How about doing one on environmental jurisprudence! To provide some insights into the myriad of environmental challenges the global community is grappling with and the role of law in this.
Hello there, Did you remove your videos on Natural and Positive Law? I had used these as resources in a high school Law class I teach and have noticed the links lead to nowhere now?
Cheers for the pleasant distillation :> Some comments here are disconcerting, leaning on anecdotes from Academia rather than the wholostic body of application in better understanding history and law throughout.
If you want to cite the video itself? The best thing to do is search how to cite videos using the OSCOLA referencing system. But if you want to cite some of the sources that I personally used for the research, those references are in the description!
"More important, as critical race theorists we adopt a stance that PRESUMES that racism has contributed to ALL contemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage along RACIAL lines, including differences in income, imprisonment,health, housing, education, political representation, and military service. Our history calls for this PRESUMPTION." "Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment" by Matsuda, Lawrence III, Delgado, and KIMBERLE' WILLIAMS CRENSHAW Those are their words from their intellectual papers: It is the entire foundation of the premise. CRT promotes the notion that the fact that a group is measurably superior is proof that everybody in that group is guilty; and, that a group being inferior is proof that everybody in that group is a victim. Further: this principle projects through time; asserting that what happened to the long dead projects onto the guilt or victimhood of the living; even if the living never experienced it at all........... CRT uses history and statistics to justify using government force to implement racial discrimination. CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other. Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race. All for the stated purpose of forcibly making the measurements between races identical. The operative question is whether you support using government force to implement racial discrimination. All the rest is academic. My answer is no.
Dude mentions critical race theory once and the comments blow up. Otherwise, great video on a somewhat disconnected theory, made it easy to put into a more practical perspective. Studying legal theory as a whole has made it difficult to enjoy such a succinct explanation but this was fantastic. Thanks
The culture war isn't really about the academic topic of critical race theory it's about the praxis of it as an ideology. A comparison would be teaching kids to practice religion and that all who question it are evil sinners who will go to hell, and injecting it into topics where it does not need to be. Example would be making every word problem in match to do with race/religion conditioning them for selective attention towards a confirmation bias thereafter.
That's not critical race theory though? That's just examining subjects through a racial lens, something that can be pretty important for some subjects.
@@thelawacademy1 I might've focused on the mention of it as an academic level course, usually college. The rhetoric about banning CRT is often conflated with the banning of it like a course. Examining something through a racial lens can be important but how it's done, when where and why is more of the debate. On the opposite side of the political spectrum someone might say it's important to stop sexual grooming in education. Most who advocate the CRT praxis in schools are against this notion to stop sexual grooming. Both causes to stop racism or sexual grooming sound like good causes yet most politically active people are in support of one and against the other. An easy answer is that maybe no social cause is as they seem at face value.
@@thelawacademy1 False, which is why JC Denton is also mistaken in terms of the literature/praxis divide. Please familiarize yourself with the actual CRT literature and the nefarious strategies they employ to deflect from legitimate criticisms. Some particularly serious concerns are (a) its hypocritical and self-serving essentialist (and anachronistic) conceptions (e.g., descriptive essentialism solely to advance overtly questionable, partisan political/normative aims); (b) the very credibility of standpoint epistemology/viewpoint privilege (let alone for its weaponization) ; and relatedly (c) its dubious views about empiricism and the scientific method. READ what they say about these issues. The idea that CRT is 'just about examining subjects through a racial lens' completely fails to understand HOW they've constructed that lens and WHY they made specific methodological moves. By the by, these deeply worrying concerns have NOTHING to do with left-right politics, with liberal-'progressive divisions in the USA, etc. Academic CRT is a totalitarian, religious discourse. If you try disagree with them, you are to be dismissed and destroyed, not rebutted - even if you're an African-American old-school socialist like Adolph Reed. THEN, go read about the non-academic CRT (or who style themselves as CRT, at any rate) such as Kendi, Diangelo, et al. They are more overtly totalitarian.
If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!
please make a vedio on lawfare
How about doing one on environmental jurisprudence! To provide some insights into the myriad of environmental challenges the global community is grappling with and the role of law in this.
I enjoy following this. It is insightful.
I notice you mentioned that you were doing research for a PhD - I'd love to know what your PhD is about and hear more about it!
Your channel is really to be followed. very good work 👋👋👋
Hello there,
Did you remove your videos on Natural and Positive Law? I had used these as resources in a high school Law class I teach and have noticed the links lead to nowhere now?
Hi, yes they have been.
But I'm in the process of remaking those lessons.
These will be out soon!
Hope this helps :)
Cheers for the pleasant distillation :>
Some comments here are disconcerting, leaning on anecdotes from Academia rather than the wholostic body of application in better understanding history and law throughout.
How can I cite this please? I mean if some kind of "reference" is provided, that would be great...👍😆
For instance, Michael says ..... In .....
If you want to cite the video itself? The best thing to do is search how to cite videos using the OSCOLA referencing system. But if you want to cite some of the sources that I personally used for the research, those references are in the description!
Any highlights on the criticisms of CTL
"More important, as critical race theorists we adopt a stance that PRESUMES that racism has contributed to ALL contemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage along RACIAL lines, including differences in income, imprisonment,health, housing, education, political representation, and military service. Our history calls for this PRESUMPTION."
"Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment"
by Matsuda, Lawrence III, Delgado, and KIMBERLE' WILLIAMS CRENSHAW
Those are their words from their intellectual papers: It is the entire foundation of the premise.
CRT promotes the notion that the fact that a group is measurably superior is proof that everybody in that group is guilty; and, that a group being inferior is proof that everybody in that group is a victim.
Further: this principle projects through time; asserting that what happened to the long dead projects onto the guilt or victimhood of the living; even if the living never experienced it at all...........
CRT uses history and statistics to justify using government force to implement racial discrimination.
CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other.
Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race.
All for the stated purpose of forcibly making the measurements between races identical.
The operative question is whether you support using government force to implement racial discrimination.
All the rest is academic.
My answer is no.
Hey just discovered you, great stuff
Awesome, thank you!
Dude mentions critical race theory once and the comments blow up.
Otherwise, great video on a somewhat disconnected theory, made it easy to put into a more practical perspective. Studying legal theory as a whole has made it difficult to enjoy such a succinct explanation but this was fantastic. Thanks
Imagine if I titled it Critical race theory??!
please make a podcast on lawfare
thnx
The culture war isn't really about the academic topic of critical race theory it's about the praxis of it as an ideology. A comparison would be teaching kids to practice religion and that all who question it are evil sinners who will go to hell, and injecting it into topics where it does not need to be. Example would be making every word problem in match to do with race/religion conditioning them for selective attention towards a confirmation bias thereafter.
That's not critical race theory though? That's just examining subjects through a racial lens, something that can be pretty important for some subjects.
@@thelawacademy1 I might've focused on the mention of it as an academic level course, usually college. The rhetoric about banning CRT is often conflated with the banning of it like a course. Examining something through a racial lens can be important but how it's done, when where and why is more of the debate. On the opposite side of the political spectrum someone might say it's important to stop sexual grooming in education. Most who advocate the CRT praxis in schools are against this notion to stop sexual grooming. Both causes to stop racism or sexual grooming sound like good causes yet most politically active people are in support of one and against the other. An easy answer is that maybe no social cause is as they seem at face value.
@@thelawacademy1 False, which is why JC Denton is also mistaken in terms of the literature/praxis divide. Please familiarize yourself with the actual CRT literature and the nefarious strategies they employ to deflect from legitimate criticisms. Some particularly serious concerns are (a) its hypocritical and self-serving essentialist (and anachronistic) conceptions (e.g., descriptive essentialism solely to advance overtly questionable, partisan political/normative aims); (b) the very credibility of standpoint epistemology/viewpoint privilege (let alone for its weaponization) ; and relatedly (c) its dubious views about empiricism and the scientific method. READ what they say about these issues.
The idea that CRT is 'just about examining subjects through a racial lens' completely fails to understand HOW they've constructed that lens and WHY they made specific methodological moves. By the by, these deeply worrying concerns have NOTHING to do with left-right politics, with liberal-'progressive divisions in the USA, etc.
Academic CRT is a totalitarian, religious discourse. If you try disagree with them, you are to be dismissed and destroyed, not rebutted - even if you're an African-American old-school socialist like Adolph Reed.
THEN, go read about the non-academic CRT (or who style themselves as CRT, at any rate) such as Kendi, Diangelo, et al. They are more overtly totalitarian.
Vert very educative