Conservatives have embraced a campaign against "cancel culture" because it's one of the few things they offer that sells. However they are hot to ban "critical race theory" even though they struggle to define it.
Ultimately most people are anti-free expression of some kind. Very few are actually ideologically opposed to censorship (public or private) of things they find unconscionable.
It's one thing to have a constitutional amendment that forbids jailing somebody because the government doesn't like what they say.
It's another thing to say that somebody has to provide you with a free printing press, that people have to read it, that communities can't protect themselves from harmful communications, etc.
Where does it stop?
Several times a week I flag a discussion on HN where somebody leads with how grievously wounded they feel because somebody downvoted their post. Free speech fetishism turns into a sense of entitlement that people are forced to not just read their dreck but we can't express disapproval of it. When are we going to be forced to grin and clap like idiots to appease their narcissism?
Private censorship is still censorship and it is still powerful, otherwise Google and Facebook wouldn't wield it as often as they do (often at the explicit legal behest of the states in which they operate).
(Fundamentally there is the problem of "freedom from" and "freedom to". If the people get spammed with the equivalent of bread and circuses it doesn't matter at all that a few people can speak to the wind about important things.)
Considering Kendi is the most well known of the "Critical Race" theorists, I think it's fair to say the above quote encapsulates the underlying goal of Critical Race Theory. This also explains why all of their "remedies" seem to center around racial preferences, and other forms of racial discrimination.
If people want to learn how to be a racist on their own time, that's on them. Teaching that shit in school is no bueno.
If you want to criticize CRT, fair enough, but the actual quote is "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination." If you can't (or don't even care to) get the quote right, it seems as if you're not arguing from a position of good faith.
Here's another quote to consider, which gives some of the necessary context for the one you posted:
“The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.”
“The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.”
False - "Kendi is an open advocate for race-based discrimination, arguing that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” https://nypost.com/2021/07/22/ibram-x-kendi-is-the-false-pro...
>Their claim is that we're already living in a discriminatory system in which the only way to achieve equity is discrimination against that existing bias in the system.
You can't discriminate against bias. You're right that they support the concept of using discrimination to achieve equity though. That is literally the whole point.
My quote is verbatim from the actual book. Your quote comes directly afterward so apparently we're both correct, but you taking a single sentence out of context and presenting it as a complete quote is still disingenuous. You didn't even try to find a neutral source to back up your quote.
I strongly suspect we're talking past one another and I think it's best to end this conversation here.
It's from Kendi's own writings. It's a direct quote. And you claimed I made it up. Now that you know he said, I'm guessing you still don't care how racist CRT is.
CRT, from what i've understood, is used in history to take into consideration racial interactions before trying to emit hypothesis from a text or from objects.
Critical theory is basically saying "hey other humanities, our field (sociology) is very helpfull to help you decipher weirds thing from the past!" At least that's what i understood from the lecture i got like ten years ago (eleven actually). It is also present in science history, and i guess in law studies (not sure about that).
My pet theory: CRT really took off in the US because you are less able/willing to talk about class and the spectacle of race is quite easy to find and understand, while hiding other issues.