Critical race theory

[bernie14]

Things are far more complicated than that. There's a prettyness priviledge, a smartness priviledge, a thinness priviledge, an easy-at-socializing priviledge, a seduction priviledge, an atheliticism priviledge, a good-at-focusing priviledge, an ability-to-enjoy-life priviledge, a competitive-spirit priviledge, and you can go on and on and on in categorizing people as if we were all products on supermarket shelves.

Or you can go for the more straightforward way: I'm a who I am and others are who they are. Let's just take everyone for the individuals they are rather than being judgemental towards the categories we think they should belong to.

Individuality is irrelevant in "social relations"

Well a bunch of individuals as they are are telling you they are a group, have been treated as a group, have landed in an oppressed back-footed position as a group, and to respect them as individuals, their context in groups matter.

If i have to respect some group to respect you as an individual, you will likely lose my respect.

 

[Hygro]

I do enjoy the extra charge that I would put forth virtue signaling as the conscious intent, to hide my discrimination. Normally the criticism is that I would be saying something anti-racist to virtue signal, while hoping to hide that I am intending the virtue signal. It was its own poetry, as there are often glimpses of art and order in confusion in chaos.

@Bestbank Tiger : the study says diversity training that emphasizes threat of lawsuits encourages upper leadership to avoid diversity to avoid lawsuits. The study suggests better diversity training. I've experienced different diversity trainings and seminars, some worked incredibly and some fell flat. If you have an already toxic culture and you stir it up, and don't do a good enough job, you're going to get more reaction than action. But it's not a reason not to try. It's a reason to do it better.


Here's the arc: as racism was already invented for the United States, as the categories are meaningful to the people who would benefit the most for them not being meaningful, we get everyone sync'd to this gear, make the best of it, and then watch it fade away. The fear of course is the opposite: the more attention we give it the more life it takes on forever, feedbacking into war at best and tyranny at worst.

As we say hey, what Florida is doing is pushing genocide, and the right calls us hysterical. But they go, hey this looks like justification for all the communist purges and we call them hysterical. These can be categorized and look similar. But one can be true and the other false, based on our reality here and now.

Individuality is irrelevant in "social relations"

If i have to respect some group to respect you as an individual, you will likely lose my respect.

Then you can disrespect many individuals based on your disrespect for the group pretending you respect individuals regardless of their group.

 

[bernie14]

I do enjoy the extra charge that I would put forth virtue signaling as the conscious intent, to hide my discrimination. Normally the criticism is that I would be saying something anti-racist to virtue signal, while hoping to hide that I am intending the virtue signal. It was its own poetry, as there is often glimpses art and order in confusion in chaos.

@Bestbank Tiger : the study says diversity training that emphasizes threat of lawsuits encourages upper leadership to avoid diversity to avoid lawsuits. The study suggests better diversity training. I've experienced different diversity trainings and seminars, some worked incredibly and some fell flat. If you have an already toxic culture and you stir it up, and don't do a good enough job, you're going to get more reaction than action. But it's not a reason not to try. It's a reason to do it better.


Here's the arc: as racism was already invented for the United States, as the categories are meaningful to the people who would benefit the most for them not being meaningful, we get everyone sync'd to this gear, make the best of it, and then watch it fade away. The fear of course is the opposite: the more attention we give it the more life it takes on forever, feedbacking into war at best and tyranny at worst.

As we say hey, what Florida is doing is pushing genocide, and the right calls us hysterical. But they go, hey this looks like justification for all the communist purges and we call them hysterical. These can be categorized and look similar. But one can be true and the other false, based on our reality here and now.



Then you can disrespect many individuals based on your disrespect for the group pretending you respect individuals regardless of their group.

Why would i disrespect a group?

 

[Hygro]

You tell me, doc. You tell me how you're going to respect people individually while denying the importance of the individual relationship each has to their shared identity.

 

[bernie14]

You tell me, doc. You tell me how you're going to respect people individually while denying the importance of the individual relationship each has to their shared identity.

Honestly? My answer would be that if "individual identity" is reliant on belonging to a group, your screwed

 

[Hygro]

Yeah, that's the point.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think 'attractiveness privilege' is a reasonable category when you're creating your socio-economic models. It will be hard to collect those data. Keep in mind, CRT has a statistical advantage around analysing 'race' because there are and were laws regarding race.

With multi-factorial calculations, finding one variable just makes analysing other variables easier (well, and harder, because you lose statistical power unless you get a really good sorting variable).

 

[amadeus]

Is privilege then something that can be quantified?

 

[Hygro]

It would require value judgments, but you could. Sounds like something Chicago Economists would seek to do if this were the 1960s.

 

[Rg339]

I think 'attractiveness privilege' is a reasonable category when you're creating your socio-economic models. It will be hard to collect those data.

Nobody being honest will exclude “attractiveness privilege” in holistic calculations. And it’s a nightmare to even begin to consider.

Brave, even to mention it.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Even if one could fully analysis all the so called privileges, what would you do about it?

Introduce a Handicapper General office?

Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Marla_Singer]

Honestly? My answer would be that if "individual identity" is reliant on belonging to a group, your screwed

The question is, do people really want to be identified as members of a group, or are groups forced upon them by society? Obviously it's a bit of both, making things tricky.

Generally speaking, protestant traditions considered that the path to freedom was about tolerating separate groups to establish different sets of rule and live peacefully one next to another the way they want in a voluntarily segregated society. Catholic traditions on the other hand insisted on the universality of mankind, leading after the French Revolution to consider that in order to emancipate people from their group, they should benefit of equal rights, equal opportunity and equal dignity.

Obviously the difference is a matter of how community identities are appreciated: are they a refuge or a prison? Both catholics and protestants pretend the answer is obvious when in truth they are a bit of both.

 

[Farm Boy]

A Black billionaire can be arrested by the police and be killed, meanwhile even the porrest whiter is well treated by the police.

While I certainly wouldn't argue the police treat black Americans with frightening and erratic violence... that second part just doesn't stand on any legs.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is privilege then something that can be quantified?

You can definitely do statistics on ordinal data, but it is a lot less fun and believable. If used in something politically sensitive, it will be controversial. We use it in medicine, and we only suffer from profit motive, and I don't like them very much. But we have the tools.

The problem kicks in at the data level, where you just might not have large enough group sizes to get convincing results. Merely suggestive. And of course hay will be made

 

[TheMeInTeam]

height is predictive too. attractiveness as "privilege" has a ton of problems, because numerous factors contribute to attractiveness. some, you can't control much or at all (height, age, basic physical features that people like/don't like on average like how big your nose is or something). others, you can control to some or large extent (athletic fitness, health, hygiene, attire, demeanor/behavior).

i have seen people unironically claim "thinness" as a privilege, and unless someone is a fatty because of some metabolic medical condition, such a stance can and should be held in disdain because it is decoupled from reality. those medical conditions are not so common that lacking them is a privilege. having them means you're unlucky/are saddled with a disability. the lack of disability is not "privilege".

thus attractiveness will be incredibly hard to pin down statistically, and it will be even harder to determine to what extent using attractiveness is unfair.

 

[El_Machinae]

Remember that there are very rarely rules on the books about some of these things, which makes ordering the statistics harder. So, something measurable (like height) will be reasonably easy, because it's a number you can do math on. But if people are clumped into categories, then measuring differences is easier too.
I don't know how to unpack this concept of 'privilege' from institutions designed to help. I'm reasonably sure that the concept is about the thing created for you, not the thing you have. We really are stuck in a situation where the academic term isn't the same as the colloquial.

 

[Gorbles]

i have seen people unironically claim "thinness" as a privilege, and unless someone is a fatty because of some metabolic medical condition, such a stance can and should be held in disdain because it is decoupled from reality. those medical conditions are not so common that lacking them is a privilege. having them means you're unlucky/are saddled with a disability. the lack of disability is not "privilege".

A stance you disagree with isn't inherently decoupled from reality. It's simple a stance you disagree with. Opinions don't have that kind of weight.

What if it could be demonstrated that overweight people are inherently dismissed for being overweight, regardless of not of a) that being a factor in whatever context was being discussed and b) that actually being relevant to their health? If this could be argued as a view that society holds generally (which I'd argue is an easy argument especially considering the lack of nutritional information and general health warnings associated with being underweight, even though that also carries severe implications for a variety of health-related concerns), then being thin is a privilege, because you benefit from the lack of stigma associated from being overweight - even if all things considered, your actual health is in need of attention?

FYI, I've been at both ends of the stick; I've been both underweight and (currently) overweight. However, I can never get back down to a weight that would be considered acceptable for my height and general demographics (age, gender, etc). I'd be about two stone (nearly 13kg) out. The closest I got was about 8kg out, and that wasn't healthy (nor sustainable). I'm not an exceptional case, either, I'm simply an amateur water polo player. I'm not professional. But even that hobby built my body up to something that I can't get back under a weight threshold. And what seems to be genetics has decided how weight sits on me, in terms of presentation. In short, it gives me a big gut. I'm not "big boned", for example. The weight isn't distributed across my arms, and so on. It's pretty much all concentrated on the gut. Which means a friend who could be several stone more than me (sorry, I have to Google kg conversion), looks better and to the layman "healthier" than I do. Because the weight is distributed differently.

 

[Farm Boy]

We really are stuck in a situation where the academic term isn't the same as the colloquial.

Not new. Nor the last.

 

[Lexicus]

I do enjoy the extra charge that I would put forth virtue signaling as the conscious intent, to hide my discrimination. Normally the criticism is that I would be saying something anti-racist to virtue signal, while hoping to hide that I am intending the virtue signal. It was its own poetry, as there is often glimpses art and order in confusion in chaos.

@Bestbank Tiger : the study says diversity training that emphasizes threat of lawsuits encourages upper leadership to avoid diversity to avoid lawsuits. The study suggests better diversity training. I've experienced different diversity trainings and seminars, some worked incredibly and some fell flat. If you have an already toxic culture and you stir it up, and don't do a good enough job, you're going to get more reaction than action. But it's not a reason not to try. It's a reason to do it better.


Here's the arc: as racism was already invented for the United States, as the categories are meaningful to the people who would benefit the most for them not being meaningful, we get everyone sync'd to this gear, make the best of it, and then watch it fade away. The fear of course is the opposite: the more attention we give it the more life it takes on forever, feedbacking into war at best and tyranny at worst.

As we say hey, what Florida is doing is pushing genocide, and the right calls us hysterical. But they go, hey this looks like justification for all the communist purges and we call them hysterical. These can be categorized and look similar. But one can be true and the other false, based on our reality here and now.



Then you can disrespect many individuals based on your disrespect for the group pretending you respect individuals regardless of their group.

The best diversity training is organizing a union with your diverse coworkers, the bosses will never give you anything that can replicate that experience

 

[Remorseless1]

Well, well, I thought this was about critical race theory, a postgraduate course for law students. Now it's corporate diversity seminars??? Nice, "see? woke culture hates us white folk, wah!" Great deflection to a subject barely tangentially linked to CRT. The reason corporations started diversity training is because they are getting sued, not getting sued because of the training sessions. Why do you think every corporation has a HR department? Avoiding lawsuits...for generally the right reasons.

But not a thing to do with CRT, which confines itself to the LAW, because it's a legal theory.