Critical Comfort Zone Theory

Time for a view from "the right".

Start with its namesake.

What is CRT?

The first result I didn't have to click on said:

Critical race theory (CRT) is a cross-disciplinary examination – by social and civil-rights scholars and activists – of how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity.

Thats all you need too. It's a fallacy. No other way around it. They are "on to something" but it really has nothing to do AT ALL WITH RACE AND ETHNICITY at its root. That's a manifestation of it.

And what that is:

People tend to prefer ONLY what is like them in the most critical way. The most critical way being a transitive difference that can relate to many things, which can include race. The root of all this "predjudice" is a comfort zone of sameness. The type of people they don't prefer will always get put in a pejorative sense. Certain times in history that sameness was race related. Particularly after world travel, and race intermingling became a thing. The tendency was already there, it just latched on to a new difference.

All you need to illustrate this is by trying to find the following type of person.

Find an LGBT identifying socially conscious activist with conservative friends. Or that wouldnt stereotype a good ol boy in a truck disparagingly. It's VERY rare.

At it's root that person's scoffing at conservative friends is no different (chemically or otherwise) from how a white man in the 1930's would scoff at befriending a 'negro'. Only for the rare few.

Same type of comfort zone and need for sameness.

And the liberal activists failed to transcend their human (animal) tendencies here. They became another manifestation of seeking a comfort zone of sameness. You can claim diversity until the moon flies away from the earth, but it's still a shared preference and need for like minds.

And that's what critical comfort zone theory rewrites CRT as:

Critical comfort zone theory (CCZT) is a cross-disciplinary examination – by ME – of how laws, social and political movements, media, and social conceptions of race and ethnicity are shaped and fed by people's need for everything to be like them, even when claiming inclusiveness and diversity.

No one's really transcended anything as much as they redefined something and called it transcendental.

Could you really expect anything less from social animals trying to thrive?

a reply to: Degradation33

Ummm...


So you have never heard of the "Log Cabin Republicans" ?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Okay, maybe rare instead of very rare.

This speaks more to the general part of it all. There's always a Jim Kolbe in there (Arizona reference), but for the most part you will find the same prejudice on the left to the same extent they claim it on the right. Which is what I was getting at. It speaks to LGBT political activists being overwhelmingly left leaning and tending not want to even associate with conservatives.

That just bugs me, for a reason I haven't quite figured out. Doesn't matter which side either. My animal need for sameness probably.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Degradation33

Ummm...


So you have never heard of the "Log Cabin Republicans" ?

All this time I thought you were a progressive. So you are a Log Cabin Republican now?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Log Cabin Republicans are not exactly socially conscious activists though. Aside from being gay, they trend more toward being conservative than they do toward being "socially conscious activists" which is a nice word salad for left-leaning liberal.

a reply to: Degradation33

I feel perhaps you're being too forgiving to the insidious intent of CRT proponents.

Yes, at a cursory glance it's a theory that discusses how racism has shaped modern societal institutions.

But let's be real. It's function is a device to demoralize and villainize white people.

It takes an immutable quality ( race ) and prioritizes it above your values and behavior. It insists that people's standing in society is essentially tied to their race regardless of their words, actions, accomplishments, etc.

It's a dead end. Why? Let's look at scenario:

Let's say you're white. Let's say you own a hardware shop. A black man and a white man enter at the same time. Who do you help first? If you help the black man first, CRT would say that you're doing that because you're afraid he's going to steal something. That's racist. If you help the white man first, CRT would say it's because you feel blacks are second class citizens.

So is it a matter of a comfort zone? Sure. But only if you're a "historically disenfranchised minority". And only in the sense of finding comfort in being considered an eternal victim with no incentive to ever better yourself.

Pretty slick way to undermine and divide a society eh?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

See, I would think the white guy would help the black guy first as to not appear racist if anything. If they assert otherwise they are trying to put folk in a catch-22 for the already present guilt. That qualifies as insidious.

And I gotta still defend what I posted:

I qualify that as a manifestation of CCZT. They (vocal CRT proponents) need to feel like they have made as many people believe that white people institutionalized prejudice as possible. They prefer that environment where their beliefs are validated, and people think and act like them.

And, as in the case of CRT proponents, will demonize their detractors unfairly. And would likely demonize me for referring to them as a "they".

Just never point out to them that Irish and Italians (Catholics) went through decades of crap too, just not as bad or as long. Integrated more quickly by creating thriving seperate communities to maintain their own comfort zones. Or the 'Orientals' what built the railroads. If Chinese people were our (White people's) plantation slaves it would be no different.

Humorously, What if American whites shipped a race of tall indigenous white people from a continent called Hyperborea to work for them? Ones that acted very different, and started doing it in the 1600's? Likely be the same.

The most glaring differences to a person will always apply. Racism isn't gone, it just shifted to I-am-a-better-human-than-you-ism in today's world.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Re: Your hardware store scenario.

CRT has nothing to due with who you, as a white person would serve first.


CRT has to do with the fact that you, as a white person, were more likely to have been approved for a business loan that allowed you to open a hardware store than your black customer.


And to answer your question; Whichever one asks for my help first.

Let them decide between them.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

CRT has to do with the fact that you, as a white person, were more likely to have been approved for a business loan that allowed you to open a hardware store than your black customer.

Here's the problem with that claim. It's as shallow as a legacy media headline.

It's easy to say that white people statistically get approved for business loans at a higher rate than black people.....if you completely disregard standard ( and logical ) lending criteria.

If a black man with a credit score of 400 gets denied for a loan and a white man with a credit score of 800 gets approved, does that change the situation?

"But the black man has such a low credit score because of socioeconomic factors!!"

This is why I said it's a dead end, insidious theory. There will always be an excuse. And the excuse will always be race. It will never be based upon an individual's merits.

a reply to: Degradation33

I think you have it De. In general of course. Sure, there are exceptions, many exceptions,but in general, this has been part of our human story, we've just missed it do to being sunk in it as our emotions and fears and sense of self have been identified by this limiting capacity.

Have you ever studied music overlaid with this template? My father loved music, was a singer with great appreciation for swing and crooning of his generation. And cultural standing. He raised me as a musician and was mystified that I liked do-wop and Elvis and such, maybe fifteen to twenty years after the music he loved so much was popular. This mystified me too, because I loved the music he had had me listen to, the swing and stuff, but I was of another generation.

In studying music history in high school I found that those music lovers of a generation before my parents had suffered the same limiting malady about my fathers music.

Years later at my work, I worked with mostly people who were ten to fifteen years younger than myself and I found that their musical appreciation was limited to the music of their teens and early twenties. This, in general, I think has not changed.

Also, ever notice how, in general rockers to not care for country? How blue-grass lovers don't care for Heavy Metal? How Classical lovers hate rap? All this is of course generalizations but if you consider it, you can find that it fits pretty smoothly with the template you put forth.

And don't get me started on comedy or type of movies people like and don't like.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Comfort zone theory makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Seemingly something that affects every aspect of human reality from how we interact, to the food we eat and... Music!

I wouldn't have quite put together the thoughts in a way that's presented in this thread, music is a great example of "comfort zone theory" and it's something I've noticed over the years. I'm a bit of a weirdo who's accessed other generations of music and style and I suspect it's down to dance music of the 90s that did a whole lot of remixing and blending of old songs and styles of music... Access points?

I guess time is another angle to applying this theory to music. Sure we can listen to other styles and immerse ourselves into the history etc but the individual can only truly be a part of "the wave" by actually living it. The same would apply for movies too, films like the Carry On franchise lose their magic over time. A teenager these days might find those movies funny but to find them hilarious they'd need to understand the culture and history of British generations before.

Cheers OP! I've danced around this theory of yours for a while and would never have coined it in such a way.

a reply to: Degradation33

One of the biggest problems with CRT is the attempt to assign one cause or reason for a situation. It's almost never that simple. And I would say the same about your CCT. Sure, there are probably some people who want the "comfort" of sameness. For others, familiarity breeds contempt.

Greed might be another reason for wanting "sameness". Limit your competition/responsibilities, and more for you.

There's also ego. The whole "of course MY people are the best people" mentality.

And fear. Some people are afraid of their own shadow. Such people would be afraid of their own people for various reasons as well -- just stuck with them.

In these united states, where the individual is king, there's no place for this kind of thinking. Our "sameness" is our nation, our communities, our freedoms, and so on.

Not the petty and superficial labels we can slap on people.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

CRT has to do with the fact that you, as a white person, were more likely to have been approved for a business loan that allowed you to open a hardware store than your black customer.

Got to see your numbers on that.
Applications and accepted/rejected percentages , not just accepted number by race.
No , that is not needed by me , that would be an education for you .

a reply to: Gothmog

The problem with CRT and its academic cousins is that it's superficial at best.

If women are roughly 50% of the population, then they should be 50% of every demographic slice or else they're being oppressed by men. It is the most superficial of reasoning and leaves out that women and girls are thinking, intelligent beings that have their own preferences for various reasons.

a reply to: Boadicea

Point taken. I realized these are gross generalizations. There are many other reasons and exceptions.

I looked at most social change in American History specifically, and it just seems all movements revolve around one groups discomfort with status quo and another groups discomfort with abandoning the status quo.

This, in a overly generalized way, is at the root of "The Most Critical Difference" that divides current society. People are judged more by beliefs than outward differences. And in the most general way:

• Liberals have discomfort with Christianized status quo
• Conservatives have discomfort with abandoning the Christianized status quo

I just find it ironic that something that uses "celebrating differences" at the base of its ethos is trying to make everyone share a like mind on "celebrating differences".

And, as with anything, there's also a healthy percentage of iconoclasts to go against the grain.

a reply to: Degradation33

Point taken. I realized these are gross generalizations. There are many other reasons and exceptions.

Fair enough.

fgI looked at most social change in American History specifically and it just seems all movement revolve around one groups discomfort with status quo and another groups discomfort with abandoning the status quo.

I see what you're saying, and you're not wrong. But I think there's more to it -- especially these days.

Much of the social change we've seen in the USA was because of unfair and unjust standards and laws, which needed to change. Such as laws that denied Blacks or women the right to vote or own property or attend college/university. In those instances, those who have to give up their power or entitlement don't like it.

Other times, one group or another is demanding "rights" and privileges that harm others one way or another, and of course those at risk don't like it.

It seems these days that the latter is the biggest problem, and all the talk about minority and majority rule just reinforces the idea that some can impose their will on others -- as long as the numbers are "correct".

It seems that no one (very few at least) actually want to find solutions that gives everyone the greatest opportunity to do and be exactly who they want... as long as they don't hurt anyone. Everyone wants to pick sides, which means picking winners and losers.

a reply to: Degradation33
Diddling with children's private parts while still in early stages of maturity does inexplicable things to their malleable minds. Different magnitudes of trauma without very addressing the monsters allowing the prevailing mind-fu**ing
Teach them to hate everyone that would come to their rescue if had only *known.

a reply to: Boadicea

Some yes, but to me it seems that along the to removing legal barriers, grievance became lucrative for too many. To keep the gravy train coming, new injustice had to be found whether there were real barriers or not.

Now you have things like an after-school STEM class that was girl-exclusive, and when no girls signed up, they simply didn't have it rather than open it to boys.

My son would have LOVED it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Some yes, but to me it seems that along the to removing legal barriers, grievance became lucrative for too many. To keep the gravy train coming, new injustice had to be found whether there were real barriers or not.

That would fall under those demanding "rights" and privileges they are not entitled to, and while a STEM class for girls doesn't directly harm anyone else, it certainly uses up school resources that could be spent for all students, and it could also be argued that a girl-exclusive class harms boys by giving girls an unfair step-up they don't receive. (I do believe Feminists also used that argument/principle when it suited them).

It's a clear case of picking winners (girls) and losers (boys).

If coed education is such a problem, then it seems to me we need to look at more comprehensive reforms than simply offering a class for girls and excluding boys.