# Mixed-race student brings lawsuit against charter school for mandatory CRT content.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
You said "incompatible " - if anything a stronger claim.

I disagree. But maybe you are right. It would depend on what either of us meant by the word we chose, and they are both similar. To me personally, contradictory would usually be the stronger of the two.

I elaborated on my post, by asking a question.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
Who is the 'they' in 'their'? It is the previously-referred to 'accused', is it not?

In the context of describing some of the ways the discussion frequently gets derailed, not in a description of Politesse's perspective nor of the content of CRT.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
You said "incompatible " - if anything a stronger claim.

I disagree. But maybe you are right. It would depend on what either of us meant by the word we chose. To me personally, contradictory would usually be the stronger of the two.

The world is full of contradictions, but no two incompatible claims are both true in the same universe.

I elaborated on my post, by asking a question.

If

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
Who is the 'they' in 'their'? It is the previously-referred to 'accused', is it not?

In the context of describing some of the ways the discussion frequently gets derailed, not in a description of Politesse's perspective nor of the content of CRT.

I don't understand your answer, but my point is that when we are talking about human affairs and interactions, there being an 'accused' and a 'their victim' is clearly invoking human agency.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
Who is the 'they' in 'their'? It is the previously-referred to 'accused', is it not?

In the context of describing some of the ways the discussion frequently gets derailed, not in a description of Politesse's perspective nor of the content of CRT.

My point is that when we are talking about human affairs and interactions, there being an 'accused' and 'their victim' is clearly agental.

Last time I checked, motorists counted as agents too, so what again is wrong with my analogy? Or has that changed with Brexit?

And your point suffers from the problem that the paragraph from which you pulled the quote isn't describing CRT but some frequent but misguided criticisms - and describes them as misguided precisely because they try to push the narrative towards guilt and blame.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
Last time I checked, motorists counted as agents too, so what again is wrong with my analogy?

Sorry, I didn't realise you were at least partially blaming the driver(s) in your analogy. If so, we don't have an issue. Except that we still do, because then, fault is not irrelevant, and it was said that under CRT, fault is irrelevant.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
Last time I checked, motorists counted as agents too, so what again is wrong with my analogy?

Sorry, I didn't realise you were at least partially blaming the driver. If so, we don't have an issue.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that the rider can be accurately described as a victim while remaining agnostic about whether the driver can or should be blamed.

Also I may have added to my last post after you saw it.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
I'm pointing out that the rider can be accurately described as a victim while remaining agnostic about whether the driver can or should be blamed.

I can only repeat what I think is obvious, in this particular case. When we are talking about human affairs and interactions especially, saying, in tandem, that there is both an 'accused' and a 'their victim' is pretty clearly invoking agency, not least because they are both obviously referring to people, not systems.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
I'm pointing out that the rider can be accurately described as a victim while remaining agnostic about whether the driver can or should be blamed.

I can only repeat what I think is obvious. When we are talking about human affairs and interactions especially, saying, in tandem, that there is both an 'accused' and a 'their victim' is pretty clearly invoking agency.

And now go and read the whole paragraph again. You will find that it talks about misguided criticisms and why they're misguided.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
I'm pointing out that the rider can be accurately described as a victim while remaining agnostic about whether the driver can or should be blamed.

I can only repeat what I think is obvious. When we are talking about human affairs and interactions especially, saying, in tandem, that there is both an 'accused' and a 'their victim' is pretty clearly invoking agency.

And now go and read the whole paragraph again. You will find that it talks about misguided criticisms and why they're misguided.
Thanks, I now see the word offences was also used.

Look, you can tell me you think I've misread what was said, but I honestly don't think I actually have. I think you are doing mental gymnastics. I can't see how poli was merely taking the position of a third party. He can clarify.

And by the way, I agree with much of what poli says, and I disagree with much of what Bomb said in reply, and I've stated both those things, so I'm not, at or on this point, having a go at anyone's overall position, and I wouldn't want what I'm saying to be blown out of proportion in that sense.

And also, what I'm saying about what poli said, or more to the point what I'm saying about agental thinking, could as easily be applied to anyone, including myself.

Bottom line: because of the way human brains work, I doubt it's possible to completely strip out agental thinking from within such theories, or indeed from our own responses to and interpretations of them.

#### repoman

##### Contributor
Important to note, repo is an actual white nationalist.

A valid position, of course.

Yes, and Fear of a Black Planet is more than just a Public Enemy album.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
Important to note, repo is an actual white nationalist.

A valid position, of course.

Yes, and Fear of a Black Planet is more than just a Public Enemy album.

Yes.

And now maybe we should both stay on topic.

I think it started out being about CRT in education. Then it became about CRT. Maybe general race issues is too broad.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
I think it started out being about CRT in education. Then it became about CRT. Maybe general race issues is too broad.
A common problem. People seem to imagine that teachers, professors and administrators are some sort of unified bloc, and supposedly a leftist one at that. But I can testify from many hours of department meetings, workshops, and full-blown seminars, that the policymakers who drive pedagogical decisions are a diverse group in truth, and they are not immune to getting drawn into the political arguments of the day. Nor hashing them out over educational questions, even those to which they shouldn't logically or ethically be relevant. To say nothing of the role of angry parents. It's quite controversial to teach CRT at all, you know; even in a state like California where cooler heads have prevailed and ethnic studies are at least permitted, that is not to say that they arern't under constant conservative critique and even attack, from below and above. There are plenty of people who think "race" should not be taught at all in primary and secondary education, or taught in such a bland and saccharine fashion that no social sciences are involved at all.

And as in this thread, it is often assumed that if you are teaching about a theoretical school, that is necessarily an endorsement of it. If this were true, I am unclear how anyone would receive any sort of true education at all with such a philosophy at the helm of curriculum creation, given how seldom people all agree on something. There are a lot of open debates, in all of the sciences, and the job of a responsible educator is to fairly represent all common schools of thought, especially those for which a solid empirical case has been made. Now that is my personal opinion.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
??? That's definitely not the case. That doesn't even make sense. How would racism create, for instance, gender inequalities?

Obviously he was talking about racial inequality.

Racism and racial inequality are essentially synonyms from a CRT perspective (or perhaps, one is the primary symptom and measure of the other), so in that case I suppose that is true.

Simple counterexample: The NBA. There's a reason it's very disproportionately black--blacks come from an environment where being long and thin is an advantage. The effect on the average person is tiny, but at the very tail the difference is substantial--when you look at the tallest people they are very disproportionately black. That's genetics, not racism. On the flip side, east Asians tend to be a bit smaller than average. Note how few are in the NBA.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
blacks come from an environment where being long and thin is an advantage.

Citation?

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
blacks come from an environment where being long and thin is an advantage.

Citation?

You're contesting this?! The tropics--high surface area to volume is a good thing because you want to lose heat.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
blacks come from an environment where being long and thin is an advantage.

Citation?

You're contesting this?! The tropics--high surface area to volume is a good thing because you want to lose heat.

If you really want to talk pop-evo-pull-something-out-of-your-ass-might make sense (the kind Stephen Jay Gould rightly criticized, though he may have shot over the top on other issues): The easiest way to increase surface area to volume isn't to grow long and thin - it is to remain small!

The tell-tale sign of pseudoscience: Your explanation may sound plausible, but if the observation were the opposite of what it is, you could pull an equally plausible explanation for the opposite out of your hat, and nothing in your frameworks tells you which one is more plausible.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
blacks come from an environment where being long and thin is an advantage.

Citation?

You're contesting this?! The tropics--high surface area to volume is a good thing because you want to lose heat.

So you don't have a citation then.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
I did nothing of the sort. I carefully regarded the author's clear explanation and his clear intention. And I took note of the fact that the intention did not match the explanation.

By the same logic by which pointing out that a cargo truck, due to its sheer mass and size, has a bigger potential of harming and killing other traffic participants than a moped counts as holding truck drivers personally culpable for every accident ever that involved a truck, or by which suggesting legislation that demands trucks be retrofitted with turning assistant systems / blind spot monitors without demanding the same for mopeds counts as discrimination against truck drivers? I.e., not at all.
So, in this analogy, the cargo truck would be accused white guys? I.e., you feel we can measure truck mass and size with an albedometer?

And, assuming for the sake of discussion that we can do that, then furthermore, continuing with your analogy, you feel that pointing out that the traffic participant who was killed was killed by a massive cargo truck, and some accused white guys' massive cargo trucks are also massive cargo trucks, qualifies as an intellectually honest justification for labeling the accident victim "their" victim?

Recognising that acts have unintended consequences, that due to power imbalances, some agents' acts are prone to have more dire consequences than others', that some of these unintended and unwanted consequences can be mitigated by reducing the blind spots that make agents unable to see their acts' unintended consequences, and that not all agents' blind spots have an identical potential to produce harm and thus some agents' blind spots are more of a problem for society than others', isn't accusing anyone of being personally culpable for those consequences.
No, it isn't.

In contrast, saying somebody is personally culpable is, in point of fact, accusing him of being personally culpable. And if you say somebody is personally culpable, and then, when he protests at the injustice, give him a condescending lecture about how unimportant it is that you made him feel sad, that's what's called "adding insult to injury".

My best guess is that your objection hinges on the word "victim", but that's not really informative.
Why is that your best guess? You're a very smart guy. You can guess better than that.

...The bullies who push this garbage always give themselves away...

their[sic] original victim.

...like that.

If you truly thought personal culpability was irrelevant, you wouldn't have made a point of claiming the people aggrieved about being accused are in fact personally culpable.

What's diaengineous is the way you twist words to mean what you want them to mean without regard for the author's clear intention and explanation.
You already saw which word the objection hinges on -- you quoted it back to me when you made your false charge against me. So I shouldn't have to remind you it wasn't the word "victim" that I bolded and added "[sic]" to.

(In case the problem is that English is a second language for you, "sic" is an English word defined thusly:

sic
/sik/
used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original)

I get that you're playing TFT lawyer and you're zealously advocating for your client, but give it up. You haven't got a case.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
So, in this analogy, the cargo truck would be accused white guys? I.e., you feel we can measure truck mass and size with an albedometer?

Why would that be a requirement for the analogy to work? We can't measure truck mass with an albedometer, but we can measure racial privilege and give a number to it, as we do with mass.

And, assuming for the sake of discussion that we can do that, then furthermore, continuing with your analogy, you feel that pointing out that the traffic participant who was killed was killed by a massive cargo truck, and some accused white guys' massive cargo trucks are also massive cargo trucks, qualifies as an intellectually honest justification for labeling the accident victim "their" victim?

It doesn't. Again, why would that be a requirement? The whole point of working on reducing blind spots is that, in small ways, everyone of us can fall victim of inadvertently hurting others without even knowing, and the very idea that reducing those blind spots can help at all assumes that we're basically good people who would, in most cases, avoid doing so if only we were aware.

Even the very same cargo truck driver who shoved the moped off the road may not be personally culpable in any meaningful sense - he may be if he was truly reckless and signalled the turn too late, or didn't look in the rear mirror properly, or we may want to blame the company for refusing to retrofit the truck with a blind spot monitor as they value a few hundred bucks more than a human life, or the legislator for not demanding such, or the moped rider for sneaking up to close, where he should have known he's in the truck's blind spot, or his instructor for not teaching him properly about trucks' blind spots. None of is the focus of the discussion - a solution oriented approach simply takes into account that the moped rider is now dead, and would likely be alive had the truck had a blind spot monitor installed. You call yourself a utilitarian, don't you? Well, time to live to live up to your words.

Your objection is a bit like lamenting that we can't demand blind spot monitors because by doing so, we implicitly blame all accidents involving trucks on the truck drivers - and that unfairness is obviously a greater evil than dead moped riders, and therefore, the prudent thing to do about this problem is - nothing (or maybe, banning mopeds).

Recognising that acts have unintended consequences, that due to power imbalances, some agents' acts are prone to have more dire consequences than others', that some of these unintended and unwanted consequences can be mitigated by reducing the blind spots that make agents unable to see their acts' unintended consequences, and that not all agents' blind spots have an identical potential to produce harm and thus some agents' blind spots are more of a problem for society than others', isn't accusing anyone of being personally culpable for those consequences.
No, it isn't.

In contrast, saying somebody is personally culpable is, in point of fact, accusing him of being personally culpable.

It is. However, noone has said that you or I are personally culpable, and your quote mine doesn't show otherwise. For the record, here's the complete sentence from which you pulled it. If you actually bother to read the whole sentence, you will find that it talks about how the criticisms that attack CRT on the basis that it burdens innocent people with personal culpability are misguided precisely because it isn't about personal culpability in the first place. I know, it's a bit of an awkward run-on sentence, but if I, as a non-native speaker, can attribute a meaning to it, you too should be able to:

Accepting injury without protest is a completely inadequate way to challenge the common belief that such offenses are acceptable, earned, or "trivial". Again, this obsession with guilt and personal culpability is distracting from the actual problems, preventing true inequlaities from being addressed by derailing the conversation into a discussion about the aggrieved feelings of the accused, in which it is assumed but never stated that the feelings of the accused should be considered more important or more justified than those of their original victim. This was literally the central thesis of White Fragility, the book all the conservatives are so afraid of but haven't read.

Of course, if you prefer to ignore the context and work yourself up on a couple of decontextualized words instead, there's little I can do to stop you. In that case, I shall continue to call your behaviour disingenuous. Your choice, really.

Last edited:

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
Staff member
blacks come from an environment where being long and thin is an advantage.

Citation?

You're contesting this?! The tropics--high surface area to volume is a good thing because you want to lose heat.

I'm not [MENTION=1498]ruby sparks[/MENTION];
But yeah, I'm contesting the premise that the NBA is dominated by black dudes due to phenotype. I believe it has more to do with the media. Sports stars are presented as role models.

Black tech wizards and entrepreneurs not so much. How many young black men followed George Jefferson into the dry cleaning business?
Tom

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
You're contesting this?! The tropics--high surface area to volume is a good thing because you want to lose heat.

I'm not [MENTION=1498]ruby sparks[/MENTION];
But yeah, I'm contesting the premise that the NBA is dominated by black dudes due to phenotype. I believe it has more to do with the media. Sports stars are presented as role models.

Black tech wizards and entrepreneurs not so much. How many young black men followed George Jefferson into the dry cleaning business?
Tom

Don't know why the fear of human biodiversity. Phenotype is a pretty Occam's Razor explanation for black over-representation in the NBA (though if we use CRT the inequality is due to systemic racism). And where are the great white American players? Most of the good white players now are from Southern and Eastern Europe; which is - surprise - home to some of the tallest people in the world.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
The theory is, apparently, that not only can only taller people play basketball, the taller you are the better you are, even to the incremental degrees of difference that separate, say, Georgians from Northern Kenyans?

Biological race is pseudoscience, by the way, but it is always a relief when, engaged in a supposedly serious discussion about academic theory and civil rights, yoiu interlocutor tips their hand and admits they've been trying to sneak that pseudosicence in all along.

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Biological race is pseudoscience

Then evolution and natural selection are pseudoscience. Or, alternatively, humans are divinely special and impervious to selective pressures. Maybe the creation scientists are onto something.

The world's greatest genetic barriers.

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Read a paper once that men in SE Europe had longer wingspan than those in Northern Europe. Would explain the dominance of non-American whites in the NBA.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
The world's greatest genetic barriers...
..look nothing like supposed "race" groups, in fact, as your diagram correctly demonstrates. Your claim that "black" people consitute a single homogenous genetic population with presumably common physical attributes is quite absurd when weighed against that portrait. Race is a pre-scientific, mythology-soaked attempt to explain human phenotypical diversity. This was nothing embarassing, when a 17th century man was expositing those ideas. They were doing the best they could with their observation, their intellect, and their Bible. But you, a 21st century man, should be humiliated to have refused to move on while the sciences advanced and explained the supposed mystery of inheirtance in a far more satisfactory fashion.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
To be fair, I do take the wider general point that racial inequalities are not necessarily due to racism (of any sort). Of course, peddling genetics and evolution instead is also untenable, imo. So I don't see it as an either or.

I'd be fine with dealing with a claim that racism is (a) commonplace, and (b) built into the system, and then exploring to what degree those claims are still true today, which I would guess is a lot less than it used to be, even in my lifetime.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
The theory is, apparently, that not only can only taller people play basketball, the taller you are the better you are, even to the incremental degrees of difference that separate, say, Georgians from Northern Kenyans?

Biological race is pseudoscience, by the way, but it is always a relief when, engaged in a supposedly serious discussion about academic theory and civil rights, yoiu interlocutor tips their hand and admits they've been trying to sneak that pseudosicence in all along.

The funniest part is that they don't even check their "theories" against reality. White American men are actually *taller* on average than their black counterparts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr.../2018/10/06/americas-tallest-shortest-states/

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
The theory is, apparently, that not only can only taller people play basketball, the taller you are the better you are, even to the incremental degrees of difference that separate, say, Georgians from Northern Kenyans?

Biological race is pseudoscience, by the way, but it is always a relief when, engaged in a supposedly serious discussion about academic theory and civil rights, yoiu interlocutor tips their hand and admits they've been trying to sneak that pseudosicence in all along.

The funniest part is that they don't even check their "theories" against reality. White American men are actually *taller* on average than their black counterparts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr.../2018/10/06/americas-tallest-shortest-states/

Interesting! Not all that surprising actually, given the connection between childhood nutrition and adult height.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The theory is, apparently, that not only can only taller people play basketball, the taller you are the better you are, even to the incremental degrees of difference that separate, say, Georgians from Northern Kenyans?

Biological race is pseudoscience, by the way, but it is always a relief when, engaged in a supposedly serious discussion about academic theory and civil rights, yoiu interlocutor tips their hand and admits they've been trying to sneak that pseudosicence in all along.

Notice how tall the NBA players are??

It's not that being taller makes you a more skilled player, but that being taller is itself an advantage. Your ability on the court is a function of both your skill and your height. I see no reason to think there racial differences in skill, but there are racial differences in height.

Note that it's even more extreme with East Asians--they are on average about 4 inches shorter than whites, this makes a far greater difference than the black/white differences. They are at about endangered species level in the NBA. (.2% in the data I'm finding.)

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The theory is, apparently, that not only can only taller people play basketball, the taller you are the better you are, even to the incremental degrees of difference that separate, say, Georgians from Northern Kenyans?

Biological race is pseudoscience, by the way, but it is always a relief when, engaged in a supposedly serious discussion about academic theory and civil rights, yoiu interlocutor tips their hand and admits they've been trying to sneak that pseudosicence in all along.

The funniest part is that they don't even check their "theories" against reality. White American men are actually *taller* on average than their black counterparts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr.../2018/10/06/americas-tallest-shortest-states/

Interesting! Not all that surprising actually, given the connection between childhood nutrition and adult height.

Exactly. The genetic coding puts the blacks slightly ahead, but nutrition dominates in the overall statistics. Other than on the basketball court the black/white height difference is effectively irrelevant, it's only at the extreme tail that it matters.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
The theory is, apparently, that not only can only taller people play basketball, the taller you are the better you are, even to the incremental degrees of difference that separate, say, Georgians from Northern Kenyans?

Biological race is pseudoscience, by the way, but it is always a relief when, engaged in a supposedly serious discussion about academic theory and civil rights, yoiu interlocutor tips their hand and admits they've been trying to sneak that pseudosicence in all along.

Notice how tall the NBA players are??

It's not that being taller makes you a more skilled player, but that being taller is itself an advantage. Your ability on the court is a function of both your skill and your height. I see no reason to think there racial differences in skill, but there are racial differences in height.

Note that it's even more extreme with East Asians--they are on average about 4 inches shorter than whites, this makes a far greater difference than the black/white differences. They are at about endangered species level in the NBA. (.2% in the data I'm finding.)

Loren. Has it ever crossed your mind....I mean, has it ever occurred to you.....that you talk complete and utter shite on this general topic, nearly all the time?

Fuck knows what you're even on about here. It's a far cry from your other approach when it suits you, trying to discredit a large body of evidence because 'Loren personally doesn't think it's up to scratch'. And now you're just pulling stuff straight out of Loren's arse? How on earth do you ever expect to be taken at all seriously with that blatant double standard?

For that specific reason alone, you are literally an internet joke, Loren.

Last edited:

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
The world's greatest genetic barriers...
..look nothing like supposed "race" groups, in fact, as your diagram correctly demonstrates. Your claim that "black" people consitute a single homogenous genetic population.

I don’t claimed that at all. Race is much more than skin color. East Africans are clearly distinct from West Africans. And the Igbo are distinct from others in West Africa. Race is simply who your ancestors were. And genetic barriers show the improbability that an East Asian shares ancestry with a Ugandan.

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
Loren....you talk complete and utter shite, nearly all the time

You are literally an internet joke, Loren.

So grateful to the mods here - volunteers who devote part of their forum time to helping to keep this place running smoothly and within the rules

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We're Afraid To Talk About It

In virtually every sport in which they are given opportunity to compete, people of African descent dominate. East Africans own every distance running record. Professional sports in the Americas are dominated by men and women of West African descent. Why have blacks come to dominate sports? Are they somehow physically better? And why are we so uncomfortable when we discuss this? Drawing on the latest scientific research, journalist Jon Entine makes an irrefutable case for black athletic superiority. We learn how scientists have used numerous, bogus "scientific" methods to prove that blacks were either more or less superior physically, and how racist scientists have often equated physical prowess with intellectual deficiency. Entine recalls the long, hard road to integration, both on the field and in society. And he shows why it isn't just being black that mattersit makes a huge difference as to where in Africa your ancestors are from.Equal parts sports, science and examination of why this topic is so sensitive, Taboois a book that will spark national debate.

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Usain Bolt. Fastest man in the world. West African ancestry. Never ran a mile.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
Usain Bolt. Fastest man in the world. West African ancestry. Never ran a mile.
You do realise that it's not your focus on genetics that is the problem, Right? I mean, obviously you do have a point, yeah? It's your general 'there's not also a problem with racism' dogmatic myopia that's the problem.

And you have the gall to accuse others of being 'religious'. You need to look in the mirror.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
Interesting! Not all that surprising actually, given the connection between childhood nutrition and adult height.

Exactly. The genetic coding puts the blacks slightly ahead, but nutrition dominates in the overall statistics. Other than on the basketball court the black/white height difference is effectively irrelevant, it's only at the extreme tail that it matters.

You have not provided any evidence or reason to believe that "the genetic coding puts the blacks slightly ahead" - your argument from surface area to volumes works the other way as it would predict blacks to be shorter rather than taller. The most parsimonious explanation for black over representation in the NBA remains a sociological one: for each 1000 youths with innate talent, the number whose talent matures into pro level skill is much higher among blacks due to a combination of eg the sport being more popular among black youths and NBA talent scouts focusing their search on blacks.

This may not be the only kind of factor - I'm not claiming it is. However, nothing you or anyone else in this thread has said or shown suggests it isn't. The mere fact that blacks are over represented in the NBA (and east Asians underrepresented) is not an argument against a sociological explanation.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Biological race is pseudoscience
Then evolution and natural selection are pseudoscience. Or, alternatively, humans are divinely special and impervious to selective pressures. Maybe the creation scientists are onto something.

The world's greatest genetic barriers...
..look nothing like supposed "race" groups, in fact, as your diagram correctly demonstrates. Your claim that "black" people consitute a single homogenous genetic population.

I don’t claimed that at all. Race is much more than skin color. East Africans are clearly distinct from West Africans...
Whether biological races exist is irrelevant to the topic of the thread -- this is about public schools trying to teach children to divide themselves up racially into oppressed and oppressor categories. This is Political Discussions. If you guys want to argue about whether races are real, you should take it to Natural Science. It has standards of evidence.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Why would that be a requirement for the analogy to work? We can't measure truck mass with an albedometer, but we can measure racial privilege and give a number to it, as we do with mass.
You think you can numerically measure racial privilege? By all means, explain how you do that.

And, assuming for the sake of discussion that we can do that, then furthermore, continuing with your analogy, you feel that pointing out that the traffic participant who was killed was killed by a massive cargo truck, and some accused white guys' massive cargo trucks are also massive cargo trucks, qualifies as an intellectually honest justification for labeling the accident victim "their" victim?
It doesn't. Again, why would that be a requirement?
A requirement for what goal? It isn't a requirement if your goal is obfuscation. It is a requirement if your goal is to refute my charge against the previous poster and/or to justify your charge against me. The previous poster labeled your accident victim "their" victim; and you accused me of twisting his words. If all your analogy does is present a case for "reducing the blind spots", then it's no doubt pertinent to whatever your social engineering plans are but it is not pertinent to the point in dispute between us. So when you said "It doesn't.", that was you conceding the argument. The previous poster was in the wrong and so are you.

Even the very same cargo truck driver who shoved the moped off the road may not be personally culpable in any meaningful sense - he may be if he was truly reckless and signalled the turn too late, or didn't look in the rear mirror properly, or we may want to blame the company for refusing to retrofit the truck with a blind spot monitor as they value a few hundred bucks more than a human life, or the legislator for not demanding such, or the moped rider for sneaking up to close, where he should have known he's in the truck's blind spot, or his instructor for not teaching him properly about trucks' blind spots. None of is the focus of the discussion - a solution oriented approach simply takes into account that the moped rider is now dead, and would likely be alive had the truck had a blind spot monitor installed.
That's nice, but if you you want to take that approach you have to be consistent about it. No fair making two different arguments, one of which is reasonable and the other of which is a trumped-up accusation, and then, when the accused reproaches you for the injustice, backing it up with further trumped-up insulting accusations, and then pretending you're the reasonable one on account of the reasonable argument you also made.

You call yourself a utilitarian, don't you? Well, time to live to live up to your words.
No, I don't. Where the heck did you get that from? I've criticized utilitarianism many times here.

Your objection is a bit like lamenting that we can't demand blind spot monitors because by doing so, we implicitly blame all accidents involving trucks on the truck drivers - and that unfairness is obviously a greater evil than dead moped riders, and therefore, the prudent thing to do about this problem is - nothing (or maybe, banning mopeds).
Dude. No, my objection is nothing whatsoever like that, and you don't have a reason to think it is. You're just playing lawyer and trying to put the accuser on trial for rhetorical purposes even though you have no case against me. "When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table." You are pounding on the table. Stop doing that. Just stop. As you perfectly well know, my objection is not that demanding blind spot monitors implicitly blames drivers in general; my objection is to someone explicitly having blamed particular drivers who had been unjustly accused. So stop misrepresenting me. Stop trumping up new accusations to distract from the old ones.

In contrast, saying somebody is personally culpable is, in point of fact, accusing him of being personally culpable.

It is. However, noone has said that you or I are personally culpable, and your quote mine doesn't show otherwise.
Yeah, funny how that works. I didn't say you personally said the accused were personally culpable either, and yet here we are -- you chose to defend an accused person even though he wasn't you. That's what I did too. People come to the defense of strangers who've been attacked. Is that something you think we shouldn't do?

For the record, here's the complete sentence from which you pulled it. If you actually bother to read the whole sentence, you will find that...
Stop doing that. Stop making trumped-up accusations that you must on some level know are almost certainly false. Don't say things you should be ashamed of saying. Yes, I bothered to read the whole sentence. I do not believe for a second that you actually believe I didn't.

it talks about how the criticisms that attack CRT on the basis that it burdens innocent people with personal culpability are misguided precisely because it isn't about personal culpability in the first place. I know, it's a bit of an awkward run-on sentence, but if I, as a non-native speaker, can attribute a meaning to it, you too should be able to:
And yet it contains a throw-away line to the effect that the protesters really are personally culpable. It came off kind of like making a speech about how it's important that we should treat other people's religions with respect and the [anti-Muslim slur]s don't do that.

Accepting injury without protest is a completely inadequate way to challenge the common belief that such offenses are acceptable, earned, or "trivial". Again, this obsession with guilt and personal culpability is distracting from the actual problems, preventing true inequlaities from being addressed by derailing the conversation into a discussion about the aggrieved feelings of the accused, in which it is assumed but never stated that the feelings of the accused should be considered more important or more justified than those of their original victim. This was literally the central thesis of White Fragility, the book all the conservatives are so afraid of but haven't read.

Of course, if you prefer to ignore the context and work yourself up on a couple of decontextualized words instead, there's little I can do to stop you.
Decontextualized?!? I explicitly called out the contrast between the context and the inserted accusation.

In that case, I shall continue to call your behaviour disingenuous. Your choice, really.
I.e., you will continue to libel me. Stop it. It's unethical.

I suspect the underlying problem here may be that you and the previous poster don't actually understand why racism is wrong. Metaphor and I know why it's wrong; but the reason it's wrong does not appear to be the same reason you guys think it's wrong. But it's possible I've misjudged you. Feel free to explain why you object to racism.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
You think you can numerically measure racial privilege? By all means, explain how you do that.

I don't - I'm a linguist, cognitive scientist, and programmer, not a sociologist. But obviously there are ways. For example, you can send out otherwise identical resumes with a stock photo of a black vs. white person to potential employees and record the rate of replies - a higher rate of replies shows a white person has an easier time finding a job, and better leverage negotiating conditions, and you can control for individual factors by having identical resumes and having the photos rated for attractiveness in a pre-test to avoid interference of that other type of privilege. You can look at the statistics of police searches. While the numbers of searches alone doesn't show white privilege, the percentage of successful searches by race does: A higher rate of finding drugs or a gun among those searched in one race suggests that people of that race have a better chance of carrying an illicit item without being caught, and thus the chance of avoiding a criminal record for the same illegal behaviours - in the same way a higher test positivity rate suggests more undetected cases in the case of disease monitoring. In NYC between 2014-2017 inclusive, for example, a weapon was found on 9% of the white suspects frisked but only on 6% of black and latino suspects frisked - see page 18 here.

Your lack of imagination doesn't show it can't be done, and believing so only shows your hubris.

It doesn't. Again, why would that be a requirement?
A requirement for what goal? It isn't a requirement if your goal is obfuscation. It is a requirement if your goal is to refute my charge against the previous poster and/or to justify your charge against me. The previous poster labeled your accident victim "their" victim; and you accused me of twisting his words.

What part of Politesse's post suggests to you that they were talking about the equivalent of other truck drivers?

If all your analogy does is present a case for "reducing the blind spots", then it's no doubt pertinent to whatever your social engineering plans are but it is not pertinent to the point in dispute between us. So when you said "It doesn't.", that was you conceding the argument. The previous poster was in the wrong and so are you.

So you claim based on a dubious interpretation of their words which you never bothered to justify.

Even the very same cargo truck driver who shoved the moped off the road may not be personally culpable in any meaningful sense - he may be if he was truly reckless and signalled the turn too late, or didn't look in the rear mirror properly, or we may want to blame the company for refusing to retrofit the truck with a blind spot monitor as they value a few hundred bucks more than a human life, or the legislator for not demanding such, or the moped rider for sneaking up to close, where he should have known he's in the truck's blind spot, or his instructor for not teaching him properly about trucks' blind spots. None of is the focus of the discussion - a solution oriented approach simply takes into account that the moped rider is now dead, and would likely be alive had the truck had a blind spot monitor installed.
That's nice, but if you you want to take that approach you have to be consistent about it. No fair making two different arguments, one of which is reasonable and the other of which is a trumped-up accusation, and then, when the accused reproaches you for the injustice, backing it up with further trumped-up insulting accusations, and then pretending you're the reasonable one on account of the reasonable argument you also made.

You call yourself a utilitarian, don't you? Well, time to live to live up to your words.
No, I don't. Where the heck did you get that from? I've criticized utilitarianism many times here.

Your objection is a bit like lamenting that we can't demand blind spot monitors because by doing so, we implicitly blame all accidents involving trucks on the truck drivers - and that unfairness is obviously a greater evil than dead moped riders, and therefore, the prudent thing to do about this problem is - nothing (or maybe, banning mopeds).
Dude. No, my objection is nothing whatsoever like that, and you don't have a reason to think it is. You're just playing lawyer and trying to put the accuser on trial for rhetorical purposes even though you have no case against me. "When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table." You are pounding on the table. Stop doing that. Just stop. As you perfectly well know, my objection is not that demanding blind spot monitors implicitly blames drivers in general; my objection is to someone explicitly having blamed particular drivers who had been unjustly accused. So stop misrepresenting me. Stop trumping up new accusations to distract from the old ones.

Talking about trumped up accusations, as far as I can you never asked Politesse whether the "they" in their "their original victim refers to people who knowingly discriminate against minorities, to people who unwittingly acted in ways that put minorities at a disadvantage, to people who benefit from white privilege without any active role in creating it, or to random people who just happen to be white - yet you assumed it must be the latter and built your entire case of calling them a mean bully on that interpretation of yours. You should be ashamed of doing that.

In contrast, saying somebody is personally culpable is, in point of fact, accusing him of being personally culpable.

It is. However, noone has said that you or I are personally culpable, and your quote mine doesn't show otherwise.
Yeah, funny how that works. I didn't say you personally said the accused were personally culpable either, and yet here we are -- you chose to defend an accused person even though he wasn't you. That's what I did too. People come to the defense of strangers who've been attacked. Is that something you think we shouldn't do?

It should be obvious that "you and I" is a figure of speech and extends to other people you claim are unjustly accused. Do you have any reason to believe that the "they" in Politesse's "their original victim" is supposed to be a random person who just happens to be white, rather than a concrete individual who, unwittingly maybe and without evil intent, acted in a way that harmed a person of colour by virtue of both of them living in a racially stratified society? In other words, the equivalent to the truck driver who didn't see a moped in his blind spot. If you have any reason to believe that, you have yet to present it.

For the record, here's the complete sentence from which you pulled it. If you actually bother to read the whole sentence, you will find that...
Stop doing that. Stop making trumped-up accusations that you must on some level know are almost certainly false. Don't say things you should be ashamed of saying. Yes, I bothered to read the whole sentence. I do not believe for a second that you actually believe I didn't.

Assuming that you didn't read it is the most benevolent interpretation of your behaviour. The alternative is that you consciously decided to attach an arbitrary interpretation to it without as much as checking back with the author.

it talks about how the criticisms that attack CRT on the basis that it burdens innocent people with personal culpability are misguided precisely because it isn't about personal culpability in the first place. I know, it's a bit of an awkward run-on sentence, but if I, as a non-native speaker, can attribute a meaning to it, you too should be able to:
And yet it contains a throw-away line to the effect that the protesters really are personally culpable. It came off kind of like making a speech about how it's important that we should treat other people's religions with respect and the [anti-Muslim slur]s don't do that.

Accepting injury without protest is a completely inadequate way to challenge the common belief that such offenses are acceptable, earned, or "trivial". Again, this obsession with guilt and personal culpability is distracting from the actual problems, preventing true inequlaities from being addressed by derailing the conversation into a discussion about the aggrieved feelings of the accused, in which it is assumed but never stated that the feelings of the accused should be considered more important or more justified than those of their original victim. This was literally the central thesis of White Fragility, the book all the conservatives are so afraid of but haven't read.

Of course, if you prefer to ignore the context and work yourself up on a couple of decontextualized words instead, there's little I can do to stop you.
Decontextualized?!? I explicitly called out the contrast between the context and the inserted accusation.

In that case, I shall continue to call your behaviour disingenuous. Your choice, really.
I.e., you will continue to libel me. Stop it. It's unethical.

I suspect the underlying problem here may be that you and the previous poster don't actually understand why racism is wrong. Metaphor and I know why it's wrong; but the reason it's wrong does not appear to be the same reason you guys think it's wrong. But it's possible I've misjudged you. Feel free to explain why you object to racism.

You have no reason to believe that, since your entire case rests on an arbitrary interpretion of Politesse's word that not only competes with other possible interpretations, but is contradicted by things they said in the same sentence.

#### repoman

##### Contributor
Old white people who are in the market for picking out their casket and funeral plot should not have a say for hamstringing their grandchildren who are getting into the job market because of their guilt for having white privilege 50 years ago. Not much active white privilege now. The sands are shifting quickly.

Old white liberals are disgusting.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
Whether biological races exist is irrelevant to the topic of the thread -- this is about public schools trying to teach children to divide themselves up racially into oppressed and oppressor categories. This is Political Discussions. If you guys want to argue about whether races are real, you should take it to Natural Science. It has standards of evidence.

But biological racism is essential to the argument that they are making. We're supposed to be inferring that, just as they claim genetics favor Blacks at sports and similar positions of manual labor, they favor Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority, making seeming structural inequalities actually just expressions of biology, and CRT irrelevant to analyzing them. They won't make this claim directly (and will be offended at being called out on it) because they don't want to come all the way out of the closet, but that's why they are waffling on about basketball in a thread about secondary ed. The arguments for racist pseudoscience have changed very little since Josiah Nott, but they do try to cloak the basic argument in rhetoric and allusions.

You know scientists used to argue that runaway African slaves were suffering from mental illness, since no rational being would want to "escape" the situation most likely to "improve" their essential quality of life and character?

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
..look nothing like supposed "race" groups, in fact, as your diagram correctly demonstrates. Your claim that "black" people consitute a single homogenous genetic population.

I don’t claimed that at all. Race is much more than skin color. East Africans are clearly distinct from West Africans...
Whether biological races exist is irrelevant to the topic of the thread -- this is about public schools trying to teach children to divide themselves up racially into oppressed and oppressor categories. This is Political Discussions. If you guys want to argue about whether races are real, you should take it to Natural Science. It has standards of evidence.

But biological racism is essential to the argument that they are making. We're supposed to be inferring that, just as they claim genetics favor Blacks at sports and similar positions of manual labor, they favor Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority, making seeming structural inequalities actually just expressions of biology, and CRT irrelevant to analyzing them. They won't make this claim directly (and will be offended at being called out on it) because they don't want to come all the way out of the closet, but that's why they are waffling on about basketball in a thread about secondary ed. The arguments for racist pseudoscience have changed very little since Josiah Nott, but they do try to cloak the basic argument in rhetoric and allusions.

No, no, no. Simply acknowledging that humans are animals and their traits are subject to natural selection like all other life. Otherwise, you’d have to assume that evolution and natural selection inexplicably stop for humans 200k years ago. Which is nonsense.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
But biological racism is essential to the argument that they are making. We're supposed to be inferring that, just as they claim genetics favor Blacks at sports and similar positions of manual labor, they favor Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority, making seeming structural inequalities actually just expressions of biology, and CRT irrelevant to analyzing them. They won't make this claim directly (and will be offended at being called out on it) because they don't want to come all the way out of the closet, but that's why they are waffling on about basketball in a thread about secondary ed. The arguments for racist pseudoscience have changed very little since Josiah Nott, but they do try to cloak the basic argument in rhetoric and allusions.

No, no, no. Simply acknowledging that humans are animals and their traits are subject to natural selection like all other life.

So why is talking about this relevant to a discussion of Critical Race Theory?

Otherwise, you’d have to assume that evolution and natural selection inexplicably stop for humans 200k years ago. Which is nonsense.
This is not what anyone claims. Natural organisms do not generally fall into "Races" any more than people do; that just isn't how genetic inheritance works. Variations cluster in individual populations, not broad continental swaths, and external coloration is never a good predictor of degree of phylogenetic relationship. Not in fruit flies, not in coelecanths, not in tree finches, not in capybaras, and not in humans. You're peddling pseudoscience, and worse, pseudoscience which is aimed at degredating your fellow-humans.

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Whether biological races exist is irrelevant to the topic of the thread -- this is about public schools trying to teach children to divide themselves up racially into oppressed and oppressor categories. This is Political Discussions. If you guys want to argue about whether races are real, you should take it to Natural Science. It has standards of evidence.

But biological racism is essential to the argument that they are making. We're supposed to be inferring that, just as they claim genetics favor Blacks at sports and similar positions of manual labor, they favor Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority, making seeming structural inequalities actually just expressions of biology, and CRT irrelevant to analyzing them. They won't make this claim directly (and will be offended at being called out on it) because they don't want to come all the way out of the closet, but that's why they are waffling on about basketball in a thread about secondary ed. The arguments for racist pseudoscience have changed very little since Josiah Nott, but they do try to cloak the basic argument in rhetoric and allusions.

No, no, no. Simply acknowledging that humans are animals and their traits are subject to natural selection like all other life. Otherwise, you’d have to assume that evolution and natural selection inexplicably stop for humans 200k years ago. Which is nonsense.

So why is talking about this relevant to a discussion of Critical Race Theory?

Well, Loren kinda started with the basketball comment. But it is relevant. CRT, to my understanding, excludes discussion of racial/ancestral/group population differences when looking at disparities among groups. Which is dishonest. Appreciating ancestral differences likely explains many of these group disparities without the need to invoke invisible forces. This is not to say that any person should be treated differently due to their ancestry. Though CRT certainly imposes disparate treatment based on supposed group membership.

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Lee Kuan Yew, who guided Singapore from the third world to first world economy in one generation, had to manage a multiracial country. If you search for his quotes on racial differences, it’s very not CRT. But the result speaks for itself.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
But biological racism is essential to the argument that they are making. We're supposed to be inferring that, just as they claim genetics favor Blacks at sports and similar positions of manual labor, they favor Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority, making seeming structural inequalities actually just expressions of biology, and CRT irrelevant to analyzing them. They won't make this claim directly (and will be offended at being called out on it) because they don't want to come all the way out of the closet, but that's why they are waffling on about basketball in a thread about secondary ed. The arguments for racist pseudoscience have changed very little since Josiah Nott, but they do try to cloak the basic argument in rhetoric and allusions.

No, no, no. Simply acknowledging that humans are animals and their traits are subject to natural selection like all other life. Otherwise, you’d have to assume that evolution and natural selection inexplicably stop for humans 200k years ago. Which is nonsense.

So why is talking about this relevant to a discussion of Critical Race Theory?

Well, Loren kinda started with the basketball comment. But it is relevant. CRT, to my understanding, excludes discussion of racial/ancestral/group population differences when looking at disparities among groups. Which is dishonest. Appreciating ancestral differences likely explains many of these group disparities without the need to invoke invisible forces. This is not to say that any person should be treated differently due to their ancestry. Though CRT certainly imposes disparate treatment based on supposed group membership.

But why would we base our sociopolitical analysis on long disproven racial pseudoscience?

Also, by citing Lee Kuan Yew as an unquestionable authority, are you saying that we should have a system of socialized, government run eugenics like the one he instituted in Singapore? For instance, paying out $3000 grants to white women with college degrees to procreate, and$30,000 grants to black or hispanic women to undergo voluntary sterilization as in that nation?

If not, perhaps you should clarify what you do or do not consider Minister Lee an authority/model for.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
You think you can numerically measure racial privilege? By all means, explain how you do that.
I don't - I'm a linguist, cognitive scientist, and programmer, not a sociologist. But obviously there are ways. For example, you can send out otherwise identical resumes with a stock photo of a black vs. white person to potential employees and record the rate of replies - a higher rate of replies shows a white person has an easier time finding a job...
That sounds like a numerical measurement of racism. Is "racial privilege" just a synonym for racism in your terminology?

In the U.S., getting your desirability for employment evaluated without regard to race, creed or color is a right. In your country is it a privilege?

In NYC between 2014-2017 inclusive, for example, a weapon was found on 9% of the white suspects frisked but only on 6% of black and latino suspects frisked - see page 18 here.
That's only a correlation study and it didn't even have a control group. And again, equal protection of the law is a right in this country, not a privilege.

Your lack of imagination doesn't show it can't be done, and believing so only shows your hubris.
My opinion that it can't be done derives not from hubris but from my general skepticism as to whether sociology qualifies as a science and from my particular skepticism as to whether the people who make such claims can even provide an objective, non-ideological definition of "racial privilege".

What part of Politesse's post suggests to you that they were talking about the equivalent of other truck drivers?

Loren wrote:

The problem is that it's all but impossible to fix background. Blaming racism provides an "easy" fix whose costs are supposedly borne only by the evildoers and thus don't matter. In the real world the costs are borne by everyone and the result is counterproductive anyway. There are some true racists and I have no problem with punishing them but disparate results is a hopelessly inadequate way to find them.​

Politesse replied to that passage thusly:

...this obsession with guilt and personal culpability is distracting from the actual problems, preventing true inequlaities from being addressed by derailing the conversation into a discussion about the aggrieved feelings of the accused, in which it is assumed but never stated that the feelings of the accused should be considered more important or more justified than those of their original victim.​

Loren pointed out the harm to "the equivalent of other truck drivers", and Politesse answered him by casually equating them to the the equivalent of people actually "harming and killing other traffic participants", by calling a victimized person "their" victim.

So you claim based on a dubious interpretation of their words which you never bothered to justify.
Why dubious? Do you have an alternate theory as to what the antecedent of "their" was?

Talking about trumped up accusations, as far as I can you never asked Politesse whether the "they" in their "their original victim refers to people who knowingly discriminate against minorities, to people who unwittingly acted in ways that put minorities at a disadvantage, to people who benefit from white privilege without any active role in creating it, or to random people who just happen to be white - yet you assumed it must be the latter and built your entire case of calling them a mean bully on that interpretation of yours.
Why would I ask Politesse? He wrote in plain English. The antecedent of "their" was transparently "the accused". If he wanted to claim it was something else, he could do that, and then we'd check if the evidence backs him up. If you want to claim it was something else, you could do that, and then we'd check if the evidence backs you up.

So who are "the accused"? Well, everybody you listed above is accused. To call the victim "their original victim" is to claim "the accused" are guilty. But saying "Fault is irrelevant" indicates one has no intention of supplying proof of guilt. And all of the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

You don't get to have it both ways. When you paint a person you're imposing costs on as actually guilty, you aren't entitled to the rhetorical advantage this gives you of appearing not to be doing an injustice to the innocent, unless you pay for that rhetorical advantage in the coin of evidence for his guilt.

For the record, here's the complete sentence from which you pulled it. If you actually bother to read the whole sentence, you will find that...
Stop doing that. Stop making trumped-up accusations that you must on some level know are almost certainly false. Don't say things you should be ashamed of saying. Yes, I bothered to read the whole sentence. I do not believe for a second that you actually believe I didn't.

Assuming that you didn't read it is the most benevolent interpretation of your behaviour.
You are evidently not a competent judge of benevolence. Don't trump up accusations and delude yourself that you're doing it for my benefit. You did it for the sake of rhetoric.

The alternative is that you consciously decided to attach an arbitrary interpretation to it without as much as checking back with the author.
False dilemma fallacy. He wrote in plain English and there was nothing arbitrary about my interpretation. Feel free to propose an alternative interpretation that isn't painfully strained.

...your entire case rests on an arbitrary interpretion of Politesse's word that not only competes with other possible interpretations, but is contradicted by things they said in the same sentence.
If we were to suppose he didn't mean "the accused" collectively, but was only talking about some guilty subset such as one you list above, then the entire response would make no sense as an answer to Loren's objection. It would simply have been play-acting at answering him. Loren, after all, was talking specifically about the harm and injustice to innocent people. But perhaps you would regard yourself artificially shoehorning consistency into Politesse's meaning, at the expense of the presumption that he was taking his discussion with Loren seriously and trying to give him a substantive answer, as benevolent.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Whether biological races exist is irrelevant to the topic of the thread -- this is about public schools trying to teach children to divide themselves up racially into oppressed and oppressor categories. ...

But biological racism is essential to the argument that they are making.
Who are you referring to by "they"? Trausti? Can you point out where he argued for biological racism?

In any event, even if biological racism is relevant to the topic of the thread, whether biological races exist is irrelevant to biological racism. Oh for the love of god, do you seriously imagine that the theory that mental attributes vary with ethnicity and that this makes it okay to discriminate against people based on ethnicity depends on the variation pattern being tree-structured as opposed to geographically clinal?!?

You aren't claiming Taiwanese are on average biologically just as tall as Germans, are you? Well, if non-existence of biological races doesn't imply that Germans aren't biologically any taller than Taiwanese, why the devil would it imply that Taiwanese aren't on average biologically any smarter than Germans? And if some racist believes Taiwanese are smarter than Germans and believes this makes it okay to discriminate against Germans, how the devil do you figure the lack of a sharp line between Asians and Whites would prove him wrong?

We're supposed to be inferring that, just as they claim genetics favor Blacks at sports and similar positions of manual labor, they favor Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority, making seeming structural inequalities actually just expressions of biology, and CRT irrelevant to analyzing them.
Did "they" imply genetics favors Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority? Or are you judging what we're "supposed to be inferring" based on ESP, or on what your own ideology tells you, or on "they" being heretics, or on "they" being outgroup, or what?

You know scientists used to argue that runaway African slaves were suffering from mental illness, since no rational being would want to "escape" the situation most likely to "improve" their essential quality of life and character?
No doubt some scientists did that. What are we supposed to be inferring from this?

Otherwise, you’d have to assume that evolution and natural selection inexplicably stop for humans 200k years ago. Which is nonsense.
This is not what anyone claims. Natural organisms do not generally fall into "Races" any more than people do; that just isn't how genetic inheritance works.
So what is what anyone claims? Biological terminology is packed with infraspecific taxa. Does the way genetic inheritance works rule out subspecies and varieties as well, or just "Races"?

... and external coloration is never a good predictor of degree of phylogenetic relationship.
What's your point? There's a reason we banned discrimination on "race, creed or color".

You're peddling pseudoscience
Did Trausti peddle the claim that external coloration is a good predictor of degree of phylogenetic relationship?