Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,054
Thats fair. I was.
Critical race theory
- Thread starter eyrei
- Start date
Thats fair. I was.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Why not? Remember to hit the right number of Hail Marys when you talk though, or what you really mean is that it fits like a hood.
Verbose
Deity
What's your take on "ethnicity"? This area of debate if loaded with tricky concepts.
I'm paid to do software development. I rely on software being a thing. My livelihood relies on it.
It's one thing to be skeptical of CRT. It's another entirely to jump on a train of thought that people are biased (to an extent where the thing they're doing is flawed) because they're getting paid for something.
Senethro
Overlord
Short answer: No.
Long answer. No. Initially you can do it and it "seems" to work in line with expectations, and then to check your working you compare two people in the same racial group and get the same result.
Short conclusion: Human groups are very "wide" and "fuzzy around the edges" and the "centres" of any supposed "groups" are millimetres away from each other, causing huge degrees of overlap.
You kind of can, but:
- There are hundreds of ways, and they produce hundreds of different answers.
- They all produce ranges, with no hard lines you can draw between groups of people.
- The answer you get will not be very like the answer you would expect if you based your groups on pigmentation/lip thickness/hair type among americans.
Verbose
Deity
Yes, there is continuous variation mucking up any attempts at morphological boundary-setting, and genetic variation doing the same.
The main fallacy of all such attempts is probably the assumption that members of some group are more closely related to every other member of such a group, i.e. "family" in some sense. One one level it's a kind of simple population genetics trope keeping a bunch of things together (we know population, primarily, reproduce sexually – which is the thing linking even old Linnaeus back in the mid 17th c. to todays population genetics), but it doesn't actually work.
Only now we have modern genetics and a popular resurgence for "ancestry", now becoming understood as genetics – which is reviving the old trope of "family", whether understood as "race as family" or "ethnicity as family" or even "nation as family", people claiming identity, sometimes particular rights, on the basis of their genes.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I know this. It overlaps and does not make sense because it isn't causal. But can that nonsensical nature be demonstrated? Like in a nice evocative example.
No is a problem.
It is difficult. The image below, from here, gives an idea of what the data looks like, but they exclude the populations most relevant to our discussion. Also note that the 2 principal components they are plotting only represent ~5% of the variation. This site is their main portal, and looks like it could give an idea, but is pretty broken for me. I have my browser pretty locked down, it may work for you. I may expand later when I have time.
PCA clustering Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of 20 populations from 1000 Genomes Project, built using 2 first principal components. The following populations were not used to build the map: ASW = Americans of African Ancestry in SW USA; ACB = African Caribbeans in Barbados; MXL = Mexican Ancestry from Los Angeles USA; GIH = Gujarati Indian from Houston, Texas; STU = Sri Lankan Tamil from the UK; ITU = Indian Telugu from the UK
See, the other possibility you aren't considering is that I'm correct about this, and your 'cutting edge science' is not solid enough to undergo the slightest scrutiny. There is a reason CRT falls back into the shadows shortly after exposure every decade or so. Its just not a solid theory unless you only accept the most basic parts of it, and those are generally understood without the assistance of CRT. As soon as you get into the details, and people start trying to apply it, the problems become very apparent. This theory is left-wing overreach, plain and simple, and that is coming from a Liberal...
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
So how's the critical race theory going? Have you all come to a common definition kids?
I can't figure out what you're tilting at. Honestly, it feels like you're missing some little tidbit, but that tidbit is an entire paradigm understanding.
Unfortunately, I don't remember how I figured it out, but I remember the two being confused. But over and over, we find out that biology is fuzzy compared to how sharp the definitions are that we try to impose and resist updating.
Unfortunately, I don't remember how I figured it out, but I remember the two being confused. But over and over, we find out that biology is fuzzy compared to how sharp the definitions are that we try to impose and resist updating.
sophie
Break My Heart
Well we're seven pages in and we're still talking about things that have nothing to do with Critical Race theory. So clearly the answer is no.
I love this particular tidbit from the wikipedia article regarding the history of CRT:
The first formal meeting centered on CRT was the 1989 "New Developments in Critical Race Theory" workshop, an effort to connect the theoretical underpinnings of critical legal studies (CLS) to the day-to-day realities of American racial politics. The workshop was organized by Kimberlé Crenshaw for a retreat entitled "New Developments in Critical Race Theory" that effectively created the field. As Crenshaw states, only she, Matsuda, Gotanda, Chuck Lawrence, and a handful of others knew "that there were no new developments in critical race theory, because CRT hadn't had any old ones—it didn't exist, it was made up as a name. Sometimes you gotta fake it until you make it." Crenshaw states that critical race theorists had "discovered ourselves to be critical theorists who did race and racial justice advocates who did critical theory."[21][20] Crenshaw writes, "one might say that CRT was the offspring of a post-civil rights institutional activism that was generated and informed by an oppositionalist orientation toward racial power."[19]
This does not sound like a scientific movement at all. It is activism, which is great and needed, but its proponents need to stop trying to market it as scientific.
The first formal meeting centered on CRT was the 1989 "New Developments in Critical Race Theory" workshop, an effort to connect the theoretical underpinnings of critical legal studies (CLS) to the day-to-day realities of American racial politics. The workshop was organized by Kimberlé Crenshaw for a retreat entitled "New Developments in Critical Race Theory" that effectively created the field. As Crenshaw states, only she, Matsuda, Gotanda, Chuck Lawrence, and a handful of others knew "that there were no new developments in critical race theory, because CRT hadn't had any old ones—it didn't exist, it was made up as a name. Sometimes you gotta fake it until you make it." Crenshaw states that critical race theorists had "discovered ourselves to be critical theorists who did race and racial justice advocates who did critical theory."[21][20] Crenshaw writes, "one might say that CRT was the offspring of a post-civil rights institutional activism that was generated and informed by an oppositionalist orientation toward racial power."[19]
This does not sound like a scientific movement at all. It is activism, which is great and needed, but its proponents need to stop trying to market it as scientific.
It's a long thread, but aren't you the only one trying to shoehorn biology into the explanations?
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
Since race is a construct, I therefore don't have to pay reparations because black people are a myth.
Last edited:
Money is a construct, so no matter what happens whether you feel like you've lost something or not is up to you
Can someone sum up what CRT is?
From the wiki page I gathered that it is focused on white skin being a property, and consequently that any perks from owning it should be modulated. If so (and I am not sure I got it right, although that specific claim is part of the article), how can one hope to maintain a balance without perpetual systemic modulation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
From the wiki page I gathered that it is focused on white skin being a property, and consequently that any perks from owning it should be modulated. If so (and I am not sure I got it right, although that specific claim is part of the article), how can one hope to maintain a balance without perpetual systemic modulation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
sophie
Break My Heart
You sound like a flat earther whining about that Blue Marble quote: "It's faked because it has to be" See! NASA admits their images of the Ball Earth are CGI!
