CRT: Critical Race Theory as Bogeyman

[iceaura]

So you are saying that black people fail at higher rates than whites, the difference being wholly accounted for by racism.

No.
But keep trying - there are only seven different such misreadings (bollixed logical implication) available in that particular issue here, and iirc you have already run through all the false absolutes (the bs that involves your use of "all" and "wholly" and the like). Just take care to avoid repetition, and you're bound to get it right eventually.

That you think there's a difference, while being unable to define either, much less actually manage to contrast them,

I found your definitions and posted claims quite adequate for contrast, and amusingly more difficult for you to duck. I assumed you had read them, of course - was I wrong?

why don't you try telling me some CRT assumptions, and I'll tell you which are leftist and why.

It's like watching a worm on a hook.
The key assumption you whiffed on was the obvious one in the name Critical Race Theory: that race has been (and therefore still is - the past doesn't just evaporate) a critical factor in structuring American civilization. Your assumptions in that area include (for example) these, an incomplete list focused on some racial aspects of Partisan politics:
That racism is a significant aspect of the Democratic Party's political ideology now (structuring such all-encompassing features as "identity politics"), that racism no longer exists as the important feature it once was in American life, that white leftists and liberals and Democrats are racists whose systemic racism is injuring black Americans, that the Republican identified category "most black Americans" is significant in structuring Republican politics, that this significant and racially delimited group has been deceived in its belief in victimhood by Democratic Party harbored white racism, that Republican white people are falsely labeled as a self-identified racial group and therefore falsely identified as racists by CRT despite the nonexistence of such systemic grouping and racism, that Republican white people's explicitly asserted perception of themselves as a racially self-identified group slandered by CRT is accurate and justified, that the historical overtly racist nature of white racial organizations (such as the Klan) endorsing and supporting southern Democrats demonstrates the current racism of southern Democrats, that the current overtly racist nature of white racially organized groups (such as the famous Klan, etc - dozens of them) demonstrates nothing about the nature of the politicians and political Parties they currently endorse and support, and so forth.

You can substitute "true conservative" or "real American" for "Republican" if it makes you more comfortable.

You hold all of those opinions simultaneously, and argue from them all as assumptions at the same time.

I'm done guessing at what you might be arguing.

You aren't, of course. You'd have to reason from the evidence in my posts.
Also, there's your problem: I'm not arguing in this matter. I'm observing - posting descriptions and historical facts, noting your departures from logical implication and sense, etc. That's how you keep confusing "default assumption" and "null hypothesis" - you can't distinguish observation from argument.

Can you point to the actual racism in each case?

Again? Sure. Anyone even vaguely familiar with CRT can - that's what it's for. You've seen it: Remember North Carolina's recent suppression of the black vote?

I don't identify as anything "historically," as I've only lived in present time.

And they say you guys have no sense of irony.

You identify the Democratic Party as the Party of southern white racial bigots historically. You identify the Republican Party as the Party of white integrationists and foes of racism historically. You identify the Civil Rights movement as racist historically. You identify CRT as Marxist historically. You have been doing almost nothing here except identify things "historically" (or troll individual posters), and to put a cherry on it the history you've been using is almost entirely recent revisionist crap put out by the propaganda wing of the modern American fascist movement. (That's why your "history" fades out somewhere in the 1970s, with a few straggling irrelevancies up to the turn of the century. The Republican media operations don't want anyone looking too closely at American politics since 1980)

Almost all your identifications here have been historical. Look at the dates on your posted support - the very latest one, in the increasingly irrelevant list of increasingly sparse alleged supports for your identification of the Dem Party as American racism's harbor, was 2002. (In the present time it isn't, of course - the Confederate flag wavers and Klan members and Aryan Brotherhood pack members and so forth are Republican voters, 70 million strong, and they have been Republican voters in national elections for your entire adult life.)

Again, "help to cause" is not the same as "cause."

Once again (the inevitable lead comment in replying to your posts): Nobody said it was, and nobody except you has argued from that as an implication.
(Your most recent such argument, like all your posts a parroting of recent Republican Party propaganda, historical revision category: your attempt to sell LBJ's Great Society as "the contributing factor" in the erosion of the black nuclear family, thereby avoiding the implications of the Jim Crow refugee crisis, the fact that black men in America - as so often before acting as canaries in the pit of American civilization's progression, an insight from CRT - hit the engineered Republican capitalist wall a generation or two before white men bought into Reaganomics, and the rest of CRT's disturbances of white American psychological equilibrium -

note: "the" is from you, and defining "contributing factor" as "cause" is at your explicit and quoted insistence.)

The identity you insisted upon, and I agreed to go with, was that of "contributing factor" and "cause". It's not accurate enough for genuine discussion, but it's not one of your truly ridiculous complete opposites, and it does align with your attempts at thinking here more or less completely (replies employing it do address your various issues directly). So contributing factors are causes for the purposes of this and related threads, until you explicitly revoke your insistence and all arguments based on it.

Which you could begin immediately, baby steps, by agreeing with the following: LBJ's Great Society, as he and his fellow Democrats proposed it, was not the cause of the erosion (or the disproportionate erosion, if you intend serious discussion) of the black nuclear family in America during the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[iceaura]

So affirmative action in unions prevented the establishment of unions?

Not my claim.
Republican Party policies and ideology discouraged the establishment of unions in the industrializing South - just as they have since, and do today.
I did not address the clever details of Nixon's various panderings to the systematically racist Jim Crow States and their racially bigoted white voters - you are welcome to do so, on your own tic. Try consulting CRT - it's very helpful in such matters.

What, were unions so racist they simply would not form under those stipulations?

Not my claim.*
The role of various racist Republican Party manipulations of racially bigoted southern voters, the clever details of such initiatives and rhetoric, I did not address - you are welcome to do so, on your own tic. You will find CRT helpful, in that task.

That was the second consecutive question in which you attempted to change the subject from what your initial citations might have (with argument) supported to something you could present as relevant in replying to my post - from, say, policies directed at disrupting established northern unions to the effect of Republican Federal governance on the establishment of new and so far non-existent unions in the industrializing Southern US.

Or is it still just this vague specter of which no one can manage to catch a convincing photo? That is a rhetorical question, as I already know you have no evidence to offer.

You have just posted an overt denial of the North Carolina government's recent legislative suppression of the black vote. You describe it as a "vague specter" no one can photograph - certainly not something we could watch on TV, complete with interviews and talking heads and political speeches by its proponents and opponents.

Which it was. Exactly as CRT described, and predicted, and explained.

Like an atheist's view on God, I've yet to see any actual evidence to that effect. Might help to start by defining the boogeyman of "systemic racism" in some sort of tangible way, that could avail itself to actual evidence.

You yourself posted evidence of the concentration of black voters (who elect Democrats to represent them, given a choice) in the worst abused and almost irreparable inner cities, a famous consequence of racial redlining and racial gerrymandering and racially biased "law enforcement" and racist banking policies and racially biased public schooling and racially biased public health care and racially biased environmental maintenance and racially biased abuse of Jim Crow refugees and so on and so forth.

Yet you presented that as evidence of Democratic Party malfeasance of some kind - without argument, or even recognition of the racial issues, despite your claimed familiarity with CRT. So your appeal for evidence of systemic racism in America is borderline comedy.


Would you like to amend your posting, in light of its revealed and revelatory idiocy as it stands?

*Not even a claim I would make. My claim, which would be made and defended elsewhere, is that newly Republican southern white voters at the relevant time (post Nixon, Reagan era) would have been discouraged from forming unions if they thought they would be coerced into allowing black and brown people to join them. They were and are racial bigots, see? That's how Nixon and then Reagan manipulated them into voting Republican in national elections.

The price was the conversion of the Republican Party from the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Jefferson Davis. Apparently the Republican leadership thought they could control them - pander to them for votes every four years or so, and ignore them the rest of the time; get the middle and working class support for their rightwing corporate agenda (their own destruction), and blow off the racial conflict and all the rest as inconsequential. That has proven to have been a miscalculation - the camel owns the tent, the monster refuses to cage itself, the kinds of people you get by appealing to racial bigotry are found to be not good citizens of a prosperous and well-functioning society (who knew?). The Republican Party became the Party of imbeciles, fundies, bigots, and grifters - the worst of American society organized, powered up, billionaire financed, given their own media and the keys to the most powerful military the planet has ever seen, presented with the United States of America as a playtoy for the mentally deranged.

 

[iceaura]

Example of a mismanaged city with elected Democratic Party officials whose miserable state of affairs is due at least in large part to systemically racist Republican governance, as revealed by CRT analysis : Flint, Michigan.

 

[billvon]

Might help to start by defining the boogeyman of "systemic racism" in some sort of tangible way, that could avail itself to actual evidence. Point to an objectively racist person, policy, practice, etc. and we can work together to address it.

Sure. I have already given you these, and I know you will ignore this post as well, because this material threatens you. But for the other readers here:

The low overpasses on the Robert Moses highways on Long Island, intended to keep buses out. No buses = fewer poor people at his beaches = fewer blacks at his beaches. Quite literally a structural way to keep blacks out of white areas. No one using the highways need be racist; it is the literal structure of the highways that keeps people divided.

Redlining - a well organized process of excluding blacks from mortgages in areas that were considered white. In Atlanta in the 1980's, for example, an investigator documented a great many examples of lower income whites being granted mortgages in specific areas, whereas blacks with a higher income were denied. This was structural racism as well - not individual racism by any one person, but racism by the system set up to "preserve property values." Today that structural racism exists literally in the structure of cities, where over a generation of families placed according to race lead to an effectively segregated city.

A concrete example of redlining was revealed in the 1970's when blacks were excluded from Trump apartment building. A superintendent was told to write a C on any rental application by a black person (for "colored") so that the head office would know not to approve it. Prosecutors sent black and white prospective renters to Trump apartments over the course of a few weeks. Invariably the white renters were told there were vacancies; black renters were told there were not. Trump was fined for this - then continued the practice afterwards and was fined a second time.

Is that tangible enough for you?

 

[Vociferous]

Might help to start by defining the boogeyman of "systemic racism" in some sort of tangible way, that could avail itself to actual evidence. Point to an objectively racist person, policy, practice, etc. and we can work together to address it.

Sure. I have already given you these, and I know you will ignore this post as well, because this material threatens you. But for the other readers here:

The low overpasses on the Robert Moses highways on Long Island, intended to keep buses out. No buses = fewer poor people at his beaches = fewer blacks at his beaches. Quite literally a structural way to keep blacks out of white areas. No one using the highways need be racist; it is the literal structure of the highways that keeps people divided.

Redlining - a well organized process of excluding blacks from mortgages in areas that were considered white. In Atlanta in the 1980's, for example, an investigator documented a great many examples of lower income whites being granted mortgages in specific areas, whereas blacks with a higher income were denied. This was structural racism as well - not individual racism by any one person, but racism by the system set up to "preserve property values." Today that structural racism exists literally in the structure of cities, where over a generation of families placed according to race lead to an effectively segregated city.

A concrete example of redlining was revealed in the 1970's when blacks were excluded from Trump apartment building. A superintendent was told to write a C on any rental application by a black person (for "colored") so that the head office would know not to approve it. Prosecutors sent black and white prospective renters to Trump apartments over the course of a few weeks. Invariably the white renters were told there were vacancies; black renters were told there were not. Trump was fined for this - then continued the practice afterwards and was fined a second time.

Is that tangible enough for you?

A central, disputed claim made by CRT proponents is that past injustices are still occurring or influencing people today. Rattling off a list of such past injustices does not make the case that they are still a problem today. You need to connect the dots if you want that argument to fly. Past injustice doesn't automatically equate to present injustice.

 

[Vociferous]

No.
But keep trying - there are only seven different such misreadings (bollixed logical implication) available in that particular issue here, and iirc you have already run through all the false absolutes (the bs that involves your use of "all" and "wholly" and the like). Just take care to avoid repetition, and you're bound to get it right eventually.

If you're too ashamed to just come out and state your own opinion, that's your personal problem.

 

[iceaura]

A central, disputed claim made by CRT proponents is that past injustices are still occurring or influencing people today.

Yep.
With lots of evidence, and solid argument.
That claim is not technically "disputed", btw - given its status as the default assumption in a society as saturated with racial injustice for centuries as America's, disputation would require evidence and counterargument. It is simply denied, instead.

Rattling off a list of such past injustices does not make the case that they are still a problem today

That's where CRT becomes valuable - it provides a good working theory, an organization and explanation of the current state of affairs from which the long and widely founded lists are drawn.

Past injustice doesn't automatically equate to present injustice

Present injustice does strongly imply the existence of an explanatory history of past injustice.
And of course denial of present injustices - or the other harms of systemic racism - doesn't make them disappear.

If you're too ashamed to just come out and state your own opinion, that's your personal problem.

I'm supposedly ashamed of what my opinion of what my opinion is? Or am I supposed to be ashamed of my opinion of what my opinion is?
Are you sure I'm not ashamed of having stated what my opinion of what my opinion of what stating my opinion of what my opinion is is?

Maybe you could begin figuring out what's going wrong in your posts - the reason(s) your assumptions are such a self-contradictory and incoherent mess (post 61 above for partial list) - if you focused on this direct statement of my opinion here (it's the simplest and easiest to read):

Racism is an additional factor - it doesn't make the rest of the world go away.

It won't be easy for you (look at your half dozen attempts to paraphrase that in a form you can handle), but it might be helpful.

At the very least, you would be better prepared to hear what James Baldwin is saying to you in that Youtube video suddenly popping up in the algorithmic recommendations - "I Am Not Your Negro".

 

[candy]

I think of CRT as unconscious racial prejudice as demonstrated in the doll study.
Basically that societal norms have pre-programed you to view the world through a racial lens.
You are unconsciously making assumptions based on that racial pre-programing.

 

[billvon]

I think of CRT as unconscious racial prejudice as demonstrated in the doll study.

That's one of the things that CRT studies, yes.

But saying "unconscious racial prejudice is CRT" is like saying "that magnet is physics." Physics describes how the magnet works - but the study of physics covers far more than magnets.

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

I knew you had some crazy right-wing ideas before now, but I previously hadn't pegged you as an actual racist. Now I wonder whether it is a deliberate choice, or whether you're just so out of touch with your own nation that you're living in a kind of right-wing media bubble.

I really don't see much point in engaging with you as you try to pretend that race isn't an important social issue in the United States, and that it's essentially due to some innate deficiency of "black people" that, on average, they have a harder time in the US than privileged white people like yourself. (You're white, right?) Frankly, I have better ways to spend my time.

All I can say is that if you haven't seen any actual evidence of systemic racism in the United States or any of its institutions yet, you either haven't looked hard enough, or you're turning a blind eye, or you're being deliberately dishonest. If it's either of the last two options, then I question your motivations and I have no real interest in conversing with a dishonest interlocutor. If it's the former, you might like to start by investigating topics such as housing in the United States (especially in a historical context), or law enforcement and incarceration. Later, you can learn about everyday racism and the lived experience of many people of colour. You could try listening to what those people have to tell you about their lives, rather than dismissing them out of hand as liars or idiots.

You didn't answer any of my questions regarding Marxism, as it pertains to CRT. For some reason, you effectively only repeated yourself. Given that, it is pointless to pursue that topic further with you. Your attempt to turn my questions back on me rather than answering them is transparent and does not reflect well on your motives, once again. An honest exchange of opinons requires good faith on both sides. If you can't discuss in good faith, there's little point in my giving you more of my attention. As I said, again, I have better things to do.

Your little barbs about my not having read your posts or understood them are merely insults, as are your jibes about my supposed ego and need to feel superior. They might also be projection on your part. Either way, if you are unable to discuss the topic without that kind of childish nonsense, again I see little point in giving you more of my time. Your insecurity and your rudeness are your problems. There's no need to make them mine.

In with all the nonsense where you re-cited previously cited sources rather than answering the questions I asked you, you asked me a question:

"Do you agree with CRT, or do you prefer to be noncommittal so as to avoid having to support anything yourself?"
​

It seems to me that CRT is a rather wide field of study. What would it mean for me to "agree with" it? Ask me something specific and I might venture an opinion. Asking me whether I agree with CRT is like asking whether I agree with historical studies, or whether I agree with archeology, or science. Which parts of CRT do you want my opinion on, specifically?

I mean, let's pick one part, for starters: "A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals." That's from the wikipedia page. Do I agree with that? Yes and no. Yes, I agree that racism and racism outcomes are not always due to explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals, but it would be stupid to claim that they never are. (And, in case you're confused, that's not what CRT claims. The lesson here is: don't read too literally. Read intelligently and reflectively.)

So how about you? Do you agree with CRT?

Let's hope you can do better than your last effort, if you choose to reply to this.

 

[Vociferous]

That claim is not technically "disputed", btw - given its status as the default assumption in a society as saturated with racial injustice for centuries as America's, disputation would require evidence and counterargument.

Thanks for continuing to verify that you have no idea what a default assumption is. An assumption, like yours, with all that necessary baggage, is motivated reasoning to a tee.

That's where CRT becomes valuable - it provides a good working theory, an organization and explanation of the current state of affairs from which the long and widely founded lists are drawn.

A "working theory" is not evidence.

Present injustice does strongly imply the existence of an explanatory history of past injustice.
And of course denial of present injustices - or the other harms of systemic racism - doesn't make them disappear.

"Strongly imply" to your subjective motivating reason is not evidence. "Systemic racism" is your quasi-religious Satan, with as little evidence (according to the nothing you've actually managed to offer). You making the claims means that it's on you to demonstrate how "present injustice" cannot have any other cause and exactly how that connects to remote (and acknowledged) horrid events in history. You just keep proclaiming it, like a street preacher.

Maybe you could begin figuring out what's going wrong in your posts - the reason(s) your assumptions are such a self-contradictory and incoherent mess (post 61 above for partial list) - if you focused on this direct statement of my opinion here (it's the simplest and easiest to read):

Oh, I know exactly why you find them incoherent.

The key assumption you whiffed on was the obvious one in the name Critical Race Theory: that race has been (and therefore still is - the past doesn't just evaporate) a critical factor in structuring American civilization. Your assumptions in that area include (for example) these, an incomplete list focused on some racial aspects of Partisan politics:
That racism is a significant aspect of the Democratic Party's political ideology now (structuring such all-encompassing features as "identity politics"), that racism no longer exists as the important feature it once was in American life, that white leftists and liberals and Democrats are racists whose systemic racism is injuring black Americans, that the Republican identified category "most black Americans" is significant in structuring Republican politics, that this significant and racially delimited group has been deceived in its belief in victimhood by Democratic Party harbored white racism, that Republican white people are falsely labeled as a self-identified racial group and therefore falsely identified as racists by CRT despite the nonexistence of such systemic grouping and racism, that Republican white people's explicitly asserted perception of themselves as a racially self-identified group slandered by CRT is accurate and justified, that the historical overtly racist nature of white racial organizations (such as the Klan) endorsing and supporting southern Democrats demonstrates the current racism of southern Democrats, that the current overtly racist nature of white racially organized groups (such as the famous Klan, etc - dozens of them) demonstrates nothing about the nature of the politicians and political Parties they currently endorse and support, and so forth.

It is a wholly leftist presumption that race structured American civilization. As I educate Tiassa, CRT is just adversarial activism, not objective analysis. It's about giving people a reason to help achieve the left's political goals.
It is humorous to see how you straw man my arguments to make them contradictory. The Democrat party has always had goals centered on race and racism. If anything, identity politics only cements those. Quite the opposite of making it so racism "no longer exists as the important feature." Race is the single-most defining feature of the Democrat party. Leftists don't perpetuate "systemic racism," they perpetuate actual, individual racist policies, as seen in their end results. Victimhood literally assumes one is lesser than, and Democrats push that learned victimhood. "White people" has nothing to do with either party, except insofar as Democrats try to weaponize race. The Klan was founded by Democrats, remember? And don't repeat your ignorant "parties swapped" fantasy. I've already refuted that nonsense, and I'm not going to repeated for your woeful comprehension skills. Again, if guilt by association were not a fallacy, Democrats would be associated with terrorists and every authoritarian regime in the world.

 

[billvon]

It is a wholly leftist presumption that race structured American civilization.

That is your strawman. CRT does not claim that race is the one thing that structured American civilization. It claims that it was ONE of the things that structured American civilization. (Which is true; the requirement to return slaves that escaped from the South is actually written into the Constitution. Hard to deny that.)

I can understand why so many far right wingers want it banned. It makes them uncomfortable to think about the role that race has played in society.

The Democrat party has always had goals centered on race and racism.

Absolutely. In the 1900's they were the party of segregation and racism. That switched in the 1960's to 1980's as the GOP realized it needed to appeal to Southerners. During the 1970's and 1980's, neo-Nazi and KKK Grand Wizard David Duke could not win any office while registered as a democrat. He changed to republican and immediately won a seat as a state representative; his hatred of blacks appealed to the republicans of the time.

Today the democratic party has goals centered on the elimination of racism, and promotion of equality between races - which is one of the reasons the right hates them so much.

 

[Vociferous]

Vociferous:

I knew you had some crazy right-wing ideas before now, but I previously hadn't pegged you as an actual racist. Now I wonder whether it is a deliberate choice, or whether you're just so out of touch with your own nation that you're living in a kind of right-wing media bubble.

Notice how you level this accusation without quoting any of my words, for support. I can only presume you mean something in a different thread, so let's examine what you, for some reason, felt no need to reference:

Do you think it's at all possible that socioeconomic factors might have something to do with levels of violence by different groups in societies?

If it's socioeconomic factors then that's a matter of class, not race, and we should see similar stats by comparable socioeconomic class of every race. If you have those stats, I'd be happy to see them.

Race and socioeconomic status are inextricably linked in the United States. Are you unaware of this?

That claim is going to require some evidence to support it. Without any, it seems to imply that poorer socioeconomic status is somehow inherent to black people, but that would be overtly racist. So I presume that you mean something else. I'm all ears.

I'll repeat for you what I told Tiassa.
How is something "inextricably linked" without being in some way inherently so?

inextricably - in a way that is impossible to disentangle or separate
inherently - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way​

"Impossible to separate" is "permanent or characteristic." So how do you disentangle your own words, James? I told you I'm all ears, but instead of explaining, you've gotten defensive and accusatory. Granted, that's a good strategy, as most the posters here will fall for it, if only because it confirms their own biases.

See, you're so inured in racism, you don't even realize it when you express it (your words, not mine). Instead, you have this knee-jerk reaction to quell the cognitive dissonance it evokes in you.

I really don't see much point in engaging with you as you try to pretend that race isn't an important social issue in the United States, and that it's essentially due to some innate deficiency of "black people" that, on average, they have a harder time in the US than privileged white people like yourself. (You're white, right?) Frankly, I have better ways to spend my time.

Just like Tiassa straw manning what I said as "biological inherence," you're engaging me because you have a vested interest in straw manning me as saying anything even remotely like 'innate deficiency of "black people".' I never said "innate," I said "inherent." Perhaps like Tiassa, you need a vocabulary lesson too.

innate - inborn; natural.
inherent - existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute​

And your own "inextricably":

inextricably - in a way that is impossible to disentangle or separate​

I'm hoping you're smart enough to understand the difference between "innate" and "inherent" and the similarity between the latter and "inextricably." Or do I need to spell it out for you further?

All I can say is that if you haven't seen any actual evidence of systemic racism in the United States or any of its institutions yet, you either haven't looked hard enough, or you're turning a blind eye, or you're being deliberately dishonest. If it's either of the last two options, then I question your motivations and I have no real interest in conversing with a dishonest interlocutor. If it's the former, you might like to start by investigating topics such as housing in the United States (especially in a historical context), or law enforcement and incarceration. Later, you can learn about everyday racism and the lived experience of many people of colour. You could try listening to what those people have to tell you about their lives, rather than dismissing them out of hand as liars or idiots.

If it's sooooo obvious, perhaps you can get around to actually detailing some of this evidence one of these days. You know, statistics....something except your repeated and vacuous bare assertions. You do understand what conflating correlation with causation means, right?
Until you manage to get around to making an actual argument for your own claim, the null hypothesis stands (that there is no relationship). At best, it's your own subjective perception, perhaps motivated by the aforementioned cognitive dissonance. Again, if you want to reference history, you have to connect the dots of causation to present day outcomes. "Lived experience" is wholly anecdotal and subjective. Damn, I thought you at least understood that much. Too much time spent hanging around Tiassa, I suppose. Is intellectual laziness contagious?

And no, people do not have to be either liars or idiots to be misled by the dominant culture. That's a false dilemma.

You didn't answer any of my questions regarding Marxism, as it pertains to CRT. For some reason, you effectively only repeated yourself. Given that, it is pointless to pursue that topic further with you. Your attempt to turn my questions back on me rather than answering them is transparent and does not reflect well on your motives, once again. An honest exchange of opinons requires good faith on both sides. If you can't discuss in good faith, there's little point in my giving you more of my attention. As I said, again, I have better things to do.

Since you can't be bother to quote or cite any of these supposed slights to our good faith discussion, I can't even begin to guess at the source of this particular grievance. Again, I can only presume it's not even in this thread. Your only comments about Marxism in this thread seem to be highly hyperbolic and rhetorical. If not, do tell.

Yes, when you don't actually manage to refute things I've already said, all I can do is repeat them. If you really think anything you said about Marxism warranted a rebuttal, well, that's precious.

BTW, that's the second time you've felt the need to say have better things to do, which kind of contradicts the sentiment.

Your little barbs about my not having read your posts or understood them are merely insults, as are your jibes about my supposed ego and need to feel superior. They might also be projection on your part. Either way, if you are unable to discuss the topic without that kind of childish nonsense, again I see little point in giving you more of my time. Your insecurity and your rudeness are your problems. There's no need to make them mine.

I guess you already forgot about all your nonsense "Or you're scared of Marxism?" "Run for the hills! The communists are coming!" "Even a tinge of Marxism is unthinkable. Out damned spot! Out, I say!" http://sciforums.com/threads/crt-critical-race-theory-as-bogeyman.164443/page-3#post-3682634
I suppose you think that's the height of maturity, huh?

In with all the nonsense where you re-cited previously cited sources rather than answering the questions I asked you, you asked me a question:

"Do you agree with CRT, or do you prefer to be noncommittal so as to avoid having to support anything yourself?"
​

It seems to me that CRT is a rather wide field of study. What would it mean for me to "agree with" it? Ask me something specific and I might venture an opinion. Asking me whether I agree with CRT is like asking whether I agree with historical studies, or whether I agree with archeology, or science. Which parts of CRT do you want my opinion on, specifically?

Really? So not only do you want me to do your own homework for you, when it comes to refuting claims you haven't bothered to support, now you want me to spoon feed you a multiple choice list for you to even just define your position? How lazy can you be? If you don't understand the subject enough to take a position, all of your opinions in this thread are meaningless garbage. If that's how you want to leave this discussion, that's fine by me.

I mean, let's pick one part, for starters: "A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals." That's from the wikipedia page. Do I agree with that? Yes and no. Yes, I agree that racism and racism outcomes are not always due to explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals, but it would be stupid to claim that they never are. (And, in case you're confused, that's not what CRT claims. The lesson here is: don't read too literally. Read intelligently and reflectively.)

Wait, I thought you had "better things to do?"

"Complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics" is a lot of words that don't say anything at all. It's just this vague boogeyman in the ether. I would never assume that CRT denies individual instance of racism from individual racists. But you've still yet to offer anything to support anything other than "explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals." So far, you've only proclaimed it "not always due to" such.

So how about you? Do you agree with CRT?

Let's hope you can do better than your last effort, if you choose to reply to this.

Already done, here:
http://sciforums.com/threads/crt-critical-race-theory-as-bogeyman.164443/page-2#post-3681904

I only agree with #1, that "Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural."

 

[Vociferous]

It is a wholly leftist presumption that race structured American civilization.

That is your strawman. CRT does not claim that race is the one thing that structured American civilization. It claims that it was ONE of the things that structured American civilization. (Which is true; the requirement to return slaves that escaped from the South is actually written into the Constitution. Hard to deny that.)

Again, try to read the words that are actually there. There was no "is the one thing that" in what I said, so this is a sad little straw man, at best, and poor reading comprehension, at worst. So you really think one temporary clause to the Constitution (made possible only by the compromise necessary to pass the instrument of slavery's end) significantly contributed to the structure of American society in an enduring way posited by CRT? You do know that it was made moot by the 13th Amendment in 1865, right?

I can understand why so many far right wingers want it banned. It makes them uncomfortable to think about the role that race has played in society.

I don't have any problem facing the horrid history of racism. It was perpetrated and defended by Democrats, who still seek to sow racial divisions, including segregation, to this day. If anything has carried that stain to the present, it has been the same leftists you are now using CRT to blame whites, Republicans, anyone who doesn't hate this country, etc.. It's all just deflection and projection. "has played" doesn't automatically equate to "does play." Ouch, that may be another hard one fer ya.

Absolutely. In the 1900's they were the party of segregation and racism. That switched in the 1960's to 1980's as the GOP realized it needed to appeal to Southerners. During the 1970's and 1980's, neo-Nazi and KKK Grand Wizard David Duke could not win any office while registered as a democrat. He changed to republican and immediately won a seat as a state representative; his hatred of blacks appealed to the republicans of the time.

Today the democratic party has goals centered on the elimination of racism, and promotion of equality between races - which is one of the reasons the right hates them so much.

I've already refuted the nonsense party switch myth, not repeating myself. But thanks for letting me know you're one of the hapless.

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

Are you glad you got all that off your chest?

I'm out of this conversation as of now. I have no further interest in your views on this topic. I could practically write them for myself, using your script, if I needed them. You're hopelessly out of touch, or (much more likely) in deep denial. We could have a discussion, but since you're barely capable of civil conversation I doubt it would help you.

 

[Vociferous]

Vociferous:

Are you glad you got all that off your chest?

I'm out of this conversation as of now. I have no further interest in your views on this topic. I could practically write them for myself, using your script, if I needed them. You're hopelessly out of touch, or (much more likely) in deep denial. We could have a discussion, but since you're barely capable of civil conversation I doubt it would help you.

Yep, that checks out. When people can't defend their own words or claims, they often try to deflect, accuse others, or anything to avoid the corner they've painted themselves into, and when that fails, they simply beg off. I saw it coming when you not only failed to quote anything you were referring to but also referred to things from a different thread. By all means, if my words are so threatening to you, ignore them. No skin off my nose. You're welcome to keep believing in this defensive caricature you have in your head. Such beliefs that do not comport with reality are part and parcel with quasi-religious ideologies, like CRT.

 

[iceaura]

How is something "inextricably linked" without being in some way inherently so?
inextricably - in a way that is impossible to disentangle or separate
inherently - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way

Example: Chewing gum in hair - cannot be (fully) separated or disentangled, is not inherent.
Example: racial divisions in US society- cannot be separated or disintangled, are not inherent.

It's why we have two different words: when we want to refer to one thing, but not the other, it's handy to have a word for each.

I don't have any problem facing the horrid history of racism

You often, as in this thread, deny it - in the US in particular, from around 1964 on, and especially starting around 1980. You appear incapable of even recognizing racism, especially when systemic and institutionalized - or in your own posting.

"Impossible to separate" is "permanent or characteristic."

Silly boy. It's neither one - in either direction.
Example: jammed bend in tarred rope.
Example: salt water.

Thanks for continuing to verify that you have no idea what a default assumption is. An assumption, like yours, with all that necessary baggage, is motivated reasoning to a tee.

Assumptions are not reasoning, motivated or otherwise. Reasoning may follow, or precede.
Meanwhile, default assumptions are normally motivated.
Apparently you don't know that, which helps explain your bizarre lack of self-awareness (a characteristic you share with a US political faction - it's at the root of their/your obliviousness to irony)

I've already refuted the nonsense party switch myth,

Nonsense. You refuse to even acknowledge it. Every time it comes up you start blithering about stuff that predates the Korean War.

I never said "innate," I said "inherent." Perhaps like Tiassa, you need a vocabulary lesson too.
innate - inborn; natural.
inherent - existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute

Without very good argument based in something besides race, describing anything except a couple of socially requisite identifying features of a US Race (something used by a US person to identify someone's US race, say) as an "inherent" feature of a fantasy such as the US Black Race is of course racist. By definition.
Anyone who knows what CRT is knows that. It's basic. Black people in the US share a couple of features of visual appearance used to classify them as "black" - and nothing else. So far as we know, besides these few classification features there are no inherent, innate, inextricable, or intrinsic features of any US "black race" that splits it from any other US race.
That's one reason we needed a theoretical analysis to explain what we observe about US society, saturated with racism as it is - no feature of US black people explains the racial foundations of every significant feature of US society we examine.

the null hypothesis stands (that there is no relationship)

That's not a null hypothesis here - for one thing, it's immediately falsified, in the trivial sense common to such formal logic, by observed correlations.
You're getting confused about default assumptions again, as well as argument vs observation (or logic vs reasoning).

 

[Vociferous]

Example: Chewing gum in hair - cannot be (fully) separated or disentangled, is not inherent.
Example: racial divisions in US society- cannot be separated or disintangled, are not inherent.

It's why we have two different words: when we want to refer to one thing, but not the other, it's handy to have a word for each.

Aw, you tried so hard, but still had to add a qualifier ("fully") even though "inextricable" is absolute, e.g. "impossible to separate."
If chewing gum is "impossible to separate" (you know, the actual definition), it is then a "permanent characteristic" of that hair.
Chalk it up to either intellectual dishonesty or Dunning-Kruger.

You often, as in this thread, deny it - in the US in particular, from around 1964 on, and especially starting around 1980. You appear incapable of even recognizing racism, especially when systemic and institutionalized - or in your own posting.

People keep saying that, but no one ever quotes me as actually doing so. Some kind of mutually reinforced confirmation bias delusion?
"Systemic and institutionalized" is a meaningless boogeyman unless you can detail the actual policies and practices. Then you have to show causation, instead of just correlation.

"Impossible to separate" is "permanent or characteristic."

Silly boy. It's neither one - in either direction.
Example: jammed bend in tarred rope.
Example: salt water.

No idea what your first example is, but salt and water can obviously be separated. It's call desalination. IOW, the salt is extricable from the water. That's the opposite of inextricable. Too bad your intellectual dishonesty or Dunning-Kruger exceeds your vocabulary comprehension.

Assumptions are not reasoning, motivated or otherwise. Reasoning may follow, or precede.
Meanwhile, default assumptions are normally motivated.

Maybe that should be a clue to you, that your supposed "default assumption" requires far too many justifications.
Default assumptions have no motivations at all, normal or otherwise. They just are.

Nonsense. You refuse to even acknowledge it. Every time it comes up you start blithering about stuff that predates the Korean War.

Predates the Korean War, huh? Even though I have repeated cited Democrat policies that cause generational minority poverty, destroy minority families, heavily contributing to minority incarcerations, etc, etc.. But continually lying to yourself is necessary to maintain your quasi-religious myths.

Without very good argument based in something besides race, describing anything except a couple of socially requisite identifying features of a US Race (something used by a US person to identify someone's US race, say) as an "inherent" feature of a fantasy such as the US Black Race is of course racist. By definition.

It's James who asserted that "Race and socioeconomic status are inextricably linked in the United States.↑" Which is exactly why I asked him to explain how that's not a racist statement. Notice, I never claimed race and socioeconomic status were linked in any way, inherent, inextricable, or otherwise. Anyone assuming otherwise is projecting. Go ahead, go look for yourself.

Anyone who knows what CRT is knows that. It's basic. Black people in the US share a couple of features of visual appearance used to classify them as "black" - and nothing else. So far as we know, besides these few classification features there are no inherent, innate, inextricable, or intrinsic features of any US "black race" that splits it from any other US race.

Agreed. As I stated earlier, that's the only tenet of CRT I agree with, that race is a social construct, not founded in biology.

That's one reason we needed a theoretical analysis to explain what we observe about US society, saturated with racism as it is - no feature of US black people explains the racial foundations of every significant feature of US society we examine.

No, that's your quasi-religious ideology at work again.

the null hypothesis stands (that there is no relationship)

That's not a null hypothesis here - for one thing, it's immediately falsified, in the trivial sense common to such formal logic, by observed correlations.

Again, thanks for continuing to verify your ignorance of the null hypothesis, because that's it's literal definition, as explain to you countless times now.
The onus is on you to show a causative relationship, otherwise the null hypothesis stands. Notice how you at least seem vaguely enough aware of this that you hedge your claim as "correlations." And at this point, I'm pretty certain you have no clue what the difference is.

 

[candy]

That's one of the things that CRT studies, yes.

But saying "unconscious racial prejudice is CRT" is like saying "that magnet is physics." Physics describes how the magnet works - but the study of physics covers far more than magnets.

The importance of teaching CRT is to make people aware that the unconscious bias exists so it becomes a factor in decision making. We can not go back and change the past. The best option is to be aware so that we do better now.

 

[billvon]

The importance of teaching CRT is to make people aware that the unconscious bias exists so it becomes a factor in decision making. We can not go back and change the past. The best option is to be aware so that we do better now.

Agreed. Those who do not study the past are condemned to repeat it.