Philosophy Now Forum

Mick: It's indoctrination when it's ideas you're politically opposed to.

Manny: No, It's "indoctrination" when the ideas in question are not offered on the grounds of credible reasons, but are expected to win by way of things like evoking false guilt, ginning up pride, falsifying history, ignoring the data, and so on. You need to read some of their writings

Mick: Give me an example

Manny: I'm not going to bother.

Mick: lol

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 7:23 am Mick: It's indoctrination when it's ideas you're politically opposed to.

Manny: No, It's "indoctrination" when the ideas in question are not offered on the grounds of credible reasons, but are expected to win by way of things like evoking false guilt, ginning up pride, falsifying history, ignoring the data, and so on. You need to read some of their writings

Mick: Give me an example

Manny: I'm not going to bother.

Mick: lol

I believe the teaching of CRT to children [when done] is indoctrination because the CRTists had taken for granted what they are promoting is the solid grounding truth when it is not.
In addition, children and even most adults at out present phase of evolution do not have any reasonable competence to be critical, i.e. analytical and looking at all issues and weigh them wisely for optimality.

As I had stated, ALL humans are programmed to be tribalistic [us vs them] from the primal beginning since such an instinct is necessary and net-positive [more pros than cons] for survival. [at present this instinct which embedded is greatly inhibited and not very active in many]
However, not ALL humans are influenced by the tribalistic program to be racists [secondary].
Thus for CRTists to assume ALL humans are potentially racists is wrong.
To shove such falseness down the throats of inherently vulnerable children and students [if this is really done] is obviously indoctrination.

Thus we should be more 'critical' [i.e. meta-critical] in general than being too critical with racial issue [i.e. CRT] which from what I note of the present writings on CRT, it is very limited and short-sighted.

As I had suggested, the more effective strategy to address the evil of racial issue is to accelerate the competence of morality and ethics [promote the good rather than evil] within the average humans via rewiring their brains for that purpose.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:41 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:24 pm
Do you REALLY NEVER call individual human beings names like; 'hispanic", "asian", "westerner", or ANY other of the "race" names?

It's not that I never do that,

What?

You asked me;
What definition of "racism" do you employ?

I answered;
'racism', the behavior of separating human beings into different groups of races.

You claimed;
I'm not a racist on your definition, either, then.

I then asked;
Do you REALLY NEVER call individual human beings names like; 'hispanic", "asian", "westerner", or ANY other of the "race" names?

You then said;
It's not that I never do that.

So, REALLY, DO call individual human beings names like; "asian" and "westerner", sometimes, which, by the definition I provided and which we are discussing and referring to here, is 'racism'; the behavior of separating human beings into different groups of races. Even though you FIRST CLAIMED that you "never do that". Is this correct?

If no, then WHAT IS CORRECT?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:41 pm but I only do it because for communication purposes because of how others are classifying things.

So, now, you QUICKLY JUMP to the EXCUSE, for your 'racist' behavior, by stating that you ONLY do 'it' for communication purposes, BECAUSE " "OTHERS" do 'it' ".

Using the EXCUSE, "I ONLY do what I do" BECAUSE "others do it" I find is about the WEAKEST EXCUSE that could be used, by 'you', adult human beings', to 'TRY TO' "justify" your WRONG behaviors.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:41 pm "Hispanic" isn't conventionally considered a "race" by the way.

Fair enough. What is 'hispanic' 'conventionally' considered to be, to you?

And, by the way, I Truly LOVE how you HAVE TO use descriptive words, like the "conventionally" word here, ONCE AGAIN, as though you KNOW what the ACTUAL 'convention' IS, regarding words, and definitions, themselves.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:41 pm

It Truly is a 'coincidence' that absolutely EVERY thing you think and say is the "standard one", or the "common one", or the "normal one", or the "ordinary one",

That's not at all the case though. Here are some random terms that I define rather unusually/idiosyncratically: truth, understanding, functional harmony (and versus atonality), disco, time . . .

HOW and WHY?

Is there one thing, that we could go off, which would be irrefutable, in regards to what is "conventional/unconventional", "standard/not standard", "common/uncommon", "normal/abnormal"?

If yes, then what is that one thing?

But there are also terms where I use the standard/conventional definition.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:41 pm When the latter is the case, I can just say that I'm using the conventional/standard definition if someone is looking for my definiton, and the person could just look up what's in any general dictionary.

AGAIN, "general" dictionary?

What is a "GENERAL" dictionary?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:41 pm (Although often as a courtesy I'll quote a couple examples.)

If you disagree something presented is a conventional definition, you can make your argument for that, as long as it has some evidentiary citations, too.

How could I disagree with a "conventional" definition, when I have YET to even HEAR you EXPLAIN what a "conventional" definition EXACTLY is, to you,?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:42 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:57 pm There is something terribly wrong with you. Just saying...

Yeah, without a doubt, though that's the case for the majority of people posting on boards like this. It's a refuge for socially maladjusted people with various mental issues.

Are you AWARE of an 'adult, human being, who does NOT have a 'mental issue'?

If yes, then will you name "them", or SOME of "them"?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:19 am My view in a nutshell is that

(1) Only individuals can be racist

So legislation the bans black people from sitting at the front of the bus is not racist?

(1a) a parenthetical to the above is that individuals who are racist are far less common than many would have us currently believe
(2) Individuals who are racist can enact laws and private sphere policies that are anchored in their racism, and that others who aren't racist then follow, sometimes for many years, decades, etc. afterwards, often without realizing that there was something racist that motivated the law or policy

Individuals do not make policy, unless you live in a medieval monarchy. Obeying such laws requires that everyone is racist, according to your idea that Hitler was not responsible for killing Jews.

(3) The laws and policies in (2) are worth identifying, analyzing and reversing/abolishing as much as possible
(4) Aside from this, focusing on racism and "over-parsing" things as racist, as is a tendency at present, actually fuels further racism rather than quelling it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:07 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:26 am Recently there are a lot of hoo hahs of very aggressive promotion and strong resistance re Critical Race Theory

What I noted is this CRT is not the typical "racist" thing but a more complicated ideology.

What are your views [for or against] on Critical Race Theory?

"Critical Race Theory" is a broad category. But it's a real one. I think there's a review in Philosophy Now last issue of a major book on the subject that documents all the original sources with academic rigour.

CRT not just racist, but also sexist, heterosexual-despising, man-hating, anti-health (as in 'fat rights"), anti-national, anti-capitalist, anti-West, self-loathing, domineering, aggressive, hateful, collectivist, pseudo-intellectual and ideologically possessed.

Essentially, it's a desperate attempt to rescue some kind of Neo-Marxism from the ash heap of history, after Marxism's deplorable failures of the last century. It substitutes various "oppressed" categories for "the proletariat," and then tries to do the same moves as Marxism tried. It's really just divisive collectivism in polished up jackboots.

It really has no business being in academia, and certainly none in public education.

To you:

Does "christianisty" any have business being in public education?

Does "buddhism" have any business being in public education?

Does "islam" have any business being in public education?

If yes or no to each of these, then WHY or WHY NOT?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:07 pm It's political ambitions are broad and disastrous.

Your 'superiority complex' is also broad and disastrous.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:07 pm It's heavily indoctrinatory, scientifically unsound and mostly absurdly ideological rather than scientific or intellectual.

And, so are a LOT of your views, "immanuel can".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:07 pm But it's around, and people are bowing at its shrine.

And, your views are around, and you are desperately 'trying to' get people to bow to your OWN 'made up' shrine.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:02 pm 73064B48-322B-48D8-9617-C0378C7C97A8.jpeg

Did you KNOW that the name 'brainwashing' is a misnomer, anyway?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:55 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:25 pm It's heavily indoctrinatory,...
... in other words, it's educational.

If it were "educational," or if "education" meant "indoctrination," I'd have said that.

What does the word 'educational' mean or refer to, to 'you', "immanuel can"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:55 pm

... scientifically unsound ...
It's not particle physics or biochemistry—I'll give you that!

It's not basket weaving either. It's not really up to much of anything.

... and mostly absurdly ideological rather than scientific or intellectual.
No it isn't. You just disagree with some of its more controversial implications.

No, actually. You should read some, so you'd know.

It rejects science, history and logic as "Western," "white" and "colonizing." And it eschews data. In fact, it lacks all disciplinary rigour. Its implications are insane, it's true; but one doesn't have to wait for them to appear to know that CRT is on frequently operating on the level of pure propaganda and ideological speculation. That's just how it does most of its business.

And 'it' could NOT be DIFFERENT, nor LOOKED AT and SEEN, in ANY OTHER WAY, correct?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 9:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:42 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:57 pm There is something terribly wrong with you. Just saying...

Yeah, without a doubt, though that's the case for the majority of people posting on boards like this. It's a refuge for socially maladjusted people with various mental issues.

Some more obviously so than others. His use of capitals reeks of OCD.

Does 'it' REALLY?

If yes, then that is ONE ASSUMPTION. Do you BELIEVE your ASSUMPTION is true.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 9:03 pm Isn't it ironic though, that a philosophy site where there are actually quite a few intelligent people making intelligent comments, who are interested in thinking, would be somewhere that anyone would think attracted mentally ill people?

And, who, EXACTLY, are the, supposed, "actually quite a few intelligent people making intelligent comments", in this forum, to you?

And, what, EXACTLY, are some of those, supposed, "intelligent comments", which have been made in this forum, to you?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 9:03 pm Yet on social media outlets like twitter and facebook, where imbecilic mobs and lunatics post their badly written, often single-sentence garbage, end up changing the world (and silencing the few actual thinkers on the planet).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:02 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:55 pmIf "education" meant "indoctrination," I'd have said that.

Of course there"s a difference. It's indoctrination when it's ideas you're politically opposed to.

No, it's "indoctrination" when the ideas in question are not offered on the grounds of credible reasons, but are expected to win by way of things like evoking false guilt, ginning up pride, falsifying history, ignoring the data, and so on.

Will you provide ANY examples of where you suppose this has happened.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:02 pm

It rejects science, history and logic as "Western," "white" and "colonizing."
lol No it doesn't.

Yes, actually...it does. You need to read some of their writings. It's obvious you haven't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:20 am

mickthinks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:38 pm No, it's "indoctrination" when the ideas in question are not offered on the grounds of credible reasons, but are expected to win by way of things like evoking false guilt, ginning up pride, falsifying history, ignoring the data, and so on.
lol Like I said, it's indoctrination when it's ideas you're politically opposed to.

You're not paying attention, and you're not thinking. You also clearly have no knowledge of this issue.

So I'm not going to bother.

So, the post where you are asked to, "give an example", you, quite conveniently, decide to "not bother".

You have a habit of "not bothering", all of sudden, when you are CHALLENGED and you can NOT counter the CHALLENGE, can NOT Honestly answer a CLARIFYING QUESTION, or you are just PROVED wrong and/or incorrect.

Last September, a conservative activist appeared on Tucker Carlson’s program and called on Trump to stop racial sensitivity training in the federal government. A few days later, Trump signed an executive order doing just that.

“Critical race theory is a Marxist doctrine that rejects the vision of Martin Luther King, Jr.,” Trump claimed during a campaign rally.

For all the attention critical race theory is getting, many academics ... said they see little evidence it is actually being taught in K-12 schools; it’s instead an academic debate that usually takes place in college and university settings ... [Vincent] Wong said he fears the push to demonize critical race theory will stifle meaningful discussions in the classroom about racism, its causes and how it can affect people of color.

[My emphasis—More information here: https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/n ... te-in-ohio ]

Teaching about America's racist history, such as the horrific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre is not teaching CRT. It's education.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:37 am

mickthinks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:25 am This is my take:

• Throughout the Developed (Western,First-World, etc.) world, racial injustice is a big problem.
• There are those who want to address the problem. Broadly speaking, these are on "the Left".
• There are those who want to sweep the problem under the carpet and keep things the way they are. Broadly, these are on "the Right".
• Many people are in the middle and have little idea of what the f*ck is going on here. These are mostly well meaning white people.

• CRT is a name for the combined attempts of sincere people to understand and address the problem.
• The Left see CRT as good and necessary.
• The Right insist that CRT is unnecessary and devisive.
• The people in the middle don't know who to believe, but are naturally attracted to the "Why can't we just all get along?" pablum in which the anti-CRT message is inevitably packaged.

The video of George Floyd's encounter with Derek Chauvin was the moment when one of the main reasons why we can't all "just get along" became clear to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear.

Recently I've been bombarded with loads of videos on CRT from Youtube and I wondered what the fuss and f... CRT is about.

If you have been BOMBbarded with LOADS of videos, from a website, then I suggest doing some thing to STOP this BOMBbardment, if you do NOT like that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:37 am So I did some research, read a few books and listened to videos from both sides.

Sounds exciting. Is it exciting?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:37 am CRT is a broader perspective of 'racism' than the typical color, supremacy, etc. issues.

What, EXACTLY, are the "typical" "other issues"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:37 am However I believe CRT whilst broader in one sense is still very narrow within the overall problem of evil of humanity.

What, EXACT, so called, "problem" of "evil OF humanity"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:37 am The problem with merely concentrating on one aspect of 'evil' evidently had always created more greater evil than its intended good, especially when the issue is not dealt in totality, as a whole and holistically.

1. The very root of the issue emanated from the need to survive.
2. One of the first critical instinctive response [amongst others] is to assume anything that is different from oneself, first as a threat and then review it for any good before accepting it positively.
3. This give rise to tribalism, i.e. the primal us versus them instinct in differentiation of groups and the all sorts of evil acts associated with tribalism.
4. It is from tribalism that arose the us versus them in terms of skin color and race, and therefrom all the associated evil acts with racism.
5. Tribalism is 'programmed' in ALL humans but not ALL humans are tribalistic in terms of racism, albeit the majority are potentially racists while some a very active racists.

As such, to deal with any problem of racism, it would be more effective to focus, more on the fundamental root of racism and its evil, i.e. the tribalistic instinct and less on racism on its own.

To deal with the roots of tribalism and all its associated problem, our focus should be on morality and ethics on a universal basis. We should not focus on the problem of racism i.e. CRT alone but more on morality and ethics.

Btw, CRT is a theory but if we do not focus on its fundamental root, it is very normal for some evil laden people to exploit and abuse the theory in practice which is often the case.

As I see it, CRT is not holistically aligned with the overall well being of humanity.
[Unfortunately I understand such a statement intended to be good is regarded as racists by the CRT-ists].

The video of George Floyd's encounter with Derek Chauvin was the moment when one of the main reasons why we can't all "just get along" became clear to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear.

Since tribalism thus racism is generic and universal to all humans,

If only you just KNEW how ABSURD and RIDICULOUS this statement REALLY IS, and WAS, in 'your' days.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:37 am there will always be extremist racists within a group.
Thus some extremists from the majority whether they are white, brown, yellow, whatever shades, will, at this present phase of human evolution, oppress and abuse the minority color in some ways.

So it is not merely the case of George Floyd but there could be the other way around where blacks are majority somewhere in Africa and elsewhere who would do the same to whites, brown and Asians.
So for CRT-ists to focus on 'whiteness' as a problem is very short-sighted as is a twisted ideology.

To be 'critical' is definitely philosophical and progressive, but I believe the way CRT is being played out at present in the US will promote more harm than good when at our present state of evolution, we cannot deal with it holistically yet.

I believe the focus at present for humanity should be on morality and ethics on a universal basis to the extent we need to rewire, inhibit and modulate the tribalistic [us vs them] and racialistic instinct brainwise optimally in promoting greater competency in compassion, wisdom, EQ, etc.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:52 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:55 pmIf "education" meant "indoctrination," I'd have said that.

Of course there"s a difference. It's indoctrination when it's ideas you're politically opposed to. I get that you would prefer African Americans were educated into a sense that white people deserve better than them because whites are superior. I happen to oppose that view.

It rejects science, history and logic as "Western," "white" and "colonizing."
lol No it doesn't.

I'm not saying that no one says silly things like that. And certainly, some ideas put forward as science have been rejected by anti-racists as being unscientific myths arising out of colonialism and serving a white supremacist agenda. And rightly so.

It sounds like you've been educated about CRT by Tucker Carlson and Breitbar, Manny!

Where has he ever said anything that remotely resembles that? That was really a snivelly, disingenuous response, even by your standards.

Sometime it is just ALL TO EASY to 'read between the lines', at it is sometimes said, and known by.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 8:46 am So legislation the bans black people from sitting at the front of the bus is not racist?

As text, no, it's not racist. Text by itself has no meaning, no intent, etc. Individuals have to ascribe that via the way that they think about text.

The intent of the individuals creating and approving the text can be racist, and the intent of individuals subsequently enforcing the law can be racist (it might not be, but it can be).

Individuals do not make policy,

Sure they do, in all cases. It's just that individuals acting alone do not make policy unless it's a monarchy or dictatorship. In democracies, individuals act in concert with each other. They're still individuals, however. And something like racism can't obtain outside of particular thoughts, attitudes, etc. Only individuals have such things. They occur as brain phenomena in individuals' heads.