The most ridiculous apologetics for Critical Race Theory (CRT) I've seen:
This isn’t hard : WhitePeopleTwitter
"I'm going to see if I can explain it a different way:
Imagine a guy who hates disabled people builds a hotel, so he bans all disabled people, and builds it in such a way as to specifically make access difficult for them. Years later he sells the hotel to a new owner who has no problem with disabled people. So you have a hotel where the owner has no problem with the disabled, and neither do any of the staff... however due to the actions of the previous owner, the hotel is still built in such a way that it doesn't accommodate them (no disabled parking, no ramps, no extra considerations, etc.) So although the people currently running it are not actively discriminating, they are operating a system designed to discriminate, and need to fix it even if they aren't to blame for it.
It's the same with racism. The discriminatory practices of the past still have ramifications today, and even if we aren't to blame for them we must recognize them."
(while the reddit thread was about systemic racism, I saw at least 2 shares of a screenshot on Facebook calling it "Critical Race Theory for kindergartners")
Amusingly, there're some people in the thread who point out that this is comparing black people to disabled people.
But anyway, even Vox admits that CRT is against colorblindness, objectivity, and neutrality.
If you don't want to believe Vox, believe Crossroads, Directions and A New Critical Race Theory, where "thirty-one CRT scholars present their views on the ideas and methods of CRT, its role in academia and in the culture at large, and its past, present, and future", which states that:
"Critical race theorists assert that both the procedures and the substance of American law are structured to maintain white privilege. The neutrality and objectivity of the law are not just unattainable ideals; they are harmful actions that obscure the law's role in protecting white supremacy."
So in reality,
Imagine a guy 100 years ago who hated disabled people built a hotel, so he banned all disabled people, and built it in such a way as to specifically make access difficult for them.
Years later, his son who had no problem with disabled people retrofitted the hotel to remove the barriers.
Then, the son of the original guy sold it to someone else who retrofitted it again to make it even easier for disabled people.
So you have a hotel where the owner has no problem with the disabled, and neither do any of the staff... however due to the actions of the original owner (and lots of bad publicity over what happened 100 years ago, much of it pretending that things are equally bad today), people still think the hotel is built in such a way that it doesn't accommodate them.
And people claim that because a person in a wheelchair wheeling himself up a ramp gets more tired and takes longer than an able-bodied person who can go up a few steps, this means the hotel doesn't accommodate disabled people.
So although the hotel accommodates disabled people, disabled activists are still trying to get more concessions (as well as for the current hotel owner to buy them off with pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation.
It's the same with racism. The discriminatory practices of the past are still invoked for political benefit today, and even if there is nothing wrong we are still told that there is.
