical Race Theory, else you are lying.

Fuck me; he has you tucked up like a kipper hasn't he? For the third time:

Christopher Rufo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:24 amThe goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.

Can you really not see that? Here's what critical race theory meant before Rufo and associated fuckwits messed with your mind:
"critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour."
That's from the Encyclopaedia Britannica which I very much doubt has any political interest in the issue.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory

Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory

https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory
These “basic tenets” of CRT, according to the authors, include the following claims:
(1) Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural.
(2) Racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the common, ordinary experience of most people of colour.
(3) Owing to what critical race theorists call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people.
(4) Members of minority groups periodically undergo “differential racialization,” or the attribution to them of varying sets of negative stereotypes, again depending on the needs or interests of whites. (
5) According to the thesis of “intersectionality” or “antiessentialism,” no individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group. An African American person, for example, may also identify as a woman, a lesbian, a feminist, a Christian, and so on.
Finally, (6) the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism. This consensus has led to the growth of the “legal story telling” movement, which argues that the self-expressed views of victims of racism and other forms of oppression provide essential insight into the nature of the legal system.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amAs I had stated, I applied critical thinking before I arrive at any conclusion or agree with the views of others.

Propaganda works most effectively if you the dupe believes they have arrived at the thesis by their own efforts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:04 amBtw, you have not answered my question,
are you a CRT apologist?

Tell me what you mean by that, and I shall tell you whether I fit the profile.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:21 am I countered your 'No, it's not. '

No, you just refused to accept it. You had no "counter."

Averages are merely crude signifiers but not useless

Some are. This one is.

Averages that are too broad do exactly what yours does -- they combine and conflate vastly different things, and give the illusion of profundity where there is none. If you want to do something about racism, then concealing that of places like China and the Middle East by hiding their overwhelming perpetrations inside those of Sweden, Denmark and Canada is just deceptive.

It's not merely "crude" (but informative) at all...it's actually a total concealment of the truth about racism. It's a lie dressed up in a misleading statistic.

If you want to do something about racism, begin by calling out the real perps. If you just want to blame the few countries that actually have a conscience about it and discuss it and work against it publicly, then I say that's not being serious about racism. Call out the ones that have no conscience, and who are overwhelmingly the actual perpetrators of racism today.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:14 am If one take statistics at face valued without looking at the detail and contexts, they are indeed "lies" and are very misleading.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:49 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:14 am If one take statistics at face valued without looking at the detail and contexts, they are indeed "lies" and are very misleading.

That's my point, really. As you have taken statistics, you will already know that one serious problem in gathering them is "too large a sample size." (That's in every basic statstics textbook, so you can hardly have missed it.) I suggest to you that blaming the entire globe equally for the existence of racism is using too big a sample size: you need to sample from China, from the Middle East, from Africa and Russia, and so on, as separate entities from, say, Denmark, Canada or Australia.

Then a global statistic would tell us something. Otherwise, it tells us too little: it tells us only that "racism exists in the globe," but nothing at all about where it exists, and who the real perpetrators are. Worse still, it spreads blame for places like China all over the faces of those in places like Sweden or the UK, as if they owe us to give account for what China and the Middle East do in that respect.

So we owe it to those who are doing much better on racism, like the US and the UK, for example, NOT to lump them in with the places where racism is still being openly practiced and is oppressing, maiming and killing people. That would be to convict the innocent (or more precisely, the much-less-guilty) with the truly guilty.

But as I said, practicioners of CRT are really cowards with no genuine interest in dealing with real racism. They want, instead, to stay in their comfortable, Western locales, theorizing and holding rallies, safe from any real risk, using guilt-language to leverage advantages for themselves. And you can see that is true, because despite the much worse racism in places like Russia or the Middle East, they do absolutely nothing to resist all that...in fact, they accuse people of "Islamophobia" or "anti-Asian racism" for even speaking out against the sorts of racist evils those countries routinely do.

Where are the CRT "missionaries," going out into the world to spread their "gospel" of freedom to the lost? You'll never find them. They don't really care at all. They are craven, spoiled, and corrupt. And by their deeds we know them.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:14 pm Did you seriously just do whataboutism on a global scale in the hopes of obscuring the fact that we in Britain, Canada and the USA aren't really living up to our own ideals, or meeting the standards to which we aspire?