i also want to clarify that i'm not, like, opposed to crt or something. whatever that even means.

we really shouldn't even talk about critical race theory as though it's some unique thing, or the ideas are fundamentally black in origin. we should really talk about the racial application of critical theory, which is the broader theory that suggests that justice is not blind, but the consequence of power imbalances. again: i'm an anarchist. i'm all into that.

the power imbalances discussed in critical theory are pretty broad. the classic target in critical theory is actually class, but it can also be used to analyze power imbalances in gender, race, sexual orientation, political affiliation* or whatever else. i used critical theory to analyze the quebec reference succession case when i was in school (the prof was not amused). the basic idea is just that the law works on prejudice: judges come up with reactions first, and then look for answers in the law afterwards, rather than allow the evidence to guide them.

the problem with crt comes when you let it loose into the wild, and in most cases it's not even a problem with crt. it's just a classic case of low information arts majors thinking they can talk about something complicated, and repeatedly failing to really grasp it - and then standing their ground in it rather than learning.


* i think that one is pretty prevalent nowadays, actually, with all of the politicized court battles and seemingly inconsistent court rulings coming out of them.

Scientists generally do not recognize races as biologically meaningful.  Yet scientists, including me, discuss race and describe the racial composition of our samples. To be clear, I am not advocating that we ignore race.  In fact, there are many dangers in ignoring race as a social topic. Race is “real”. But race is socially real, not biologically real. Socially important categories can be very real and meaningful, but arguably nonetheless arbitrary in nature.

see, i don't offer any dissent, here. but, if we understand this, what does it imply for social interaction amongst people that understand it?

i mean, it's one thing to argue that random, uneducated idiots are usually racist and they're probably denying it if they claim otherwise. i'll probably agree with you, depending on how you state it. it's another to argue that it's a universal that everybody is racist, no matter what, and can never do anything about it.

read the italic part again, please. if you really understand this, what it does it mean to still be racist?

"yes, i understand that race doesn't have a biological existence, and is just a contrived means of statist control. but, i still think you're inferior because i can't help it - despite not being able to state what that even means."

it defies reason.

if i'm able to understand that race doesn't biologically exist, how can i possibly be racist?

now, if you extrapolate that further, you get to the right way to deal with this: we should abolish racism by abolishing the social construct of race - because racism and race are in fact exactly the same thing. that's the rational deduction from this.

it can't happen overnight, of course. but, you can start by teaching your kids that race is pseudo-science, that it has no biological basis and that it's something that only exists in peoples' heads. if you don't put the idea of race into your kids' heads, they won't be able to understand what racism is.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/without-prejudice/201612/race-social-construction

we resisted.

that is something to be proud of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917