You *do* know that every horrific oppression came with "reasonable" arguments at the time about how this was supposedly morally correct, right?
Examples:
11
46
408
Conversation
Pro-slavery people argued that slavery was actually a benefit to the slaves, that slaves were intellectually inferior (with less advanced tech as proof), that freeing the slaves would be actually really cruel and damaging, as they just weren't built for an unguided life.
2
5
105
Anti women's suffrage argued voting wouldn't actually help women as women weren't suffering, that women were "outside of politics" and thus a more unbiased source, that women are incapable of physically enforcing laws they might make, and that men earned votes by serving in war.
3
5
97
Both of these arguments appeal to stuff like harm, rights, justice - all externalized, systematic reasons *divorced from the individual* about why they should be treated differently in culture, about how treating people at the level of groups is a *moral good*.
1
3
95
So obviously the lesson from this is, be wary of arguments that call in systemic enforcement to justify treating people differently based on their group, *even if they appeal to important moral values that you share*, right?
....Right?
5
5
167
Both actual racists and #criticalracetheory commit the mistake of using moral justification in this way, which is the same exact category of thought that led to slavery and the oppression of women for centuries.
It's just, right now CRT has much more sway over our culture.
Replying to
Which arguments are you referring to? Is it along the lines of "all blacks" or "all whites"...?
1
Replying to
What you are missing here is rules that treat people differently based on their group that your believe to be right. Children, people with disabilities, public servants, people currently intoxicated, people currently I'll...
There is a long list, so what's the principal at work?
1
2
Replying to
The fact that such arguments have been used for nefarious reasons does not mean they have to be incorrect though. We're all oppressed in some small ways and seeing the rising divorces and depression I wonder to what extent stricter roles are/could be beneficial.
6
Replying to
This analogy fails for the same reason CRT fails, in that it reads plans into disparities that developed organically. There were no "plans" behind slavery or male sufferage. There were arguments against change, but the "reasonable" ones were cost-benefit analyses, not like CRT.
2
Replying to
Seems more correlation than causation to me. Not saying that you're wrong, but I don't see how the correlation *necessarily* holds.
Replying to
At root, it's self-interested rationalization. Woke elites get to signal their allegiance to the Woke tribe, get "virtue" points, and have little to no skin in the game.
1
Replying to
Your attempt at drawing parallels are at the level of semantics. You aren't actually meaningfully relating to ideas of CRT and racist but instead your pointing out there is a linguistic similarity in their reasoning while simultaneously equating both sides. This is cringe
1
Replying to
Not too sure I follow you but I read a bit about critical race theory and it sounds interesting. I'm not sure about comparing crits to racists. What I read is that crits don't accept Western liberal attempts to solve problems by traditional logical methods. More
1