What, exactly, is CRT?

[Bomb#20]

Oh fer crissakes - don't be such a pedant. Of course I meant "and be correct", and "slavery never existed" etc are just other examples of things you can say and be incorrect. But you knew that...

No, I didn't -- you were being weird. If those were just other examples of the same thing you were accusing Loren of, then how come his was a "can't" and yours were "can"s?

It doesn't assert ANYTHING "on faith".

That depends on who we're relying on for a list of things it asserts -- some CRT advocates' versions of CRT obviously assert things on faith.

Example(s)?

See Politesse's list in post #61.

It's a university level law course, not a junior high school philosophy exercise.

It started out as a university level law course. Now, according to Wikipedia, "In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and applied in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies."

At what level? Nursery school? Kindergarten? grades 1-10? (Those levels are where I learned the "Pledge of Allegiance")

At college level. What's your point? CRT is being peddled at college level in the field of education. That means the peddlers are trying to train student K-10 teachers to think in CRT terms. Is that going to affect how those students will go on to teach children? The peddlers must think it is or they probably wouldn't bother.

It is still what it is. By next week some group or group might define it as "teaching kindergarten children that white people are scary".
I'm not going for it.

What's in a name? It's not as though legislatures are enacting "No teaching children CRT" and then courts are ruling that CRT means "teaching kindergarten children that white people are scary". The legislators may talk a lot about CRT for the cameras, but what goes into their laws looks a lot more like "No teaching kindergarten children that white people are scary". If that's not what CRT is then CRT peddlers have no cause to feel threatened by the laws.

"One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" is an article faith, reinforced by sheer repetition from grade one in public schools, and devoid of objective factual support.
Why aren't you railing against it?

Whom would he be railing against it to?

To those who assert that there is liberty and justice for all who earn it,

You know that was always an expression of an ideal, don't you? The idea was that in America there should be liberty and justice for all. It wasn't a claim that there currently is liberty and justice for all. For gods' sake, the PoA was written by a socialist. You think the guy thought capitalist America had liberty and justice for all? "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all", in historical context, amounts to "I ain't a Confederate."

that racism is over and done, that poverty is caused by laziness, that black people are less intelligent than white people, or that CRT is being taught to grade-schoolers - you know - RACISTS?

Left-wingers defining everyone who disagrees with them about whatever random questions they pick as RACISTS is precisely what makes average Americans so suspicious of all the left-wing proposals that smack of that -- CRT among them.

Railing is for controversial matters. There's nobody here advocating the Pledge of Allegiance.

Yet nobody is opposing it, even though (that part of) it is a load of crap, being aggressively foisted upon youth, and widely believed among ignorant adults.

All of us are opposing it -- certainly the "under God" part, and probably the "I pledge allegiance" part. Loyalty oaths are for authoritarians. We aren't loudly opposing it because there's no point in yelling at people who agree with us.

Exactly what people here ARE falsely railing against about CRT, employing the nouveau mis-definitions of CRT to condemn the original idea.

Again, what's in a name? If people are condemning a nouveau definition, then that's what they're condemning; if the original idea was something else then the something else isn't what's being condemned. If you want to push a good idea but it's become associated in the public mind with a bad idea because the same name has been used for both too often, then maybe it's time to rename the good idea. Calling people who do their programming by brilliant improvisation instead of tedious by-the-book academically approved standard procedures "hackers" got ruined when the media collectively decided to use that word for computer burglars, but at some point we have to throw in the towel, stop trying to correct them, and admit that languages evolve and meaning is determined by usage.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In its broadest applied sense even democracy is a religion,

Not sure what you mean by that. That democracy exists is observable -- whether elections are held and votes are counted and winners are put in charge of deciding what people go to jail for isn't a matter of faith. If you mean being for it is a religion, I would think that depends on one's reason. If you're for democracy because agreeing with the 49% confers on one a mystical geas of obedience to the will of the 51%, yes, that's a religion; but if you're for democracy because it's the worst of all forms of government except for the others, that doesn't seem religious to me.

so stating that CRT is religious in no way distinguishes it from other human undertakings. But is CRT being pursued as something of supreme importance? It obviously is not and therefore defining it as being religious fails.

Supreme is as supreme does. It boggles my mind that people will tell you with a straight face that Bible is the literal Word of God and that we're put here to do God's will and that that's our greatest duty and it's what gives meaning and real joy to life, and those same people won't take the trouble to learn Hebrew and Greek; but there you are. Heck, America is full of C&E Christians*, and Christians who work on the Sabbath -- and giving all they can to the poor? Forget about it! Christianity evidently isn't being pursued as something of supreme importance, but that doesn't make it not a religion.

The folks pushing CRT appear to think it's important enough to enforce a complete overhaul of economics and law on the rest of us over it. That's more supremely important than the average Christian treats his religion.

(* The ones who go to church twice a year, Christmas and Easter.)

CRT is merely Discussion of Systemic Racism. Maybe if we called it DSR and not CRT it wouldn't appear so frightening and sciency to some people.

Loren offered the word "religion" and my subsequent discussion of its use was in accordance with how we define the label. If you acquaint yourself with those definitions you will understand my post more clearly.

Again, what's in a name? If people are condemning a nouveau definition, then that's what they're condemning; if the original idea was something else then the something else isn't what's being condemned. If you want to push a good idea but it's become associated in the public mind with a bad idea because the same name has been used for both too often, then maybe it's time to rename the good idea. Calling people who do their programming by brilliant improvisation instead of tedious by-the-book academically approved standard procedures "hackers" got ruined when the media collectively decided to use that word for computer burglars, but at some point we have to throw in the towel, stop trying to correct them, and admit that languages evolve and meaning is determined by usage.

Sure have to agree with you there.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your issue is that you don't see how or why my utterances answer your question, despite the fact they do.

When you have watched the machine function and described that function, it's beyond falsifiability.

CRT describes a machine that keeps black people poor, while providing outlets to white people from that same poverty. All the parts are described and understood.

Falsify it? Falsify the theory of the ICE while you are at it ..

Thereby showing you don't understand about falsification.

Showing that you are coming at the problem wrong and asking for stupid shit.

As I have asked, how would YOU go falsifying the theory of the Internal Combustion Engine?

I could falsify CRT in all kinds of ways that are not possible to implement, but that's where we are at aren't we? You lot asking for absurdities that you can point to same as I'm asking for an absurdity. I'm asking you in essence to say "pour gasoline in an engine, provide power to the spark plugs, and have everything constructed exactly as any other engine, and turn it on, see the gasoline ignite and the pistons not be pushed.

CRT is built on the assembly of observations, of "strong theories" not in question.

To falsify it you would have to demonstrate that heritable wealth and it's absence in family structures does not act as a detriment to success. You can point to individuals succeeding in spite of that, usually with outside influence and sacrifice explicitly to combat those factors, but they are the exception that proves the rule, that shows that there is an obstacle there that takes outsized work to bypass.

As I said, show me how I would go about disproving the ICE and then we can talk.

We hear all the time from various creationists here that "evolution is an unfalsifiable theory". My point is not that it is or isn't. Merely that it's not unfalsifiable. It's merely that falsification is unattainable because we tried and failed numerous times.

As it is, we don't actually have an operational "theory of gravity" at all, yet. But none of us argue that gravity is a thing.

CRT is based on looking at reality and describing the things that happened, without malice or agenda.

You look at 10 cases in law and see "these five did the same actions as these five. The first five had access to X. The second five did not. The first 5 went home. The second 5 went to prison to be raped slaves. The first 5 were white. The second 5 were black. The children of the first 5 will have access to more X. The children of the second 5 will not. All the same factors that led to each group doing as they had carry on to the second group.

Even assuming 0 animus in this scenario, it's fucked up. Nobody earned any of what they got in relation to what anyone else got. This is statistically what we see.

CRT says this is because one group has been denied access to a resource. It identifies the reality of X.

In other words, CRT is only disproved in the situation where the racist proves he is right and there is a biological intrinsic quality that places most black people as less capable of doing good work than white people. It is either intrinsic or extrinsic, and intrinsics are often generated from extrinsics anyway.

But the 20'th century had gobs of research, as well as the early 21'st that disproved any such intrinsic quality in showing between group variation is less than within group variation

Not sure what you mean by that. That democracy exists is observable -- whether elections are held and votes are counted and winners are put in charge of deciding what people go to jail for isn't a matter of faith. If you mean being for it is a religion, I would think that depends on one's reason. If you're for democracy because agreeing with the 49% confers on one a mystical geas of obedience to the will of the 51%, yes, that's a religion; but if you're for democracy because it's the worst of all forms of government except for the others, that doesn't seem religious to me.


Supreme is as supreme does. It boggles my mind that people will tell you with a straight face that Bible is the literal Word of God and that we're put here to do God's will and that that's our greatest duty and it's what gives meaning and real joy to life, and those same people won't take the trouble to learn Hebrew and Greek; but there you are. Heck, America is full of C&E Christians*, and Christians who work on the Sabbath -- and giving all they can to the poor? Forget about it! Christianity evidently isn't being pursued as something of supreme importance, but that doesn't make it not a religion.

The folks pushing CRT appear to think it's important enough to enforce a complete overhaul of economics and law on the rest of us over it. That's more supremely important than the average Christian treats his religion.

(* The ones who go to church twice a year, Christmas and Easter.)

CRT is merely Discussion of Systemic Racism. Maybe if we called it DSR and not CRT it wouldn't appear so frightening and sciency to some people.

Loren offered the word "religion" and my subsequent discussion of its use was in accordance with how we define the label. If you acquaint yourself with those definitions you will understand my post more clearly.

Again, what's in a name? If people are condemning a nouveau definition, then that's what they're condemning; if the original idea was something else then the something else isn't what's being condemned. If you want to push a good idea but it's become associated in the public mind with a bad idea because the same name has been used for both too often, then maybe it's time to rename the good idea. Calling people who do their programming by brilliant improvisation instead of tedious by-the-book academically approved standard procedures "hackers" got ruined when the media collectively decided to use that word for computer burglars, but at some point we have to throw in the towel, stop trying to correct them, and admit that languages evolve and meaning is determined by usage.

Sure have to agree with you there.

You really don't have to though, when the person is doing so in bad faith: the right and conservatives are saying "find new language" despite the fact that they are the ones who shit on the linguistics in the first place by misusing the term. Do you think for one moment the right will not gleefully do this forcing us off terms again and again for the sadistic glee of watching the left Scrabble to even talk about things? Do you not think for a moment the very next play in the playbook is not "they keep trying to rebrand a failed idea, look how many times it's failed" but never once admitting the idea is not failed, just the namings, and only that because they intentionally failed it?

Maybe we can just say "no, fuck you, it's CRT, but what you call that isn't so (slap across the face), but CRT, that's what we are calling it, and if you have a problem with it, cry more"

 

[Politesse]

You guys are killing my brain. Tenet. Not tenant. A Tenant is a person who rents or leases a residence. A Tenet is is a stated core belief of a religion or philosophy.

Eh, Loren's the expert here... I figured he was trying to launch a new figure of speech.

Anyway, my problem with CRT is that it defines tenets of it's philosophy

"its philosophy" is correct, not "it's philosophy". Since you are so concerned with questions of vocabulary, I know you would not wish to fall prey to the embarassing situation of committing a new lexical error while attempting to correct your neighbor's.

which axiomatically assume that the majority of observed discrepancy in outcome on the basis of race are the direct result of invisible racism built into US society from day one

This is a bizarre claim. Racism in the United States has never been "invisible" by any plausible definition of that term. How can you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when you begin with the claim that the racism involved in a system of openly race-based chattel slavery is "invisible" to the informed observer?

and continuously supported by all white residents of the US in a self-fulfilling fashion.

This is completely wrong. The whole thing about systemic racism is that it is more than capable of functioning without the kind of buy-in you are suggesting. If people following their basic motivations for survival and prosperity can be easily manipulated thereby to serve a political project based on and manifesting as a severe class distinction, the individual emotions of privileged actors are irrelevant. When the system is set up in your favor in certain ways (and disadvantaging you in others - populational control of poor whites was always a major motivator as our legal system was constructed) systemic discrimination is inevitable whether each actor consciously understands their role in the system.

Suppose you lived in a test laboratory for a while, in which getting suffiicient food and lodging for the next day costs two dollars a day. You also get allowance of exactly two dollars a day, which appear in a personalized cubicle once every morning. You are free to use those two dollars however you like, but only one of those ways gets you adequate care. If you want, you can spend only one dollar, but this gets you half-rations and a night sleeping in the hall. Meanwhile, a second study group is subject to the same conditions, except that they only receive one dollar a day. Effectively, they can only reach their two dollar minimum by convincing someone else to give them one of their dollars. Would you give up a dollar a day to feed a member of the purposefully disadvantaged group? Would you do it every day? Would you think it was fair to call you one-dollarist, and accuse you of hating the one-dollar people just because you aren't actively starving on their behalf? You have a right to protect your own. You don't have to hate the one-dollar people for the system to continue exactly as it does. The system will persist whether you hate them or not. Because the problem isn't the user, it's the program, which is set up in a way that obliges its actors into recreating the basic equalities that were baked into the experiment the second its constraints were set up. You aren't in the moral wrong to accept the privileges (which were really, the bare minimum for survival, not luxuries) that you were offered. Though, I would argue, if you become aware of the unfairness of the systemn and angrily deny that you ever had an advantage at all, that to me is another matter ethically speaking.

In any case, CRT looks at this situation, and reasons that it is implausible to expect that the two dollar group will ever achieve parity with the one dollar group out of sheer love of equality, within the framework as it currently exists. A system in which everyone gets two dollars a day is the only way to resolve the inequity and prevent the eventual collapse of the entire system. Which means that the presumptive promises of the 14th amendment must apply, and must be enforced, in order for American civil society to have any hope of long-term sustainability.

It allows for no other explanation, because it ASSUMES that relationship as the foundational core of the entire framework.

This claim that the foundational core of CRT is, well, anything other than the self-described assumptions of the theory in fact are, is so weird to me. Do you really believe you can change the definition of a word just by repeating a fake definition over and over ad nauseum? How is this even useful? Presumably you believe that CRT practitioners exist, and want to eliminate them from social policy planning. How will you be able to do this effectively if you have no idea what ideas and policies they are actually advancing? If you never learn what it is they are actually saying, you will be unprepared for every single encounter, and your ignorance will cause your faction to lose every single battle you arrive at. Yoiu cannot effectively counter that which you cannot grasp. So it seems tactfully foolish in the extreme to embrace intentional misunderstandings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

No, it is a STUDY of how the current state of social stratification has emerged from a continuation of fully institutionalized social designations based on race, which were foundational to the establishment of the Union of States.
You can deny that slavery ever existed, you can assert that "good Christians" - especially the revered Founders - were never slave owners, but you cannot call CRT a religion. It doesn't assert ANYTHING "on faith". It's a university level law course, not a junior high school philosophy exercise.

"One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" is an article faith, reinforced by sheer repetition from grade one in public schools, and devoid of objective factual support.
Why aren't you railing against it?

You're making my point here. Your "evidence" is historical. I don't believe anyone on here is denying the historical origins. The question is what is the current situation. CRT takes it on faith that it's current racism, as opposed to legacy effects from prior racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Therefore there is nothing wrong or unsafe or dangerous with allowing children to understand and discuss the subject and allowing teachers to present it as such.

So why are right wingers so opposed to the exercise?

So why are the left wingers so opposed to the exercise of teaching Christianity in school?

Any rational human being who understands that there is separation between church and state opposes the exercise of teaching that a religion is true in a public school. The particular religion is irrelevant and so is the political leaning of the rational human being.

Which does not at all address the question of whether CRT is a religion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

No, it is a STUDY of how the current state of social stratification has emerged from a continuation of fully institutionalized social designations based on race, which were foundational to the establishment of the Union of States.
You can deny that slavery ever existed, you can assert that "good Christians" - especially the revered Founders - were never slave owners, but you cannot call CRT a religion. It doesn't assert ANYTHING "on faith". It's a university level law course, not a junior high school philosophy exercise.

I call it a religion because I see the same reaction that happens with a challenge to the basis of any religion--it's treated as blasphemy and most of the responses don't even try to actually address it.

"One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" is an article faith, reinforced by sheer repetition from grade one in public schools, and devoid of objective factual support.
Why aren't you railing against it?

It's not being used to defend anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Eh, Loren's the expert here... I figured he was trying to launch a new figure of speech.

So, I made a mistake with homonyms.

Suppose you lived in a test laboratory for a while, in which getting suffiicient food and lodging for the next day costs two dollars a day. You also get allowance of exactly two dollars a day, which appear in a personalized cubicle once every morning. You are free to use those two dollars however you like, but only one of those ways gets you adequate care. If you want, you can spend only one dollar, but this gets you half-rations and a night sleeping in the hall. Meanwhile, a second study group is subject to the same conditions, except that they only receive one dollar a day. Effectively, they can only reach their two dollar minimum by convincing someone else to give them one of their dollars. Would you give up a dollar a day to feed a member of the purposefully disadvantaged group? Would you do it every day? Would you think it was fair to call you one-dollarist, and accuse you of hating the one-dollar people just because you aren't actively starving on their behalf? You have a right to protect your own. You don't have to hate the one-dollar people for the system to continue exactly as it does. The system will persist whether you hate them or not. Because the problem isn't the user, it's the program, which is set up in a way that obliges its actors into recreating the basic equalities that were baked into the experiment the second its constraints were set up. You aren't in the moral wrong to accept the privileges (which were really, the bare minimum for survival, not luxuries) that you were offered. Though, I would argue, if you become aware of the unfairness of the systemn and angrily deny that you ever had an advantage at all, that to me is another matter ethically speaking.

In other words, the poor are subhumans not capable of caring for themselves. Sure that's where you want to go?

In any case, CRT looks at this situation, and reasons that it is implausible to expect that the two dollar group will ever achieve parity with the one dollar group out of sheer love of equality, within the framework as it currently exists. A system in which everyone gets two dollars a day is the only way to resolve the inequity and prevent the eventual collapse of the entire system. Which means that the presumptive promises of the 14th amendment must apply, and must be enforced, in order for American civil society to have any hope of long-term sustainability.

It's still the standard leftist solution--tear down anyone higher than you rather than pull up those below.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

Ignoring the mislabeling, that is what you consider a religion?

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.

You don't get to teach your religion and exclude others.

So you are saying that your belief that a lot of the issues blacks face being "cultural" is also a religion?

No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

No, it is a STUDY of how the current state of social stratification has emerged from a continuation of fully institutionalized social designations based on race, which were foundational to the establishment of the Union of States.
You can deny that slavery ever existed, you can assert that "good Christians" - especially the revered Founders - were never slave owners, but you cannot call CRT a religion. It doesn't assert ANYTHING "on faith". It's a university level law course, not a junior high school philosophy exercise.

"One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" is an article faith, reinforced by sheer repetition from grade one in public schools, and devoid of objective factual support.
Why aren't you railing against it?

You're making my point here. Your "evidence" is historical. I don't believe anyone on here is denying the historical origins. The question is what is the current situation. CRT takes it on faith that it's current racism, as opposed to legacy effects from prior racism.

I've lived in five different states in which I've encountered overt racism. The only state in which I did not encounter racism by whites against blacks and natives was spent in military service never wandering far from base. When I moved to my present location 30 years ago and bought a home I was greeted with "We're so glad a white family bought this home." So, yah, racism is alive and well across the U.S.

The systemic racism I encountered was around Chicago where certain communities required that new homebuyers be affirmed by two present residents. Needless to say there were no blacks there, but the practice is obviously legal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyway, my problem with CRT is that it defines tenets of it's philosophy which axiomatically assume that the majority of observed discrepancy in outcome on the basis of race are the direct result of invisible racism built into US society from day one, and continuously supported by all white residents of the US in a self-fulfilling fashion. It allows for no other explanation, because it ASSUMES that relationship as the foundational core of the entire framework.

Exactly. There are actual problems in the legal system (we explicitly made white-man's drugs legal and colored-man's drugs illegal and that persists to this day) but that's a minor part of the issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CRT is merely Discussion of Systemic Racism. Maybe if we called it DSR and not CRT it wouldn't appear so frightening and sciency to some people.

Loren offered the word "religion" and my subsequent discussion of its use was in accordance with how we define the label. If you acquaint yourself with those definitions you will understand my post more clearly.

Changing the label doesn't change the basic issue of taking it on faith that it is systemic racism.

 

[Politesse]

In other words, the poor are subhumans not capable of caring for themselves. Sure that's where you want to go?

Your interpretation of the situation says much more about you than it does about me or about CRT. Why would being arbitrarily placed in one group rather than another make you "subhuman" in any sense?

It's still the standard leftist solution--tear down anyone higher than you rather than pull up those below.

Tearing down who?

 

[Politesse]

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.

You don't get to teach your religion and exclude others.

So you are saying that your belief that a lot of the issues blacks face being "cultural" is also a religion?

No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

If demonstrating neither the results of systemic racism nor the causes of systemic racism nor metrics to measure the present situation with respect to systemic racism constitute evidence, I am confused as to what would satisfy your "skepticism".

 

[Elixir]

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.



No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

If demonstrating neither the results of systemic racism nor the causes of systemic racism nor metrics to measure the present situation with respect to systemic racism constitute evidence, I am confused as to what would satisfy your "skepticism".

I am confused as well. Seems like maybe Loren is referring to the "CRT" of right wing myth, wherein dissatisfied cotton pickers are simply trying to wreak socioeconomic vengeance upon their kindly-but-possibly-somewhat-misguided white benefactors.

At least there is no outright denial of the actual origins and outcomes. Descriptions and accounts of those origins and outcomes are somehow objectionable though, as they tend to draw causal arrows that are hard to measure. Impossible to measure if undertaking rigorous examination that might support or falsify those specific causal connections, is forbidden.
So ... yeah. Forbid it, problem solved.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

CRT is merely Discussion of Systemic Racism. Maybe if we called it DSR and not CRT it wouldn't appear so frightening and sciency to some people.

Loren offered the word "religion" and my subsequent discussion of its use was in accordance with how we define the label. If you acquaint yourself with those definitions you will understand my post more clearly.

Changing the label doesn't change the basic issue of taking it on faith that it is systemic racism.

Who's taking what on faith? I just told you a few posts back about my experiences living across the U.S. and the overt racism I encountered, and some of it was legal and systemic, intended to exclude blacks, which it did. No faith needed.

 

[KeepTalking]

Anyway, my problem with CRT is that it defines tenets of it's philosophy which axiomatically assume that the majority of observed discrepancy in outcome on the basis of race are the direct result of invisible racism built into US society from day one, and continuously supported by all white residents of the US in a self-fulfilling fashion. It allows for no other explanation, because it ASSUMES that relationship as the foundational core of the entire framework.

Exactly. There are actual problems in the legal system (we explicitly made white-man's drugs legal and colored-man's drugs illegal and that persists to this day) but that's a minor part of the issue.

Hi Loren, I thought I would drop in and let you know that you just applied Critical Race Theory in your examination of drug laws. Of course you would not recognize that, as CRT has been made into a something it is not by the right wing, and you have fallen for their ploy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Anyway, my problem with CRT is that it defines tenets of it's philosophy which axiomatically assume that the majority of observed discrepancy in outcome on the basis of race are the direct result of invisible racism built into US society from day one, and continuously supported by all white residents of the US in a self-fulfilling fashion. It allows for no other explanation, because it ASSUMES that relationship as the foundational core of the entire framework.

Exactly. There are actual problems in the legal system (we explicitly made white-man's drugs legal and colored-man's drugs illegal and that persists to this day) but that's a minor part of the issue.

Hi Loren, I thought I would drop in and let you know that you just applied Critical Race Theory in your examination of drug laws. Of course you would not recognize that, as CRT has been made into a something it is not by the right wing, and you have fallen for their ploy.

This is what I keep pointing out...

There are not merely two levels of scientific phenomena.

There are hypotheses, hunches that need testing.

There are theories, hypothesis but tested, standing against other theories.

Then there are resolved matters of systemic behavioral dynamics that rest on physical law.

Some things are falsifiable. Matters of resolved systemic behavior are not falsifiable in any way that allows reality to keep making sense the way we made sense of it. You cannot falsify evolution, not because it was not vulnerable to challenge at some point but rather because we have documented, photographed, and confirmed the existence of every phenomena down to the level of actually photograph and simulate the functioning chemicals as they jitter around in their conformities, and to expose them to mutagenic events to even confirm that they do change.

With CRT, it is similar: it is a resolved matter of law. We have seen all the causes and effects documented. The people who placed them were explicit and honest in their reasoning most times.

The major complaints I see against CRT seem more along the lines of "how are we going to keep our racist reality if you keep going after the only thing we have left since overt racism was taken off the table?"

 

[Bomb#20]

CRT is merely Discussion of Systemic Racism. Maybe if we called it DSR and not CRT it wouldn't appear so frightening and sciency to some people.

If that's what concerns you, let me set your mind at rest. There are exactly zero people in the intersection of the set of people to whom CRT appears frightening and the set of people to whom CRT appears sciency.

Loren offered the word "religion" and my subsequent discussion of its use was in accordance with how we define the label.

Who you call "we", Kemosabe?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, the poor are subhumans not capable of caring for themselves. Sure that's where you want to go?

Your interpretation of the situation says much more about you than it does about me or about CRT. Why would being arbitrarily placed in one group rather than another make you "subhuman" in any sense?

There's nothing in society limiting you to making the $1 instead of $2. If you can't make the $2 you're either disabled or have other internal problems.

It's still the standard leftist solution--tear down anyone higher than you rather than pull up those below.

Tearing down who?

Take away the "extra" they have so they have no more than you do.