https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

Here you go. It is beyond ridiculous that you should ask that question in a video game forum, especially when there is a video about CRT embedded in the topic, and google is a thing that exists if you do not think John Oliver is a good source. But there's your lesson, so unless you're a troll, there should be no further need for this ridiculous questioning. If you have any criticisms, you can direct them to Janel George and the American Bar Association. For further reading, I suggest the works of Kimberle Crenshaw and the critiques thereof.

"Here you go."

>I thank you for this resource but I was looking to get Torillian's take on it. I was seeking his perspective...

"It is beyond ridiculous that you should ask that question in a video game forum"

>this thread is about politics though...

"especially when there is a video about CRT embedded in the topic, and google is a thing that exists if you do not think John Oliver is a good source. But there's your lesson, so unless you're a troll, there should be no further need for this ridiculous questioning. If you have any criticisms, you can direct them to Janel George and the American Bar Association. For further reading, I suggest the works of Kimberle Crenshaw and the critiques thereof."

>If Torillian is uncomfortable with my questions, all he has to do is tell me so and I will thank him for his time.

That's sort of right. Too much to explain in a post, but a hypothetical can help with the essence.

In the law there is a thing called class action lawsuits, where a lawsuit is filed on the behalf of a large group. Suppose you're dealing with a lawsuit about discrimination against black employees. The class representative, is a black man or a group of black men, and the litigation will be largely based on the facts of his, or their, case. Bear in mind, generally a case can only be brought once if it's the same underlying conduct, and those who are not party to the case may still be held to the results under a doctrine called res judicata.

So, in this case, are the interests of a black woman represented adequately? Is the discrimination a black man faces going to be the same as a black woman? If black woman and black men (and potentially other groups) experience discrimination differently, and therefore have different goals in litigation, does this system pit them against each other, and disincentivize them from working together? And for that matter, how will the case impact latino men, women, trans people, or whatever other group may be impacted by the decision? I'm not going to answer that, and I could not, but that's a question that kind of gets at the big picture of it based on my limited exposure in law school. The legal system, intentionally or otherwise, is set up in a way that may pit minority groups against eachother. I would not say it is strictly based on the legal system, because it also arguably is reflected in politics and in life generally.

Should add that as a teacher in NYC up to about three years ago, never heard a bit about this at the elementary school level either in my Master's coursework or as an actual teacher. Nor was I ever asked to address racial issues in any meaningful way beyond "Golly wasn't it great of Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus."

He already told you three times that he didn't feel capable of explaining it. I gave you a source from experts, and the name of one of the scholars of the movement, and you're not interested. So, if you're not interested in CRT at all, yet are repeatedly questioning one particular person who has told you not once, not twice, but thrice that they cannot explain it, then the only thing I could call that behavior is trolling. Since, he's already told you he doesn't feel qualified, and I also have no desire to engage, you can just thank him for his time and move on.

"and you're not interested"

>I don't recall saying I wasn't interested. I just read through it and would ask you about it but you said you "have no desire to engage" hence I'm not going to bother...

I will be very blunt.  It appears you are trolling and I am usually pretty lenient on such things.

I'm not trolling but if one thinks I am trolling, all they have to do is ignore me. That's it.

It's intentionally broad and I wouldn't say it's meaningless. The response could be illuminating and allow me a look into Torillian's core beliefs and mindset... It's like asking someone what they think of pets: their response could be very informative. It all depends on the response: one might respond with "pets are immoral" or "dogs rule, cats drool", both very informative responses.

Perhaps Torillian was about to refer to something in https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

"race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality."

We could discuss this CRT tenet thereafter.

First you did not ask a broad question, you specifically asked if Torillian could give you a lesson in CRT.  Context is king here and Torillian gave you a reply that this is not his subject.  You continued to press the issue with the same line of questioning which gives the appearance of trolling.  Its up to you to clarify your position so I would suggest you do so.

Last but not least, asking someone to give you a lesson on something without clear direction on what you seek does not go well over text.  I suggest that you give clear direction to what you are looking for to make it easier on everyone what you are looking to accomplish.

As for trolling, its not up to Torillian to ignore it, its up to us to decided if we will allow it.

I clarified what I was seeking in an earlier post:

I love that the critics of CRT don't actually know what it is/does. Just another delicious layer of hilarity that comes from certain political groups.

CRT is the school of thought that says we need to be aware of our racial history and how it impacts the current cultural landscape. If you default to assuming "CRT is making white kids hate their country", maybe you need to reflect on the history of your country. If thinking critically made them realize that the nation they live in isn't perfect and has flaws, then maybe that says more about the accurate reflection of history vs your rose tinted glasses than it does about scholars and educators.

Seriously, if critical thinking reveals imperfections in history, and you personally think that's somehow offensive, then you are not on the right side of history. IT's just that simple. If you're the type of person who defaults to 'CRT makes kids hate themselves' and 'Teaching CRT is anti-patriotic' without actually factoring in any of the scholarly work that goes towards those conclusions or are incapable of self-reflecting enough to think that maybe there's something poignant there...well, I just don't even know what to say to you or your kind anymore.

You're outright admitting that you've got a perspective borne of revisionist history and that anything critical of that perception is seen as a threat. that's not the mindset of someone who is right about stuff. People who are correct generally don't act that way.