I dare anyone to read Critical Race Theory: An Introduction for themselves and try to believe this idiotic distortion. The book is both horrifying and laughably shallow. Read it yourself. You'll see. Last time I read it, I literally laughed out loud repeatedly at how stupid it is

I have screenshots of some choice material, but I have to admit that I stopped taking them because it's virtually all of the book that's transparently bad and ridiculous. Maybe I need to start sharing them anyway.
You can read the whole book for yourself in about four or five hours. It's neither long nor difficult. It's transparently awful and stupid, and it makes a person wonder what people like Bradley Mason are on about trying to bullshit you away from recognizing that.
Here, they say they're skeptical of rights.

This is after saying in the first paragraph that they diverge from the Civil Rights Movement and oppose the liberal order, equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
Look at how stupid the questions for deeper exploration are. It's literally making the case for propaganda over truth and then accusing white people of being the only people who confuse the two.
Here, they argue that liberalism (the systems in the West) can't solve the problem and that "everything must change at once," i.e., a revolution is necessary. Combine this with their skepticism of rights and equality. They also argue for subjective standards they'd control.
More stupid questions for exploration. It's a good time to remember that this is a textbook for young, impressionable minds, not for savvy grown adults who have a firmer foundation after having cut their teeth on the world a bit.
Divide and conquer through storytelling. Not at all sure why it says an African American would not be able to recover. Totally stupid analysis. It's like they confuse themselves, but more evil.
Look how they analyze "white." So stupid. And it's actually worse, but I restrained myself from taking screenies of every page in this section.
So. Transparently. Stupid. And arrives at the conclusion that all whites are complicit in racism, which is preposterous and insulting to both logic and human dignity.
Apparently the Democratic Party gets to decide who is and isn't the "right" race. LOL. "If you don't vote for me, you ain't Black" isn't new.
More stupid questions.

More from For later read

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?