Critical race theory

[JollyRoger]

rejecting bad cultural practices isn't dehumanization btw. bad practices lead to bad outcomes. don't change the practices, don't get better outcomes.

I think there is something to this

 

[Yeekim]

I'm still unsure why people can't connect things like Jim Crow laws and poll taxes were legal discrimination against minorities.

It is obvious beyond any question that they were. Who would deny this?

 

[Remorseless1]

It is obvious beyond any question that they were. Who would deny this?

People who rage against CRT. It's the essence of critical race theory.

 

[El_Machinae]

The question of whether to invest now to help people later is a hard choice vs helping people now, and it sometimes comes up definitely. And we need wealth in order to be generous.
But I think everyone already knows that. Sure, building stairs up a hill can make it easier to later build a ramp up a hill. But building stairs up a hill, never building a ramp up a hill, and moving all the food to the top of the hill is a different story.

 

[sophie]

It is obvious beyond any question that they were. Who would deny this?

Nobody denies that slavery and Jim Crow existed. The question is whether their effects and legacy resonate to this day, or whether the institution of legally mandated non-discrimination under the Civil Rights Act nullifies this resonance. I would think that its effects still resonating in spite of legal non-discrimination should be equally obvious and beyond question. And yet, here we are.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

lmao. I made no such implication. The conversation was about privilege and oppression, so the metaphor can of course be applied to any vector of oppression one chooses: race, class, ability, gender, etc.

no matter which individual vector you choose, the "us" and "them" won't track well. a substantial % of people will be "us" or "them" regardless of those things. of the ones you list, class probably functions as a divider the most, but even that is limited.

Very funny that your mind jumped directly to race, though.

yeah, hilarious. what an insane reach to consider a thread about critical race theory and tie a post back into the topic of race. i no doubt subverted all the expectations at once with that one.

I do love it when a person fully embodies in their response to a post, the very point that was being made in that post. So thanks for confirming my point. I hope everyone else caught that.

i do love it when someone who advocates racism makes silly attempts at ad hominem because they can't address the points made or support questioned factual assertions.

People who rage against CRT. It's the essence of critical race theory.

doesn't seem like that's the case in practice.

there seems to be argument over what "crt" is. is this passage pro-crt, anti-crt, or neither?

No teacher, administrator, or other employee in any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter school, or school administration shall be required to engage in training, orientation, or therapy that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or blame on the basis of race or sex.

No teacher, administrator, or other employee in any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part of a course the following concepts:

• (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
• (2) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
• (3) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
• (4) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
• (5) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
• (6) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
• (7) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or
• (8) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

naacp seems to believe this is "anti-crt" legislation. schlaufuchs rejects that the above is actually crt, i guess? i think that's what's implied by the "graduate understanding of the concept" or w/e, that posters here are operating on what appears to be a different definition than naacp and state legislatures.

i would expect #s 1 through 8 above to be uncontroversial, but it seems that isn't so and that at least a common definition of "crt" rejects some or all of these. hence my calling it racist, because it's racist.

But I think everyone already knows that. Sure, building stairs up a hill can make it easier to later build a ramp up a hill. But building stairs up a hill, never building a ramp up a hill, and moving all the food to the top of the hill is a different story.

"moving all the food to the top" doesn't track well with reality. it seems there is more food partway up or even at the bottom of the hills with stairs, than places that have no stairs. that's not to say things can't be improved, but i don't think it's good to misrepresent the scenario either.

the people who are not victims of apparent "systemic racism" in venezuela, chad, and russia in many cases seem worse off across measures than quite a few people who allegedly are victims of "systemic racism". in usa, "food at the top of the hill" is sometimes food, but usually means wealth. in some places, it is very literally food, and you have to be significantly further up the respective hill to get it.

Nobody denies that slavery and Jim Crow existed. The question is whether their effects and legacy resonate to this day, or whether the institution of legally mandated non-discrimination under the Civil Rights Act nullifies this resonance.

disparities have accelerated since then. welfare state practices have done more apparent damage than legacy of slavery. low income black americans in relative sense are worse off on quite a few important metrics right now than they were just before or after civil rights act. true for low income white americans too, but hey.

I would think that its effects still resonating in spite of legal non-discrimination should be equally obvious and beyond question.

you can think against evidence all you want, but it tends not to make lives better.

 

[sophie]

no matter which individual vector you choose, the "us" and "them" won't track well. a substantial % of people will be "us" or "them" regardless of those things. of the ones you list, class probably functions as a divider the most, but even that is limited.

lmao white boy makes the shocking discovery that intersectionality exists. News at 11.

But more critically, you're making the same error I already highlighted several pages back, that is, you appear to be assuming that the presence of privilege in one respect equals maximum privilege in all respects. Unless you mean to say that every person on the planet is trans and faces discrimination on the basis of their transness.

i do love it when someone who advocates racism makes silly attempts at ad hominem because they can't address the points made or support questioned factual assertions.

Not an ad hominem. Literally your argument was literally parroting the points I had made in my post about the sort of mentality that generates, and is simultaneously generated by, us and them.

No, an ad hominem would be me saying you parroted those points because you are an uncurious dipshit who refuses to investigate any question beyond the confines of what is already present within your own small, criminally undernourished mind.

there seems to be argument over what "crt" is. is this passage pro-crt, anti-crt, or neither?

naacp seems to believe this is "anti-crt" legislation. schlaufuchs rejects that the above is actually crt, i guess? i think that's what's implied by the "graduate understanding of the concept" or w/e, that posters here are operating on what appears to be a different definition than naacp and state legislatures.

Dear lord you are dense. Let's say there is a big upsurge in cultural outrage towards libertarians among Democratic politicos. They want to throw out some red meat for their base. So they propose legislation prohibiting advocacy for pedophilia, making child brides constitutionally illegal, overturning Romeo and Juliet laws, and banning any media which portrays relationships with large age gaps in a positive light. Even though libertarianism is not synonymous with, and is in no way literally about pedophilia, we might call these laws "anti-libertarian" legislation because they are motivated purely by a political opposition to libertarianism which the lawmakers misidentify or mischaracterize as "advocacy for pedophilia." Does that make sense to you?

disparities have accelerated since then. welfare state practices have done more apparent damage than legacy of slavery. low income black americans in relative sense are worse off on quite a few important metrics right now than they were just before or after civil rights act. true for low income white americans too, but hey.


you can think against evidence all you want, but it tends not to make lives better.

I just don't see much of a point in engaging in specifics with you when I know you won't read them anyway.

 

[Hygro]

disparities have accelerated since then. welfare state practices have done more apparent damage than legacy of slavery. low income black americans in relative sense are worse off on quite a few important metrics right now than they were just before or after civil rights act. true for low income white americans too, but hey.

This is outlandish. In the literature, it is observed that if you give poor people money, their outcomes improve. A lot of things changed since the early 70s that ended the gains and even began the backsliding of poor Americans. Welfare isn't one of those impediments. Where do you even get this idea? I've seen it here over the last 20 years on occasion, asserted by only the most radical right wing members of CFC.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

imagine making a "the welfare system is worse than literal chattel slavery" post in 2022

 

[El_Machinae]

Welfare policies can make things worse, because designing bad things is possible.

Lexicus had a post showing that incredible levels of the disparity are economic, explained better with deciles. But if something is regressive, I will hurt the lowest the worst.

We shot wealth upwards since the mid 70s. You'd need actual statistics to unpack that from any race effect.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But more critically, you're making the same error I already highlighted several pages back, that is, you appear to be assuming that the presence of privilege in one respect equals maximum privilege in all respects.

i don't assume this, no. it doesn't even imply maximum privilege in that one respect.

of course, it depends what you mean when saying privilege too.

Literally your argument was literally parroting the points I had made in my post about the sort of mentality that generates, and is simultaneously generated by, us and them.

i don't know what you're reading, but it isn't my posts.

Not an ad hominem

speaking of definitions, ad hominem does not require insults. it is any attempt to attack credibility of person rather than the points they make in an argument. the forum rules allegedly frown on it, but i more so point it out because it's also ineffectual "argumentation".

assertion i quoted was an attempt to equate me to what you previously represented, without addressing the argument i presented. that is ad hominem.

Even though libertarianism is not synonymous with, and is in no way literally about pedophilia, we might call these laws "anti-libertarian" legislation

yikes

Does that make sense to you?

regardless of who puts forth legislation, the legislation itself can and should be evaluated for what it does. if the word "groomer" brings to mind a negative association that the target group itself acknowledges as intended for them, it's worth asking why that group would own the word as a slur but not, say, auto manufacturers.

codifying against teaching deliberate discrimination is not *reasonably* construed as "anti-crt" by people who advocate crt, unless there is at least some truth to it.

i would prefer if the word groomer could keep being associated with people who help keep a dog's fur in good condition, but here we are.

to me, the obvious move for libertarians in your example would be to ignore/not associate the law with themselves, then form opinions of the laws based on what the laws are likely to actually do.

finally for this part, i note that you did not answer the question. is that anti-crt law or not?

I just don't see much of a point in engaging in specifics with you when I know you won't read them anyway.

bit of irony in this quote.

This is outlandish. In the literature, it is observed that if you give poor people money, their outcomes improve. A lot of things changed since the early 70s that ended the gains and even began the backsliding of poor Americans. Welfare isn't one of those impediments.

the outlandish thing is ignoring incentives the us welfare system created. it is hard to perfectly trace cause for any single factor, but welfare has more evidence than most with the way it is implemented. equally interesting is that even stronger correlations/time alignment in addition to direct causal factors (extra selection pressure for divorce, disincentive to work in many cases) that count oh so much for "systemic racism" suddenly disappear into the wind as justifications in this context. despite that no matter how you "control for factors", us welfare implementation appears to result in negative outcomes across the board over time.

but if it were only correlations, i wouldn't be saying it. low income families have less incentive to stay together, horrible value placement on education (people are sometimes punished for success here, and rarely given a reasonable chance for it), horrible oversight of education received (us would benefit immensely by fixing this, but has incentive to not do so to maintain voter base), and less pressure to improve skill/capability because sufficient marginal improvement to income isn't there.

if you want any particular group of people to stop having that disadvantage, or even better, to minimize that disadvantage for everyone, it would be useful to address it. but nah, let's do crt at these schools and instead directly contribute to the problem while ironically claiming it will somehow help.

We shot wealth upwards since the mid 70s. You'd need actual statistics to unpack that from any race effect.

you can see a significant amount of displeasure over how wealth distributions shifted after each economic difficulty/crisis, too. not everyone will exactly pin down that the institutions that made choices that led to these problems also benefited from them disproportionately, but it seems most people notice it in some capacity. you would not expect a wealth gap to increase from something like 2000's housing bubble collapse in a fair system, but i suspect despite disagreements here that most would still agree it is not a fair system.

it does not seem to be race that predicts how the unfairness shakes out, though. in a way, that has been such a useful red herring...often perpetuated by organizations that benefit from it...that i wonder to what extent it's going with flow vs deliberate distraction. i would guess most organizations are the former, but probably not all.

 

[Remorseless1]

Sad that white folk have to shoulder such heavy burdens...

Hard to argue that economic and cultural advances made by non-white and non-male Americans over the past 50 years is due in large part because of the Great Society initiates that tamped down discrimination while providing monetary assistance to Americans who had previously been dispossessed of full citizenship and opportunities through legislation that made it harder for non-whites to succeed. The programs have been under fire since Reagan since so many businesses depend on minimum wage workers who have little ability to improve their lot.

But sure, CRT is just nonsense, right? Deflection over the meaning of "privilege" is an exercise in privilege itself.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But sure, CRT is just nonsense, right? Deflection over the meaning of "privilege" is an exercise in privilege itself.

i can define you as part of the problem too, and i have the same level of evidence to support doing so as you're using. might as well then.

Hard to argue that economic and cultural advances made by non-white and non-male Americans

"cultural advances"?

 

[Hygro]

the outlandish thing is ignoring incentives the us welfare system created.

"Incentives." Keep the rightwing tropes going. Add support and people do better. That is studied. No one is disincentivized from success because it's made more attainable.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Incentives." Keep the rightwing tropes going.

incentive is an economic concept. i question why its use should be constrained to any particular group. we can predict behavior based on incentives, and when the incentives are strong we can predict it fairly accurately.

Add support and people do better.

assuming what you add functions as support, and that you're not adding things that reliably predict worse behavior/outcomes.

in terms of how us actually implemented welfare...it seems that assumption does not hold. people do better if you support good things. they do not do better if you support/subsidize bad things.

No one is disincentivized from success because it's made more attainable.

i don't think present condition of public education and single parent households implies that success is "more attainable". nor does propping up a culture that punishes success and then pretending that punishing success does not disincentivize working for and achieving success.

 

[Remorseless1]

i can define you as part of the problem too, and i have the same level of evidence to support doing so as you're using. might as well then.


"cultural advances"?

Representation in movies, books, television shows, executive positions in corporations and in government, professional careers such as doctors and lawyers, etc. Interesting you don't dispute my description of CRT because it doesn't fit some stupid CRT idea that is supposed to endow non-whites with " special" rights not available to whites and also to make whites feel guilty. Which, of course, ignores the centuries of oppression and denial of rights against segments of society. But hey, white feelings matter, right?

 

[El_Machinae]

Perverse incentives will exist. You even expect a statistical interaction with race. Of course, you'd test against the null hypothesis, but because you think the null is unlikely to be true

 

[sophie]

I just don't see much of a point in engaging in specifics with you when I know you won't read them anyway.

of course, it depends what you mean when saying privilege too.

speaking of definitions, ad hominem does not require insults. it is any attempt to attack credibility of person rather than the points they make in an argument. the forum rules allegedly frown on it, but i more so point it out because it's also ineffectual "argumentation".

Yes. Thank you for mansplaining logical fallacies to me. Believe it or not, I too had an annoying logiclord phase in my teenage years.

assertion i quoted was an attempt to equate me to what you previously represented, without addressing the argument i presented. that is ad hominem.

Nope. I'm responding to the argument you made. If I say "men are fragile and will respond violently when criticized," and a man responds by trying to punch me. Me pointing that out is not fallacious. It's literally [QED] est demonstratum.

finally for this part, i note that you did not answer the question. is that anti-crt law or not?

utterly embarrassing reading comprehension skills.

 

[Hygro]

incentive is an economic concept. i question why its use should be constrained to any particular group. we can predict behavior based on incentives, and when the incentives are strong we can predict it fairly accurately.


assuming what you add functions as support, and that you're not adding things that reliably predict worse behavior/outcomes.

in terms of how us actually implemented welfare...it seems that assumption does not hold. people do better if you support good things. they do not do better if you support/subsidize bad things.


i don't think present condition of public education and single parent households implies that success is "more attainable". nor does propping up a culture that punishes success and then pretending that punishing success does not disincentivize working for and achieving success.

“Incentives”, not incentives, is part and parcel the pre packaged trope that welfare is responsible for black failure, replete with all the “culture” arguments that you invoke in your final paragraph.

Obviously as someone trained in economics I know what incentives are. As El Mac asked, do these weird contradictions you perceive ever give you pause?

I just want to know, do you understand that you are articulating a well rehearsed, packaged political position? Or do you actually think this is an informed, non partisan, independent assortment of ideas?

 

[Cloud_Strife]