Critical thinking

[Chris]

Intersectionality merely means (in a social sense) the intersection of interests, particularly in terms of social justice. Colorism, racism, sexism and genderism exist. These are topics that can be inherently subjective because they are experiential. You cannot say that any discussion or article about these topics must be the antithesis of critical thinking simply because there is an element of subjectivity. All observations and experiences are subjective. If you tell me that you have a headache, I'm not going to dismiss that on the basis that it's a subjective evaluation or demand that you prove your headache. The entire science of psychology is based on the analysis of subjective issues.

Absolutism is the enemy of critical thinking.

Intersectionality, like systemic racism, is not experiential.



You really need to stop rationalizing defenses of CRT.

[Mister D]

There were a couple articles on Newsweek this morning that made a very interesting point. CRT and its associated concepts are much more appealing to white progressives than they are to anyone else. Blacks, for example, were just as likely to respond favorably to class oriented rhetoric. I suspected that but it was interesting to see some data on the topic.

[Dr. Who]

Intersectionality, like systemic racism, is not experiential.



You really need to stop rationalizing defenses of CRT.

You are missing the point here. I am not defending CRT, I am suggesting that you don't have to agree with a topic or premise in order to make a cogent argument nor does your disagreement with that topic or premise mean that you can't evaluate whether someone else is making a cogent argument. In fact, in learning debating skills or critical writing skills, you can be assigned to defend a position with which you vehemently disagree as an exercise. You are rejecting this article based on your own prejudice alone and not based on whether it was argued well. If you were asked to defend CRT while employing critical thinking, could you do it?

[Chris]

There were a couple articles on Newsweek this morning that made a very interesting point. CRT and its associated concepts are much more appealing to white progressives than they are to anyone else. Blacks, for example, were just as likely to respond favorably to class oriented rhetoric. I suspected that but it was interesting to see some data on the topic.

Newsweek does put out some interesting articles lately. I might give them my email address to read a few free. Two recent ones: Black People Are Far More Powerful Than Critical Race Theory Preaches, Woke Racism Is a Systemic Problem in America.

[Chris]

You are missing the point here. I am not defending CRT, I am suggesting that you don't have to agree with a topic or premise in order to make a cogent argument nor does your disagreement with that topic or premise mean that you can't evaluate whether someone else is making a cogent argument. In fact, in learning debating skills or critical writing skills, you can be assigned to defend a position with which you vehemently disagree as an exercise. You are rejecting this article based on your own prejudice alone and not based on whether it was argued well. If you were asked to defend CRT while employing critical thinking, could you do it?

I am not nor ever was interested in Crenshaw's topic, only her rhetoric, which is based in Critical Theory and not on critical thinking.

[Mister D]

Newsweek does put out some interesting articles lately. I might give them my email address to read a few free. Two recent ones: Black People Are Far More Powerful Than Critical Race Theory Preaches, Woke Racism Is a Systemic Problem in America.

The latter article is the one I was referring to. Thanks for finding it.

[Dr. Who]

I am not nor ever was interested in Crenshaw's topic, only her rhetoric, which is based in Critical Theory and not on critical thinking.

IOW, you can't or won't answer my question OR you don't think that you could successfully meet such a challenge. That's fine. I won't press the issue.

[jet57]

You are missing the point here. I am not defending CRT, I am suggesting that you don't have to agree with a topic or premise in order to make a cogent argument nor does your disagreement with that topic or premise mean that you can't evaluate whether someone else is making a cogent argument. In fact, in learning debating skills or critical writing skills, you can be assigned to defend a position with which you vehemently disagree as an exercise. You are rejecting this article based on your own prejudice alone and not based on whether it was argued well. If you were asked to defend CRT while employing critical thinking, could you do it?

chris's posting style is the very antithesis of critical thinking. You caught that very well.