Biden's 17 executive orders

[Lexicus]

Colorblind law ruling racistly (?) is a very real thing. Someone insisting for no change when there is white majority discrimination against minorities is why Seon went "fascism". I don't want to call it fascism since fascism is a very specific thing to me, but that doesn't mean it isn't awful. (White supremacy can exist outside fascism. Doesn't make it less bad.)

There is a subtext to this raging about degenerate, cosmopolitan academics with their relativist Jewish theories that, shall we say, has a certain vibe to it. I wonder how long it is before "cultural Marxism" is invoked.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You know, there is plenty of legitimate thinking where experience is well valued.

A person's experience is evidence...namely a single data point. You don't reject other empirical evidence/privilege single data points if you want to make conclusions in a competent fashion.

... Anyways, that's where statistics come in.

CRT only seems to acknowledge statistics when they are convenient. Not surprising, given above.

See thing is that humans have tribalistic tendencies on a fundamental level, and construct outgroups very easily based on perceptions of race. This is a fact and has been demonstrated over and over again, including in empirical psychology.

Our tribal origins are unlikely to have had sufficient mobility or apparent differences like skin color in local setting sufficient for them to formulate a concept of "race" back then. People do tend to form out groups, and they do it for a large variety of reasons. One of those reasons is appearance.

Even today, people see discrimination based on appearance. This includes aspects of appearance they can control and aspects they can't. Even among aspects a person can't, we again treat out-grouping people on the basis of can't-control appearances differently. I don't like that, anybody doing it is operating a dishonest standard, like CRT.

Critical race theory was an offshot of academic law studies, by the way. It sprouted because there were findings that color blind laws did not guarantee equal rights or punishment in practice. Critical race theory is a reaction to that fact. It's very far from "lol i like god", it's actually trying to solve a problem that color blind law has.

It is about as likely to solve "unequal legal outcome" issues as "lol I like god" though.

The correct approach when you observe unequal punishment in practice is to trace direct causality and address that cause.

So yea I personally don't really align with critical race theory's solutions. I'm more of a subsidy, wealth distribution, affirmative action person.

None of these fix underlying cause, which I strongly doubt we know.

 

[Angst]

A person's experience is evidence...namely a single data point. You don't reject other empirical evidence/privilege single data points if you want to make conclusions in a competent fashion.



CRT only seems to acknowledge statistics when they are convenient. Not surprising, given above.



Our tribal origins are unlikely to have had sufficient mobility or apparent differences like skin color in local setting sufficient for them to formulate a concept of "race" back then. People do tend to form out groups, and they do it for a large variety of reasons. One of those reasons is appearance.

Even today, people see discrimination based on appearance. This includes aspects of appearance they can control and aspects they can't. Even among aspects a person can't, we again treat out-grouping people on the basis of can't-control appearances differently. I don't like that, anybody doing it is operating a dishonest standard, like CRT.



It is about as likely to solve "unequal legal outcome" issues as "lol I like god" though.

The correct approach when you observe unequal punishment in practice is to trace direct causality and address that cause.

IDK. You didn't really answer anything beyond making claims that critical race theory is dishonest, ignores data, etc., which I haven't found to be the case by the nature of the theories at least, nor in the practice with the people I know that support it. We get it, you don't like it. Doesn't mean you have to not understand it or claim it's stuff it isn't. Again, I'm actually not a proponent of a lot of it.

None of these fix underlying cause, which I strongly doubt we know.

Which is the underlying cause?

 

[Lexicus]

Which is the underlying cause?

If I'm reading correctly, TMIT is saying we don't understand the cause of racism, but we do - it is an ideological fiction invented to justify the enslavement of Africans and Native Americans, and the destruction of Native American polities and culture by Europeans.

 

[Angst]

If I'm reading correctly, TMIT is saying we don't understand the cause of racism, but we do - it is an ideological fiction invented to justify the enslavement of Africans and Native Americans, and the destruction of Native American polities and culture by Europeans.

It's a common psychological phenomenon beyond that, but othering doesn't explain the degree it has exploded during colonization. Europe really turned it to 11 after the end of the Middle Ages.

So yes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's a common psychological phenomenon beyond that, but othering doesn't explain the degree it has exploded during colonization. Europe really turned it to 11 after the end of the Middle Ages.

So yes.

Reliable ocean travel made it economically feasible. Mass relocation of people from continent to continent created lots of new opportunities that could be exploited. And when you couple this with an imbalance of military power, you get exploitation in support of greed.

 

[Snowygerry]

(...) Europe really turned it to 11 after the end of the Middle Ages.

Reading medieval chronicles (from the crusades for example) they distinguished two kinds of humans when they went overseas, baptized and pagans, both were treated accordingly,

later it seems race theory developed from that existing world view...

I doubt anything was "invented" at the end of the Middle Ages in this regard.

 

[El_Machinae]

Which is the underlying cause?

He's referring to the disparity in outcomes in measurable indicators. He needn't doubt that racism is a causal factor, but would merely doubt its overall contribution in the multivariate equation.

So many of the effects are compounding, so a little bit of wealth disparity early on will eventually result in sociological factors that are unrelated to money directly, but are more expressions of culture. None of the factors have a linear or uncorrelated contribution.

 

[Lexicus]

Reading medieval chronicles (from the crusades for example) they distinguished two kinds of humans when they went overseas, baptized and pagans, both were treated accordingly,

later it seems race theory developed from that existing world view...

I doubt anything was "invented" at the end of the Middle Ages in this regard.

Except that racial theory is entirely different from religious distinctions. We already have a good illustration of this in the difference between religious antisemitism (can convert to Christianity to avoid persecution) and racial antisemitism (to the gas chamber if you have one Jewish grandparent).

Indeed, a fundamental part of the Christian worldview is the equality of all souls, the equal ability of all souls to be saved by accepting Jesus Christ, and the fundamental difference between humans, with souls and reason, and animals, without these things. Racial theory contradicts every single one of these ideas by denying the equality of human souls and likening humans to animals.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

It's a common psychological phenomenon beyond that, but othering doesn't explain the degree it has exploded during colonization. Europe really turned it to 11 after the end of the Middle Ages.

I doubt anything was "invented" at the end of the Middle Ages in this regard.

Except that racial theory is entirely different from religious distinctions. We already have a good illustration of this in the difference between religious antisemitism (can convert to Christianity to avoid persecution) and racial antisemitism (to the gas chamber if you have one Jewish grandparent).

There are Reformation scholars that argue we can trace a direct line of inheritance from the confessional period of the mid-1500s into the 'scientific' racism of the Enlightenment. After Protestantism splintered, every sect was consumed by the need to define their doctrines clearly—they needed to know who was 'in' and who was 'out' (and not just the Reformers: the Council of Trent was arguably the first circumspective Catholic pulse-check since Nicaea). The result was a meticulous methodology to identify and categorize the minutest facets of both the tenets of the faith, and the social practices of its believers. And it's right around this time that American colonization was taking off—with pilgrims like those of the Mayflower literally being religious exiles. The result was, the explorers and settlers took the same template they'd honed for socio-religious studies and started using it for ethnography, complete with any prejudices they'd picked up along the way: English stereotypes of Native Americans as squabbling, lazy savages incapable of self-rule were a one-to-one match to the rhetoric they threw against the Irish.

Then there's Weber's good ol' Protestant Work Ethic: groups like the Calvinists who believe in predestination have often linked material success with spiritual salvation, i.e. if you're rich, it's a sign you're favoured by God; conversely, the squalor of the poor is merely a reflection of their spiritual wretchedness. (It's perhaps no small coincidence the tautological "Prosperity Gospel" emerged in the protestant United States.) A lot of missionary work already conflated saving the heathens' souls with uplifting them into 'civilization'; the jump from a religious to racial hypothesis for their misery merely lent existing prejudice the veneer of scientific objectivity.