Critical race theory (2 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

Frankly, I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Critical Race Theory curriculum. What is it, where does it come from, and is it legitimate? Has anyone here read it and maybe give a quick summary?

If this has been covered in another thread, then I missed it.

 

[Paul]

This post makes very little sense based on what you responded to. How is what you said germane to what I said?

Racism is a learned behavior
There are those who teach their children to be racists
If those that teach their children to be racists stopped teaching them to be racist, they wouldn't grow up to be racist.

Again, how does your post even remotely have anything to do with what I stated?

The initial behavioral response when encountering members of another tribe or our own tribe has a physiological basis. This response can be modified by the environment and racism can be taught, you are correct. The physiologic component is related to evolution and luckily can be controlled by the frontal lobe with repetitive exposure.

Robert Sapolsky Breaks Down the Biology of Tribalism​

His New Book, ‘Behave,’ Examines Why We’re Hardwired for Us/Them Dichotomies

"But, Sapolsky adds, we resemble our simian counterparts in other ways. For one thing, we are all prone to tribalism — that is, instantaneously sizing up strangers to determine if they’re one of us and therefore to be trusted. For humans, this is the process that underlies racism, political polarization, and any number of prejudices.

“Primates are hardwired for us/them dichotomies,” he said in a telephone interview. “Our brains detect them in less than 100 milliseconds.” While he concedes that this is “depressing as hell,” he notes that we do have one major advantage over monkeys, should we choose to utilize it.

“The key thing about us is that we all belong to multiple tribes,” he said. “Even if we are predisposed into dividing the world into ‘us’ and ‘them,’ it’s incredibly easy to manipulate us as to who is an ‘us’ and who is a ‘them’ at any given moment.”

In other words, you may look at someone with suspicion because his politics differ from yours — but then feel intense camaraderie when you find yourself sitting next to him in a sports stadium and realize you’re rooting for the same team."

Robert Sapolsky Breaks Down the Biology of Tribalism

His new book, ‘Behave,’ examines why we’re hardwired for us/them dichotomies

www.independent.com

Reading Sapolsky should be mandatory in this forum.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The initial behavioral response when encountering members of another tribe or our own tribe has a physiological basis. This response can be modified by the environment and racism can be taught, you are correct. The physiologic component is related to evolution and luckily can be controlled by the frontal lobe with repetitive exposure.

Robert Sapolsky Breaks Down the Biology of Tribalism​

His New Book, ‘Behave,’ Examines Why We’re Hardwired for Us/Them Dichotomies

"But, Sapolsky adds, we resemble our simian counterparts in other ways. For one thing, we are all prone to tribalism — that is, instantaneously sizing up strangers to determine if they’re one of us and therefore to be trusted. For humans, this is the process that underlies racism, political polarization, and any number of prejudices.

“Primates are hardwired for us/them dichotomies,” he said in a telephone interview. “Our brains detect them in less than 100 milliseconds.” While he concedes that this is “depressing as hell,” he notes that we do have one major advantage over monkeys, should we choose to utilize it.

“The key thing about us is that we all belong to multiple tribes,” he said. “Even if we are predisposed into dividing the world into ‘us’ and ‘them,’ it’s incredibly easy to manipulate us as to who is an ‘us’ and who is a ‘them’ at any given moment.”

In other words, you may look at someone with suspicion because his politics differ from yours — but then feel intense camaraderie when you find yourself sitting next to him in a sports stadium and realize you’re rooting for the same team."

Robert Sapolsky Breaks Down the Biology of Tribalism

His new book, ‘Behave,’ examines why we’re hardwired for us/them dichotomies

www.independent.com

Reading Sapolsky should be mandatory in this forum.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshirt"

 

[Paul]

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshirt"

An ad hominem is not an argument. You are a very educated man and I expect more from you.

BTW, is there something you fail to grasp?

 

[RobF]

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshirt"

Ignore him, as usual he's linking to something he clearly hasn't understood himself. Like when he previously started posting links to an interview with Sapolsky to argue that 'racism isn't unnatural because it's biological', but clearly hadn't really read it and didn't realise that Sapolsky explicitly stated that, "We're not talking biology here. It's cultural."

When you posted, "If racists stop teaching their children to be racists, then their children wouldn't grow up to be racists," Sapolsky's work would support that, not suggest that "No, tribes, it's more complex." Because Sapolsky's work suggests that 'teaching' is how people of different races come to be perceived as being in different tribes in the first place. Because it's cultural.

 

[Paul]

Ignore him, as usual he's linking to something he clearly hasn't understood himself. Like when he previously started posting links to an interview with Sapolsky to argue that 'racism isn't unnatural because it's biological', but clearly hadn't really read it and didn't realise that Sapolsky explicitly stated that, "We're not talking biology here. It's cultural."

When you posted, "If racists stop teaching their children to be racists, then their children wouldn't grow up to be racists," Sapolsky's work would support that, not suggest that "No, tribes, it's more complex." Because Sapolsky's work suggests that 'teaching' is how people of different races come to be perceived as being in different tribes in the first place. Because it's cultural.

Your insecurity makes you aggressive in your posting style. No big deal to me. In the process you learned something new and that is nice.

I obviously do not disagree with the idea that racism is learned, however, we cannot disregard the fact that we evolved in tribes. That biological component is there even if you [Mod Edit blanket insult] dislike science.

 

[RobF]

Your insecurity makes you aggressive in your posting style. No big deal to me. In the process you learned something new and that is nice.

No, I already knew that you don't understand Sapolsky's work, that you project your insecurity onto others, and that you constantly post in a patronising and condescending manner in a desperate effort to not feel inferior.

So nothing new there, no.

I obviously do not disagree with the idea that racism is learned, however, we cannot disregard the fact that we evolved in tribes. That biological component is there even if you [Mod Edit blanket insult] dislike science.

*sigh*

To be brief, Sapolsky doesn't think the 'biological component' you refer to is related to race, arguing that that would make no sense in evolutionary terms as it's only recently, in those terms, that people have become mobile enough to encounter other races, with humanity having spent the majority of human history living in hunter-gatherer bands and not meeting other races, and also citing other work showing that the response is not simply recognition of novelty either, e.g. images of people with purple skin don't get the same response, illustrating that it's not simply about recognising 'other'. Which is why he argues that the aversive processing some people have when presented with faces of other races is neither automatic nor inevitable, and that we are not 'hardwired to fear the face of someone of another race', and that, as I already said, "it's cultural."

As you would know, if only you had read and understood Sapolsky's work.

 

[Paul]

No, I already knew that you don't understand Sapolsky's work, that you project your insecurity onto others, and that you constantly post in a patronising and condescending manner in a desperate effort to not feel inferior.

So nothing new there, no.

You say I post in a patronizing manner. Freud would say you are projecting Mr. F. I will not say more.

*sigh*

To be brief, Sapolsky doesn't think the 'biological component' you refer to is related to race, arguing that that would make no sense in evolutionary terms as it's only recently, in those terms, that people have become mobile enough to encounter other races, with humanity having spent the majority of human history living in hunter-gatherer bands and not meeting other races, and also citing other work showing that the response is not simply recognition of novelty either, e.g. images of people with purple skin don't get the same response, illustrating that it's not simply about recognising 'other'. Which is why he argues that the aversive processing some people have when presented with faces of other races is neither automatic nor inevitable, and that we are not 'hardwired to fear the face of someone of another race', and that, as I already said, "it's cultural."

As you would know, if only you had read and understood Sapolsky's work.

Mr. F you don't even understand yourself. You act in a very tribal manner when you have to read those with a different point of view. You cannot remain calm as you are a victim of your own biology as well as learned the bigotry towards those that say something that challenges your one track mind.

 

[RobF]

You say I post in a patronizing manner. Freud would say you are projecting Mr. F. I will not say more.

You do, constantly, as has been pointed out to you many times by multiple people. And oh, if only that last bit were true.

Mr. F you don't even understand yourself. You act in a very tribal manner when you have to those with a different point of view. You cannot remain calm as you are a victim of your own biology as well as learned the bigotry towards those that say something that challenges your one track mind.

See, I've stated that you don't understand it, and I've also explained why, referencing and quoting Sapolsky's work.

What's notable in your response is an absolute lack of any content addressing Sapolsky's work whatsoever. Instead all you offer is a series of assertions lacking any substance, and all of which can be plainly seen to be false by anyone who cares to look. To put it another way, if we disregard all parts of your response that lack substance, we're left with literally nothing.

So when I say that you don't understand, I explain why. When you say that I don't understand, you don't. Because you can't.

 

[Paul]

You do, constantly, as has been pointed out to you many times by multiple people. And oh, if only that last bit were true.

I am sorry if stating facts is seen as patronizing. I certainly do not try to diminish others. If they feel diminished then I will try to be more careful with my words.

See, I've stated that you don't understand it, and I've also explained why, referencing and quoting Sapolsky's work.

What's notable in your response is an absolute lack of any content addressing Sapolsky's work whatsoever. Instead all you offer is a series of assertions lacking any substance, and all of which can be plainly seen to be false by anyone who cares to look. To put it another way, if we disregard all parts of your response that lack substance, we're left with literally nothing.

Mr.F: This is your MO. You say the argument is flawed but you cannot point out why the argument is flawed.

So when I say that you don't understand, I explain why. When you say that I don't understand, you don't. Because you can't.

Same debate fallacy as above Mr. F.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am sorry if stating facts is seen as patronizing. I certainly do not try to diminish others. If they feel diminished then I will try to be more careful with my words.

Mr.F: This is your MO. You say the argument is flawed but you cannot point out why the argument is flawed.

Same debate fallacy as above Mr. F.

Stop gaslighting. It's shirtty behavior.

 

[Paul]

Stop gaslighting. It's shirtty behavior.

i hate to sound like a broken record but that is not an argument.

For your edification here is the definition of gaslighting:

Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that occurs in abusive relationships. It is an insidious and sometimes covert type of emotional abuse where the bully or abuser makes the target question their judgments and reality. 1 Ultimately, the victim of gaslighting starts to wonder if they are losing their sanity.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

i hate to sound like a broken record but that is not an argument.

For your edification here is the definition of gaslighting:

Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that occurs in abusive relationships. It is an insidious and sometimes covert type of emotional abuse where the bully or abuser makes the target question their judgments and reality. 1 Ultimately, the victim of gaslighting starts to wonder if they are losing their sanity.

Yes, and you engaged in it. I wasn't making an argument, I was simply pointing out your behavior and how shirtty it is.

 

[Paul]

Yes, and you engaged in it. I wasn't making an argument, I was simply pointing out your behavior and how shirtty it is.

On a positive note: The Red Sox just won the ALDS.

 

[Saintamaniac]

You do, constantly, as has been pointed out to you many times by multiple people. And oh, if only that last bit were true.


See, I've stated that you don't understand it, and I've also explained why, referencing and quoting Sapolsky's work.

What's notable in your response is an absolute lack of any content addressing Sapolsky's work whatsoever. Instead all you offer is a series of assertions lacking any substance, and all of which can be plainly seen to be false by anyone who cares to look. To put it another way, if we disregard all parts of your response that lack substance, we're left with literally nothing.

So when I say that you don't understand, I explain why. When you say that I don't understand, you don't. Because you can't.

RobF spitting supa hot fire.

 

[RobF]

I am sorry if stating facts is seen as patronizing. I certainly do not try to diminish others. If they feel diminished then I will try to be more careful with my words.

Paul, you're not stating facts, so whether doing so can be seen as patronizing is besides the point, and I doubt anyone feels diminished by your patronizing behaviour, since it's entirely plain that it derives from you, not from them.

That is, if you're going to 'try to be more careful with your words' - and you should - do so because the way you post is diminishing you. Others, not so much.

Mr.F: This is your MO. You say the argument is flawed but you cannot point out why the argument is flawed.

Stop gaslighting. It's shirtty behavior.

While it's accurate, since he's clearly trying to deny reality, I think you're being generous to call it 'gaslighting', since that implies a level of sophistication. What he's doing there is closer to, "I know what you are, but what am I?"

 

[Paul]

Paul, you're not stating facts, so whether doing so can be seen as patronizing is besides the point, and I doubt anyone feels diminished by your patronizing behaviour, since it's entirely plain that it derives from you, not from them.

That is, if you're going to 'try to be more careful with your words' - and you should - do so because the way you post is diminishing you. Others, not so much.



While it's accurate, since he's clearly trying to deny reality, I think you're being generous to call it 'gaslighting', since that implies a level of sophistication. What he's doing there is closer to, "I know what you are, but what am I?"

Time and time again you post derogatory words and never make an effort to discuss any issue.

 

[Paul]

While it's accurate, since he's clearly trying to deny reality, I think you're being generous to call it 'gaslighting', since that implies a level of sophistication. What he's doing there is closer to, "I know what you are, but what am I?"

Here is what it feels to be gaslighted:

"Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where a person or group makes someone question their sanity, perception of reality, or memories. People experiencing gaslighting often feel confused, anxious, and unable to trust themselves".

What is gaslighting? Examples and how to respond

Gaslighting causes someone to doubt their sanity, perceptions, or memories. It is a form of psychological abuse. Here is how to respond.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

If you guys feel gaslighted it simply means there is questioning of previously held ideas and perception of reality. Perhaps you guys are experiencing some sort of psychological stress for having to look at a different perspective. This may very well be the step before a red pill moment.

If you guys feel anxious or confused I suggest counseling.

 

[brandon]

This may very well be the step before a red pill moment.

Spoken like a true moderate.