this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

Ask Lemmy

29717 readers
1331 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

My pov is that CRT (critical race theory) and related policies, like DEI, put an undue emphasis on race instead of on poverty, and the resulting effect is that policies which are aimed at helping minorities seem like “favoritism” (and called as such by political opponents), which makes a growing population of poor whites (due to the adverse effects of wealth inequality) polarized against minorities.

Separately, the polarization is used by others who want to weaken a democratic nation. For democracies, a growing immigrant population of more poor people will cause further polarization because the growing poor white population believes that “they’re taking our jobs”. This happened during Brexit, this happened with Trump, and this is happening now in Germany and other western democracies.

I know that there are racist groups who have an agenda of their own, and what I am saying is that instead of focusing on what are painted as culture war issues, leftists are better off focusing on alleviating systemic poverty. Like, bringing the Nordic model to the U.S. should be their agenda.

So, maybe I am wrong about CRT and DEI and how it’s well-meaning intentions are being abused by people who have other goals, but I want to hear from others about why they think CRT and DEI help. I want to listen, so I am not going to respond at all.

— Added definitions —

CRT: an academic field used to understand how systems and processes favor white people despite anti-discrimination policies. Analysis coming out of CRT is often used to make public policy.

DEI: a framework for increasing diversity, equity and inclusion; DEI isn’t focused on race or gender only, but also includes disability and other factors (pregnancy for example) which affect a person.

— —

Okay , so end note: I appreciate the people who commented. I questioned the relevancy of CRT/DEI previously out of an alarmed perspective of how aspects that highlight group differences can be used by others to create divisions and increase polarization. But I get the point everyone is making about the historical significance of these tools.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Imagine a hundred runners entering an insanely long footrace. Before the race starts, the official says that due to his complexion, one runner will start running at the second gunshot, and the other runners will begin at the first gunshot. The darker skinned runner contests, but those are the rules and if he wants to race, he must follow them.

BLAM

The palest runners are off and running while the other one anticipates the second gunshot. He patiently waits, but it doesn't come. After ten minutes, the runner complains to the official, but he repeats that these are the rules, and if you just wait patiently, it'll be your turn. After an hour the crowd is outraged by the injustice and begin to protest.

BLAM

The official fires the second shot in order to deescalate the situation and prevent the stadium from being torn apart. The runner is off and he is determined to gain as much ground as possible as the other runners.

At the end of the day, the runners meet up at a checkpoint to rest before the next section of the race. When they announce the official times, the darker skinned man is 50 minutes behind the other runners. He mentions to the officials that he had to wait an hour to start, and that he would have had a better time than many of them if they had started at the same time.

Fine, they say, not wanting another scene like they had at the starting line, "from now on, all runners start at the same time." That's great! So, can I deduct an hour from my time?

WHAT!? WE ALREADY CHANGED THE RULES TO MAKE IT EQUAL. EVERYBODY STARTS AT THE SAME TIME! AND NOW YOU WANT MORE? THE OTHER RUNNERS DIDN'T NEED ANY TIME DEDUCTIONS!

I now see I went too heavy on the caps, but I'm not typing it again.

Anyway, DEI is the one hour time deduction. It's making up for holding them back for so long while everyone else was sprinting ahead. But, those other runners, they were so busy running that they don't know how long it took for that second gunshot to go off. All they see is a runner with a mediocre time getting a 1 hour deduction which moves him to the top 3. The guy getting bumped to fourth is REALLY going to feel cheated, and resent the system that gave that guy an hour just because of his skin color.

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's actually a bit ironic, because CRT is viewed by many White Americans as a theory which demonizes them; but CRT also defines how racism has harmed poor white people in the past and continues to do so today.

CRT defines the biggest winners of Racism in America as being wealthy white folks. According to CRT, Racism as we know it today, was created as a means to take advantage of poor whites. Rich plantation owners recognized slavery caused great economic harm to poorer whites who did not own slaves. So a solution to stop revolt was to create this system of Race so that poor whites would remain divided from black slaves, and not work together to retaliate.

CRT also claims that this is still occuring today. Racism continues to divide poor white people from poor people of color so that they don't work together to fight against Injustice.

[–] andsens@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I understand and sympathize with where you're coming from. I don't have all the counter arguments, but one that stuck with me while I was devils advocating it with two of my friends is pretty convincing I think. (Mind you, I'm drunk on a Friday night at 3 AM, so just posting this before I forget to do it tomorrow).

One of your arguments (not all!) is built on an opposing side abusing the cultural impact of CRT/DEI. However, that can be applied as a premise to a slew of other political efforts with the same mechanics where the singling out of a group can be twisted into discrimination of an adjacent group:

  • Americans with Disabilities Act
  • Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) for Alaskans
  • Shelters and Services Program for Immigrants
  • Any policies surrounding Native Americans

In all the above programs, one could make the case that there are adjacent groups that do not, but maybe should, receive those benefits. CRT/DEI is the easiest target to gather people around. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's just the most prominent and easily targetable policy.

All that doesn't invalidate CRT/DEI or any of the other policies, and even with political opposition one could still argue for their benefit. So, my point is this: Bad actors abusing and misrepresenting a program that focuses on specific groups is not an argument against that policy. If it didn't exist, they'd latch on to something else. So you're letting a policy be ruined, not based on its merits, but on how others can twist a narrative around it.

Again, you have made other points that I'm not addressing at all in this argument. I'll let others argue against those.

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I see it as a "I don't see color" kind of thing. You may be able to see it as "just" a class war, but people who may be a different race, or disabled, etc., can't do that because those factors can change how you're treated. Saying we should ignore it or rebrand it as a class war is disregarding the reprocussions that race plays in the class war. What communities get funding? What communities have good schools? What communities have food deserts? Who gets promoted to leadership?

Before these things came to be, America was very much class-war only in my opinion, which is why boomer white Americans did so well. They were all seen as the same community, so raising them up was raising them all up. So they had Veterans benefits and programs after the war to help them get housing and education. Unions protected their members. But those programs didn't always extend to POC, if at all. That's why we have to keep an eye on it. It's not just class that affects people, and not talking about it allows the majority to pretend it isn't happening, or is a minor issue. I think it also facilities the silencing of minorities as their issues seem "fringe" or like complaints.

The system was not built for a lot of people, and we have to keep reminding people of that. Because what's going on in the US is showing that. They're worried about anti-Christians and immigrants, transgenders, etc. Even if those people are also poor, that won't save them if we just see class. A middle class, transgender woman who may have been a "good guy" is now an enemy be cause of their gender identity alone. A black man being followed in a store is not being followed for class reasons. People with disabilities having trouble just existing are not having that trouble (solely) because of class.

Getting rid of DEI/CRT makes the loudest voice everyone's voice. And that person is usually not looking out for us.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The facts are that black Americans are worse off than other groups in almost every way we can measure. There are two competing theories to explain this.

1-the systems of our society are biased against black people. That's Systemic-Racism. 2-black people are inferior to everyone else. That's racism, original recipe.

How are these systems biased against black people? That's what the field of CRT seeks to answer.

[–] gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What makes me really curious is, is it really the skin-tone that is the significant variable, or is it a very closely related confounding variable?

It seems so very weird to me that the tone of your skin can have such a significant impact.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

It's pretty easy to understand if you consider that black americans were brought into the country as slaves, wealth is generally inherited (even if just through socialization, connections etc. and not actual inheritance), and americans and the american state continue to be both racist and classist. Even if black people were treated as equals nowadays (which they are not), they would stay disadvantaged due to the US's lack of social mobility.

[–] ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what Cathode Ray Tubes have to do with any of this.

I suppose they're both highly charged and make specific points with the goal of providing illuminated information

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you want us to talk you out of your position we need you to describe what exactly you think CRT and DEI actually are in your own words.

If you can invest your time in explaining those things as you understand them then I am willing to discuss it with you.

If you copy paste from the net I will call you out and take that as a hostile response.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, that is not what you think those things are. That's your position on them. In order to tell if you actually understand what they are, I need you to explain them. If you can't explain something then you don't actually understand it.

That's the only way I can get a real baseline for where you are coming from and where you potentially went wrong.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Ok, now that you've added those very basic descriptions. Be honest, could you have done that without looking it up?

Now that you presumably know that both of these things are primarily educational, and not actual favoritism. What is it about them that you think makes poor white people so angry? I'm also curious why you think it's just poor people that take issue with this? The biggest public detractors are all quite wealthy.

Edit: I'm sorry but this process is going to involve a lot of questions. That's just how this works if we're both trying to be constructive.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Reading this as a third party... Someone came to learn and you're being unnecessarily hostile.

This isn't "why is it my responsibility to tell you, the offender, how to be decent" - it's strangers opting in to inform strangers. Just prefix with your assumptions about definitions, and answer.

You familiar w flies, honey, vinegar, etc?

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Feel free to take time out of your day to enact your preferred approach.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago
  1. Lol you're suggesting "being the one who makes the effort entitles one to be a dick"
  2. "It's not my job to educate people on" what being a dick is
  3. I believe that's technically whataboutism since none of my words were responded to directly
[–] nifty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am not angry about anything, and I didn’t look them up now, tbh. The issue I find is that well-meaning and useful policies are painted as something they’re not, or used by others to create polarization. So, my pov is that leftists and progressives are better off focusing on poverty alleviation. If minorities face generational wealth issues (they do) then poverty alleviation policies that don’t single them out in particular will be harder to attack by political opponents.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

The problem is that systemic racism is a large part of why minority groups are in poverty in the first place.

You can't address poverty in minority groups without addressing the racism.

You're also falling for the fallacy that this is an either or situation. You can fight systemic racism and other underlying causes of poverty at the same.

There's nothing wrong with educating people on specific issues related to specific demographics. That's why BLM existing isn't saying that other races don't matter.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

proven multiple times and confirmed by multiple studies: communities that welcome immigrants have higher education rates, better incomes, higher productivity, and lower crime than communities based on exclusion/exclusivity/isolation/separation

conservatives use “CRT” and “DEI” to sow polarization because they know even they’d get blowback if they admitted they were just anti-empathy/pro-hatred/anti-equality

[–] FuzzChef@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

Is it "Welcoming to Immigrants" -> higher education, income, productivity or the other way round?

[–] TypicalHog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

DEI is racist AF! Everyone should get the same opportunities and we should not reward people for the color of their skin etc.

[–] TypicalHog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

To the 9 people who disliked my comment (and many more who will in the future) - just think about how fucking weird it is to not want to higher certain races in favor of other races just cause you want to create artificial equity. There are literally instances where white person who is more qualified for a position will get denied in favor of let's say black person who might be less qualified just because companies wanna fill some DEI quotas. That's super racist. Companies should hire he best candidates (be it black, asian, white or whatever) and not some (often) mediocre candidates just cause they a certain race.

DEI is RACIST!