Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rurp 789 days ago
By focusing less on race and other identity issues, and working to remove racist policies across the board regardless of which group they benefit or harm. The 20th century saw immense improvements for almost all underserved groups, without any talking heads bickering about intersectionality or identity. Now that kind of coverage is everywhere and progress has stalled or even reversed in many areas.

My impression is that a huge portion of identity politics and coverage is more about picking fights where each side can feel smug and superior, rather than actually changing things for the better.
2 comments
xracy 788 days ago
How does one address racist policies without discussing race? That's a knot I can't tie myself into.
link
redserk 789 days ago
So this would be under the umbrella of "Critical Race Theory" which has been misrepresented and unjustly criticized as of late.
link
recursive 789 days ago
Maybe. Despite the number of times I've heard about CRT and how bad it is, and how good it is, I still don't have the foggiest idea what it is. One time, I tried to look it up on the internet. Signal to noise was so bad, I still don't know. I've written off the possibility of ever knowing what it is or understanding anyone who's talking about it.
link
redserk 788 days ago
As with any field, there's a number of detractors and charlatans. With CRT in the political spotlight, I completely understand how it becomes a mess to make heads-or-tails of.

Broadly speaking, it's the study of how law and media impacts society's view and treatment of others through the lens of race.

As for my opinion on it:

I generally support it because it advocates for another mechanism to study the impact of law.

I think most legislation should be regularly studied for impact, effectiveness, and fairness. For example, stimulus bills ought to be reviewed for economic impact, regulation ought to be reviewed for effectiveness/relevance, laws with social impact ought to be reviewed to ensure it doesn't harm the people.

A number of scholars seem to adopt a blameless mentality to figure out how laws (even unintentionally) have negative impact, and use that to propose solutions. I admire this approach to legislative critique.

While I think a few ideas some scholars advocate for are infeasible to implement, the broader field has a lot of merit.

link