Magnificent conversation in which I am agreed. As a black man, I will add to that, that I see standardized American culture as my culture, as well. Since it is composite, blacks helped construct it.
Excellent conversation. I loved the comments about communication in Singapore and the constant code switching between Singlish and the "Queen's English" -- Also really appreciated the discussion of the difference between ridiculing IDEAS versus ridiculing PEOPLE.
If you can't be wrong knowledge and logic can not make you surer of what you think, it can only raise doubts. This is true for all people on all subjects regardless of race or party. Those who can't be wrong can't honestly compromise.
Great discussion. All people come from a home dialect, so anyone who goes to school will be asked to learn standard forms of English. This can certainly be used to discriminate against students whose dialects are more different from standard forms than others, but the great majority of teachers don't do this anymore. Code switching is a way to honor the literacy skills of moving between dialects, which we all do all the time. So, learning to code switch, to move between dialects, is a much more complex and nuanced intellectual activity than sticking to your home dialect in every instance of written communication because you don't want to learn more diverse ways of using English.
Reminds me about how scientists in the 1600s spoke english, french, german, etc, but wrote in latin for scientific journals, and latin was this elite language that allowed scientists to cut across different local provincial languages.
Persuasiveness can be weaponized knowingly or unknowingly into manipulation. Which is a super power. How do we guard against abusing the skill or being aware when it's being used on us?
The white supremacy “characteristics” thing is one of the most heinous things I’ve ever seen. 90% of those values fit my wife to a T…and she’s black…and was raised in west Africa 😂🤦🏽♂️
Glad to see Dr. Smith "coming to Dr. Kendi's defense" (52:00) around the alleged circularity of how Kendi defines racism. One can surely disagree with Kendi in many areas, but Kendi DOES define racism quite non-circularly in his book How to Be an Antiracist. When I see folks (like Chen here) say that Kendi's definition is circular (the one he gave impromptu at a TED event), that clues me in to their not having read his book and probably wanting only to score cheap points. So, yeah, Kendi has a nasty habit of not engaging with critics. But his criics rarely engage honestly with him. Dr. Smith does, and he gets credit from me for that.
His definition - I do not thave the book handy - essentially comes down saying that racism is a policy or belief that produces or sustains (or justifies) unequal standing between racial groups.
If he can be faulted - and I think he can - it is not that he does not give a substantive definition of racism. It is that he overestimates how clearly his defnition leasd to the speciic policy conclusions - or even charges of racism - that he finds obvious. For instance, one can descrive 'affirmative action' in one of two ways. Kendi does not find it racist because the way he sees it, the policy seeks to remedy inequalities between racial groups. But the other side can argue that it keeps the groups unequal because we have sustained different levels of expectation for how we hire members of each group.
@@kevincurrie-knight3267 That would seem valid to me provided he include by what means. By any means? That would be absurd. I wish we would have a discussion about what constitutes a fair standard rather than the more superficial discussion about what constitutes a fair outcome, a discussion about how to fairly judge inputs rather than outputs. So long as an unequal outcome is the result of a fair standard I don't see an issue. The problem to me seems to arise where an unfair standard is at play. Nobody would suggest that the NBA needs to be more representative regarding outcomes because everybody acknowledges that a fair standard is being applied to all players. We need to have a serious discussion in which we can come to some sort of consensus on what constitutes standards that we can all accept as fair, good faith standards by which we are willing to be held. The means by which inequalities are manifest are everything in this discussion.
@@jeremyponcy7311 sadly we will never be able to have that discussion. Too many groups on many different pages and you add race hustlers in the mix and they literally are cutting short their career if they try to fix these issues .
Magnificent conversation in which I am agreed. As a black man, I will add to that, that I see standardized American culture as my culture, as well. Since it is composite, blacks helped construct it.
Great chat, all 3 of you are great!
Excellent conversation. I loved the comments about communication in Singapore and the constant code switching between Singlish and the "Queen's English" -- Also really appreciated the discussion of the difference between ridiculing IDEAS versus ridiculing PEOPLE.
"Rhetoric only makes sense when there's a possibility of being wrong." (48:15)
Yep.
If you can't be wrong knowledge and logic can not make you surer of what you think, it can only raise doubts. This is true for all people on all subjects regardless of race or party. Those who can't be wrong can't honestly compromise.
Yes which is why debates with the ‘woke’ really don’t work . It’s not about data s as of rationality but more blind faith
@@brianmeen2158 👍
@@brianmeen2158 it is also why they can't debate if they tried
Great discussion. All people come from a home dialect, so anyone who goes to school will be asked to learn standard forms of English. This can certainly be used to discriminate against students whose dialects are more different from standard forms than others, but the great majority of teachers don't do this anymore. Code switching is a way to honor the literacy skills of moving between dialects, which we all do all the time. So, learning to code switch, to move between dialects, is a much more complex and nuanced intellectual activity than sticking to your home dialect in every instance of written communication because you don't want to learn more diverse ways of using English.
Reminds me about how scientists in the 1600s spoke english, french, german, etc, but wrote in latin for scientific journals, and latin was this elite language that allowed scientists to cut across different local provincial languages.
Persuasiveness can be weaponized knowingly or unknowingly into manipulation. Which is a super power. How do we guard against abusing the skill or being aware when it's being used on us?
So glad I found Erec! I abhor collectivism!
The white supremacy “characteristics” thing is one of the most heinous things I’ve ever seen. 90% of those values fit my wife to a T…and she’s black…and was raised in west Africa 😂🤦🏽♂️
haha .. yes even Spanish and Portuguese would be the language of the oppressor through that lens!
Loved this conversation
Hold your identities lightly.
Glad to see Dr. Smith "coming to Dr. Kendi's defense" (52:00) around the alleged circularity of how Kendi defines racism. One can surely disagree with Kendi in many areas, but Kendi DOES define racism quite non-circularly in his book How to Be an Antiracist. When I see folks (like Chen here) say that Kendi's definition is circular (the one he gave impromptu at a TED event), that clues me in to their not having read his book and probably wanting only to score cheap points.
So, yeah, Kendi has a nasty habit of not engaging with critics. But his criics rarely engage honestly with him. Dr. Smith does, and he gets credit from me for that.
How does Kendi define racism in his book? I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
His definition - I do not thave the book handy - essentially comes down saying that racism is a policy or belief that produces or sustains (or justifies) unequal standing between racial groups.
If he can be faulted - and I think he can - it is not that he does not give a substantive definition of racism. It is that he overestimates how clearly his defnition leasd to the speciic policy conclusions - or even charges of racism - that he finds obvious.
For instance, one can descrive 'affirmative action' in one of two ways. Kendi does not find it racist because the way he sees it, the policy seeks to remedy inequalities between racial groups. But the other side can argue that it keeps the groups unequal because we have sustained different levels of expectation for how we hire members of each group.
@@kevincurrie-knight3267 That would seem valid to me provided he include by what means. By any means? That would be absurd. I wish we would have a discussion about what constitutes a fair standard rather than the more superficial discussion about what constitutes a fair outcome, a discussion about how to fairly judge inputs rather than outputs. So long as an unequal outcome is the result of a fair standard I don't see an issue. The problem to me seems to arise where an unfair standard is at play. Nobody would suggest that the NBA needs to be more representative regarding outcomes because everybody acknowledges that a fair standard is being applied to all players. We need to have a serious discussion in which we can come to some sort of consensus on what constitutes standards that we can all accept as fair, good faith standards by which we are willing to be held. The means by which inequalities are manifest are everything in this discussion.
@@jeremyponcy7311 sadly we will never be able to have that discussion. Too many groups on many different pages and you add race hustlers in the mix and they literally are cutting short their career if they try to fix these issues .
if you are crt.....done...I am white, cherokee,