Atticus the only person who thinks players deserve no part of the profit they create. Both democrats and Republicans think he is wrong.

[Belly Bob]

5 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Based solely on what I’ve seen here, because I have no other reference, it doesn’t seem like I’d make much of a Foucaultian.  I trust you aren’t suggesting otherwise. 

I'm not suggesting that.

I'm trying to articulate what I take to be the theoretical apparatus with which much of contemporary social criticism is done. 

5 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

But, should we think of Justice Kavanaugh as a sort of ‘weak-force-Foucaultian® ,’ accepting the idea that a facially race neutral policy could produce racial disparities?

Haha! I think in that very, very weak sense Kavanaugh would be foucauldian. 

I don't want to suggest that social criticism as such is worthless. In fact, I think it's crucial. It's part of the tradition that goes back at least to Socrates. And there's an obvious sense in which Christ was engaged in social criticism.

And I think when Foucault says that there are often unobvious ways in which institutions oppress certain classes, he's certainly right.

But I'd question whether an institution is racist or sexist or classist simply because it produces unequal outcomes. (I'm not sure what you have mind when you say "produce racial disparities.") And I'd question some of the suggestions being made about which institutions these are and how to reform them. (I don't think that privileging science over other epistemologies, or the written word over the spoken, for example, is racist or sexist.)

And I do think that much of what comes out of the humanities these days and that goes under the name of social criticism is worthless.

And I think Foucault is a charlatan and that his views are incoherent in fairly obvious way and that many of his assumptions are not only false but dangerous.

[World Citizen]

On 6/24/2021 at 11:41 AM, Belly Bob said:

Backwaters and all that. 

My hunch is that CRT probably isn't well defined, which allows people to talk past each other. 

 

I'm going to start off by saying that I am in no way an expert on this nor am I very well read on the various points of view.  I do feel that, as far as I understand it anyway, that the lived (and often shared) experiences of people of color are often dismissed and/or taken as less than truth.  This is a major aspect of CRT I think.  A good example is the reaction to Kaepernick kneeling during the anthem.  Many were outraged and simply didn't listen him on why he went to his knee but instead insisted that they knew the real reason, which was far from his stated reasons.  I just don't understand the need for some to do that unless his truth (and those who share that truth) sheds light on things those people are uncomfortable with.  This is a subtlety that is hard to articulate let alone be fixed by policy but it is at the heart of the talking past one another.  

 

[Belly Bob]

17 hours ago, World Citizen said:

I do feel that, as far as I understand it anyway, that the lived (and often shared) experiences of people of color are often dismissed and/or taken as less than truth.  This is a major aspect of CRT I think.  

That seems plausible. I think critics of CRT are suspicious of the claim that "lived experience" is a reliable guide to the truth.

17 hours ago, World Citizen said:

 A good example is the reaction to Kaepernick kneeling during the anthem.  Many were outraged and simply didn't listen him on why he went to his knee but instead insisted that they knew the real reason, which was far from his stated reasons.  I just don't understand the need for some to do that unless his truth (and those who share that truth) sheds light on things those people are uncomfortable with.  

What happens when we run the analysis in the other direction?

If his truth doesn't agree with theirs and if he appeals to some other reason for their disagreement besides the one they sate, is it because their truth makes him uncomfortable?

Is he dismissing their truth or taking it as less than truth?

[World Citizen]

2 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

That seems plausible. I think critics of CRT are suspicious of the claim that "lived experience" is a reliable guide to the truth.

What happens when we run the analysis in the other direction?

If his truth doesn't agree with theirs and if he appeals to some other reason for their disagreement besides the one they sate, is it because their truth makes him uncomfortable?

Is he dismissing their truth or taking it as less than truth?

Yes to both questions.  Assuming we flipped our example.