The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how society would react to such knowledge. And that poses a problem. You can't even propose any alternative theory in the current climate.
Second, the same criticism applies to CRT. There is a double standard. For the sake of simplicity, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it under the "Academic Criticism" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic
> Farber and Sherry additionally posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.
I don't think I have to explain to anyone why this theory would have any antisemitic or anti-Asian implications, everyone has to know it on some level. You might not necessarily agree with it, but you should know why. But the most interesting and telling thing about everything surrounding the CRT is what this criticism doesn't say. Nowhere does it even mention anti-White implications. Imagine reading something explicitly focused on the overrepresantation of Jewish people in positions of power and saying "wow, this could hurt some innocent Europeans".
I agree that the divisions are already here (and pretty much always have been for that matter), and that individualists are wrong in just pretending like the problem doesn't exist. But forcing this down everyone's throats without any possibility of defending yourself will only end up in a disaster.
Your account has been using HN primarily for ideological and political battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology or politics they're battling for, because it destroys this place for its intended purpose.
I had to scroll through dozens of your comments to find even one that didn't fit this description. That's clearly over the line, so I've banned this account.
> The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how the society would react to such knowledge
No, it hasn't.
Not even your specific example (racial IQ dofferences), on which there continues to be new work published (both on the differences and on influences, both genetic and environmental.)
So if “the issue” with CRT is just this thing that is neither true nor about CRT, then that’s pretty much the same as there being, in fact, no issue with CRT.
> Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites.
I could say a very similar thing about the Jewish people and you'd call me an anti-semite for it.
Is this another case of redefining words and "anti-white" no longer means what I think it means or what? I'm confused.
edit: I'm rate limited, responding here.
> only in the sense that “White elites” are “elites, who are predominantly White” and not “Whites, who as a group are elites”.
No serious person claims that this or other ethnicity is an elite as a group, so I'm not sure what does it have to do with anything.
> Well, because factually socioeconomic elites (in America) aren't overwhelmingly Jewish
Biden's cabinet being 1/3 Jewish (pretty sure it was about half few months ago) is just one example. And they're like what, 2% of the US population? Is that just an antisemitic lie or is the US administration somehow not a part of systemic structure?
Once again, people are worried about CRT causing unintentional antisemitism, but no one cares if it's going to cause anti-white hatred, despite that the exact same argument was used against others who tried to explain why things are like this. It's completely transparent what it is and any sane person can see through this gaslighting. But it's alright, if you want to genocide each other then I guess it's none of my business, since I live on the other end of the world and it doesn't involve me personally. I'm not sure myself why I care so much, I clearly shouldn't. Now go ahead and crucify me.
To the extent that description by CNN is approximately correct and relevant, it is only in the sense that “White elites” are “elites, who are predominantly White” and not “Whites, who as a group are elites”.
> I could say a very similar thing about the Jewish people and you'd call me an anti-semite for it.
Well, because factually socioeconomic elites (in America) aren't overwhelmingly Jewish, and we don’t factually have systematic structures favoring disfavoring the non-Jewish throughout society established for the benefit of the elite and protected because they serve the interest of the elites, so, yes ,if you substituted “Jewish” for “White” in what was previously a factually accurate account of structural power dynamics in the US, I would probably accuse you of inventing lies whose most probable motigation was anti-Semitism.
You say you don't need discrimination to explain it, but your explanation assumes discrimination ie. you have to be really damn good in order to even have a chance as a woman. There is another explanation, the distribution of IQ between men and women:
> Another factor affecting perception may be distribution of IQ ... Although [men and women] are on average the same, the people at the very top and the very bottom of the IQ bell curve are more likely to be men. That is a pattern that we see in the university setting, with men either being at the very top of the class or at the bottom.
You also see a similar situation with "places in society". The majority of billionaires are men, but the majority of people in prison are men too. Women in general seem to have a more "stable" place in society compared to men. It seems harder for them to climb higher but also harder for them to fall completly at the bottom. If I wanted to sum it up, it would be something like "the glass ceiling comes with a glass floor". This is just my speculation though, and not in any way a judgment of value.
An important point here is that this glass ceiling or glass floor is only relevant to talk about on the level of all women. It has no bearing on an individual.
I'm not attempting to explain the under-representation of minorities. I'm explaining why minorities in teams will naturally perform better than average.
> Once, GitHub Copilot suggested starting an empty file with something it had even seen more than a whopping 700,000 different times during training -- that was the GNU General Public License.
> I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet.
Look up Kurt Eichenwald. He found and sued an anonymous Twitter troll who send him a GIF "you deserve a seizure" in 2017. I'm not sure exactly how, I think the authorities helped him, so Twitter just might've gave them the information.
So for anyone else that found that completely odd, the whole story is that he sued someone who sent him a DM with a gif that purposefully triggered his epilepsy and caused him to seize. The words "you deserve a seizure" were definitely not the basis of the suit.
Minor correction, it wasn't a DM, it was a public tweet that had him tagged. Then his wife (or him pretending to be his wife) responded to the tweet from Eichenwald's account, that he just had a seizure and that she had called the police.
Good point. That's possible and could've made the things easier. I tend to forget that authorities can request personal information from companies (and that the companies don't mind sharing most of the time).
FTR, it happens ALL... THE... TIME. Court issues subpoena saying give us everything you have on this tweet/message/posting or be held in contempt. Company then responds with all info on account IPs, logins, timestamps, etc. Unless your OPSEC is impeccable, it's usually quite easy to identify a user and only requires the permission of a court.
> For one remove anonymity from social media. That in itself should clean up half this mess with existing laws.
And it should also enable going after people with unpopular opinions even more.
And preventing people from spreading disinformation doesn't mean that the disinformation will magically go away. It's just that the only people allowed to spread disinformation will be the government and the capitalists. And you will be punished if you call them out on it.
People going after people for unpopular opinions is a society problem. Did that happen in the US or Europe before Twitter? It did not.
I see this touted a lot. But supporting trolls to spread disinformation online isn’t protecting free speech. Free speech protection comes from society and it’s laws. Not anonymity.
The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how society would react to such knowledge. And that poses a problem. You can't even propose any alternative theory in the current climate.
Second, the same criticism applies to CRT. There is a double standard. For the sake of simplicity, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it under the "Academic Criticism" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic
> Farber and Sherry additionally posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.
I don't think I have to explain to anyone why this theory would have any antisemitic or anti-Asian implications, everyone has to know it on some level. You might not necessarily agree with it, but you should know why. But the most interesting and telling thing about everything surrounding the CRT is what this criticism doesn't say. Nowhere does it even mention anti-White implications. Imagine reading something explicitly focused on the overrepresantation of Jewish people in positions of power and saying "wow, this could hurt some innocent Europeans".
I agree that the divisions are already here (and pretty much always have been for that matter), and that individualists are wrong in just pretending like the problem doesn't exist. But forcing this down everyone's throats without any possibility of defending yourself will only end up in a disaster.