Michelle Goldberg’s False Claim that Opponents of Critical Race Theory are Refusing to Debate

At the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg dishonestly proclaims the following:

But the right, for all its chest-beating about the value of entertaining dangerous notions, is rarely interested in debating the tenets of critical race theory. It wants to eradicate them from public institutions. “

Fallacy Number One occurs in Goldberg's first three words. Goldberg knows full well CRT's critics include a large diverse group of people that includes conservatives and moderates, but that is not all. Opponents of CRT also include enormous numbers of people who consider themselves to be liberal on numerous issues. These many liberals fiercely oppose the CRT centerpiece: "fighting racism" by simplistically classifying people by color.  Goldberg and her favorite type of social justice warriors seem not to understand basic psychology and U.S. history. Classifying people by color is so incredibly off-the-mark, inefficient, hurtful and nationally dysfunctional that the U.S. fought an entire Civil War to end it, enacted a comprehensive set of civil rights laws to prosecute it and designated a National Holiday in honor of Martin Luther King in order to move forward with functional and kind-hearted ways to judge each other: by evaluating each others' content of character. The idea of moving past skin color as a way to judge each other was originally a liberal idea and this are now embraced by people across the entire political spectrum.

Fallacy Number Two. Goldbert states that "the right . . . is rarely interested in debating the tenets of critical race theory," citing to Christopher Rufo's statement: "“Critical race theory is a grave threat to the American way of life.”  Goldberg's claim is that critics of Critical Race Theory refuse to debate this issue. She makes this claim despite the fact that Rufo has been vigorously debating CRT on Twitter for the past year.  Further,

Rufo has also presented his views in the Wall Street Journal.  But perhaps Goldberg was referring to another prominent critic of Critical Race Theory, Glenn Loury? If so,

A longer version of Loury's statement is here:

And is Goldberg consciously ignoring this invitation by Coleman Hughes to debate Ibram X. Kendi? 

Or is Michelle Goldberg forgetting another (liberal) critic of CRT, John McWhorter who has shown that Ibram Kendi is incapable of honestly acknowledging McWhorter's precisely articulated critiques of Critical Race Theory?

If this is the kind of debate Goldberg seeks, bring on John McWhorter v. Ibram Kendi!

Goldberg is making her claim about the supposed refusal to debate while CRT's other rock star, Robin DiAngelo is busy grabbing exorbitant speaking fees for private events only.  DiAngelo has avoided any and all debates regarding her defective and destructive ideas.  In 2019, her speaking fees were $10,000-15,000.  And see here. How do I know that she has refused to debate her ideas in a public forum?  I invite you to run the following Google search: "robin diangelo debate."  You will not find any evidence that DiAngelo has ever subjected her ideas to public real-time scrutiny.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMichelle Goldberg’s False Claim that Opponents of Critical Race Theory are Refusing to Debate

Perseverance Mars Landing: Here is a Front Row Seat for You

The Perseverance Mars Landing was such an incredible feel good moment. Now we have access to several camera angles so we can see how it really looked. It's so good to be reminded that there are so many intelligent highly focused scientists and engineers out there who can inspire us with their painstaking work.

Continue ReadingPerseverance Mars Landing: Here is a Front Row Seat for You

The Lancet Goes Full Woke in its Claim that Asian-Americans are Unfairly Succeeding in Medical Schools and in the Health Care Field

The medical journal Lancet is an unrepentant convert to Wokeness, as recently pointed out by James Lindsay on Twitter:

In this January 2020 article, “Race as a Dynamic State: Triangulation in Health Care,” The Lancet has turned its Woke-powered spotlight toward “Asian-Americans.” According to this article, in a prestigious medical journal, all “Asians” are the same. Therefore, we can put all of them under one group heading and treat all of them inter-changeably, regardless of their country of origin, and regardless of how hard each “Asian-American” individual has studied in order to be successful in the health care field. And that is merely the first of the many shocking assertions of this article.

This Lancet article scolds “Asian-Americans” for their “privilege,” as if they unfairly achieved excellence merely by being born “Asian.” This article swipes at Asian American are racist in the most basic sense; it judges the characteristics, history and achievement of individuals by irrelevant immutable characteristics. Unfortunately, this sordid tactic passes as “social justice” in ever-increasing numbers of institutions, most notably in our sense-making institutions such as universities and in the conference rooms at publishers such as Lancet. I prefer to call this increasingly popular tactic “neo-racism” because it is the modern heavily-jargoned repackaging of good old-fashioned racism. It's the same despicable idea over which we fought a bloody Civil War. In the year 2021, then, Lancet is proudly promoting a completely discredited destructive approach for interacting with one another.

This Lancet article is preaching, not teaching. No open-minded person could have written this Lancet article. Tt presents a long string of obviously wrong-headed and highly controversial concepts as gospel, evidence-free. These issues raised by this article would have been discussed by any good-faith consideration of this topic of “racial” disparities in the healthcare field. Instead, the authors of this Lancet article intentionally avoided these many issues.

Back at Twitter, commenters had no problem spotting these many glaring problems instantly. I have selected and pasted in some of these comments below. The following comments below allow us to use the above Lancet article as a Wokeness case study:

According to this, Asians attending medical schools, are the "wrong" kind of diversity...

This is so incredibly racist. How does anyone stand for this degradation?

What happened? I thought we were NOT supposed to pick people . . . based on their color.. now that’s the top consideration!

This is their way of minimizing the data that shows Asian achievement being better than white people because they know that collapses their unifying white supremacy equation.

Essentially, they are telling them to recognize they are a “privileged” minority class because it makes other minorities (i.e. blacks) look bad... They mean because it destroys their narrative!!!

The tone and lack of self-awareness on part of writers is what shocks me, even more than the twisted content. They are simply telling people what to do. Extraordinarily patronising and controlling.

Didn't they put Asians in the "white" category recently? All to perpetuate their systematic racism myth.

“And what shall we do when we run out of enemies to destroy?” “Simple, we shall make more”

Yeah, but how did they become privileged? Was it magic?

Attacking the competent has always been a hallmark of Marxism. They won't stop until the starving are attacking the almost-starving.

I like the sentence just after your highlight. "They can consider what it feels like to be the non-model minority" So they are a minority, but a non-model one! "They can refuse to be used in statistics that flaunt “diversity” gains" Oh my... The best science for better lives. WTF!

“Model minority” Asians are a “model minority” and therefore outside of CRT models and therefore part of the problem bc they don’t fit the narrative of overcoming obstacles of oppression. Jews also defy CRT- as if their oppression doesn’t count.

Just wait until they start turning against Nigerian immigrants who are among the hardest working out there...

So “model minority” is a myth but “non-model minority” is not?

Mind you, this is entirely within the western world and not actually in Asia, for the most part. It's so unbelievably stupid.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Lancet Goes Full Woke in its Claim that Asian-Americans are Unfairly Succeeding in Medical Schools and in the Health Care Field

The NYT and the White House have Moved on From “Women’s Issues.”

Biologist Heather Heying rightfully asks why NYT authors Alisha Haridasani Gupta and Emma Goldberg would suggest that "women's issues" should get an eyeroll. Heying also succinctly answers her own question. Every day is a good day for worship in the religion of the Woke. And, as indicated in the article, "The Gender Policy Council, while based in the White House, will have high-level representation in all offices."

Continue ReadingThe NYT and the White House have Moved on From “Women’s Issues.”