Critical race theory

[amadeus]

You can definitely do statistics on ordinal data, but it is a lot less fun and believable. If used in something politically sensitive, it will be controversial. We use it in medicine, and we only suffer from profit motive, and I don't like them very much. But we have the tools.

My point would be that if this is a purely theoretical discussion, it’s fine to keep things as an abstraction, but when it comes to implementing some sort of public policy I imagine there needs to be some kind of metric used in order to function; welfare disbursement, for example, being based on some measure of income and not just “well, they look poor enough.”

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

I think 'attractiveness privilege' is a reasonable category when you're creating your socio-economic models

It could be measured to an extent. You would just have people rate the attractiveness of photos. The larger the number of respondents, the closer you are to overall public opinion which is what affects outcomes.

I saw a study once about residential real estate. Attractive female agents command a premium on offers from buyers, especially male buyers. A male agent's looks had no effect.

SI did an analysis on starting quarterbacks. They used opinions from countries with no interest in the NFL, so the player's looks were rated objectively and not on liking or disliking the team. They found a correlation between looks and leadership ability.

 

[Hygro]

Well, well, I thought this was about critical race theory, a postgraduate course for law students. Now it's corporate diversity seminars??? Nice, "see? woke culture hates us white folk, wah!" Great deflection to a subject barely tangentially linked to CRT. The reason corporations started diversity training is because they are getting sued, not getting sued because of the training sessions. Why do you think every corporation has a HR department? Avoiding lawsuits...for generally the right reasons.

But not a thing to do with CRT, which confines itself to the LAW, because it's a legal theory.

Yes, funny how it’s treated as new, but then it’s exactly the same arguments against all social justice fights from both the immediate and recent past, as well as our lifetimes and beyond.

It’s almost as if the right just likes to refresh excitement at the exact same fight. Just kidding there’s no almost.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, people are people. The fundamental fights don't really change. Rock murder for status, knife murder for status, rope murder for status, industrial murder for status. All murder for status.

Begat not made. Made not begotten. Privilege inborn. Discrimination propagated and educated. Mandatory unison readings for participating in social institutions. It circles round and round.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My point would be that if this is a purely theoretical discussion, it’s fine to keep things as an abstraction, but when it comes to implementing some sort of public policy I imagine there needs to be some kind of metric used in order to function; welfare disbursement, for example, being based on some measure of income and not just “well, they look poor enough.”

policies would be a heck of a lot better, even generally, if part of passing them were a requirement to define what outcomes (or lack of outcomes) would constitute success vs failure of the policy. defining known costs would be helpful too.