Who can we blame for CRT? Immanuel Kant

[LeafByNiggle]

We could also look at the laws. Are there laws that give benefits to white people? No.

Jim Crow laws had no effect? Really?

How about policies? No...I'd actually have a far easier time pointing out policies and practices that give benefits to non-whites and other various minorities because of the implementation of Affirmative Action in both university applications hiring practices in many big businesses.

These are recent policies, for nearly two centuries there were very explicit policies that were quite effective in ensuring that wealth was taken from blacks.

What other explanation are there? We looked really hard at implicit bias....but that hasn't been very successful at proving your hypothesis.

So you say. I did not agree to that.

So what's left? I suppose we can talk about culture. We would have to define this though (ie. Black culture, white culture, etc)

If we examine culture as the cause, be sure to take into account that black culture coming out of slavery was the culture given to them by their white masters. And that culture going forward from there is in a feedback loop with social situations. That is, people in poverty tend to develop a very different culture from people in affluence. I say it is a feedback loop because culture affects prosperity and prosperity affects culture. It would be incomplete to look only at half of this equation.

If you can think of a possible explanation I'm missing....feel free to point it out.

Sherlock Holmes is famously quoted as saying "When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This may be a nice saying in fiction, but in the real world, it is terrible logic. The reason is that the premise (eliminating [all] the impossible answers) is hardly ever practical. On what basis can anyone ever say they have considered all the possibilities? One may think they have considered all the possibilities, but through a failure of imagination, they have simply missed a possibility.

As for the explanation you are asking for, this is what Critical Race Theory studies. And there are plenty of possible and reasonable explanations for the discrepancy in black wealth vs. white wealth (which is different from black income vs. white income). The white/black wealth discrepancy currently stands at 7.8 (median household wealth). There is undeniably a history of black wealth being plundered under the law and outside of the law, starting with slavery itself, continuing to Jim Crow laws, and redlining. Redlining is a very significant factor because a major way in which wealth is grown is through real estate. When blacks are denied to opportunity to purchase a home in an up and coming neighborhood, they miss out on that growth of wealth. Once a wealth gap exists, it is easy to see how it is naturally perpetuated and expanded. Wealth is often handed down through inheritance. Since blacks have black parents, they have much less to inherit. Beyond that there are unwritten policies that disadvantage minorities in subtle ways. None of these things are absolute bars to blacks becoming wealthy. After all there are examples of black millionaires. But statistically speaking, the chances of being prosperous are much lower for blacks.

This view of the effect of properity is confirmed by the fact that blacks who do happen to be reasonably prosperous (as much as the average white) do not in fact have a higher murder rate than whites. This is a fact that is inconvenient to the view that blacks deserve to be where they are. But it is nevertheless true.

Well if a theory is racist then for the reasons outlined above, we can dismiss it as untrue.

Scientifically we don't call such theories "untrue". We call them "unsupported". A theory that is unsupported may still turn out to be true, if said support somehow turns up. Similarly, a theory that is supported, may still turn out to be false, if better data appears showing that the support was faulty and better support exists for an opposing theory.

That's why I can say that "white people are more likely to be successful because they are white" is a racist theory.

It would not be racist if evidence turned up that actually supported the theory. Again, I dismiss the statement above, not because it is racist, but because it is factually untrue (or, more accurately, unsupported). As I said before, the statement "black people are more likely to have sickle cell anemia because they are black" is not racist. It is simply a true fact.

I don't know what you even mean by "success" here. It's too broad of term personally and socially.

Just about any reasonable interpretation of success would prove the point. For example, having access to clean water, good schools, healthy grocery stores, and an average amount of wealth.

Let's be more specific. Let's ask if there's anything about being black or white that would make it more likely for the person to make 80,000$ a year, or more. I would say no.

I would say, possibly yes. Being black means one's parents are likely black. That means they are likely to have 1/7 the wealth of a white family. That means they are less likely to have the means to provide you with good schooling, and more likely to need you to get a job instead of going to school. That means you will be less prepared to get a good job. That means you will be less likely to make $80,000 a year or more.

We do know that there are multiple factors that are unrelated to race which can affect the chances of meeting that standard or not meeting that standard...

For example being a child of divorce would impact that outcome. It's not a factor any child can control, but it does seem to be a factor. Another example is graduating high school....which is a factor that someone has a choice in. I can say it's easier for a child from a stable two family home to graduate from high school than a child of divorce. It's weird to me though when people begin to describe the struggle that the child of a stable two family home didn't face (the struggle that the child of divorce did face) as a privilege. It's not as if either child was able to decide if their parents would stay married.

All these factors that you have mentioned - every single one of them - is more likely if you are black. Therefore it is not correct to say that these factors are unrelated to race.

If the child chooses to skip school....

Which is more likely if your family needs the money and you can get a low-paying job right away. It is also more likely if you go to a crummy unsafe school, which also is related to race.

Other factors are almost entirely perspers choice....like having a child as a teenager.

Even personal choices like this are somewhat influenced by one's social situation, which in turn is related to race.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Jim Crow laws had no effect? Really?

Are we talking about the past or the present? I can't possibly change the past, and including it in my list of causes for the present is almost impossible. I can try to do it, but any stopping point is completely arbitrary. Aristotle, for example, influenced how things are in the present. I can go back to him and show how he impacted all of what we call "western civilization" and the reasons why they did the things they did.

Obviously the past affects the present. I agree with that statement 100%. When we're talking about wealth of the black population...I don't know if Jim Crow and it's effects had a bigger impact on black wealth today than the globalization of industry. I don't know how to compare those things. It's really difficult because, frankly, the wealth gap between whites and blacks shrank until the mid 60s....then increased again. That's right around the time when blacks were given full rights, and major industries were moving overseas. It would seem to indicate that globalization had the bigger impact...but I really don't want to jump to that conclusion. There's simply too many factors.

These are recent policies, for nearly two centuries there were very explicit policies that were quite effective in ensuring that wealth was taken from blacks.

Well that's the thing....if you chart the wealth of the black population under Jim Crow, the trend is generally upward. Here's a good chart...

So a few things to note.

1. There was already a gap. If we go back further into the slavery era, the gap was even larger. From what we understand of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, there was a gap between European traders and African kings. To go all the way back to where we will find either no gap or African advantage in wealth, I'm pretty sure it would be at least until ancient Egypt or possibly some post-Islamic African nations.

2. White wealth was increased faster...but not by a lot.

3. After Jim Crow was ended in the 60s....there's a flattening or even a decrease in black wealth.

4. Post Affirmative Action we see a rather significant increase of wealth meant to address the gap...but it doesn't resolve it.

My point here is that obviously Jim Crow affected wealth. The problem is how much? I know that some people think it's the biggest factor or even the only factor...but it's definitely not the only factor, and I don't know how to figure out if it's the biggest.

So you say. I did not agree to that.

You don't have to agree. That's what the science says.

Appellate Advocacy Blog: Implicit Bias: Does It Have Any Relationship to Biased Behavior?

"Researchers from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Harvard, and the University of Virginia examined 499 studies over 20 years involving 80,859 participants that used the IAT and other, similar measures. They discovered two things: One is that the correlation between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior appears weaker than previously thought. They also conclude that there is very little evidence that changes in implicit bias have anything to do with changes in a person’s behavior."

You disagree with the massive number of scientific studies and their conclusions? Fine. If you want to institute policy based on your disagreement with science or even change teaching to include the idea that implicit biases effect behavior....you should be fought at every step.

We're talking about policies that impact millions of lives. It shouldn't be anti-science. I don't mind if a creationist wants to teach their kids that god explains the way things are...but I don't want it in the classroom. Anti-scientific beliefs shouldn't be taught to little children.

If we examine culture as the cause, be sure to take into account that black culture coming out of slavery was the culture given to them by their white masters. And that culture going forward from there is in a feedback loop with social situations. That is, people in poverty tend to develop a very different culture from people in affluence. I say it is a feedback loop because culture affects prosperity and prosperity affects culture. It would be incomplete to look only at half of this equation.

How does one account for that? No offense but if you want to explain all problems in the black community as the fault of whites....how is that any different from racial scapegoating? Are we stripping all agency from black people?

I can understand saying that one has affected the other. It has. The schism between slaves kept in the house of slave masters and those kept in the fields has resulted in a rather ugly racial slur that black people tend to use against black people who work with whites, get perceived as "acting white", or otherwise are generally seen as betraying the black community.

Yes, that exists because of the days of slavery. There's no white people forcing black people to keep saying it though. They can stop at any time. I've seen it even as recently as last year....when Terry Crews dared to suggest there were some angry militant voices in BLM. I saw it after Tim Scott gave a public speech that was pretty uplifting and the black community called him "uncle tim".

That's on the black community. They can stop anytime they want. I can't blame the white community for it. No amount of blaming white people will change that.

Sherlock Holmes is famously quoted as saying "When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This may be a nice saying in fiction, but in the real world, it is terrible logic. The reason is that the premise (eliminating [all] the impossible answers) is hardly ever practical. On what basis can anyone ever say they have considered all the possibilities? One may think they have considered all the possibilities, but through a failure of imagination, they have simply missed a possibility.

And generally speaking, it's a problem with the social sciences. They're good at telling you what happened but bad at explaining why it happened.

As for the explanation you are asking for, this is what Critical Race Theory studies.

It doesn't study anything. It starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it while ignoring it dismissing any evidence that doesn't. That's not research, that's a worldview.

If you can show me just 1 bit of research into any social problems that doesn't ultimately conclude that the problem is the fault of white people...I'll admit I could be wrong.

That shouldn't be too difficult, right? There's thousands of research papers that look into all sorts of problems that tell you right in the premise they are using a CRT framework.

I've never found one that doesn't come to the conclusion that it is white people who are to blame.

And there are plenty of possible and reasonable explanations for the discrepancy in black wealth vs. white wealth (which is different from black income vs. white income). The white/black wealth discrepancy currently stands at 7.8 (median household wealth). There is undeniably a history of black wealth being plundered under the law and outside of the law, starting with slavery itself, continuing to Jim Crow laws, and redlining.

The disparity didn't start with slavery. The merchants trading with some of the wealthiest and most powerful African kings were in most ways wealthier than those kings. The idea that European empires were discovering the societies of Africa and the Americas on equal footing....then began using deceit and trickery or began engaging in immoral practices that gave them some huge wealth advantage is provably false. They showed up in Africa and found slavery endemic. It was normal. The things they traded were vastly different...they got raw materials and slaves from Africa, they traded guns and gunpowder which were cheap to them but rare to Africans.

To explain why this "unequal footing" already existed is a long story that involves a lot of factors. Did those merchants see themselves as coming from a place of superiority? Yes. Did those exact same merchants see everyone that way? No. They saw China, India, and many parts of the middle east as superior to their own nations. In China, Europeans had a trade deficit for all of history until the Opium wars.

The point here is that if you genuinely believe there was some sort of time when everyone was equal and European nations ruined it with slavery and colonialism....you're wrong.

Redlining is a very significant factor because a major way in which wealth is grown is through real estate. When blacks are denied to opportunity to purchase a home in an up and coming neighborhood, they miss out on that growth of wealth. Once a wealth gap exists, it is easy to see how it is naturally perpetuated and expanded. Wealth is often handed down through inheritance. Since blacks have black parents, they have much less to inherit.

Redlining is now illegal and frankly, just like everything illegal, making it a crime isn't a guarantee it will stop. Theft is a crime but it still happens. Wells Fargo (I believe) was caught redlining and had to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to black families as a result.

I get that it had an impact on outcomes....all of history did. I also understand that justice isn't perfect and sometimes a bank will get away with it.

As I said though, these statements are true of all history and all crimes. I don't know what you would see as a solution.

Beyond that there are unwritten policies that disadvantage minorities in subtle ways.

If they are unwritten, how do you know they exist?

I'm going to remind you that you can't point to a disparity of wealth and conclude they exist. The disparity is what we are trying to explain. A disparity can't be the evidence of a hypothesis that seeks to explain the disparity. That's called circular reasoning.

None of these things are absolute bars to blacks becoming wealthy. After all there are examples of black millionaires.

And millions of white people in poverty. We can also look at disparities of wealth between asians and whites and see that asians have better outcomes in wealth, life expectancy, and education. Jews also have similar outcomes.

Do you think CRT has an explanation for these things? It does...but it's not a very good explanation. It will say that wealthy blacks have a "false consciousness" (which is a Marxist idea) and they are engaging in white supremacy. It will claim that asians have a "proximity to whiteness" which is an explanation without any evidence, just an idea created whole cloth to preserve the ideology of CRT. The millions of poor whites aren't even discussed. I don't think they can explain why they are poor without an answer that sounds like a meritocracy....which they reject.

The Jews probably represent the biggest problem since they are the targets of white supremacists....no one would really believe that they are supporting white supremacy. The "proximity to whiteness" story doesndo really work either...as they have their own traditions, holidays, and culture which they defend pretty seriously.

I don't think they have any explanation for the disparities of Jewish outcomes because frankly, they would have to change their worldview to fit the evidence. What I've tended to see is an explanation that resembles some very old very anti-semitic conspiracy theories.

But statistically speaking, the chances of being prosperous are much lower for blacks.

If you're saying that on average black people have less wealth than whites...I'd agree. The average itself changes over time for various reasons. This is different from saying something like "the chances of becoming wealthy". That's a very different question.

This view of the effect of properity is confirmed by the fact that blacks who do happen to be reasonably prosperous (as much as the average white) do not in fact have a higher murder rate than whites.

Is that a fact? I've seen studies on the average murder rates of black men in the NFL....many of whom often grew up poor...and compared to the murder rates of all white people, poor and wealthy, they are the same.

But that compares the murder rate of wealthy blacks to the murder rate of whites regardless of wealth. It's a very different thing from comparing just wealthy whites and wealthy blacks.

I've never seen the latter. If you have the data though, I'd like to.

This is a fact that is inconvenient to the view that blacks deserve to be where they are. But it is nevertheless true.

I don't make judgements about "deserve". I think the person who works in ensuring we all have clean water and checks the water quality is someone who deserves to be recognized for how important their work is and how easily we take it for granted....

I don't make statements about races and what they deserve. That's always going to come off as racist.

Scientifically we don't call such theories "untrue". We call them "unsupported".

Ok. I'm not interested in semantics. There's a method for determining what kind of truth claims can be held reliably. CRT doesn't use that method. It uses a method that is provably unreliable for making claims about reality that consistently hold up over time.

A theory that is unsupported may still turn out to be true, if said support somehow turns up. Similarly, a theory that is supported, may still turn out to be false, if better data appears showing that the support was faulty and better support exists for an opposing theory.

Right. Reality is the final arbiter for truth in science. New evidence can change the claims that science makes about truth.

It would not be racist if evidence turned up that actually supported the theory. Again, I dismiss the statement above, not because it is racist, but because it is factually untrue (or, more accurately, unsupported). As I said before, the statement "black people are more likely to have sickle cell anemia because they are black" is not racist. It is simply a true fact.

I don't think their skin color has anything to do with sickle cell anemia. It has to do with exposure to the malaria parasite over many generations. This is a feature of geography. I don't know, for example, the indigenous populations of Australia have significantly higher rates of sickle cell anemia...even though they would be considered black here in the US.

Just about any reasonable interpretation of success would prove the point. For example, having access to clean water, good schools, healthy grocery stores, and an average amount of wealth.

Those aren't racial characteristics. In fact, the average second generation immigrant to the US is more wealthy than the average person in the US. That's a large group of people from a large geographic area and multiple different races and "starting points" of wealth (in fact, their parents are on average less wealthy than the average US citizen).

Now, they don't come from wealth and if we were to look at their races, they are overwhelmingly non-white, and there's a plethora of obstacles regarding culture, language, beliefs, etc...that stand in their way.

That's a claim that is extremely difficult to answer if you want to believe in CRT.

I would say, possibly yes. Being black means one's parents are likely black. That means they are likely to have 1/7 the wealth of a white family. That means they are less likely to have the means to provide you with good schooling, and more likely to need you to get a job instead of going to school. That means you will be less prepared to get a good job. That means you will be less likely to make $80,000 a year or more.

See above.

All these factors that you have mentioned - every single one of them - is more likely if you are black. Therefore it is not correct to say that these factors are unrelated to race.

No....I pointed out factors that are entirely irrelevant to race and entirely dependent upon personal choice.

Take having a child as a teenager. There's nothing race that makes anyone more capable or more likely to do that. It's a choice. One race may on average make that choice more often than another....but that doesn't make the choice related to race.

Which is more likely if your family needs the money and you can get a low-paying job right away. It is also more likely if you go to a crummy unsafe school, which also is related to race.


Even personal choices like this are somewhat influenced by one's social situation, which in turn is related to race.

I don't think you're understanding the difference "related to race" and something that on average occurs more within a racial group.

The racial groups that we recognize in the US are arbitrary characteristics. The fact that black people on average have a higher rate of sickle cell anemia isn't because they are black. It's because Africa has a lot of sunlight so skin color tends to be darker there by evolution. Sickle cell anemia has to do with exposure to mosquitoes carrying malaria....which there are a lot of in Africa. It's also a product of evolution....but it's guided by geography and natural selection.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The theory evolves, at best he originated the first iteration of the term, which is not the same as it never changing. That's like saying only Freud did anything of significance to Freudian psychology. Word choice can be tricky, let's not be pedantic

Thanks for proving my point. Yes, he originated the term....I pointed out that his only real contribution he made to CRT was his racist beliefs. I gave him credit for being a rationalist....not for steering CRT into a rational system of beliefs. CRT changed over time and dropped anything remotely resembling rationality.

Because absolutism leads to fascism, genius.

Agreeing that an objective reality exists regardless of perspective leads to fascism?

You're joking, right?

And nice well poisoning to just throw out the buzzword of communism to foment more fear instead of substantiating your objections in a way that isn't "Oh, this doesn't answer everything to my satisfaction, thus it's worthless," which is childish, to be frank

You're accusing me of poisoning the well and you just claimed rational thought leads to fascism lol. Yes, I'm aware you said "absolutism" but I didn't. I'm sure you think I didn't notice that shift in goalposts and that's insulting in of itself.

I tend not to substantiate objections unless asked to....that way I don't waste my time explaining things people can't understand.

If you want me to explain a claim I made just ask.

Pretty sure it isn't exclusively postmodern, so you're already burying the lead in more attempts to discredit without actually offering an alternative that isn't dismissive and victim blaming of those who suffer racial injustice, like they just created the situations that have been around since America's founding and didn't go away after the Civil War, they just festered in Jim Crow not targeting race explicitly. And even moreso now with nationalist nonsense that treats anyone who doesn't act white enough in their satisfaction of conforming to American exceptionalist white supremacy as a traitor (to the country and/or their race)

Ahem, you mean its, you don't use it's unless it's a contraction of "it is"

Oh, the theory that looks at race as a factor is somehow actually also prejudiced against white people, as if they aren't enabling or outright participating in a discriminatory social structure that centers and favors white people historically.

Almost like critical theory is based in the social sciences, which you'd know if you actually looked at it even an iota instead of having pundits tell you what to think and then convince yourself you're some brilliant intellectual yourself via delusions of grandeur. But sure, dismiss anything that doesn't have the positivist spin you want to put on things, you sure are in the "majority" there

Lol I don't actually have time to point out the logical errors that you made here. I also don't have to respond to the baseless accusations you've made against me or my position.


All I really need to do is ask if you know CRT's epistemology? Well....do you?

Do you know how it arrives at truth claims?

It's right there in the definition I quoted...but if you need help understanding, I'll gladly point it out for you.

My guess is that you'll respond with more ad hominem attacks and refuse to answer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are we talking about the past or the present? I can't possibly change the past...

No one is asking you to change the past, just to acknowledge the past and the effect it has on the present.

When we're talking about wealth of the black population...I don't know if Jim Crow and it's effects had a bigger impact on black wealth today than the globalization of industry.

Jim Crow laws had a differential effect on blacks because that is how they were designed. Globalization of industry affects whites the same as blacks, so, no, it does not explain the 7:1 wealth ratio.

It's really difficult because, frankly, the wealth gap between whites and blacks shrank until the mid 60s....then increased again.

Your graph shows income, not wealth.

So a few things to note.

1. There was already a gap. If we go back further into the slavery era, the gap was even larger. From what we understand of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, there was a gap between European traders and African kings.

Whatever wealth African kings had did not benefit black slaves who lost everything by becoming slaves.

2. White wealth was increased faster...but not by a lot.

The fact that whites gain faster than blacks is evidence the system remains rigged against blacks (although not as overtly) right up to today. That's what CRT attempts to study.

3. After Jim Crow was ended in the 60s....there's a flattening or even a decrease in black wealth.

Jim Crow may have ended, but the forces behind it just found other ways, such as red lining.

4. Post Affirmative Action we see a rather significant increase of wealth meant to address the gap...but it doesn't resolve it.

Because it was a weak response to a much bigger problem. It is not surprising that it did not have much effect.

You don't have to agree. That's what the science says.

Don't quote a blog and call it science.

How does one account for that? No offense but if you want to explain all problems in the black community as the fault of whites....how is that any different from racial scapegoating?

As I told you at least four times already, and this makes number five, it's not about a statement being racist. It's about a statement being true. There is no doubt that if we look only up until 1865 or so, it is factually true that the white power structure was totally responsible for the condition of blacks in US society. It is also factually true that, despite the end of slavery, that power structure continued to oppress blacks for some time. So the argument cannot be that it is racial scapegoating to ever say that the white power structure is responsible for the inequity. The only argument that can rationally be had is when, if ever, did that power structure stop being responsible. Do you have a suggested year after which we can say the white power structure no longer has any oppressive effect on the condition of blacks? I am open to hearing your arguments supporting a specific year when it first came to an end.

Are we stripping all agency from black people?

No, I am open to hearing your arguments that blacks starting out in the same condition as whites tend to fall into poverty or otherwise lose their wealth more than whites. I really am. Show me the agency that blacks have for having 1/7 the wealth of whites.

I saw it after Tim Scott gave a public speech that was pretty uplifting and the black community called him "uncle tim".

It may sound uplifting to white ears, but to blacks who feel betrayed by a black Senator who denies the validity of the black struggle for equality, it may not have sounded all that uplifting.

It doesn't study anything. It starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it while ignoring it dismissing any evidence that doesn't. That's not research, that's a worldview.

A few paragraphs back you just got done insisting that the social science quoted in a blog was solid science and that I was anti-science to dismiss it, here you are now denigrating that very field you had just hung your hat on. Pick a lane!

The disparity didn't start with slavery.

And condition in Africa became irrelevant once the slaves were loaded on ships. After that they were just slaves. It didn't matter if they were the son of a village chief or social outcast. They were all just slaves with no past.

The point here is that if you genuinely believe there was some sort of time when everyone was equal and European nations ruined it with slavery and colonialism....you're wrong.

Never claimed that. I do claim that when slaves were brought to America, they became the responsibility of the ones who brought them here and used them. No matter what went before, that was wrong.

Redlining is now illegal and frankly, just like everything illegal, making it a crime isn't a guarantee it will stop.

It doesn't matter if red lining ended completely in 1968. The effect was the white locked in a large part of the valuable real-estate. That is a major way in which families grow wealth. White families pass on that wealth to the their white children, and black families pass on their lack of wealth to their children.

As I said though, these statements are true of all history and all crimes.

Whataboutism.

If they are unwritten, how do you know they exist?

by their effects.

And millions of white people in poverty.

They form a smaller fraction of the white community than blacks in poverty do of the black community.

We can also look at disparities of wealth between asians and whites///

Deflection.

Do you think CRT has an explanation for these things?

CRT attempts to study the explanations.

It does...but it's not a very good explanation.

You are welcome to put forth a better one.

It will say that wealthy blacks have a "false consciousness" (which is a Marxist idea) and they are engaging in white supremacy.

Straw man argument.

The Jews probably represent the biggest problem...

Deflection

If you're saying that on average black people have less wealth than whites...I'd agree. The average itself changes over time for various reasons.

This particular comparison has never approached 1:1.

This is different from saying something like "the chances of becoming wealthy". That's a very different question.

I'm not really concerned about the chances of becoming exceptionally wealthy, because whether white or black, that happens to very few. I'm talking about the changes of becoming reasonably well off - having wealth (and other benefits of society) comparable to the average of the population as a whole.

Is that a fact? I've seen studies on the average murder rates of black men in the NFL....many of whom often grew up poor...and compared to the murder rates of all white people, poor and wealthy, they are the same.

When you see studies that say that blacks in the same nice neighborhoods as whites murder at a higher rate, let me know.

Ok. I'm not interested in semantics. There's a method for determining what kind of truth claims can be held reliably. CRT doesn't use that method. It uses a method that is provably unreliable for making claims about reality that consistently hold up over time.

Support your claim.

I don't think their skin color has anything to do with sickle cell anemia.

It has to do with race, and yes, the evolution of that race, which also, by the way is responsible for their skin color (exposure to damaging UV rays).

the indigenous populations of Australia have significantly higher rates of sickle cell anemia...even though they would be considered black here in the US.

But racially they are not the same.

Those aren't racial characteristics.

Right. And neither is the ability to generate wealth. It only becomes a racial characteristic when people artificially make it a racial characteristic, such as by systematically oppressing members of a race.

Take having a child as a teenager. There's nothing race that makes anyone more capable or more likely to do that.

Social condition can indeed affect the chances of having a child as a teenager. When children feel secure and see hope for a bright future, they are highly motivated to avoid having children too early. Conversely, when children are insecure and see no hope for a bright future, they are more likely to despair and see having a child as the only way to feel fulfilled. Since blacks are more likely to fall in the second category, they are more likely to have a child as a teenager.

 

[Albion]

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

Professor Guelzo is a highly regarded researcher and author, and his explanation of where CRT came from is right on target, including his placing of Kant in the history of The Englightenment.

 

[public hermit]

Professor Guelzo is a highly regarded researcher and author, and his explanation of where CRT came from is right on target, including his placing of Kant in the history of The Englightenment.

Could you say more? Can you trace the thread from CRT to Kant? If you are just accepting his expert opinion that's cool, we all do that, but if you can trace the thread, for this thread, that would be great.

Would you say Kant rejected reason and the principles of the Enlightenment? If so, how so?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No one is asking you to change the past, just to acknowledge the past and the effect it has on the present.

Really? Then we can move on to discussing the present?

I've never seen anyone claim that the past doesn't affect the present. In fact, I already acknowledged the entire past impacts the present.

Globalization of industry affects whites the same as blacks, so, no, it does not explain the 7:1 wealth ratio.

This is provably false.

Your graph shows income, not wealth.

Sorry, wealth can mean different things. I thought the important part was the disparity.

Whatever wealth African kings had did not benefit black slaves who lost everything by becoming slaves.

That's not the point. You described it as wealth plundered. We can discuss who benefited more if you want .

The fact that whites gain faster than blacks is evidence the system remains rigged against blacks (although not as overtly) right up to today. That's what CRT attempts to study.

Is the disparity evidence of systemic racism?

If so...what would disprove it? Wouldn't a disparity that shows whites not coming out ahead disprove it?

Jim Crow may have ended, but the forces behind it just found other ways, such as red lining.

The forces? Redlining is illegal.

Because it was a weak response to a much bigger problem. It is not surprising that it did not have much effect.

Well it did help millions of black people reach the middle class. What is the goal here? How do you know when its achieved?

Don't quote a blog and call it science.

What would you like? Links to those 500 studies? An expert in the field saying the same?

As I told you at least four times already, and this makes number five, it's not about a statement being racist. It's about a statement being true.

Ok...we need to be clear on something. Do you know what the theory of race is, generally speaking, and why it took so long to disprove scientifically....and why we can safely assume racist statements are untrue?

One can say that blacks disproportionately murder more. In fact, we can say that they disproportionately commit violent crimes more.

If that person says it's because they are black....we can safely dismiss it. There's nothing about being black that affects them to commit more violent crimes. It doesn't matter how many violent crime disparities I show you.

There is no doubt that if we look only up until 1865 or so, it is factually true that the white power structure was totally responsible for the condition of blacks in US society.

Sort of....slavery didn't allow them any agency. Freed black people were a different story but sure, mostly I'd agree.

It is also factually true that, despite the end of slavery, that power structure continued to oppress blacks for some time.

Sure, different laws and policies limited the options of black people.

So the argument cannot be that it is racial scapegoating to ever say that the white power structure is responsible for the inequity.

Sure it is. There are poor white people today and black millionaires. Somewhere between the end of Jim Crow and now....you have a vast number of other factors involved.

I get that it's an easy answer....and it allows the total deferral of responsibility onto a certain group....but it definitely is racial scapegoating. We can agree that the past has some effect on the present...but to limit it to the actions of one racial group is indeed racial scapegoating.

That may not be a comfortable truth...but if you genuinely want to help black people or end racism...it's a truth you should acknowledge.

The only argument that can rationally be had is when, if ever, did that power structure stop being responsible. Do you have a suggested year after which we can say the white power structure no longer has any oppressive effect on the condition of blacks? I am open to hearing your arguments supporting a specific year when it first came to an end.

Ok...now I'm going to need you to define a "white power structure". I'm guessing that you are using it as a general description of modern western civilization...but I don't know. Black people and other minorities have held positions of power for a long time now. Is the power structure "white" because white people founded it.

No, I am open to hearing your arguments that blacks starting out in the same condition as whites tend to fall into poverty or otherwise lose their wealth more than whites.

That was never my argument.

It may sound uplifting to white ears, but to blacks who feel betrayed by a black Senator who denies the validity of the black struggle for equality, it may not have sounded all that uplifting.

Betrayed. Does Tim Scott have to conform his ideas and opinions to those of other black people or he is "betraying" them?

Can you see how that is a racist belief?

A few paragraphs back you just got done insisting that the social science quoted in a blog was solid science and that I was anti-science to dismiss it, here you are now denigrating that very field you had just hung your hat on. Pick a lane!

That's psychology. It's a bit different from sociology. Psychology has gotten better over time at explaining phenomenon...sociology really hasn't. Psychology has testable hypotheses...sociology rarely does.

There's a difference.

And condition in Africa became irrelevant once the slaves were loaded on ships. After that they were just slaves. It didn't matter if they were the son of a village chief or social outcast. They were all just slaves with no past.

Are we talking about the existence of a disparity or not?

You're either claiming that there was equality at some point and Europeans "plundered wealth"....or you aren't.

Which is it?

Never claimed that. I do claim that when slaves were brought to America, they became the responsibility of the ones who brought them here and used them. No matter what went before, that was wrong.

I agree. It was wrong then...it was wrong now. It was wrong to profit from it whether you were European, African, or Arab. The racial discrimination that followed was wrong for the same reasons. It was wrong then....it is wrong now.

It doesn't matter if red lining ended completely in 1968. The effect was the white locked in a large part of the valuable real-estate. That is a major way in which families grow wealth. White families pass on that wealth to the their white children, and black families pass on their lack of wealth to their children.

Yeah, and now they can acquire homes and pass them onto their children.

Whataboutism.

No....that's a statement of fact. Outlawing a crime doesn't prevent the crime.

by their effects.

You're assuming a cause of an outcome.

Glad you can admit that.

They form a smaller fraction of the white community than blacks in poverty do of the black community.

That doesn't matter. How does CRT explain them? What kind of racial analytical lens for disparity can't explain millions of poor whites?

Deflection.

No...this is you ignoring evidence that doesn't support the conclusion.

Is a racial disparity of wealth evidence of systemic racism or not?

If it isn't.....what's the evidence for systemic racism?

If it is...then how do you explain the disparity between whites and asians? It's the exact same kind of disparity.

CRT attempts to study the explanations.

Cool....what did they come up with?

You are welcome to put forth a better one.

Merit.

Straw man argument.

How does CRT explain wealthy blacks? How do they succeed in a system designde to prevent this?

Deflection

Either a disparity in wealth is evidence or it isn't.

Pick one.

This particular comparison has never approached 1:1.

Why would it? Is there any group outside of communism that claims this is even possible?

I'm not really concerned about the chances of becoming exceptionally wealthy, because whether white or black, that happens to very few. I'm talking about the changes of becoming reasonably well off - having wealth (and other benefits of society) comparable to the average of the population as a whole.

Ok....then why are you trying to ignore that both asians and jews have succeeded in this?

When you see studies that say that blacks in the same nice neighborhoods as whites murder at a higher rate, let me know.

Why? I never made that claim.

It has to do with race, and yes, the evolution of that race, which also, by the way is responsible for their skin color (exposure to damaging UV rays).

Ok....that answers my previous questions about the theory of race and it being disproven.

But racially they are not the same.

In the US they are.

Do you think race is a real thing reflected in biology?

Right. And neither is the ability to generate wealth. It only becomes a racial characteristic when people artificially make it a racial characteristic, such as by systematically oppressing members of a race.

Or by claiming that whites have a better chance to succeed lol.

Social condition can indeed affect the chances of having a child as a teenager. When children feel secure and see hope for a bright future, they are highly motivated to avoid having children too early. Conversely, when children are insecure and see no hope for a bright future, they are more likely to despair and see having a child as the only way to feel fulfilled. Since blacks are more likely to fall in the second category, they are more likely to have a child as a teenager.

That's an interesting theory.

I guess we should avoid describing them as victims of a system that is designed to discriminate against them.

 

[muichimotsu]

Thanks for proving my point. Yes, he originated the term....I pointed out that his only real contribution he made to CRT was his racist beliefs. I gave him credit for being a rationalist....not for steering CRT into a rational system of beliefs. CRT changed over time and dropped anything remotely resembling rationality.

Racism is not acknowledging race as a factor in regards to what is culturally conditioned in regards to biases and prejudices. You trying to claim that the studies absolutely dismiss implicit bias is selectively defining it and not considering that our experiences, environment, education and exposure are all factors in how we form a worldview, we are not a tabula rasa and to even allude to such a thing is ludicrous and unscientific.

You quote mining does not mean the entirety of CRT is irrational by your skewed notion where it must be equivalent in any way to religion merely because it doesn't fit your Randian objectivism where you have to have some absolute certainty where you don't budge because it can't be demonstrated empirically or even rationally in a way that satisfies some hyper realism.

Agreeing that an objective reality exists regardless of perspective leads to fascism?

You're joking, right?

Perspective is a factor, to act like we don't start with perspective and a subjective element is as naive as claiming that our perspective determines reality. What I and others would argue it informs it and how we approach it, we aren't in a vacuum like you idealistically insinuate about how science is some solution to everything when even it has to rely on unfalsifiables as a foundation because otherwise it becomes circular to appeal to the reliability of our senses as an absolute in observing, for instance. Hume brought this up centuries ago.

You're accusing me of poisoning the well and you just claimed rational thought leads to fascism lol. Yes, I'm aware you said "absolutism" but I didn't. I'm sure you think I didn't notice that shift in goalposts and that's insulting in of itself.

Nice strawman, because that's not even close to what I said: rational thought /=/absolutism, it can lead to that ideology, so don't insult mine and others' intelligence with an equivocation

You don't have to say it when the intimation is that if something is not absolute, it might as well be worthless. You keep trying to set some line in the sand and then move it if someone even tries to point out where you cannot demonstrate the fundamentals of what you claim or that maybe not everything works like the hard sciences and then treat the social sciences like they're worthless. I suppose you just toss philosophy as well, except when it suits you to advocate for positivism and the like

I tend not to substantiate objections unless asked to....that way I don't waste my time explaining things people can't understand.

If you want me to explain a claim I made just ask.

You suggest that you understand CRT and claim it MUST be Marxist rather than saying that it CAN be interpreted in that framework. Do you deny that Marxism can be applied to virtually anything with the right underpinning and wordplay in regards to the narrative? Christian communism is a thing, for instance, based in Marxism as I recall

Lol I don't actually have time to point out the logical errors that you made here. I also don't have to respond to the baseless accusations you've made against me or my position.


All I really need to do is ask if you know CRT's epistemology? Well....do you?

Do you know how it arrives at truth claims?

It's right there in the definition I quoted...but if you need help understanding, I'll gladly point it out for you.

My guess is that you'll respond with more ad hominem attacks and refuse to answer

You claim you do, but only seem to substantiate with something that fits your perspective and spin any contrary idea as mistaken somehow. It arrives at provisional claims, because while it advocatesd for seeking social justice, that does not mean it has some monolithic method for achieving it and is not claiming that CRT is in a vacuum that has solved it. It's like you just expect them not to consider intersectional aspects in the study that investigates white supremacy itself as the primary issue, which emerges from colonialist and imperialist ideologies that were fundamental to how America was founded.

I've never claimed black people cannot succeed or that white people cannot fail, the issue has never been their race itself (which is a social construct, that doesn't mean it's not real in that we can understand it in a provisional structure), but how society treats a particular race in centering them, in glorifying them, in minimizing minorities, in even mocking them consistently for centuries. To act like that has no effect would contradict your notion that the past affects the present.

But instead you appear to take Ben Shapiro's nonsense tactics to heart and think, "Oh no, we can point to the model minorities and say that black people are culturally criminal, it's all their fault, we have no responsibility to have a dialogue and instead just make more accusations based on our perspective of the statistics, which could never be mistaken, (even though statistics as regards social issues are not absolute or as easily interpreted as one would do for something more basic like physics)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could you say more? Can you trace the thread from CRT to Kant? If you are just accepting his expert opinion that's cool, we all do that, but if you can trace the thread, for this thread, that would be great.

Would you say Kant rejected reason and the principles of the Enlightenment? If so, how so?

So, has everyone figured out yet that Kant didn't do it?

 

[Albion]

Could you say more? Can you trace the thread from CRT to Kant? If you are just accepting his expert opinion that's cool, we all do that, but if you can trace the thread, for this thread, that would be great.

Would you say Kant rejected reason and the principles of the Enlightenment? If so, how so?

Interesting that you should write back to say this because I did give a longer reply of the kind you are asking about...only to have one of those computer mixups that people sometimes experience lose it.

If I can recreate it later, I will. The thing to know about Kant--which represents a sticking point with you--is that The Enlightenment was not a uniform movement from start to finish. Originally starkly oriented towards the guidance of Reason, its later phase largely rejected that in favor of other human-centered forces, and Kant is a figure from that later era.

 

[public hermit]

Originally starkly oriented towards the guidance of Reason, its later phase largely rejected that in favor of other human-centered forces, and Kant is a figure from that later era

You capitalized reason, by which I think you mean God or Logos?

Yes, Kant's understanding of reason was centered on human reason. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant targets what he sees as unjustified appeals to reason, specifically in the areas of metaphysics and theology. But that was not a rejection of reason but a critique. To highlight limits to human reason is not a rejection of human reason.

In terms of Enlightenment, his basic idea was to throw off claims to authority that were not supported by the use of reason by free people. The categorical imperative was not just about morality but an elevation of reason, as used by free people, as the sole arbiter of what should or should not be done.

All that to say, Kant did not reject reason or Enlightenment, unless we just redefine what those mean in their historical context.

I have tried to find away to make Kant's positions on reason and Enlightenment, understood as he did, function as some kind of catalyst for CRT, but the only similarity I come up with are words like "critical" or "critique." Supposedly, Kant rejected reason and Enlightenment principles, which in turn has led to CRT. But, of course, that supposed link (Kant's rejection of reason and Enlightenment) doesn't hold so where's the connection?

 

[Albion]

You capitalized reason, by which I think you mean God or Logos?

No. That's just the way it's often done when the word is used in this context.

Yes, Kant's understanding of reason was centered on human reason. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant targets what he sees as unjustified appeals to reason,...

There you go!

But that was not a rejection of reason but a critique.

Of course not. It would be going overboard to suggest that humans have no reasoning ability at all.

In terms of Enlightenment, his basic idea was to throw off claims to authority that were not supported by the use of reason by free people. The categorical imperative was not just about morality but an elevation of reason, as used by free people, as the sole arbiter of what should or should not be done.

All that to say, Kant did not reject reason or Enlightenment, unless we just redefine what those mean in their historical context.

Didn't I describe Kant as a figure from the latter phase of The Enlightenment?

I have tried to find away to make Kant's positions on reason and Enlightenment, understood as he did, function as some kind of catalyst for CRT, but the only similarity I come up with are words like "critical" or "critique." Supposedly, Kant rejected reason and Enlightenment principles, which in turn has led to CRT.

Well, Guelzo didn't say that Kant invented CRT. His point was that there is a trail on which one thing led to another until we arrive at this phenomenon today.

 

[public hermit]

Well, Guelzo didn't say that Kant invented CRT. His point was that there is a trail on which one thing led to another until we arrive at this phenomenon today

Right, he says Kant's rejection of reason and Enlightenment leads to CRT. I'm saying that's a bad argument due to the fact Kant rejects neither reason nor the Enlightenment.

That doesn't mean there is no connection. It's interesting that Guelzo is trying to point out that events and ideas from 1700's (Kant's ideas, the Enlightenment) can have real world effects in regard to what happens today. Surely, this connection is also claimed by proponents of CRT who want to say that racism, even from hundreds of years ago, can have real world effects in regard to what happens today. So, both sides (Guelzo and CRT proponents) agree that the past is intimately connected to what happens today and what we do today is, in some sense, an attempt to correct errors of the past. It's good to recognize similarities. At any rate, perhaps there is a connection between Kant and CRT, just not the one Guelzo thinks.

Kant seems to think the right use of reason by free people should result in principles with which all free people using reason could agree. He states the Categorical Imperative in a number of ways, but that is the rough idea. The main thrust of the Enlightenment is that reason alone, without appeal to kings or churches or any assumed authority, is sufficient. Now, the CRT proponent could argue that racism creates systems that prohibit some from exercising their use of freedom and reason, which is anti-Enlightenment and unreasonable. Here I can see a thread from Kant to CRT. Unfortunately, I don't know of any CRT proponent who makes that argument; I just made it up. And, no doubt, Guelzo wouldn't be a fan of that argument since it doesn't support his notion that CRT is a threat to reason and Enlightenment. Still, it's more reasonable on the face if it, I think, since it doesn't make the error of pitting Kant against reason and the Enlightenment.

 

[Albion]

Right, he says Kant's rejection of reason and Enlightenment leads to CRT. I'm saying that's a bad argument due to the fact Kant rejects neither reason nor the Enlightenment.

Kant is an Enlightenment figure, and he doesn't reject Reason. But he does limit Reason. The early Enlightenment made Reason be virtually all-in-all.

What Kant (and others) represent is a step away from the thinking of the early Enlightenment, not a disavowal of the Enlighenment altogether, and that step then produces in other people the next development, until we arrive at CRT.

 

[public hermit]

Kant is an Enlightenment figure, and he doesn't reject Reason. But he does limit Reason. The early Enlightenment made Reason be virtually all-in-all.

Agreed.

What Kant (and others) represent is a step away from the thinking of the early Enlightenment, not a disavowal of the Enlighenment altogether, and that step then produces in other people the next development, until we arrive at CRT

Hmm. Okay, I can agree that Kant's critiques included folks like Descartes and Leibniz if that's what we mean by early Enlightenment. I'm still not seeing a connection to CRT, unless it's just the general idea of being critical, which is a dubious thread. That could connect CRT to Jesus since he was critical of the religious leaders. Being critical in that sense is as western as Socrates.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Racism is not acknowledging race as a factor in regards to what is culturally conditioned in regards to biases and prejudices.

No...when I say Derrick Bell was a racist, I mean he was a fan of Farrakhan and made racist statements about whites and jews.

You trying to claim that the studies absolutely dismiss implicit bias is selectively defining it and not considering that our experiences, environment, education and exposure are all factors in how we form a worldview, we are not a tabula rasa and to even allude to such a thing is ludicrous and unscientific.

I'm saying that the very same people who came up with and promoted the implicit bias test also continued their research and concluded that it doesn't affect behavior.

Maybe they never really identified implicit bias. Maybe it just doesn't affect behavior.

However the idea that this was a good explanation for hidden discrimination spread really quickly on the left and that's not what the science shows.

You quote mining does not mean the entirety of CRT is irrational by your skewed notion where it must be equivalent in any way to religion merely because it doesn't fit your Randian objectivism where you have to have some absolute certainty where you don't budge because it can't be demonstrated empirically or even rationally in a way that satisfies some hyper realism.

It's a discussion forum, I can't quote entire books I've read.

You're attacking the existence of objective reality? Really?

Perspective is a factor, to act like we don't start with perspective and a subjective element is as naive as claiming that our perspective determines reality. What I and others would argue it informs it and how we approach it, we aren't in a vacuum like you idealistically insinuate about how science is some solution to everything when even it has to rely on unfalsifiables as a foundation because otherwise it becomes circular to appeal to the reliability of our senses as an absolute in observing, for instance. Hume brought this up centuries ago.

Right...you have a perspective, and I have a perspective. If we disagree, there has to be a way to resolve this.

How does CRT resolve this? How does science resolve this?

I know the answer to both questions, do you?

Nice strawman, because that's not even close to what I said: rational thought /=/absolutism, it can lead to that ideology, so don't insult mine and others' intelligence with an equivocation

It's your equivocation. I never brought up absolutism....you did.

You don't have to say it when the intimation is that if something is not absolute, it might as well be worthless.

I never said that...I think someone's perspective is useful for understanding their perspective.

You keep trying to set some line in the sand and then move it if someone even tries to point out where you cannot demonstrate the fundamentals of what you claim or that maybe not everything works like the hard sciences and then treat the social sciences like they're worthless. I suppose you just toss philosophy as well, except when it suits you to advocate for positivism and the like

Again, the line is exactly where it was 2 posts ago...

Do you know how CRT arrives at truth claims?

You suggest that you understand CRT and claim it MUST be Marxist rather than saying that it CAN be interpreted in that framework. Do you deny that Marxism can be applied to virtually anything with the right underpinning and wordplay in regards to the narrative? Christian communism is a thing, for instance, based in Marxism as I recall

Sure Marxist ideology is malleable. I'd say it's easily identified by a central contradiction. A rejection of "power structures" while simultaneously insisting that giving certain people more power will inevitably result in "equity" or equal outcomes.

Marxists reject all power structures but the one that results in them getting power.

You claim you do, but only seem to substantiate with something that fits your perspective and spin any contrary idea as mistaken somehow. It arrives at provisional claims, because while it advocatesd for seeking social justice, that does not mean it has some monolithic method for achieving it and is not claiming that CRT is in a vacuum that has solved it. It's like you just expect them not to consider intersectional aspects in the study that investigates white supremacy itself as the primary issue, which emerges from colonialist and imperialist ideologies that were fundamental to how America was founded.

I've never claimed black people cannot succeed or that white people cannot fail, the issue has never been their race itself (which is a social construct, that doesn't mean it's not real in that we can understand it in a provisional structure), but how society treats a particular race in centering them, in glorifying them, in minimizing minorities, in even mocking them consistently for centuries. To act like that has no effect would contradict your notion that the past affects the present.

But instead you appear to take Ben Shapiro's nonsense tactics to heart and think, "Oh no, we can point to the model minorities and say that black people are culturally criminal, it's all their fault, we have no responsibility to have a dialogue and instead just make more accusations based on our perspective of the statistics, which could never be mistaken, (even though statistics as regards social issues are not absolute or as easily interpreted as one would do for something more basic like physics)

I don't know what Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, or any of the other talking heads have to say.

I don't really care.

I do know what CRT's epistemology is.

Do you? Do you know how CRT makes truth claims?

I'd like to point out to everyone else reading that you have continually avoided this question instead of answering it.

Why? Is it embarrassing? Does it seem silly?

Would you defend it or would you rather simply avoid discussing it?

 

[muichimotsu]

So, has everyone figured out yet that Kant didn't do it?

It's almost like some people care more about discrediting CRT than actually considering that it might not be as bad as they've been brainwashed into thinking. Same with plenty of other things that anti intellectuals (often right leaning) want to say, "Be afraid, it's better the way it was, don't challenge the status quo (except when it's in the majority's interest to do so)"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's almost like some people care more about discrediting CRT than actually considering that it might not be as bad as they've been brainwashed into thinking. Same with plenty of other things that anti intellectuals (often right leaning) want to say, "Be afraid, it's better the way it was, don't challenge the status quo (except when it's in the majority's interest to do so)"

Yeah, I hear you. Where CRT is concerned, I think it has some weak points, but it also has some relevant ones that should be considered, some of which will vary depending on the specific theorist in question, and I think folks like Guelzo just don't want to have to sift through any of it since they like their own right-leaning platform.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah, I hear you. Where CRT is concerned, I think it has some weak points, but it also has some relevant ones that should be considered, some of which will vary depending on the specific theorist in question, and I think folks like Guelzo just don't want to have to sift through any of it since they like their own right-leaning platform.

I don't think anyone uses it as the single lens to approach social issues, that's where intersectionality comes in, which has equally as many mischaracterizations, if not moreso.

People in general prefer what's comfortable to them and with so much discourse out there in the modern technological age, it becomes unsurprising that kind of cognitive bias would naturally manifest in society

 

[muichimotsu]

No...when I say Derrick Bell was a racist, I mean he was a fan of Farrakhan and made racist statements about whites and jews.

Ah, so now we'll just dredge up anything and use that to discredit the entirety when you don't know that his reasons for making those statements, assuming he did, were because of CRT, that's correlation rather than causation

I'm saying that the very same people who came up with and promoted the implicit bias test also continued their research and concluded that it doesn't affect behavior.

Maybe they never really identified implicit bias. Maybe it just doesn't affect behavior.

However the idea that this was a good explanation for hidden discrimination spread really quickly on the left and that's not what the science shows.

Science demonstrates, it doesn't prove in some absolute way, yet you seem to act like it's settled. To suggest we don't have prejudices that inform our behavior is horribly naive, suggesting tabula rasa or some kind of idealized objectivity that somehow happens when you engage in pure rational thinking, which doesn't really work unless you're a thorough psychopath who has no regard for others or a shred of empathy. And by that perspective, you still don't get to claim absolute accuracy, because it would violate basic intellectual humility to suggest you could never be wrong merely because you haven't been shown to be wrong so far, a fallacious line of thinking in logic

It's a discussion forum, I can't quote entire books I've read.

You're attacking the existence of objective reality? Really?

Objective reality exists independent of our minds, we cannot apprehend it in itself, so you're asserting a pipe dream of contradictions that conveniently ignores epistemological limits as relates to metaphysical claims. I cannot attack what I cannot claim absolutely to exist rather than being something foundational and not demonstrated in the way we would for gravity, evolution, etc. The latter are metaphysical observations moreso than a basic agreement that there is a reality independent of our senses, which can be deceptive or inaccurate (same as our memory as I keep finding out in regards to fandoms I enjoyed and swore I remembered something, but it turned out to be wrong).

Right...you have a perspective, and I have a perspective. If we disagree, there has to be a way to resolve this.

How does CRT resolve this? How does science resolve this?

I know the answer to both questions, do you?

You believe you do, you don't know, because CRT is not the monolith you keep treating it as. in regards to some CRT theorists, perhaps you could be accurate, that is not saying that you know in that full sense, so take my advice I already brought up in this post: eat some crow and swallow this pride you keep throwing out as if all these facts mean you have an airtight argument about social issues which don't work the same as natural issues and aren't as reductive as you appear to want to frame them as instead of considering a holistic approach (and I don't mean homeopathy and such)

A resolution of a disagreement is not necessarily a consideration that one side wholly is right and the other wholly wrong, that's not even taking a charitable consideration of Hegelian dialectics, which you seem to want to lump with Marxism like a boogeyman where they don't make any valid claims, but just make particular statements that you assume ALL Marxists agree on.

And let's not even start with the assumption that equal outcome is necessarily the goal, but equal opportunities, a borderline dogwhistle of dangerous meritocracies that favor those who already have versus the have-nots who must keep struggling against that privileged upper class. How is that anything more than enabling an exploitative status quo that you think will just "work itself out"?

It's your equivocation. I never brought up absolutism....you did.

So you have to state something outright for it to be invoked in a conversation? If you're not being an absolutist, you're dangerously close in this seeming Objectivism of Ayn Rand that seems appealing at first glance, but then can and often seems to be used explicitly to justify continuing a system that treats people like commodities to be exploited for the advancement of their betters.

I never said that...I think someone's perspective is useful for understanding their perspective.

Yet that gets you nowhere close to "knowing" or having "facts", it's subjective in the way that is invoked to suggest postmodern relativism and such, when that's not the only meaning of the word philosophically

Sure Marxist ideology is malleable. I'd say it's easily identified by a central contradiction. A rejection of "power structures" while simultaneously insisting that giving certain people more power will inevitably result in "equity" or equal outcomes.

Marxists reject all power structures but the one that results in them getting power.

This assumes all Marxists think you have to go through the single process often invoked when there are several schools involved over the near century or so of thought in relation to the initial ideas.

Opportunity and power are not the same thing, especially not when talking about power in the form of resources that people somehow have a right to hoard because "it doesn't hurt anyone"

I don't know what Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, or any of the other talking heads have to say.

I don't really care.

I do know what CRT's epistemology is.

Do you? Do you know how CRT makes truth claims?

I'd like to point out to everyone else reading that you have continually avoided this question instead of answering it.

Why? Is it embarrassing? Does it seem silly?

Would you defend it or would you rather simply avoid discussing it?

Not knowing doesn't mean you aren't parroting them unknowingly in the line of "reasoning".

You claim to know, but are you absolutely certain? If not, then it would behoove you to take a step off your soapbox and quit condescending to everyone else because you have the time or acumen to look into everything you disagree with and find the pinpoint ways to tear it down when other people don't have that luxury or capacity to analyze that YOU do.

It seems silly that you are this dismissive of CRT based on a conflation of it with Marxism that doesn't necessarily follow, nor is even looking into the fundamental terms in a thoughtful way, but working with a presupposition that "Marxism always bad, can never make good points" like a brutish Neanderthal regarding anything threatening their hegemony as needing to be destroyed and hunted down

Did I ever start with the idea that CRT is absolutely right? No? Then maybe have an actual dialogue instead of doing the thing you and others claim is being done to you, strawmanning and assuming people's intent without an actual bridge being built remotely, just drawing invisible lines in the sand and then moving them at your convenience when it sounds like you might be contradicting yourself.