Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Jimmy Higgins]

... 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?"

Where the heck am I supposed to have said it isn't remotely common at all? I haven't offered an opinion on its frequency; and I'm not sure why I should be required to have one in order to comment on whether high frequency is a legitimate requirement before action is taken.

Interesting. So your point is you are intentionally wasting our time. Got it. I have a solution to that problem.

 

[Metaphor]

Stop being intentionally obtuse... what's that word - coy?
You know perfectly well that I was talking about the SPECTRUM of HARMS wrought by systemic racism, putting lynchings on one end and Harvard admissions on the other. The dates of most recent infraction are as irrelevant to the point as the price of cheese in macedonia.
There is good reason you didn't argue the point: you can't.

Savagery and brutality still occur. Joseph Byrd, a black man dragged to death behind a pickup.

You mean James Byrd. Joseph Byrd is still alive and still teaching at 84.

Trayvon Martin. A black jogger kill by three white racist. A policeman kneling on a man's neck for 9 minutes. And more.

Your examples are racism, not systemic racism. Two white men were executed for murdering Byrd; most* of the other killers received long prison sentences. What more than this could you expect a system to do about these killings in order not to be systemically racist?

(* Martin's killer was prosecuted but a jury bought his claim of self-defense and acquitted him. Were they right to? I don't know; neither do you.)

It seems to me that there's no evidence that George Floyd's murder was racist, let alone systemically so.

You've got that backwards. While I give you a temporary pass that the murder may not have been racially motivated, it was no doubt systematic considering that it is very difficult (thanks to police union arbitration) to throw out garbage like Chauvin.

So, worker unions are systemically racist?

If the problem is 'bad cops are hard to get rid of because of labour laws and cronyism' that certainly sounds like a problem but I don't see how that's racist.

 

[Gospel]

Stop being intentionally obtuse... what's that word - coy?
You know perfectly well that I was talking about the SPECTRUM of HARMS wrought by systemic racism, putting lynchings on one end and Harvard admissions on the other. The dates of most recent infraction are as irrelevant to the point as the price of cheese in macedonia.
There is good reason you didn't argue the point: you can't.

Savagery and brutality still occur. Joseph Byrd, a black man dragged to death behind a pickup.

You mean James Byrd. Joseph Byrd is still alive and still teaching at 84.

Trayvon Martin. A black jogger kill by three white racist. A policeman kneling on a man's neck for 9 minutes. And more.

Your examples are racism, not systemic racism. Two white men were executed for murdering Byrd; most* of the other killers received long prison sentences. What more than this could you expect a system to do about these killings in order not to be systemically racist?

(* Martin's killer was prosecuted but a jury bought his claim of self-defense and acquitted him. Were they right to? I don't know; neither do you.)

It seems to me that there's no evidence that George Floyd's murder was racist, let alone systemically so.

You've got that backwards. While I give you a temporary pass that the murder may not have been racially motivated, it was no doubt systematic considering that it is very difficult (thanks to police union arbitration) to throw out garbage like Chauvin.

So, worker unions are systemically racist?

If the problem is 'bad cops are hard to get rid of because of labour laws and cronyism' that certainly sounds like a problem but I don't see how that's racist.

Learn to read. I didn't say it was racist. I literally lead off with "I give you a temporary pass that the murder may not have been racially motivated" meaning I'm not talking about racism right now. Gosh.

 

[scombrid]

On the CRT hysteria note. You should see the signs outside the polling places around here today demanding a ban of CRT and Pornographic Books in schools.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Ayn Rand's novel have rape and rough sex. Can we ban Ayn Rand from school libraries.

 

[Worldtraveller]

t

Technically, LP is correct - disparate outcomes do not PROVE anything. Disparate outcomes provide evidence not proof.

Of course, disparate outcomes are used all the time as evidence to rebut any theory in any field. It is the basis for the scientific method: set up an experiment that controls for all possible influences but one and look for disparate outcomes. Taking LP's claim literally, he is denying the validity of the scientific method.

No. As you say, control for all possible influences. With discrimination "research" there's almost always no attempt to control at all. It's just documenting the difference and pretending that proves something.

In social science research, it is usually impossible to explicitly control for all possible influences even when conducting an experiment, let alone trying to tease out statistical significance from data collected in the past. Good research (which does exist) does acknowledge its shortcomings. While I am not expert or very familiar with discrimination research, your glib dismissal does not accurately portray it.

You are basically holding this type of research to an impossible standard in order to dismiss it results.

Took you this long to notice his MO? He's been like this since day one.

 

[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.

Of course that's not what systemic racism is. Duh! The problem is, that's what the left-wing propagandists call "systemic racism". They call the fact that white people are on average richer than black people systemic racism even when it isn't ethnic hostility or a stereotype on the part of "the system" that is causing J. Random Blackguy to have less money than K. Random Whiteguy. Actual systemic racism is Jim Crow laws, sundown counties, areas where owners are kept from selling their homes to black buyers. Some of that garbage is still around, from the blatant discrimination of longer prison terms for crack than for powder cocaine, to subtler practices like cops generally being unwilling to testify against one another, and thereby de facto protecting racist cops. But the fact that some things really are systemic racism doesn't magically make every statistical difference between races systemic racism.

First you poisoned the well by recklessly insulting the motivations of people using the term "systemic racism" and now you are goal post shifting.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Where the devil do you think I got the phrasing from? Yes, this is exactly what anti-CRT is all about. This is also exactly what CRT itself is all about. The two are mirror images.
Rufo is just paying his opponents back in like coin. The anti-anti-CRT-hysteria hysteria is the hysterical propagandists on the left whining pitiably about how unfair it is that the hysterical propagandists on the right are better propagandists than they are. Go talk to Loretta Swit about that.

You have proved your own point about the right being better propagandists since you have swallowed their nonsense hook, line, sinker on this issue.

 

[Metaphor]

Stop being intentionally obtuse... what's that word - coy?
You know perfectly well that I was talking about the SPECTRUM of HARMS wrought by systemic racism, putting lynchings on one end and Harvard admissions on the other. The dates of most recent infraction are as irrelevant to the point as the price of cheese in macedonia.
There is good reason you didn't argue the point: you can't.

Savagery and brutality still occur. Joseph Byrd, a black man dragged to death behind a pickup.

You mean James Byrd. Joseph Byrd is still alive and still teaching at 84.

Trayvon Martin. A black jogger kill by three white racist. A policeman kneling on a man's neck for 9 minutes. And more.

Your examples are racism, not systemic racism. Two white men were executed for murdering Byrd; most* of the other killers received long prison sentences. What more than this could you expect a system to do about these killings in order not to be systemically racist?

(* Martin's killer was prosecuted but a jury bought his claim of self-defense and acquitted him. Were they right to? I don't know; neither do you.)

It seems to me that there's no evidence that George Floyd's murder was racist, let alone systemically so.

You've got that backwards. While I give you a temporary pass that the murder may not have been racially motivated, it was no doubt systematic considering that it is very difficult (thanks to police union arbitration) to throw out garbage like Chauvin.

So, worker unions are systemically racist?

If the problem is 'bad cops are hard to get rid of because of labour laws and cronyism' that certainly sounds like a problem but I don't see how that's racist.

Learn to read. I didn't say it was racist. I literally lead off with "I give you a temporary pass that the murder may not have been racially motivated" meaning I'm not talking about racism right now. Gosh.

So it's systemic, but not racist.

So my point is exactly correct. It isn't racist, let alone systemically racist. And trotting out George Floyd, as Cheerful Charlie did, as an example of either racism or systemic racism is incorrect.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Systematic racism in not just about outrageous police murders of black American men. It is about much, much more. See OP quote #2 from Lee Atwater. Do you really think today's disenfranchment of black American voters nationwide is not systematic racism?

The Test Used To Expose Housing Discrimination And Its Chicago Roots

The test: Send two people to the same landlord to see if they’re treated differently. It’s a practice dating back to MLK’s time in Chicago.

www.wbez.org

 

[Gospel]

Stop being intentionally obtuse... what's that word - coy?
You know perfectly well that I was talking about the SPECTRUM of HARMS wrought by systemic racism, putting lynchings on one end and Harvard admissions on the other. The dates of most recent infraction are as irrelevant to the point as the price of cheese in macedonia.
There is good reason you didn't argue the point: you can't.

Savagery and brutality still occur. Joseph Byrd, a black man dragged to death behind a pickup.

You mean James Byrd. Joseph Byrd is still alive and still teaching at 84.

Trayvon Martin. A black jogger kill by three white racist. A policeman kneling on a man's neck for 9 minutes. And more.

Your examples are racism, not systemic racism. Two white men were executed for murdering Byrd; most* of the other killers received long prison sentences. What more than this could you expect a system to do about these killings in order not to be systemically racist?

(* Martin's killer was prosecuted but a jury bought his claim of self-defense and acquitted him. Were they right to? I don't know; neither do you.)

It seems to me that there's no evidence that George Floyd's murder was racist, let alone systemically so.

You've got that backwards. While I give you a temporary pass that the murder may not have been racially motivated, it was no doubt systematic considering that it is very difficult (thanks to police union arbitration) to throw out garbage like Chauvin.

So, worker unions are systemically racist?

If the problem is 'bad cops are hard to get rid of because of labour laws and cronyism' that certainly sounds like a problem but I don't see how that's racist.

Learn to read. I didn't say it was racist. I literally lead off with "I give you a temporary pass that the murder may not have been racially motivated" meaning I'm not talking about racism right now. Gosh.

So it's systemic, but not racist.

So my point is exactly correct. It isn't racist, let alone systemically racist. And trotting out George Floyd, as Cheerful Charlie did, as an example of either racism or systemic racism is incorrect.

I'm happy to know that you don't look at black people as a collective rather than individual people. For example looking at a few cases then declaring said cases are proof that 41.6 million people don't experience racism from 660,288 law enforcement employees in the 50-60 million yearly contacts made with the public. You deserve an award for your exemplary contributions towards the end of racism.

 

[Bomb#20]

While I'm sure there's room for reasonable people to disagree about how common such instances have been, it's not clear why you're making an issue of that. 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?

Because you don't use a battleship to go bird hunting.

But it's okay to go bird hunting with a sledgehammer?

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.

You seem to not understand.

What religion you preach is entirely your business. What religion your neighbor preaches is entirely their business. So long as you're not too disruptive about it preach whatever you want.

Where we care is when you try to use state power to either preach, or to enforce the behavior of your religion. Take a sledgehammer to any camel's nose that peeks under the state tent.

What on earth makes you think I seem to not understand this? I understand it perfectly. It's the rest of you who seem not to understand this! Legislators perceive a camel peeking its nose under the state tent: a state employee abusing his state-provided authority over a state-supplied captive audience to preach his own personal religious view, say, that color-blind policies are racist, so the legislators are taking a sledgehammer to it. They are doing exactly what you advocate! And how do you react? You say "you don't use a battleship to go bird hunting."!?! Why???

You say "Take a sledgehammer to any camel's nose that peeks under the state tent." -- and that's a consistent position you for some reason think I need a lecture about even though it's exactly what I've been arguing for -- but what you apparently really mean is "Take a sledgehammer to that camel's nose that peeks under the state tent, but don't lift a finger to stop this camel's nose that peeks under the state tent until the entire camel is inside the state tent en masse being a systemic state tent camel."

 

[Metaphor]

I'm happy to know that you don't look at black people as a collective rather than individual people. For example looking at a few cases then declaring said cases are proof that 41.6 million people don't experience racism

Straw man. Actually, it's not even a straw man, which at least would be a vaguely recognisable caricature of an assertion.

from 660,288 law enforcement employees in the 50-60 million yearly contacts made with the public. You deserve an award for your exemplary contributions towards the end of racism.

If you believe systemic racism against blacks is real in America, you should be calling out people who mindlessly attribute any negative outcome for a black individual to systemic racism. People promulgating the view that George Floyd's death was either due to the racism ofs of Chauvin (of which there is no evidence) or because of a racist system (even though the justice system reacted swiftly to Chauvin and convicted him) are simultaneously damaging the credibility of the concept.

 

[Bomb#20]

... 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? ...

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?

Hey, now that I answered your question do you have any comment on it?

Are all you guys retired? Am I the only one here who still has non-IIDB demands on his time? Yes, that is much more responsive to my question, thank you.

So my comment is, do you take that same attitude toward the coach who leads student prayer sessions on the fifty-yard line after games? The school fought that all the way to the Supreme Court, even though there was nothing in the school system's systemic curriculum telling coaches to pray with students after games, and coaches weren't praying with children in public on school grounds en masse. It was just this one coach. So do you think the school district should have just backed off and let him go on encouraging schoolchildren to pray with him?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm happy to know that you don't look at black people as a collective rather than individual people. For example looking at a few cases then declaring said cases are proof that 41.6 million people don't experience racism

Straw man. Actually, it's not even a straw man, which at least would be a vaguely recognisable caricature of an assertion.

from 660,288 law enforcement employees in the 50-60 million yearly contacts made with the public. You deserve an award for your exemplary contributions towards the end of racism.

If you believe systemic racism against blacks is real in America, you should be calling out people who mindlessly attribute any negative outcome for a black individual to systemic racism. People promulgating the view that George Floyd's death was either due to the racism ofs of Chauvin (of which there is no evidence) or because of a racist system (even though the justice system reacted swiftly to Chauvin and convicted him) are simultaneously damaging the credibility of the concept.

Today on white people telling black people who they really should be "calling out" regarding racism...

 

[Metaphor]

I'm happy to know that you don't look at black people as a collective rather than individual people. For example looking at a few cases then declaring said cases are proof that 41.6 million people don't experience racism

Straw man. Actually, it's not even a straw man, which at least would be a vaguely recognisable caricature of an assertion.

from 660,288 law enforcement employees in the 50-60 million yearly contacts made with the public. You deserve an award for your exemplary contributions towards the end of racism.

If you believe systemic racism against blacks is real in America, you should be calling out people who mindlessly attribute any negative outcome for a black individual to systemic racism. People promulgating the view that George Floyd's death was either due to the racism ofs of Chauvin (of which there is no evidence) or because of a racist system (even though the justice system reacted swiftly to Chauvin and convicted him) are simultaneously damaging the credibility of the concept.

Today on white people telling black people who they really should be "calling out" regarding racism...

I did the calling out, and then Gospel objected to my calling out, even though he agrees with my conclusions. Since Gospel engaged me, I responded to him.

If you personally recuse yourself from engaging with people because of the colour of their skin, that's a problem I can't help you with.

 

[Gospel]

Straw man. Actually, it's not even a straw man, which at least would be a vaguely recognisable caricature of an assertion.

And here I was thinking you wouldn't get the satire. I have you know that black people aren't the only people experiencing racism in America. Unless of course you think things like Affirmative Action is perfectly fine. I personally think racism is no longer systemic (being that it's no longer law) but there are still folks in positions of power that are racist and violate peoples civil rights as a result. you seem to be living in a fantasy land where the law says it's against the law therefore it doesn't exist. Now that's a strawman. I have yet to see you concede on a single case of a black person's civil rights being violated saying "yup, that was racist".

If you believe systemic racism against blacks is real in America, you should be calling out people who mindlessly attribute any negative outcome for a black individual to systemic racism. People promulgating the view that George Floyd's death was either due to the racism ofs of Chauvin (of which there is no evidence) or because of a racist system (even though the justice system reacted swiftly to Chauvin and convicted him) are simultaneously damaging the credibility of the concept.

Again, I don't believe it's systemic and have said this multiple times on this forum. What I believe is that there is still a substantial amount of racism in America. While it's not systemic it's not nonexistent either. You're using systemic racism as a straw man to not concede that there are racist people in America.

 

[Metaphor]

Straw man. Actually, it's not even a straw man, which at least would be a vaguely recognisable caricature of an assertion.

And here I was thinking you wouldn't get the satire. I have you know that black people aren't the only people experiencing racism in America. Unless of course you think things like Affirmative Action is perfectly fine. I personally think racism is no longer systemic (being that it's no longer law) but there are still folks in positions of power that are racist and violate peoples civil rights as a result.

I agree.

Years ago on this board, I was arguing about systemic racism, and I asked if a hypothetical black magistrate (magistrates of course have real institutional power) who routinely gave tougher sentences to white youth because she thinks they are trouble, could be called 'racist'. The answer I received was 'no' - it was bigoted, it was prejudiced - but no black person in America could be 'racist' because blacks lack power.

you seem to be living in a fantasy land where the law says it's against the law therefore it doesn't exist. Now that's a strawman. I have yet to see you concede on a single case of a black person's civil rights being violated saying "yup, that was racist".

To concede something means I have to have held a position that I then later reverse. I have never held the position that individuals cannot be and do racist things.

If you believe systemic racism against blacks is real in America, you should be calling out people who mindlessly attribute any negative outcome for a black individual to systemic racism. People promulgating the view that George Floyd's death was either due to the racism ofs of Chauvin (of which there is no evidence) or because of a racist system (even though the justice system reacted swiftly to Chauvin and convicted him) are simultaneously damaging the credibility of the concept.

Again, I don't believe it's systemic and have said this multiple times on this forum. What I believe is that there is still a substantial amount of racism in America. While it's not systemic it's not nonexistent either. You're using systemic racism as a straw man to not concede that there are racist people in America.

There are, of course, racist people in America, as there is racism in basically every ethnicity, culture, and country on earth.

 

[Jarhyn]

ITT: people not realizing that when the sum vector of leveraged racism is identified, the balance far and away yields the majority of it is leverage against minorities.

It's like saying "every particle is contributing to the gravitational center so we shouldn't bother where the gravitational center is, nor where, nor why."

The center of mass within the system bends the structure of the system away from offering opportunity to minorities to advance themselves.

 

[Gospel]

To concede something means I have to have held a position that I then later reverse. I have never held the position that individuals cannot be and do racist things.

I didn't say you held or hold the position. If anything I said you seem too hold that position. The reason you seem that way to me is on this forum you have yet to take up the position that a black man encountered racism in America (in your lifetime to be generous) when given the opportunity. The closest you've got is implying that democrats think black people are stupid. However (again it seems) that is an attack on a political party that can arguably be called a defense of black people and not exclusively in their defense..

My sincere apologies for not seeing a side of you you've yet to show.