• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,955
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
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?

I can't save you from being purposefully obtuse. If I have mischaracterized Trausti's point, he's welcome to correct me himself.

There's no reason to bring up biology in this discussion at all, unless you believe it explains structural racial disparities absent the existence of structural racism, which is what Trusti was arguing against studying or acknowledging.
 

Jokodo

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
4,652
Location
Riverside City
Basic Beliefs
humanist
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?

Some of the top definitions I find on the web for "privilege":

"1A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."

"an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich"

It should be a right, but de facto, it is a right minorities are often denied. That makes it a privilege. No part of the word privilege, in any of the definitions I've seen, implies that you shouldn't have it, only that some have it and some don't.

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.

Of course it has a control group.

And again, equal protection of the law is a right in this country, not a privilege.

I didn't think evading harassment by law enforcement while engaging in illegal activities was a right...
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,609
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Who are you referring to by "they"? Trausti? Can you point out where he argued for biological racism?
...

I can't save you from being purposefully obtuse. If I have mischaracterized Trausti's point, he's welcome to correct me himself.

There's no reason to bring up biology in this discussion at all, unless you believe it explains structural racial disparities absent the existence of structural racism, which is what Trusti was arguing against studying or acknowledging.
But this isn't specifically about Trausti. It's about the ever-recurring practice of using ad hominems against skeptics as an excuse to reverse burden-of-proof. Believing biology might explain racial disparities absent the existence of structural racism is a perfectly sensible reason to bring up biology, when somebody is dismissing the possibility out of hand, without evidence, based on some sort of three-valued true/false/evil logic.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,955
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Who are you referring to by "they"? Trausti? Can you point out where he argued for biological racism?
...

I can't save you from being purposefully obtuse. If I have mischaracterized Trausti's point, he's welcome to correct me himself.

There's no reason to bring up biology in this discussion at all, unless you believe it explains structural racial disparities absent the existence of structural racism, which is what Trusti was arguing against studying or acknowledging.
But this isn't specifically about Trausti. It's about the ever-recurring practice of using ad hominems against skeptics as an excuse to reverse burden-of-proof. Believing biology might explain racial disparities absent the existence of structural racism is a perfectly sensible reason to bring up biology, when somebody is dismissing the possibility out of hand, without evidence, based on some sort of three-valued true/false/evil logic.
Except that I did not make a moral argument against pseudoscience, and wouldn't. Pseudoscience can be immoral, but that is not the only problem with it.

Given that Trausti is the one making a concrete claim- "'Black people' are taller, and therefore better at Basketball" - I have no idea how "reversing the burden of proof" would be advantageous to me. He will have plenty of trouble establishing his own claim, and indeed already has. I note that he has been conspicously silent about the empirical data that was immediately brought into the thread to refute his claim.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,609
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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?

Some of the top definitions I find on the web for "privilege":

"1A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."

"Privilege" was beaten to death back in the Are poor white people priviliged? thread, so I'll just repeat what I told the last person who quoted that definition at me:

I just googled "not a privilege" "a right". I got four million hits, the first page of which were:

Education is a Right, Not a Privilege | Global Partnership for Education

Health Care is a Right, Not a Privilege - Senator Bernie Sanders

UNICEF on Twitter: "Water is a right, not a privilege. We're joining the ? for #EarthHour to show our commitment to build a sustainable future

Education: A right, not a privilege

Is healthcare a privilege and not a right? | Debate.org

Health Care is a Right, not a Privilege - The Duke Human Rights ...

'Speech is a right and not a privilege' - BBC News - BBC.com

Braden: Healthcare is a Right, Not a Privilege – Daily Utah Chronicle

Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege | HuffPost

Life Is A RIGHT...Not A Privilege! - Human Coalition

Life is a right, not a privilege - News - Precious Life

Healthcare access as a right, not a privilege: a construct of Western ...​

Feel free to tell Bernie and UNICEF and the rest of those activists that ... the dictionary says privileges are rights. Meaning is determined by use, not by dictionaries. Dictionary writers are supposed to know that and report their observations of common use rather than make up whatever definitions they please.

Being judged as an individual doesn't mean you get an advantage from people of some other race getting judged by their race; assuming they do is zero-sum-game thinking. Racial discrimination hurts everyone.

It should be a right, but de facto, it is a right minorities are often denied. That makes it a privilege.
Non sequitur. If that were a valid form of argument, it would imply that since some people have been murdered, that means the rest of us get to live as a matter of privilege rather than having a right to live.

No part of the word privilege, in any of the definitions I've seen, implies that you shouldn't have it, only that some have it and some don't.
I didn't say it implies that you shouldn't have it, but rather that you don't have a right to it and it could legitimately be taken away from you. Here's a typical example from official government usage:

https://www.dmv-written-test.com/question/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right_nXgVBWyp.html

You think the Department of Motor Vehicles was trying to convey only the fact that some people don't have drivers' licenses?

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
That's only a correlation study and it didn't even have a control group.

Of course it has a control group.
No it didn't. A control group would be a group that's statistically the same as the studied group except for the variable they're examining. To have a control group you'd have to match the participants by behavior and location -- you'd have to recruit some white people to act suspiciously in the same ways and in the same precincts as the black and latino suspects, and recruit some black and latino people to act suspiciously in the same ways and in the same precincts as the white suspects. Due to cultural differences and local conditions, it's highly unlikely that the actual white suspects were acting suspiciously in the same ways that the actual black and latino suspects were acting suspiciously.

And again, equal protection of the law is a right in this country, not a privilege.

I didn't think evading harassment by law enforcement while engaging in illegal activities was a right...
But this isn't about people not getting frisked while engaging in illegal activities. It's about the 80-odd percent of the frisked people who weren't engaging in illegal activities. The police aren't supposed to use racial profiling.
 

Jokodo

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
4,652
Location
Riverside City
Basic Beliefs
humanist
"Privilege" was beaten to death back in the Are poor white people priviliged? thread, so I'll just repeat what I told the last person who quoted that definition at me:

I just googled "not a privilege" "a right". I got four million hits, the first page of which were:

Education is a Right, Not a Privilege | Global Partnership for Education

Health Care is a Right, Not a Privilege - Senator Bernie Sanders

UNICEF on Twitter: "Water is a right, not a privilege. We're joining the ? for #EarthHour to show our commitment to build a sustainable future

Education: A right, not a privilege

Is healthcare a privilege and not a right? | Debate.org

Health Care is a Right, not a Privilege - The Duke Human Rights ...

'Speech is a right and not a privilege' - BBC News - BBC.com

Braden: Healthcare is a Right, Not a Privilege – Daily Utah Chronicle

Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege | HuffPost

Life Is A RIGHT...Not A Privilege! - Human Coalition

Life is a right, not a privilege - News - Precious Life

Healthcare access as a right, not a privilege: a construct of Western ...​

Feel free to tell Bernie and UNICEF and the rest of those activists that ... the dictionary says privileges are rights. Meaning is determined by use, not by dictionaries. Dictionary writers are supposed to know that and report their observations of common use rather than make up whatever definitions they please.

Being judged as an individual doesn't mean you get an advantage from people of some other race getting judged by their race; assuming they do is zero-sum-game thinking.

Can you point to where I'm assuming such? Being judged as an individual gives you a relative advantage vis-a-vis not being judged as an individual - an advantage as a matter of fact not everyone enjoys to the same degree. This doesn't imply you directly benefit from another person not being judged as an individual.

But this isn't about people not getting frisked while engaging in illegal activities. It's about the 80-odd percent of the frisked people who weren't engaging in illegal activities. The police aren't supposed to use racial profiling.

The mere fact that, when frisked, white people are found to have engaged in illegal activities at higher rate than black people strongly indicates that police are, on average, using a lower threshold for when to treat a black individual as suspect. This again strongly suggests that a white person who is in fact engaging in illegal activity has a better chance of going undetected.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,011
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The mere fact that, when frisked, white people are found to have engaged in illegal activities at higher rate than black people strongly indicates that police are, on average, using a lower threshold for when to treat a black individual as suspect. This again strongly suggests that a white person who is in fact engaging in illegal activity has a better chance of going undetected.

Bad data--more of those white frisks are subsequent to arrest.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,609
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
But this isn't specifically about Trausti. It's about the ever-recurring practice of using ad hominems against skeptics as an excuse to reverse burden-of-proof. Believing biology might explain racial disparities absent the existence of structural racism is a perfectly sensible reason to bring up biology, when somebody is dismissing the possibility out of hand, without evidence, based on some sort of three-valued true/false/evil logic.
Except that I did not make a moral argument against pseudoscience, and wouldn't. Pseudoscience can be immoral, but that is not the only problem with it.
But this isn't specifically about you either. It's CRT that's on trial here, not you.

Given that Trausti is the one making a concrete claim- "'Black people' are taller, and therefore better at Basketball"
You know, it's really not a good idea to take your own attempted paraphrase of somebody else's position, and impute it to him, in quotation marks.

- I have no idea how "reversing the burden of proof" would be advantageous to me.
You don't? Then I'll explain. What you appear to have mangled into your above misquotation is post #122. Trausti wrote it to support Loren's posts, which were in response to your statement in post #89:

"Racism and racial inequality are essentially synonyms from a CRT perspective (or perhaps, one is the primary symptom and measure of the other)"​

That racism and racial inequality are essentially synonyms is a concrete claim: it amounts to claiming that apart from racism, none of the other differences that correlate with race -- culture, biology, geography and so forth -- contribute to racial inequality. And you called CRT "science". So no, it's not given that "Trausti is the one making a concrete claim". You and he both made concrete claims, and you went first. If you want CRT's claim to be accepted, but you don't have proof of it, then of course reversing the burden of proof would be advantageous to you.

So, can you produce any positive evidence that racism and racial inequality are essentially synonyms, or that one is the primary measure of the other?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,609
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Being judged as an individual doesn't mean you get an advantage from people of some other race getting judged by their race; assuming they do is zero-sum-game thinking. Racial discrimination hurts everyone.

Can you point to where I'm assuming such?
That depends. When you asserted that "racial privilege" can be measured, was that the definition you were using? If you were, that's where you were assuming such. If you posted that definition not because you were using it but just to dispute my understanding of the term, then no. But I didn't say you were assuming such; I said claiming racism gives racial privilege to one race, going by that definition of "privilege", assumes such.

Being judged as an individual gives you a relative advantage vis-a-vis not being judged as an individual - an advantage as a matter of fact not everyone enjoys to the same degree. This doesn't imply you directly benefit from another person not being judged as an individual.
But the definition doesn't say "relative advantage"; it just says "advantage". Calling a mere relative advantage a "privilege" is simply wrong. Again, when people are being murdered, not being murdered is a relative advantage; but it's still a right, not a privilege.

But this isn't about people not getting frisked while engaging in illegal activities. It's about the 80-odd percent of the frisked people who weren't engaging in illegal activities. The police aren't supposed to use racial profiling.

The mere fact that, when frisked, white people are found to have engaged in illegal activities at higher rate than black people strongly indicates that police are, on average, using a lower threshold for when to treat a black individual as suspect. This again strongly suggests that a white person who is in fact engaging in illegal activity has a better chance of going undetected.
I don't see how you're getting that when they haven't controlled for other factors. For example, geography. Those 6% and 9% figures are averages over all of New York; but New York is a diverse place with lots of different police precincts. So it would be perfectly possible for there to be some precincts where 5% of the black and 5% of the white frisked suspects are carrying guns, and other precincts where 10% of the black and 10% of the white frisked suspects are carrying guns, and when you average that over all the frisks over all the precincts, it comes to 6% of the black suspects and 9% of the white suspects carrying guns. That could happen if there's a higher proportion of white suspects in the 10% precincts and a higher proportion of black suspects in the 5% precincts. In this scenario, the police in each precinct are using the same threshold regardless of color; the difference in overall statistics happens because suspect color correlates with geography.
 
Top Bottom