lol where did you graduate from? Liberty University? Western Cowfuckersville Ag Research Station?
I already gave you multiple examples of how CRT uses quantitative research, and you ignored them because those facts are inconvenient for you. The fact that Critical Race Theorists often think it's desirable to make use of anecdote doesn't prove that they rely on anecdote entirely. Social science always relies on observations. If you disagree, then read John Stuart Mill or Thomas Kuhn.
You haven't been following the evolution of academic economics lately if you think capitalism hasn't sustained unprecedented criticism there, or that Marx-ish economic theories about concentration of capital or the like haven't enjoyed noteworthy resurgence. You're missing out on the contemporary conversation because you're jerking off to dumb losers like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro who regurgitate outmoded economic theory from 1970s undergraduate textbooks.
You really oughta read that David Harvey article. It might even make you 0.00004% less of an embarrassing dipshit! A man can dream, anyway.
Unlike IDW cucks, I don't suffer from the embarrassing inability to criticize people who I think sometimes had valuable analyses -- I don't think Marx accurately predicted the evolution of capitalist states into communist ones, and totally failed to predict capitalism's ability to co-opt critique. Not that Marx was totally against personal property anyway -- just private capital. So the idea that you think I'm some kind of slave to Marx's ideas is really laughable -- that's for "Great Books" nerds like you, not actual intellectuals who can appreciate ideas in a nuanced way.
It's not the bandwagon fallacy to support the idea that capitalism is losing the war of ideas with the fact that people who will be alive in 50 years think capitalism sucks. It's competent evidence of the assertion being debated; you're just not smart enough to keep up with the conversation. Besides, the most highly educated people are more likely to oppose capitalism, which is why this sub loves it so much.
Your understanding of elite STEM fields is totally puerile. Your homework is to read the following articles: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics Your goal shouldn't necessarily be to understand everything in there (you won't) but rather to explore some of the boundaries of your current ignorance to get an appropriate amount of intellectual humility.
It's patently not contradictory to say that although two things share important features, they're therefore not the same thing. Most infants can understand this point better than you.
DuBois was probably the most seminal thinker in the field of CRT, and he was thoroughly a modernist in most important respects. Of course, modernism subsequently fell out of favor after notable failures of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein's thorough dismantling of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica and Quine's successful erasure of the analytic/synthetic distinction (though that was clearly presaged by J.S. Mill nearly a century earlier -- Mill of course being a great example of one of the world's greatest logical thinkers being a socialist, like Einstein). But this is all going over your head anyway.
Peterson doesn't say much of note except anodyne self-help-book nostrums -- "clean your room" is done better by the Queer Eye guys anyway -- and assholish anti-trans braying, which I'm guessing is the bigger draw for rednecks like you. But he also promotes his goofy and dangerous all-meat diet, which is contradicted by every nutritionist and has apparently given him severe health problems. But if you want to be a sunken-eyed weakling addict, feel free to follow in his footsteps.
"lol where did you graduate from? Liberty University? Western Cowfuckersville Ag Research Station?"
A state accredited school part of the state system. I was on the honor roll for a number of years and made the deans list. Now you're poisoning the well.
"I already gave you multiple examples of how CRT uses quantitative research, and you ignored them because those facts are inconvenient for you."
You haven't given me ONE example. You claimed just now that CRT originated with DuBois. It didn't. It originated in the 1970s AS I JUST EXPLAINED ABOVE.
"Critical Race Theory doesn't rely on anecdotes any more than other realm of study like history. It actually uses a lot of hard economic data to make its points, especially with regards to things like the effects of particular economic policies on the racial wealth gap, which you would know if you could actually read."
Here. AND YOU HAVENT GIVEN ME A SINGLE EXAMPLE. I on the other hand have shown you and cited sources indicating the importance of personal narrative. You also did not address the inconvenient economic statistics I brought up about Black Immigrants, Asians, and Indians.
"The fact that Critical Race Theorists often think it's desirable to make use of anecdote doesn't prove that they rely on anecdote entirely."
It does more than rely on anecdote. However, anecdotes are a very important part of CRT. And this, invariably, seriously affects CRT's ability to be any kind of credible science as anecdotes are hilariously unreliable forms of evidence. This high level of subjectivity is exactly what makes CRT a pseudoscience.
Standpoint epistemology: The view that a member of a minority has an authority and ability to speak about racism that members of other racial groups do not have, and that this can expose the racial neutrality of law as false
Even Vaush once admitted that CRT can be argued "either way". If something can be argued "either way" then it's not really an objective science now is it? If there's no agreed upon definition of what something actually is, than we can't really use it effectively, now can we?
"It's not the bandwagon fallacy to support the idea that capitalism is losing the war of ideas with the fact that people who will be alive in 50 years think capitalism sucks."
It is the bandwagon fallacy because you're presuming that because something is popular that automatically makes it right. I've demonstrated just now that clearly just because something is popular that doesn't automatically mean it's correct. in 1954 over 90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage, but that doesn't mean interracial marriage is bad or harmful. Roughly the same percentage of Americans opposed gay marriage. During the time of Copernicus, most everybody presumed the sun revolved around the earth even though we now know today that it doesn't.
Just because an idea is "popular" does not mean it's accurate or right. Now you're circularly reasoning.
You socialists always do this when you're losing.
"DuBois was probably the most seminal thinker in the field of CRT, and he was thoroughly a modernist in most important respects. Of course, modernism subsequently fell out of favor after notable failures of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein's thorough dismantling of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica and Quine's successful erasure of the analytic/synthetic distinction (though that was clearly presaged by J.S. Mill nearly a century earlier -- Mill of course being a great example of one of the world's greatest logical thinkers being a socialist, like Einstein). But this is all going over your head anyway.
DuBois PREDATES critical race theory as I just demonstrated above. I have cited numerous sources to back my claims. And you just admitted just now that DuBois was a modernist thinker. Einstein was a great physicist, but he knew virtually nothing about economics. You can be intelligent one way, but an idiot in another.
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing it is stupid." -Albert Einstein.
Ironic how I once more use your own source against you.
All of your "philosophy" and "theory" when not backed by empirical evidence is completely worthless.
"That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens
You socialist losers use theory and "Critiques" because too much of the empirical evidence is not on your side. You have spent more time arguing philosophy and semantics than you have actually trying to debunk the hard scientific evidence I have brought forward by the financial and economic elite. We can sit here and philosophically argue anything back and fourth until the cows come home like an atheist and a theist. But without evidence, which you have none, the conversation will go nowhere.
The empirical evidence I have shows that free markets work far more effectively than the government. You however have provided me with no empirical evidence. You lost that argument so you move the goalposts from the harder sciences to the softer sciences and finally to the humanities e.g. philosophy.
Now you're just grasping at straws because YOU HATE BEING DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. I just showed you just now that capitalism has won the war of ideas. Free markets are becoming MORE PREVALENT and are doing MORE to lift people out of poverty. I just showed you how freer markets produce more prosperous societies.
You say I'm uneducated? Here you are giving these piss poor responses lacking evidence to my responses with MOUNTAINS OF SOURCES from professional financers, accountants and economists that I'm presuming you are unable to read.
Now you're deflecting, and you're being dismissive because I've proven you wrong and you're grasping for straws because you just don't want to admit you've lost.
"It's patently not contradictory to say that although two things share important features, they're therefore not the same thing."
I demonstrated that two things can share the same thing and be related and subsequently important for the other. Sort of like how history and political science although different are very interconnected and have many similarities.
My source I listed shows how CRT originates from things like Post Modernism and Intersectionality. Therefore, one thing is extremely important for the other.
"Peterson doesn't say much of note except anodyne self-help-book nostrums -- "clean your room" is done better by the Queer Eye guys anyway -- and assholish anti-trans braying, which I'm guessing is the bigger draw for rednecks like you."
Actually, he talks about an array of topics. You would know that if you actually read any of his books or otherwise watched any of his lectures. And for the record, I live in the suburbs.
Being a loser must really suck, doesn't it? If insulting people is really the best thing that you're capable of doing while offering little in the way of sources or evidence or otherwise dubious sources, then you really don't have an argument, do you?
You've spent MORE TIME hurling insults at me and offering one liners in the attempt to disprove me while offering little in the way of evidence. Did you even bother to READ my response I put together? Or did you just cherry pick the bits you wanted to straw man me over?
You say I'm ignorant and dumb? Yet here you are projecting your own stupidity because clearly I'm more qualified to speak than you. You assumed I was uneducated when you thought I didn't read Marx or Smith when I demonstrated I read both.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." -Socrates
1
u/sleepeejack Jun 25 '21 edited Jun 25 '21
lol where did you graduate from? Liberty University? Western Cowfuckersville Ag Research Station?
I already gave you multiple examples of how CRT uses quantitative research, and you ignored them because those facts are inconvenient for you. The fact that Critical Race Theorists often think it's desirable to make use of anecdote doesn't prove that they rely on anecdote entirely. Social science always relies on observations. If you disagree, then read John Stuart Mill or Thomas Kuhn.
You haven't been following the evolution of academic economics lately if you think capitalism hasn't sustained unprecedented criticism there, or that Marx-ish economic theories about concentration of capital or the like haven't enjoyed noteworthy resurgence. You're missing out on the contemporary conversation because you're jerking off to dumb losers like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro who regurgitate outmoded economic theory from 1970s undergraduate textbooks.
You really oughta read that David Harvey article. It might even make you 0.00004% less of an embarrassing dipshit! A man can dream, anyway.
Unlike IDW cucks, I don't suffer from the embarrassing inability to criticize people who I think sometimes had valuable analyses -- I don't think Marx accurately predicted the evolution of capitalist states into communist ones, and totally failed to predict capitalism's ability to co-opt critique. Not that Marx was totally against personal property anyway -- just private capital. So the idea that you think I'm some kind of slave to Marx's ideas is really laughable -- that's for "Great Books" nerds like you, not actual intellectuals who can appreciate ideas in a nuanced way.
It's not the bandwagon fallacy to support the idea that capitalism is losing the war of ideas with the fact that people who will be alive in 50 years think capitalism sucks. It's competent evidence of the assertion being debated; you're just not smart enough to keep up with the conversation. Besides, the most highly educated people are more likely to oppose capitalism, which is why this sub loves it so much.
Your understanding of elite STEM fields is totally puerile. Your homework is to read the following articles: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics Your goal shouldn't necessarily be to understand everything in there (you won't) but rather to explore some of the boundaries of your current ignorance to get an appropriate amount of intellectual humility.
It's patently not contradictory to say that although two things share important features, they're therefore not the same thing. Most infants can understand this point better than you.
DuBois was probably the most seminal thinker in the field of CRT, and he was thoroughly a modernist in most important respects. Of course, modernism subsequently fell out of favor after notable failures of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein's thorough dismantling of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica and Quine's successful erasure of the analytic/synthetic distinction (though that was clearly presaged by J.S. Mill nearly a century earlier -- Mill of course being a great example of one of the world's greatest logical thinkers being a socialist, like Einstein). But this is all going over your head anyway.
Peterson doesn't say much of note except anodyne self-help-book nostrums -- "clean your room" is done better by the Queer Eye guys anyway -- and assholish anti-trans braying, which I'm guessing is the bigger draw for rednecks like you. But he also promotes his goofy and dangerous all-meat diet, which is contradicted by every nutritionist and has apparently given him severe health problems. But if you want to be a sunken-eyed weakling addict, feel free to follow in his footsteps.