Critical race theory

[sophie]

Literally the last 5 pages:

 

[Yeekim]

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.

They are indeed obvious and beyond question. Heck, the effects and legacy of Norman Conquest still resonate to this day in UK.
It would require some truly epic cataclysm, akin to October Revolution, to break this resonance.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Literally the last 5 pages:

View attachment 636533

weird how it keeps happening

 

[Arwon]

This whole demented "US welfare payments* are really the thing which oppresses black people" argument is one of those things where advocates could clearly benefit from being aware of even one single other country.

*(such as they are)

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Enough with the reaction images. Thank you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

executive positions in corporations and in government, professional careers such as doctors and lawyers, etc.

discrimination in these areas might have cultural origins, but they are not purely cultural themselves. making this form of discrimination illegal and enforcing that is an important aspect of a fair system.

i'm not clear on our policy preferences in this context though. for me to disagree, i would need specific assertions with which to agree or disagree. crt as it is (allegedly) taught and defined as both its opponents and proponents apparently accept it is a problem in its own right. that does not mean its absence implies lack of problems, though.

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

we observe differences in how groupings of people behave and their outcomes throughout all of history, not just post-1600 usa. it is not trivial to test their performance while controlling only for factors external to a particular culture, since it interacts with its surroundings.

the extent to which this is a problem is also debatable. we accept that professional baseball players make a lot more money in the usa than professional athletes in other sports. we accept this even though we might observe disparities between the types of people who elect to play said sports, across a large number of potential ways to group them. we even accept vs criticize observed skin color disparities wildly inconsistent with population ratios selectively/with no apparent basis for why it's okay in some situations but not others.

the problem is discrimination, and you can't derive that by observing different outcomes statistically. at best, correlating that way gives you places to check for discrimination. it is not itself proof of it, and can't be. no matter how many times posters here try to say otherwise.

Yes. Thank you for mansplaining logical fallacies to me

i was not aware that being mindful of basic logic was constrained to men alone. however, if you believe that, perhaps it explains some things in this thread. it isn't true though. fallacies remain so no matter who does them, and anybody can grasp them in principle.

Nope. I'm responding to the argument you made.

what you are doing is quoting arguments i made and the responding to something else. you alone know where you're getting that. i can't help you there.

Me pointing that out is not fallacious.

what you are doing is equivalent of trying to claim the man is the type who will punch you, without the man doing so.

you still haven't answered the tx law crt question btw.

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?

hey hey i say the same thing back with the same rigor of argumentative reasoning/backing!

if the ideas are wrong and you have better causal source for bad outcomes, or actual evidence of discrimination, rather than trying to tell me that correlation is causation again, i would love to hear it though.

This whole demented "US welfare payments* are really the thing which oppresses black people" argument is one of those things where advocates could clearly benefit from being aware of even one single other country.

welfare in way us practices it has predictably bad outcomes though. it doesn't magically only harm black people.

other countries have problems too, though they manifest differently because they have different situations in totality.

 

[Gorbles]

it doesn't magically only harm black people.

Point to where he said it did, chief.

 

[Hygro]

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?

 

[Lexicus]

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.

This research has already basically been done. The answer is that things have gotten worse (relatively and absolutely) for a good chunk (say, the bottom two-fifths by wealth) of the US population, and due to various factors including historical and ongoing racial discrimination, black people are more likely (than white people, and most other groups) to be in those bottom two fifths by wealth.

One of the most on-the-nose reasons is the Federal Housing Administration's explicit denial of mortgage guarantees to black families, a policy which ended in living memory (which, incidentally, is why I find comparisons to the Norman conquest here asinine). The idea that straight-up denial of mortgages (and thus homeownership) to black families as recently as 60 years ago has no effect on circumstances today is beyond ridiculous, it is, as @Hygro alluded to, a well-rehearsed political position, particularly when homeownership is almost the whole reason the US has (had?) a mass middle class at all.

 

[RobAnybody]

I'm curious about one thing TMiT brought up that didn't appear to get addressed. This "law" (I use quotes 'cause I have no idea if it is an actual law anywhere or not) quoted below - do people ITT see anything wrong with what it says?

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.

I basically agree with all of these points (except for that annoying blank bullet point right above I can't seem to get rid of) - as in, "well, yeah, those should be wrong for a teacher (et al) to espouse - that's messed up".

The reason I'm asking is because I could easily see a fairly liberal school board proposing the exact same rules, so I'm wondering if this is relevant to the topic of discussion or not? In other words, is someone opposing a "law" like this pro-CRT b/c they want things like that taught? And someone supporting this "law" is anti-CRT?

 

[Hygro]

Devoid context and bounded it's pretty harmless, even virtuous. But the recurring theme is guarding white privilege. It really comes down to who would enforce these 8 rules, and how.

 

[Senethro]

the problem is discrimination, and you can't derive that by observing different outcomes statistically. at best, correlating that way gives you places to check for discrimination. it is not itself proof of it, and can't be. no matter how many times posters here try to say otherwise.

I'm reading this sentence as if "discrimination" is short for "racist discrimination", because discrimination in a wider sense of "selection" is clearly taking place and this sentence makes absolutely no sense otherwise.

To answer: Yes you can. Or rather, it doesn't matter.

You don't need to to prove that racism has taken place by identifying a racist as the culprit. This isn't a crime that has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The outcome itself is undesirable and should be prevented, and we can even be agnostic about the causes and still want it fixed.

 

[Arwon]

I'm curious about one thing TMiT brought up that didn't appear to get addressed. This "law" (I use quotes 'cause I have no idea if it is an actual law anywhere or not) quoted below - do people ITT see anything wrong with what it says?

I basically agree with all of these points (except for that annoying blank bullet point right above I can't seem to get rid of) - as in, "well, yeah, those should be wrong for a teacher (et al) to espouse - that's messed up".

The reason I'm asking is because I could easily see a fairly liberal school board proposing the exact same rules, so I'm wondering if this is relevant to the topic of discussion or not? In other words, is someone opposing a "law" like this pro-CRT b/c they want things like that taught? And someone supporting this "law" is anti-CRT?

Making dumb strawman positions into actual laws which in theory need to be open to interpretation and application by courts, seems like a bad idea

 

[EnglishEdward]

On that I agree.

It is important that unless there are good reasons to the contrary,
people in organisations are free to be able to determine their own
approach; and adopt their own codes of practices and procedures.

Much of that they will almost certainly get wrong, but they can
learn from experience and update things as appropriate.

Questionable external controls are burdensome, disliked and
inevitably ignored, if they think that they can get away with it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I enjoyed this piece by John Oliver about CRT

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Devoid context and bounded it's pretty harmless, even virtuous. But the recurring theme is guarding white privilege.

unless you're willing to claim that being virtuous is a white privilege thing, pick one.

I'm reading this sentence as if "discrimination" is short for "racist discrimination", because discrimination in a wider sense of "selection" is clearly taking place and this sentence makes absolutely no sense otherwise.

well this thread's context is crt. discrimination on other factors people can't control is bad too. at least when it comes to things like job opportunities or similar.

To answer: Yes you can. Or rather, it doesn't matter.

you "can" do a lot of things that shouldn't be done. using correlation to imply a cause of choice is one of those things. it does matter, because it leads to harmful outcomes/policies while not actually getting the outcome that's supposedly intended.

You don't need to to prove that racism has taken place by identifying a racist as the culprit. This isn't a crime that has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The outcome itself is undesirable and should be prevented, and we can even be agnostic about the causes and still want it fixed.

this is hard to unpack, because there is not a singular "outcome". outcomes happen at individual level, and are contingent on a huge quantity of factors. there is no "the outcome". there are statistics, and people here are trying to claim that these statistics themselves are causal factors, which they are not.

if you want to improve a metric like "outcome on average for x group", you really do need to identify the source/causal factor(s) that are leading to this group performing below where you want it. not presuppose a cause using provably bad logic that is widely rejected in other fields for good reason to implement policies that harm everyone, including the target population, over time.

you also need to separate out which outcomes are acceptable vs not acceptable. it is 100% impossible to get approximately equal outcomes between groups of people without doing some horror **** like making everyone genetically similar and trained by robots by force. even the racist fixation on "white" is complete fantasy; subgroups of people who fit that category similarly have massively different observed outcomes, because individuals fit into more groupings than one.

if you find and correct behavior of individual racists, great. if you want to stop it at scale, you have to identify the causal factors that predict the poor performance you don't like. that isn't optional. "there are white people inherently working to sustain their oppression" ain't it. it's race grifting of the worst kind. though there's a nugget there, specifically that the ruling class in particular will reliably act to keep their status as ruling class throughout history. in usa, it's not realistic to claim that "ruling class" is "white" by design. those who are not part of ruling class with various skin colors tend to have more in common with each other than people of own color in ruling class.

welfare structured to create continued dependence on government (there is no reason is has to be structured this way, if you actually want different outcomes), increasingly centralized education, policy that reliably favors big organizations that funnel money back into government to perpetuate control over said policy, and suppression of information by these institutions are what i suspect are some causal factors in wealth gap/shrinking middle class generally.

when non-white people push policy that results in alleged "systemic racism favoring white privilege", and do so repeatedly, maybe it's time to reconsider what our problems actually are and who/what causes them.

 

[Senethro]

Then what is the correct way to detect a system that should be neutral performing non-neutrally?

 

[Hygro]

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?

Squirmy wormy

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Then what is the correct way to detect a system that should be neutral performing non-neutrally?

start by demonstrating where it is behaving non-neutrally, which means doing more than looking at different outcomes and assuming things weren't fair.

Squirmy wormy

you have routinely refused to engage my posts in good faith in this thread. i don't see a need to dignify baiting with a good faith response. so here's you go, i answered your post. i'm sure that will make you happy!

 

[Senethro]

start by demonstrating where it is behaving non-neutrally, which means doing more than looking at different outcomes and assuming things weren't fair.

How? What would that look like?