Did you take a class in critical race theory?

[Gospel]

I don't see an issue with calling people a group if they all agree on something, however it becomes an issue when you believe those groups of people agree on everything.

Edit: This forum is proof of that, being the majority secular yet we fight on just about every god damn topic.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't see an issue with calling people a group if they all agree on something, however it becomes an issue when you believe those groups of people agree on everything.

Edit: This forum is proof of that, being the majority secular yet we fight on just about every god damn topic.

It's the distinction between "calling people a group" and "people actually being some thing, as a group". In the former, I could call a group "a group of black people". The problem comes in trying to say anything else about that group, as nothing else is known.

It is a disingenuous act to say that knowing anything about "black people" tells you anything about these particular black people. I cannot even say with any certainty "all of these people have experienced racism". I cannot even say "many of these people have experienced racism". To make such statements, I have to know about the specific group of black people to make any statement about them in particular. The only thing I can say for certain of them, with any degree of respect is "Jarhyn arbitrarily grouped them together as 'black people', whatever that may mean to Jarhyn".

 

[Gospel]

I don't see an issue with calling people a group if they all agree on something, however it becomes an issue when you believe those groups of people agree on everything.

Edit: This forum is proof of that, being the majority secular yet we fight on just about every god damn topic.

It's the distinction between "calling people a group" and "people actually being some thing, as a group". In the former, I could call a group "a group of black people". The problem comes in trying to say anything else about that group, as nothing else is known.

It is a disingenuous act to say that knowing anything about "black people" tells you anything about these particular black people. I cannot even say with any certainty "all of these people have experienced racism". I cannot even say "many of these people have experienced racism". To make such statements, I have to know about the specific group of black people to make any statement about them in particular. The only thing I can say for certain of them, with any degree of respect is "Jarhyn arbitrarily grouped them together as 'black people', whatever that may mean to Jarhyn".

Well, BLM want's to be seen as a group of people unified to bring attention to a genuine grievance. The recurring problem I see on (for example) Fox News is the inability to seperate BLM from those who break from the peaceful protests to turn to criminal activities or didn't show up for the event but came out at night to exploit the situation. The situation being protesters have a right to protest and the police (having in many cases across America made poor judgment calls) seeming to lack the ability to separate protesters from rioters/looters themselves. A way to avoid this was for the police to work with BLM (as they have in many cities - where they actually marched with them) so as to keep the protests secure from troublemakers making it easier to separate the two. In many cities, they took on a hostile approach instead leading to everyone (protesters and riots) being treated as one group. Then Fox eats this up and spins it.

the inability to see the individuals in the groups is the problem, not the groups themselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't see an issue with calling people a group if they all agree on something, however it becomes an issue when you believe those groups of people agree on everything.

Edit: This forum is proof of that, being the majority secular yet we fight on just about every god damn topic.

It's the distinction between "calling people a group" and "people actually being some thing, as a group". In the former, I could call a group "a group of black people". The problem comes in trying to say anything else about that group, as nothing else is known.

It is a disingenuous act to say that knowing anything about "black people" tells you anything about these particular black people. I cannot even say with any certainty "all of these people have experienced racism". I cannot even say "many of these people have experienced racism". To make such statements, I have to know about the specific group of black people to make any statement about them in particular. The only thing I can say for certain of them, with any degree of respect is "Jarhyn arbitrarily grouped them together as 'black people', whatever that may mean to Jarhyn".

Well, BLM want's to be seen as a group of people unified to bring attention to a genuine grievance. The recurring problem I see on (for example) Fox News is the inability to seperate BLM from those who break from the peaceful protests to turn to criminal activities or didn't show up for the event but came out at night to exploit the situation. The situation being protesters have a right to protest and the police (having in many cases across America made poor judgment calls) seeming to lack the ability to separate protesters from rioters/looters themselves. A way to avoid this was for the police to work with BLM (as they have in many cities - where they actually marched with them) so as to keep the protests secure from troublemakers making it easier to separate the two. In many cities, they took on a hostile approach instead leading to everyone (protesters and riots) being treated as one group. Then Fox eats this up and spins it.

the inability to see the individuals in the groups is the problem, not the groups themselves.

Inability? More like they have active interest in broad-brushing.

As I said, BLM is ad-hoc organized, and self-identified. Their one common thread is "black lives matter (as much as all other lives)". Nothing else can be said of BLM as a group.

 

[Elixir]

The same people pushing Trump's Big Lie, are now pushing "CRT is going to rot your children's brains!" panic button.
Their believers are so ignorant they don't even have the wherewithal to find out that CRT is a university law course, and their children have nothing to do with it.
But the GQP's "vaccines and masks are a Dem control plot" narrative was losing traction and they had to come up with something or their treasonous intent, Jan 6
and their Dear Leader's praise for Hitler might become front and center.
It's their whipping boy du jour.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I took one called Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination, if that counts. Around 1996.

Note that from the poll, I am the only one.

The poll doesn't really work, anyway--this is a bulletin board. Old school--the membership is going to skew considerably towards the older end of the spectrum. Thus few of us have been in school in recent years.

 

[Jarhyn]

I took one called Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination, if that counts. Around 1996.

Note that from the poll, I am the only one.

The poll doesn't really work, anyway--this is a bulletin board. Old school--the membership is going to skew considerably towards the older end of the spectrum. Thus few of us have been in school in recent years.

My most recent stint in education ended 2013. I'm considering going back for more paper.

 

[DrZoidberg]

... The conservatives criticizing this aren't wrong, no matter if most people on the left don't know wtf are on about.

I pointed out how, at least in my experience, the only discussions most universities have at all about race are and have been reasonable discussions about real phenomena that have led me and most others to post-racial solutions to the racial problems revealed.

I have no problem with that they are discussing it.

Your solution? Stop talking about the problem and ignore it exists.

When did I say this? I think it's important to talk about the problem.

Our solution? Talk about and understand the problem so we can figure out solutions to try and fix the wound.

Now go shovel that conservative bullshit elsewhere.

Being able to accurately describe a problem doesn't mean you have a solution. It's only the very first step. It's an important step. But it's not a solution. Not by a long shot.

Saying the preferred pronoun to transexuals doesn't help fix transphobia. Understanding how systematic racism impacts blacks doesn't help guide me when I'm hiring people at work, adding a temporary Facebook profile picture in sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians doesn't do anything for them.

It's just theatre. These progressive left progressive extremists have no solutions. It's all just descriptions of problems and policing word usage. I think they're so hung up on symbolism that they're hampering real progress. Aggressively policing what words and terms are used isn't going to solve shit.

 

[Jarhyn]

Being able to accurately describe a problem doesn't mean you have a solution. It's only the very first step. It's an important step. But it's not a solution. Not by a long shot.


It's just theatre. These progressive left progressive extremists have no solutions. It's all just descriptions of problems and policing word usage. I think they're so hung up on symbolism that they're hampering real progress. Aggressively policing what words and terms are used isn't going to solve shit.

As I said, go shovel your bullshit elsewhere. As others pointed out, the shape of the solution will always follow from the shape of the problem.

Perhaps you let your incredulity swing you around. I do not. I am such an individual that when I see the shape of a tree in the road, I can then deduce from that shape how to move around it's geometry. Many people are so.

Saying the preferred pronouns to trans people does help trans people make it through their lives: it lessens the impacts of transphobia, and reveals who the transphobes actually are.

Understanding systemic racism and unconscious bias and it's impacts absolutely helps me guide hiring people at work, because as I said it informs the need to sanitize resume data for racial and other indicators.

A temporary Facebook profile does a lot for Palestinians in the same way communication about any political issue does as much as anything that can be done about said issue for those people. Many people are unaware of the shape of events in Palestine and Facebook is their first exposure. When offered a situation that asks for empathy, most people will not withhold it, and that empathy informs voting practices.

You forget that large-scale social change is assembled from individual action and ideations. You forget that theaters can deliver powerful messages. Progressive leftists CREATE solutions from these things. It's convenient that you with your spin and ulterior motives whatever they may be that you left out those convenient solutions I keep fucking offering:

End the drug war (racially biased police motives which are the propaganda core against people of color)

End for-profit prisons (the financial motive, slavery which motivates the conflict of interest that drives the drug war)

Make education freely and widely available (so that people can leave cycles of poverty and abuse that arise from a lack of education and associated career opportunities)

Ban the box (remove the enduring impacts of modern slavery).

Regulate the real estate industry (and the finance industry in general) on all sides to legally block them from assessing factors which would be revelatory of race, specifically.

See, that's what you call a list of solutions. Something that, despite responding to a post asking for discussion about solutions, you failed to offer

 

[Harry Bosch]

Being able to accurately describe a problem doesn't mean you have a solution. It's only the very first step. It's an important step. But it's not a solution. Not by a long shot.


It's just theatre. These progressive left progressive extremists have no solutions. It's all just descriptions of problems and policing word usage. I think they're so hung up on symbolism that they're hampering real progress. Aggressively policing what words and terms are used isn't going to solve shit.

As I said, go shovel your bullshit elsewhere. As others pointed out, the shape of the solution will always follow from the shape of the problem.

Perhaps you let your incredulity swing you around. I do not. I am such an individual that when I see the shape of a tree in the road, I can then deduce from that shape how to move around it's geometry. Many people are so.

Saying the preferred pronouns to trans people does help trans people make it through their lives: it lessens the impacts of transphobia, and reveals who the transphobes actually are.

Understanding systemic racism and unconscious bias and it's impacts absolutely helps me guide hiring people at work, because as I said it informs the need to sanitize resume data for racial and other indicators.

A temporary Facebook profile does a lot for Palestinians in the same way communication about any political issue does as much as anything that can be done about said issue for those people. Many people are unaware of the shape of events in Palestine and Facebook is their first exposure. When offered a situation that asks for empathy, most people will not withhold it, and that empathy informs voting practices.

You forget that large-scale social change is assembled from individual action and ideations. You forget that theaters can deliver powerful messages. Progressive leftists CREATE solutions from these things. It's convenient that you with your spin and ulterior motives whatever they may be that you left out those convenient solutions I keep fucking offering:

End the drug war (racially biased police motives which are the propaganda core against people of color)

End for-profit prisons (the financial motive, slavery which motivates the conflict of interest that drives the drug war)

Make education freely and widely available (so that people can leave cycles of poverty and abuse that arise from a lack of education and associated career opportunities)

Ban the box (remove the enduring impacts of modern slavery).

Regulate the real estate industry (and the finance industry in general) on all sides to legally block them from assessing factors which would be revelatory of race, specifically.

See, that's what you call a list of solutions. Something that, despite responding to a post asking for discussion about solutions, you failed to offer

What is "Ban the Box"? Actually, the real estate and the banking industry are heavily regulated. What factors do they use that you consider to be revelatory of race? IMO, giving a loan to a person who can't afford it is not doing them a favor. If you force banks to increase their debt to income ratio to allow more minority loans, you'll have borrowers who have less discretionary income to use for living expenses. That doesn't help them.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Ban the box"? Perhaps try googling it. Why? So that you find the resources and can support the movement as you ought.

For those too lazy, however: it is banning the "have you ever been convicted?" Or "have you been convicted in the past x years" boxes offered on employment questionnaires. If we re to accept that "revenge punishments" are to be levied, then we must accept that they have paid the entirety of that debt wen they have completed this revenge punishment. People must be allowed to live down their past.

And there have been plethora of threads here concerning bias factors in the real estate industry. Everything from making disparate decisions of which houses to show based on race, given identical financial data, to dissimilar outcomes with regards to loan approvals even in the presence of identical financial data.

Many things outside core financial aspects are currently applied, such as whether they have rental histories in impoverished/majority-black areas; family and surname data; the location of schools attended rather than GPA and the geometry of their performance in said education. Pretty much any thing that emphasizes a family's past/generational situation (or, as with surnames, even less than that) rather than a current situation.

 

[Harry Bosch]

"Ban the box"? Perhaps try googling it.

For those too lazy, however: it is banning the "have you ever been convicted?" Or "have you been convicted in the past x years" boxes offered on employment questionnaires. If we re to accept that "revenge punishments" are to be levied, then we must accept that they have paid the entirety of that debt wen they have completed this revenge punishment. People must be allowed to live down their past.

And there have been plethora of threads here concerning bias factors in the real estate industry. Everything from making disparate decisions of which houses to show based on race, given identical financial data, to dissimilar outcomes with regards to loan approvals even in the presence of identical financial data.

Many things outside core financial aspects are currently applied, such as whether they have rental histories in impoverished/majority-black areas; family and surname data; the location of schools attended rather than GPA and the geometry of their performance in said education. Pretty much any thing that emphasizes a family's past/generational situation (or, as with surnames, even less than that) rather than a current situation.

As a former banker, I'm not aware of any "outside core financial aspects" that are asked on residential loan applications.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Ban the box"? Perhaps try googling it.

For those too lazy, however: it is banning the "have you ever been convicted?" Or "have you been convicted in the past x years" boxes offered on employment questionnaires. If we re to accept that "revenge punishments" are to be levied, then we must accept that they have paid the entirety of that debt wen they have completed this revenge punishment. People must be allowed to live down their past.

And there have been plethora of threads here concerning bias factors in the real estate industry. Everything from making disparate decisions of which houses to show based on race, given identical financial data, to dissimilar outcomes with regards to loan approvals even in the presence of identical financial data.

Many things outside core financial aspects are currently applied, such as whether they have rental histories in impoverished/majority-black areas; family and surname data; the location of schools attended rather than GPA and the geometry of their performance in said education. Pretty much any thing that emphasizes a family's past/generational situation (or, as with surnames, even less than that) rather than a current situation.

As a former banker, I'm not aware of any "outside core financial aspects" that are asked on residential loan applications.

Anything outside of the core... Badly stated and mea culpa. But, do you ask loan applicants for a residential history?
Do you ask them for their name?
Do you ask them about their educational attainment?
Do you ask them their current address?
Do you ask them anything about their educational history?

"<North Minneapolis> high school" vs "<wealthy Minneapolis suburb> high school" can be used by the fool to infer a lot about very little.

Each of these things can contain "hints" which inform people of irrelevancies that are processed "racially".

The fact that you don't see the reality of the leverage that has existed in such information is exactly the reason Diversity courses exist today.

 

[Rhea]

...so if someone does a huge historical project and you expect a lot of people to be against it because they weren't included and because of their ideologies, then wouldn't you expect them to be able to make some very minor points and frame things in their favor? I mean, a bunch of individuals. I would. It's just the nature of having a large body of text to deal with where people have reasons to try to attack it.

Ope! I thought you were talking about the current and throughout US history white-male-centered history books.

Now I realize that it’s the conservatives complaining about the end of that.
Ope - okay, I’m caught up now.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As I said, go shovel your bullshit elsewhere. As others pointed out, the shape of the solution will always follow from the shape of the problem.

Perhaps you let your incredulity swing you around. I do not. I am such an individual that when I see the shape of a tree in the road, I can then deduce from that shape how to move around it's geometry. Many people are so.

A simplistic solution to complex problems usually don't solve the problem. Usually, all you've done is introduced a new problem. Usually... or rather. Always.

You sounds naive to the extreme.

Saying the preferred pronouns to trans people does help trans people make it through their lives: it lessens the impacts of transphobia, and reveals who the transphobes actually are.

I don't think it does. I don't think that's what it's about at all. I think it's just a tool by which academic leftists get to feel superior to those they look down on as their intellectual inferiors. Because they're arrogant to the extreme. These are dangerous people with messiah complexes.

Understanding systemic racism and unconscious bias and it's impacts absolutely helps me guide hiring people at work, because as I said it informs the need to sanitize resume data for racial and other indicators.

That's such a dangerously naive thing to say. People who belong to an underclass are less well educated because they're given less opportunities. Gypsies in Romania aren't hired because they're assumed to be thieves, so they have little incentive not to steal. Thinking that all you need is to wear a gloria when you are hiring is retarded.

Systematic oppression doesn't mean that lots mean people are doing mean things and if only they would stop being mean the problem would go away. It means that racism at some point entered into the system and has skewed the system perpetuating the racism, even if, hypothetically, nobody is racist any longer.

Your super clever woke strategy to end racism will only act to perpetuate the racism. Well, done mister. You have quite a bit to learn about systems theory.

A temporary Facebook profile does a lot for Palestinians in the same way communication about any political issue does as much as anything that can be done about said issue for those people. Many people are unaware of the shape of events in Palestine and Facebook is their first exposure. When offered a situation that asks for empathy, most people will not withhold it, and that empathy informs voting practices.

HA HA HA

A temporary Facebook profile is like sending thoughts and prayers. It's worse than worthless because you get to feel you've done something without actually doing anything. It creates an illusion of helping and might fool people into thinking that somebody out there is on top of things. They're not. The situation for the Palestinians is about as shit now as it was in the 1980'ies. It's just a lot of talk and no action. It's complete bollocks.

You forget that large-scale social change is assembled from individual action and ideations. You forget that theaters can deliver powerful messages. Progressive leftists CREATE solutions from these things. It's convenient that you with your spin and ulterior motives whatever they may be that you left out those convenient solutions I keep fucking offering:

"If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable."
/Seneca

I disagree. That's how the left used to be. But today there's no solutions any more. It's all just theatre.

For example, intersectionalism can only perpetuate racism. It's a "progressive" leftist movement that can only do more damage than good. But superficially it sounds nice. There's nice slogans. But you're not doing any good by getting on that bandwagon.

You still haven't offered any solutions to anything.

End the drug war (racially biased police motives which are the propaganda core against people of color)

It's not like everybody on the left was against the war on drugs. A lot of people on the left have been aggressively FOR the war on drugs.

What killed the war on drugs was science. Harm Reduction wasn't borne out of liberalism. It was born out of careful sociological study and statistical analysis of the effects of the war on drugs.

I am on the left. I'm not going to claim anything for my team when it wasn't my team who did it.

When it comes to the war on drugs BOTH team liberal and conservative were WRONG.

End for-profit prisons (the financial motive, slavery which motivates the conflict of interest that drives the drug war)

We don't have those in Europe. So I don't know enough about them to have an opinion. But privately run prisons sounds to me like violating basic principles of democracy. Which is neither progressive nor liberal. The violence monopoly should only be wielded by a government body. To me, that's pretty basic.

But on an entirely different degree of fucked-upness than gender pronouns. This is a real problem.

Make education freely and widely available (so that people can leave cycles of poverty and abuse that arise from a lack of education and associated career opportunities)

I agree that's great. Sweden has had free, state sponsored, university for all Swedes since the 1850'ies. It's looks like a no brainer. This is such an obviously good policy, that pretty much pays for itself. Perhaps you need to work more on you temporary Facebook pictures. The ones you are using now just aren't good enough working.

But this has nothing to do with any of the nonsense the modern day intersecionalist wokes are talking about. This is a real solution to a real problem.

Ban the box (remove the enduring impacts of modern slavery).

Regulate the real estate industry (and the finance industry in general) on all sides to legally block them from assessing factors which would be revelatory of race, specifically.

I don't know what these are. I'm going to assume that it's a couple of these self inflected "only in America" problems we don't have in Europe because we already fixed it a long time ago. But I don't know.

See, that's what you call a list of solutions. Something that, despite responding to a post asking for discussion about solutions, you failed to offer

None of your solutions are specific products of CRT or any of the woke intersectionalist bollocks we have today. You just listed a bunch of things the left have always fought for. Except the war on drugs. The left has sucked at fighting against that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

"Ban the box"? Perhaps try googling it.

For those too lazy, however: it is banning the "have you ever been convicted?" Or "have you been convicted in the past x years" boxes offered on employment questionnaires. If we re to accept that "revenge punishments" are to be levied, then we must accept that they have paid the entirety of that debt wen they have completed this revenge punishment. People must be allowed to live down their past.

And there have been plethora of threads here concerning bias factors in the real estate industry. Everything from making disparate decisions of which houses to show based on race, given identical financial data, to dissimilar outcomes with regards to loan approvals even in the presence of identical financial data.

Many things outside core financial aspects are currently applied, such as whether they have rental histories in impoverished/majority-black areas; family and surname data; the location of schools attended rather than GPA and the geometry of their performance in said education. Pretty much any thing that emphasizes a family's past/generational situation (or, as with surnames, even less than that) rather than a current situation.

As a former banker, I'm not aware of any "outside core financial aspects" that are asked on residential loan applications.

Anything outside of the core... Badly stated and mea culpa. But, do you ask loan applicants for a residential history?
Do you ask them for their name?
Do you ask them about their educational attainment?
Do you ask them their current address?
Do you ask them anything about their educational history?

"<North Minneapolis> high school" vs "<wealthy Minneapolis suburb> high school" can be used by the fool to infer a lot about very little.

Each of these things can contain "hints" which inform people of irrelevancies that are processed "racially".

The fact that you don't see the reality of the leverage that has existed in such information is exactly the reason Diversity courses exist today.

I just refinanced my house. I was asked for name. But I was not asked for educational attainment or educational history. I'm not an expert, but I don't think that people are being declined residential loans based on their current address. Lenders are required to report directly to the applicant the reason for decline in a letter. They can't use subjective analysis's such as address. Banks ask for name and address in order to properly identify the borrower. Banks are required today to "know their borrower". This is a direct requirement under Fair Lending Laws.

 

[Jarhyn]

As I said, go shovel your bullshit elsewhere. As others pointed out, the shape of the solution will always follow from the shape of the problem.

Perhaps you let your incredulity swing you around. I do not. I am such an individual that when I see the shape of a tree in the road, I can then deduce from that shape how to move around it's geometry. Many people are so.

<spun mischaracterization> <generality>. <Hollow implication>. <Absolutism>.

<Personal attack>.

Saying the preferred pronouns to trans people does help trans people make it through their lives: it lessens the impacts of transphobia, and reveals who the transphobes actually are.

<Increduluty>. <More increduluty>. <An attempt to frame reasonable requests for social acceptance as a personal attack>. <More ad-hom attack>. <Even more personal attacks>

Understanding systemic racism and unconscious bias and it's impacts absolutely helps me guide hiring people at work, because as I said it informs the need to sanitize resume data for racial and other indicators.

<General non-sequitur; assertion fallacy>. <Irrelevancy>. <Perpetuation of a racist stereotype>. <Straw man and ad-hom attack>.

<Patronizing; red herring>. <More patronizing red herrings; more straw-men>>

<Unsupported reversal>. <Patronizing>. <Assertion fallacy rolling into ad-hom>

A temporary Facebook profile does a lot for Palestinians in the same way communication about any political issue does as much as anything that can be done about said issue for those people. Many people are unaware of the shape of events in Palestine and Facebook is their first exposure. When offered a situation that asks for empathy, most people will not withhold it, and that empathy informs voting practices.

<Formatted disctractionary ad-hom>

<Failure to address the point; more assertion fallacies>. <A second failure to address the point; more assertion fallacies>. <Unfounded assertion of effect>. <Repeating the unfounded assertion>. <"We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas">. <more "we tried nothing">. <Assertion fallacy>. <Assertion fallacy>.

You forget that large-scale social change is assembled from individual action and ideations. You forget that theaters can deliver powerful messages. Progressive leftists CREATE solutions from these things. It's convenient that you with your spin and ulterior motives whatever they may be that you left out those convenient solutions I keep fucking offering:

"If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable."
/Seneca

<Irrelevancy>. <Assertion fallacy>. <A straight up lie>.

<Red herring nobody was talking about>. <More discussion of the red herring>. <More red herring...>. <Red herring>. <Red herring consummating to straw-man>.

<Assertion in contravention of fact>.

End the drug war (racially biased police motives which are the propaganda core against people of color)

<Both sides>. <More both-sides>.

<Red herring>. <False premise>. <Errant distinction>.

<Facts in contravention of evidence>. <Extension to ridiculousness>.

<Conclusion built on fallacious premise>.

End for-profit prisons (the financial motive, slavery which motivates the conflict of interest that drives the drug war)

We don't have those in Europe. So I don't know enough about them to have an opinion.

Finally something that can actually be addressed rationally: if you do not know enough about private prisons die to a lack of research or exposure, then all the rest of your drivel about solutions and what is or is not one are unfounded. Leave the conversation please. Systemic racism in the US is intrinsically linked to the prison industry. It is one of the primary fixtures of systemic racism and touches every aspect of it in the US. A failure to understand and see that is a failure to even begin to understand what is going on here.

But privately run prisons sounds to me like violating basic principles of democracy.

They do

Which is neither progressive nor liberal.

Obviously. Rather, it is extremely conservative.

<assertion fallacy>. <Reiteration of assertion>.

Ah, back to it again then?

<"My problem is REALLY bad, so other people's problems are not bad at all"; or, no-true-scotsman>. <Consummation of the no-true-scotsman>

Make education freely and widely available (so that people can leave cycles of poverty and abuse that arise from a lack of education and associated career opportunities)

I agree that's great. Sweden has had free, state sponsored, university for all Swedes since the 1850'ies. It's looks like a no brainer. This is such an obviously good policy, that pretty much pays for itself.

This is progressive policy. Here you are saying "progressive s offer nothing" and then "this progressive policy is great, it's a no-brainer!"

Make up your GD mind.

<more ad-hom and straw-man. Where was he even going with this?>. <More of the ad-hom>

<Dog whistles attempting to deny progressive policy as progressive policy>. This is a real solution to a real problem.

Then quit saying it's not a solution, that it's not offered by progressives, and that the problem involved is not in the US largely racial.

Ban the box (remove the enduring impacts of modern slavery).

Regulate the real estate industry (and the finance industry in general) on all sides to legally block them from assessing factors which would be revelatory of race, specifically.

I don't know what these are. I'm going to assume that it's a couple of these self inflected "only in America" problems we don't have in Europe because we already fixed it a long time ago. But I don't know.

They are uniquely American problems: they are the core mechanisms of systemic slavery and binning of human lines along perpetuated racial divides. Again your failure to understand this dynamic means you are pointedly unqualified to comment on American racial policy.

See, that's what you call a list of solutions. Something that, despite responding to a post asking for discussion about solutions, you failed to offer

<Assertion fallacy>. <Cart/horse>. <Run-on assertion fallacy>. <Conclusion from fallacious premise>.

I took the time to parse and mark up your post. Not much is left. Maybe next time work on content rather than assertion fallacies, ad-hom, and other such unreasoned attacks?

Or perhaps study the mechanisms of the things you seem to wish to speak about and debate, before you speak and debate about them?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree that's great. Sweden has had free, state sponsored, university for all Swedes since the 1850'ies. It's looks like a no brainer. This is such an obviously good policy, that pretty much pays for itself.

This is progressive policy. Here you are saying "progressive s offer nothing" and then "this progressive policy is great, it's a no-brainer!"

Make up your GD mind.

I think you are misrepresenting my position.

You are taking classic leftist progressive policies and using them as examples for how modern intersectionalist and woke leftism is a force for good. You can't do that. They aren't the same thing. Critical Race Theory has very little to do with state sponsored education. When Sweden instituted state sponsored free education for all citizens, in those same schools they taught that blacks were a type of intelligent monkey and that there were examples of blacks being able to be trained to emulate some civilized behaviors. I have one such school book from the age. Clearly these are not the same thing.

Worth noting is that classic progressive/socialism has historically been a mixed blessing. Socialism has a history of weak theories put into practice at great force with catastrophic results. Can we stop doing that?

Just because you pretend to represent the cause of some minority, doesn't mean you are doing anything that will help them.

The left has always been plagued by white knights doing more damage than good. But they have great slogans

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's just theatre. These progressive left progressive extremists have no solutions. It's all just descriptions of problems and policing word usage. I think they're so hung up on symbolism that they're hampering real progress. Aggressively policing what words and terms are used isn't going to solve shit.

It isn't supposed to solve the problem. It is to make people aware that there is a problem that has been enduring well after the Civil War and well into the 1980s, some of it intentional other parts self-perpetuating out of sight and we have countless consequences that exist today due to this.

You seem to be unaware, yourself, that there are Americans that don't think there is a problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's just theatre. These progressive left progressive extremists have no solutions. It's all just descriptions of problems and policing word usage. I think they're so hung up on symbolism that they're hampering real progress. Aggressively policing what words and terms are used isn't going to solve shit.

It isn't supposed to solve the problem. It is to make people aware that there is a problem that has been enduring well after the Civil War and well into the 1980s, some of it intentional other parts self-perpetuating out of sight and we have countless consequences that exist today due to this.

You seem to be unaware, yourself, that there are Americans that don't think there is a problem.

That's the thing, though. Z doesn't understand the full dynamic, yet comments that disruptions to that dynamic are not solutions.

Heres the dynamic: black kids are born into poverty; this poverty instantiates in education in an impoverished district; this educational provenance creates an inability to access higher education, either through artificially poor test scores (scores representing not their ability to learn but their opportunities of the past) or through an inability to afford college at all; this results in desperation and continued poverty at below-subsistence wage jobs; this forces criminal "side hustle"; this generates a school-prison pipeline; the box then makes this state "sticky"; in the interim, this creates actuarial realities wherein the causation-correlation conflation is given legs; an intersection of subconscious CCC and active racism and the box then keeps people below threshold to build equity and generational wealth; children are had in this environment; repeat.

The drug war factors in as it is the mechanism that converts side-hustle into "prison bait".

The solutions disrupt key points of the dynamic: home finance, employment, criminal justice, and education.

Of course, this helps everyone in poverty to be able to finally escape it. It just happens that in the US this also solves much of the racial divide as well.