This cheat sheet is courtesy of the Oregon Association of Scholars. The authors are Drs. Bruce Gilley, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay. Click on the image to view it larger at its source.
The Oregon Association of Scholars is a non-profit organization incorporated in the state of Oregon that promotes excellence, freedom, and merit in higher education in the state.
Fascinating. So what is it, at bottom, to call someone "mentally ill? Is it essentially name calling? We are surrounded highly functional people who periodically and temporarily seem highly dysfunctional in specific ways. We have been cobbled together by natural selection, living Rube Goldberg machines, we are also equipped with sophisticated built-in PR departments that make it seem like we are more purposeful, more functional than we actually are. Further, Randolph Nesse has made a strong case that many "mental illnesses" are adaptive. What does it help use a global stamp of "mentally ill"?
Here's an excerpt from Nesse's 2020 book, Good Reasons for Bad Feelings:
The question “What is a mental disorder? ”has been addressed by Jerome Wakefield, a social worker, clinician, researcher, and philosopher at New York University. His pithy conclusion is that mental disorders are characterized by “harmful dysfunction.”“Dysfunction”means a malfunction in a useful system shaped by natural selection. “Harmful”means that the dysfunction causes suffering or other harm to the individual. Wakefield’s analysis grounds psychiatric diagnosis in an evolutionary understanding of the normal functions of brain/mind, the same way the rest of medicine understands pathology in the context of normal physiology. His cogent analysis has, however, had little influence on how psychiatrists make diagnoses.
John McWhorter joins Firing Line's Margaret Hoover on PBS to discuss "Critical Race Theory."
A few excerpts:
Margaret Hoover:what are they rallying against? What are they teaching that is objectionable?
John McWhorter:
here's the here's the issue. And I wish all of them would be more specific there two things. One is practically lining all the kids up against the wall and teaching the white people, our oppressors, black people are oppressed, and that the white kids need to know it, and the black kids need to know it. And what however you present it, that is some strong stuff to be giving to eight year olds to teach that whiteness is potentially evil and that blackness means that you have to constantly be on guard against it.
Then the second thing is a basic idea that battling power differentials, and specifically racism, often is supposed to be not just one of many things, not just one of many things in the meal, but the center, the fulcrum of all intellectual, artistic and moral endeavor. That's what is being taught at many schools. It's not just whether or not you teach people that there was slavery, that there was redlining and that racism can be subtle. It's making all of these schools antiracist boot camps. That's the problem these days.
After last summer, there was this educational opportunity many of these people saw where you could start saying that you needed to do this within this racial reckoning. And if you don't do it, you're a racist. Now, if anybody had tried to pull that, say, 15 years ago, it wouldn't have work. But now we have Twitter, so if you go against them, you get called a racist in the public square. For nine out of 10 people, that's enough to make them follow along, because most of us are buying groceries and raising our kids, but the result of this has been truly dangerous.
Margaret Hoover:
So you just introduced a new term into this conversation, anti racism. And your next book is entitled, Woke Racism: How a New Religion has Betrayed Black America. Explain what is the relationship between anti racism and critical race theory?
John McWhorter:
Well, anti racism as a fashionable word these days, but what it means in practice, you know, who knows what its definition in the dictionary is, but what it means in practice is that if there is some kind of imbalance between white and black people, the reason is something called racism, either bigotry, or some raw deal that black people have been done as the result of it and probably a mixture of the two. And that therefore, what we're going to do is we're going to battle that racism. That's what anti racism means in our current context. And the problem with it is that, often, what we're seeing as, quote unquote, racist isn't. So the common idea that you get nowadays, black kids tend not to do as well on standardized tests. Well, instead of saying, "How do we get black kids to do better on them?" which is something that has happened in the past, the new idea is that you say, "Let's just get rid of the test, because the test must be racist." You don't have to specify how, but if the black kids don't do as well on it, the test is a racist practice. That's a real leap. That is a hyper-radical way of looking at things that I think most people presented with the mechanics of the argument would think of as rather cruel, frankly, to black kids. That's not the way to run a society., most of us would think. Some people might be able to make a case for it, but most of us wouldn't agree with that. But instead, we're being taught that if you're not an antiracist, you're bad. And we're gonna embarrass you on Twitter. And as a result, many people end up pretending to agree with ideas like this.
Margaret Hoover:
There are local school board meetings across the country, getting national attention with parents using the word indoctrination about anti racism curriculum. You say that you've been contacted by parents and teachers and principals from all over the country on a daily basis? What are people who reach out to you telling you
John McWhorter
Well, people who reach out to me are telling me is that they are extremely disappointed and are angry that this is suddenly happening in their school. And the regular theme is that they understand what racism is, but they don't want their kids being taught what to think as opposed to how to think. And then also, they're scared. They are so deeply afraid of being tarred as racists in public. And these people just they want their children to be taught not that there's no racism. They don't want their children to be taught Beaver Cleaver as America, but they don't want want their children to be going to antiracist academies. The idea that that represents progress that nobody should stand athwart is one of the most sclerotic ideas I had ever seen becoming mainstream in my entire existence.
I agree with Colin Wright here. I often agree with AOC, but not here. If fewer people on the left actually took more time to get to know the opinions of people on the right (instead of mocking them at a distance for being reincarnations of Hitler), we could have better conversations about HOW to teach our children about racism in our schools.
As I've opined many times, it is a terrible approach to "teaching" to divide 8-year olds into "colors," telling the "white" ones that they and their families are irredeemable oppressors while telling the "black" children that they forever destined to be victims. This deplorable approach has been documented by many dozens of first-party/whistle-blower accounts and leaked teaching materials. Whether you want to call it CRT or neo-CRT or something else, I consider this approach (which also proudly goes under the name of "anti-racism") child abuse. If you doubt that this divisive approach is being taught in many schools, check out these materials and good luck finding any "anti-racists" teachers who extol the teachings of Martin Luther King in the year 2021.
I know dozens of people who, for decades, have made it their daily habit to listen to NPR as their main source of information. Lately, I've heard from a couple of these people that NPR has changed. According to Matt Taibbi, the problem is bigger than the fact that NPR can't see the plank in its own eye. Taibbi's recent article is titled "NPR's Brilliant Self-OwnNational Public Radio complains about a media figure who tells people "what their opinions should be" and uses political "buzzwords." Here is an excerpt.
Yesterday’s NPR article, “Outrage As A Business Model: How Ben Shapiro Is Using Facebook To Build An Empire,” is among the more unintentionally funny efforts at media criticism in recent times.
The piece is about Ben Shapiro, but one doesn’t have to have ever followed Shapiro, or even once read the Daily Wire, to get the joke. The essence of NPR’s complaint is that a conservative media figure not only “has more followers than The Washington Post” but outperforms mainstream outlets in the digital arena, a fact that, “experts worry,” may be “furthering polarization” in America. NPR refers to polarizing media as if they’re making an anthropological discovery of a new and alien phenomenon.
The piece goes on to note that “other conservative outlets such as The Blaze, Breitbart News and The Western Journal” that “publish aggregated and opinion content” have also “generally been more successful… than legacy news outlets over the past year, according to NPR's analysis.” In other words, they’re doing better than us.
Is the complaint that Shapiro peddles misinformation? No: “The articles The Daily Wire publishes don't normally include falsehoods.” Are they worried about the stoking of Trumpism, or belief that the 2020 election was stolen? No, because Shapiro “publicly denounced the alt-right and other people in Trump's orbit,” as well as “the conspiracy theory that Trump is the rightful winner of the 2020 election.” Are they mad that the site is opinion disguised as news? No, because, “publicly the site does not purport to be a traditional news source.”
The main complaint, instead, is that:
By only covering specific stories that bolster the conservative agenda (such as… polarizing ones about race and sexuality issues)… readers still come away from The Daily Wire's content with the impression that Republican politicians can do little wrong and cancel culture is among the nation's greatest threats.
NPR has not run a piece critical of Democrats since Christ was a boy. Moreover, much like the New York Times editorial page (but somehow worse), the public news leader’s monomaniacal focus on “race and sexuality issues” has become an industry in-joke. For at least a year especially, listening to NPR has been like being pinned in wrestling beyond the three-count. Everything is about race or gender, and you can’t make it stop. . . .
Taibbi then lists a few of NPR's recent reports:
“Billie Eilish Says She Is Sorry After TikTok Video Shows Her Mouthing A Racist Slur.” Pop star caught on tape using the word “chink” when she was “13 or 14 years old” triggers international outrage and expenditure of U.S. national media funding.
“Black TikTok Creators Are On Strike To Protest A Lack Of Credit For Their Work.” White TikTok users dance to Nicky Minaj lyrics like, “I'm a f****** Black Barbie. Pretty face, perfect body,” kicking off “a debate about cultural appropriation on the app.”
“Geocaching While Black: Outdoor Pastime Reveals Racism And Bias.” Area man who plays GPS-based treasure hunt game requiring forays into remote places and private property describes “horrifying” experience of people asking what he’s doing.
“Broadway Is Reopening This Fall, And Every New Play Is By A Black Writer.” All seven new plays being written by black writers is “a step toward progress,” but critics “will be watching Broadway's next moves” to make sure “momentum” continues.
“She Struggled To Reclaim Her Indigenous Name. She Hopes Others Have It Easier.” It took Cold Lake First Nations member Danita Bilozaze nine whole months to change her name to reflect her Indigenous identity.
“Tom Hanks Is A Non-Racist. It's Time For Him To Be Anti-Racist.” Tom Hanks pushing for more widespread teaching of the Tulsa massacre doesn’t change the fact that he’s built a career playing “white men ‘doing the right thing,’” NPR complains.