Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have to ask these questions, because "CRT" and "Critical Race Theory" do not appear anywhere in the text of HB7.

But you already know from your participation in other threads that various screaming about CRT is being used as a tool by propagandists and such methods include redefining it and promoting legislation that includes the text in this legislation. So you know the legislation is highly associated to CRT. Given you know this association exists, the existence of the phrase Critical Race Theory not only need not be in the bill at all, we all already know, including you, that "CRT" as it is redefined is there by association.

What's your point? What the bejesus does any of that have to do with my attempt to cross-examine Gospel that you and so many others here decided to quote-mine out of context?

How dare you! I am not quote-mining you. That is a reckless accusation.

Of course you were quote-mining me.

No, I was not quote-mining you.

You quoted one sentence out of my post, leaving out the other sentences that made clear what my purpose in saying it was, and you responded with a bunch of random factoids that had squat to do with my discussion with Gospel ,,,

Whether or not my post was directly related to Gospel's point or not is irrelevant because the construction of your argument against Gospel's point was invalid as pointed out. The way in which this was pointed out was not through "random factoids" but instead through non-random, relevant facts and compelling logic.

Let's review your reckless accusation through analogy.

Practices in Catholicism including abstinence by Catholic priests increase the risk of sexual deviance. The upper echelon of Catholic clergy have been engaged in a coverup of molestations and knowledge of the risk of their religion.

You have absolutely ZERO evidence of that. What evidence do you have that any priest ever molested a child?

I have to ask these questions because no Catholic priest ever said he wants to molest children.

Dude.....

OMG...

You've been involved in thread after thread of discussion and evidence of Catholic priests molesting children. You know they don't have to admit it and you know it has happened. Your point has to be disingenuous.

Stop quote-mining me!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... CRT fans have labeled the common practice of loan officers requiring bigger down payments on properties in areas where property values aren't expected to appreciate "systemic racism". Normal people don't call that "racism". They call it "Duh!".

Unavailability of large mortgages will depress prices, leading to a vicious cycle. That is "systemic." If property values aren't "expected" to appreciate because of occupants' race, that is — never mind who, if anyone, is to "blame" — a form of "racism."

Duh, yourself!

It has nothing to do with the occupant's race, but rather how the neighborhood is faring. Neighborhoods people don't want to live in have little appreciation and thus are riskier to loan to.

At best, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We won't loan money there due to growth limitations... and then growth is limited because there is no money being loaned there.

As with so much of the "racism" this is actually a socioeconomic thing, not racism.

Most of the socioeconomic thing included blacks not being able to move into suburbs WHERE THERE WAS NO REDLINING! You keep looking at this problem from one angle and refuse to see the bigger picture.

A: Banks refused to put money into areas with perceived limited growth potential.
B: Well, why didn't minorities just move to the suburbs?
A: They couldn't get people to sell them homes... or it was even forbidden.
B: So the minorities had to stay within the redlined areas where investment from banks would be terminated?
A: Well... I suppose... but the red-lined areas weren't because minorities lived there, only because there wouldn't be any growth.
B: Because only poor people lived there.
A: EXACTLY!
B: But those people wouldn't be allowed to move elsewhere and gain from wealth growth in the suburbs.
A: YES! And the banks were right! The red lined areas did depress in value.
B: Because the banks didn't invest there.
A: Sure, but it wasn't racism... just flat out harmless and blind economics.
B: So minorities were effectively forced to stay in areas that'd become poorer and the lack of bank investment would lead to housing value decline, making it impossible to upkeep the properties, and any attempt to venture in to areas of greener pastures were halted by covenants, by laws, or any such restrictions.
A: Don't forget the pool houses were closed to the public and made private to keep minorities out of them.
B: But that wasn't racism.
A: Nope, just pure Randistic Utopian Economics.

 

[Bomb#20]

I also find your new obsession with "progressive" rather amusing. There is nothing inherently with thinking or wanting a legislature to minimize its meddling in areas in which it has little or no expertise.

A legislature has no particular expertise on theology and yet that doesn't seem to stop any of you from wanting legislatures to meddle in whether public school teachers lead students in prayer. There is something inherently progressive about thinking or wanting a legislature to minimize its meddling with the preaching of progressivism while maximizing its meddling with the preaching of Christianity, just as there is something inherently Christian about thinking or wanting a legislature to minimize its meddling with the preaching of Christianity while maximizing its meddling with the preaching of progressivism. Progressives and Christians deserve each other.

What you seem unable to grasp that education is ultimately about preaching some ism. The debates over what which ism is permissible under the Constitution and which ism(s) ought to be taught that are permissible under the Constitution. Anyone who want to ban gov't schools from preaching any religion is either extremely naive/obtuse or is guilty of the same double standard they decry.

Explain that to this guy:

I think the football coach is wrong. It is completely inappropriate behavior. Having a "private" prayer meeting in the middle of the football field after a football match is not private.

So, given that school is built on indoctrination, some indoctrination must be appropriate, but appropriate indoctrination isn't this. So which aspect of this indoctrination is what makes it inappropriate? Is it that the beliefs being inculcated are false, or that they're unscientific, or that they're controversial, or that they're non-secular, or what? For example, suppose instead of pushing Christianity, the coach had been peddling Transcendental Meditation woo. Would that still be inappropriate?

IMO, it is the blatant religious nature of the "woo" that violates the separation of church and state.

Is it desperation or unawareness of the US constitution that prompted the above?

Good grief! That amounts to arguing that it's inappropriate to have a law against government preaching your religion, but it's perfectly appropriate to have a law against government preaching your neighbor's religion, because government preaching your neighbor's religion is illegal. It amounts to saying that's what the law is; therefore that's what the law ought to be.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic? Certainly there have been individual instances ... Is there something specific that is being taught en masse that you can point us to?

... Why on earth should inappropriate activities have to be "systemic curricula" or "taught en masse" before the legislature takes action to prevent their recurrence? What's wrong with saying "Don't anybody do that again." after one person does what he ought not have done? ...

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic?

Your Honor, the witness is unresponsive.

I agree. That’s why I asked the question again.

I asked you first.

If you object to witnesses being unresponsive, then (a) take it up with Oleg, and (b) respond to my question.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic? Certainly there have been individual instances ... Is there something specific that is being taught en masse that you can point us to?

... Why on earth should inappropriate activities have to be "systemic curricula" or "taught en masse" before the legislature takes action to prevent their recurrence? What's wrong with saying "Don't anybody do that again." after one person does what he ought not have done? ...

There is no reason in particular. However, that would make the appropriate question "why are GOP candidates campaigning and railing about something happening everywhere when you are apparently saying it isn't remotely common at all?"

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm already freaking out every time I do taxes because of all the crazy laws, code, exceptions etc and my wife has these weird retirement investments that work drastically different from each other and drastically different from mine. I fill out the forms with an online tool and get caught in an infinite loop every fricking time. I haven't even mentioned how much these laws cater to special interest groups. Curves with exception upon exception upon exception. Now, imagine, if all these complex laws were also built upon a policy that every time there is a rare event of a person doing something unethical with money, legislators had to pretend the rare occurrence was commonplace and pass new legislation that not only handled the rare occurrence of unethical behavior with money, but also had to do it in an overkill manner from multiple angles. How would anyone ever get their taxes done without a team of accountant savants, law professors, and unpaid interns working over a year? And that's not feasible. Society would grind to a halt.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Systemic classism plus Fred Banker's racism does not equal systemic racism.

Wrong in at least two ways. Fred is NOT "racist" to think property values in black neighborhoods will not appreciate BECAUSE the neighborhood is black: instead he is responding to FACT. (Do you need a cite that all else equal, homes in black neighborhoods have lower market value and appreciate more slowly?)

Go ahead if you want, but I think we both know how that's going to go. You'll post a cite, I'll read the study, and then I'll say "All else equal" is a phrase which here means "Out of a hundred potentially confounding variables, we controlled for one or two of them."[/lemonysnicket].

One cannot blame Fred: He has an obligation to maximize his bank's profits. One cannot blame George Homebuyer for not bidding more for a black's house than the market value. And presumably we don't blame George's wife Karen who prefers white neighbors.

White people get criticized and blamed for preferring white neighbors all the time.

No specific individual nor individual bigotry is to blame; it is the SYSTEM which has evolved to punish black homeowners.

But in the examples people keep giving to try to justify the expression, there is an individual to blame, George's wife Karen, or Jimmy's shadowy figure who forbade white homeowners to sell to black homebuyers.

That is why it is called SYSTEMIC racism.

It's called "systemic RACISM" in order to fudge the moral distinction between someone's having done something blameworthy and his not having done something blameworthy. The point is to settle the issue of whether people have an obligation to solve some particular problem not of their making at their own expense for the benefit of other people, not by moral argument but by equivocation fallacy. We as a society have figured out that discriminating against people because of ethnic hostility or hurtful stereotypes is immoral; some people figured out how to exploit that realization to win a rhetorical argument by recodifying "racism" to annex the range of cultural constructions they wish society believed immoral but that are not what "racism" means in common usage. It's trying to win an ethics debate by cheating.

 

[Elixir]

It's called "systemic RACISM" in order to fudge the moral distinction between someone's having done something blameworthy and his not having done something blameworthy.

Which is a problem if that’s REALLY why the term is used. But I see no evidence that it is.
Would you be more comfortable with “systemic discrimination“, leaving the basis for said discrimination open to interpretation?
Perhaps you have a better term to describe discrimination based on race, and an explanation for why it’s better.

 

[Oleg]

Perhaps you have a better term to describe discrimination based on race

Affirmative Action?

 

[Elixir]

Perhaps you have a better term to describe discrimination based on race

Affirmative Action?

Funny. But a little like defining “car” as “Yugo”. You know what a Yugo is, don’t you?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's called "systemic RACISM" in order to fudge the moral distinction between someone's having done something blameworthy and his not having done something blameworthy. The point is to settle the issue of whether people have an obligation to solve some particular problem not of their making at their own expense for the benefit of other people, not by moral argument but by equivocation fallacy. We as a society have figured out that discriminating against people because of ethnic hostility or hurtful stereotypes is immoral; some people figured out how to exploit that realization to win a rhetorical argument by recodifying "racism" to annex the range of cultural constructions they wish society believed immoral but that are not what "racism" means in common usage. It's trying to win an ethics debate by cheating.

Nice try, but that is not what systemic racism is.

 

[Oleg]

Perhaps you have a better term to describe discrimination based on race

Affirmative Action?

Funny. But a little like defining “car” as “Yugo”. You know what a Yugo is, don’t you?

If Affirmative Action isn’t systemic racism, then there is no such thing as systemic racism.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic? Certainly there have been individual instances ... Is there something specific that is being taught en masse that you can point us to?

... Why on earth should inappropriate activities have to be "systemic curricula" or "taught en masse" before the legislature takes action to prevent their recurrence? What's wrong with saying "Don't anybody do that again." after one person does what he ought not have done? ...

Can you point to specific systemic curricula you think are problematic?

Your Honor, the witness is unresponsive.

I agree. That’s why I asked the question again.

I asked you first.

If you object to witnesses being unresponsive, then (a) take it up with Oleg, and (b) respond to my question.

It has historically been true that when laws are made to solve a general “problem” that only applies to a very small number of instances that are typically handled through other means that those laws ten to be wielded in a broader sense to do more harm than good. This is actually why most conservatives and libertarians are against exactly these kinds of laws, at least when it is in their political interests to be so even if they are hypocritical otherwise.

So, I’m actually surprised when more conservative folks think the answer to a very small problem is a wide spread government response. That’s seem anathema to their viewpoints.

That’s why I asked if there is a systemic problem. Because in that case it may make more sense, and conservatives may agree, to address the problem at the governmental level, especially at a high level like the State.

Is that more responsive to your question?

 

[Elixir]

Perhaps you have a better term to describe discrimination based on race

Affirmative Action?

Funny. But a little like defining “car” as “Yugo”. You know what a Yugo is, don’t you?

If Affirmative Action isn’t systemic racism, then there is no such thing as systemic racism.

“If a Yugo isn’t a car, then there no such thing as a car.“

Idiocy.
I guess every time one of your ilk lynches a person of color, you’d like to call it “affirmative action“.

 

[Oleg]

Perhaps you have a better term to describe discrimination based on race

Affirmative Action?

Funny. But a little like defining “car” as “Yugo”. You know what a Yugo is, don’t you?

If Affirmative Action isn’t systemic racism, then there is no such thing as systemic racism.

“If a Yugo isn’t a car, then there no such thing as a car.“

Idiocy.

So when a government or institution favors or disfavors a person because of race, that is not systemic racism? Interesting.

 

[Elixir]

Perhaps you have a better term to describe discrimination based on race

Affirmative Action?

Funny. But a little like defining “car” as “Yugo”. You know what a Yugo is, don’t you?

If Affirmative Action isn’t systemic racism, then there is no such thing as systemic racism.

“If a Yugo isn’t a car, then there no such thing as a car.“

Idiocy.

So when a government or institution favors or disfavors a person because of race, that is not systemic racism? Interesting.

Transitive illogic. Of course it is. So is lynching. But while all lynchings are outcomes of systemic racism, not all outcomes of systemic racism are lynchings. Grade school stuff.

 

[Oleg]

But while all lynchings are outcomes of systemic racism,

Well, that’s not true.

not all outcomes of systemic racism are lynchings.

Ah, yes. Harvard admissions officers. Got it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

... Systemic classism plus Fred Banker's racism does not equal systemic racism.

Wrong in at least two ways. Fred is NOT "racist" to think property values in black neighborhoods will not appreciate BECAUSE the neighborhood is black: instead he is responding to FACT. (Do you need a cite that all else equal, homes in black neighborhoods have lower market value and appreciate more slowly?)

Go ahead if you want, but I think we both know how that's going to go. You'll post a cite, I'll read the study, and then I'll say "All else equal" is a phrase which here means "Out of a hundred potentially confounding variables, we controlled for one or two of them."[/lemonysnicket].

One cannot blame Fred: He has an obligation to maximize his bank's profits. One cannot blame George Homebuyer for not bidding more for a black's house than the market value. And presumably we don't blame George's wife Karen who prefers white neighbors.

White people get criticized and blamed for preferring white neighbors all the time.

No specific individual nor individual bigotry is to blame; it is the SYSTEM which has evolved to punish black homeowners.

But in the examples people keep giving to try to justify the expression, there is an individual to blame, George's wife Karen, or Jimmy's shadowy figure who forbade white homeowners to sell to black homebuyers.

That is why it is called SYSTEMIC racism.

It's called "systemic RACISM" in order to fudge the moral distinction between someone's having done something blameworthy and his not having done something blameworthy. The point is to settle the issue of whether people have an obligation to solve some particular problem not of their making at their own expense for the benefit of other people, not by moral argument but by equivocation fallacy. We as a society have figured out that discriminating against people because of ethnic hostility or hurtful stereotypes is immoral; some people figured out how to exploit that realization to win a rhetorical argument by recodifying "racism" to annex the range of cultural constructions they wish society believed immoral but that are not what "racism" means in common usage. It's trying to win an ethics debate by cheating.

Yes. Exactly. Now go to OP #1 and read the Chrsitopher Rufo quote. This is exactly what anti-CRT is all about.

 

[Elixir]

But while all lynchings are outcomes of systemic racism,

Well, that’s not true.

not all outcomes of systemic racism are lynchings.

Ah, yes. Harvard admissions officers. Got it.

Any useful suggestions? Let racism flourish if that’s what “people“ want?
I believe that any white person denied entrance to Harvard where the deciding factor was race, was otherwise considered likely to thrive in the rigors of the Harvard environment. That being the case, they should be crushing it in a less demanding situation. It would be difficult to demonstrate harm. Whereas in the case of lynching, the level of harm is of a different order. On the harmfulness spectrum of all harmful outcomes from systemic racism, harm to white students by Ivy League admissions policies ranks right at the bottom. Noise about it, though, ranks close to the top.

 

[Oleg]

But while all lynchings are outcomes of systemic racism,

Well, that’s not true.

not all outcomes of systemic racism are lynchings.

Ah, yes. Harvard admissions officers. Got it.

Any useful suggestions? Let racism flourish if that’s what “people“ want?
I believe that any white person denied entrance to Harvard where the deciding factor was race, was otherwise considered likely to thrive in the rigors of the Harvard environment. That being the case, they should be crushing it in a less demanding situation. It would be difficult to demonstrate harm. Whereas in the case of lynching, the level of harm is of a different order. On the harmfulness spectrum of all harmful outcomes from systemic racism, harm to white students by Ivy League admissions policies ranks right at the bottom. Noise about it, though, ranks close to the top.

When was the last time anyone was lynched? Why are using that as an example? Horse and cattle rustling doesn't happen much anymore.