What, exactly, is CRT?

[DrZoidberg]

So how is CRT also not racist, or a part of systemic racism in America?

I have a hard time imagining any CRT scholar defining themselves as unaffected by racism. The whole point is that race concepts well-ingrained in the way Americans are taught to see the world, that includes scholars as well as anyone else. We're all components of the same racist system, until we're all not. Individual and collective liberation from these ideologies can only come together. This is one of the reasons why CRT theorists and leftist political projects are so often at odds; Democrats love to pat themselves on the back and declare themselves pure of heart, thus blindly accepting status quo answers to social problems that are not yet, in fact, solved.

Or maybe the perception that there's a social problem needing to be solved is itself a racist perception arising out of the systemic racism that infects all of us, including anyone claiming to have answers or solutions to an alleged problem, or anyone casting doubt on someone else's answer.

In fact, anyone who ever says anything, no matter what, is just expressing more racism of their own, no matter what they say, or how much they pretend to be on a crusade against racism.

Isn't it rather that describing the problem of racism in no way is a solution to it? For example. Karl Marx absolutely nailed the problem of the capitalists exploiting the working class. But his solution sucked.

I see CRT in a similar way. One day somebody might figure out a way to use this knowledge and apply it in a truly constructive way. But as it is now, every policy put forward based on CRT I've seen is stupid.

The whole idea of structural racism is that the even non-racists can't help but maintaining systematic racism, simply based on how incentives work in a free market. Ok, fine. Doesn't that mean that it can't be fixed within a capitalist free market paradigm? Is the best solution really to disband capitalist free market capitalism? On another note, the USSR, even though they applied socialist theory to an extreme degree failed to create an equal society. We're fully capable of fixing one problem while making everything worse for everybody. The USSR failed to even fix that one problem they employed their extreme solution to fix.

I don't think the CRT crowd is anywhere near solving racism. It's purely something academic, that should be of interest, only to academics. Taking it out of academia is IMHO a terrible idea.

 

[TomC]

CRT is just a new face on the notion that disparate results prove racism. It didn't before, it didn't now.

Yes, there has been plenty of actual racism but that does not prove your point, especially given how most discrimination "research" ignores the elephant in the room of whether it's actually seeing racism or socioeconomic effects. "Racism" has a strange habit of disappearing when you properly control for socioeconomic effects.

What do you mean by "proves racism"? If there are substantial disparate legal and economic outcomes for different citizens that can be predicted by their race independent of any other factors, that is the very definition of structural racism as per the CRT outlook. Science is not and has never been about "proof", but we do believe in following evidence where it leads, until such time as an idea is improved upon or disproven.

Replace "prove" with "demonstrate" and Loren hit the nail on the head. I would add cultural to socio-economic as well.
Take segregated housing. Redlining has been gone for decades. Nevertheless, there's plenty of neighborhoods that are extremely black. Which has the side effect of putting black kids into 3rd rate public school corporations, because of how schools are funded. Etc. Etc.

But that's not due to racism much anymore. It's just human nature to choose living around people like you.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

CRT is just a new face on the notion that disparate results prove racism. It didn't before, it didn't now.

Yes, there has been plenty of actual racism but that does not prove your point, especially given how most discrimination "research" ignores the elephant in the room of whether it's actually seeing racism or socioeconomic effects. "Racism" has a strange habit of disappearing when you properly control for socioeconomic effects.

What do you mean by "proves racism"? If there are substantial disparate legal and economic outcomes for different citizens that can be predicted by their race independent of any other factors, that is the very definition of structural racism as per the CRT outlook. Science is not and has never been about "proof", but we do believe in following evidence where it leads, until such time as an idea is improved upon or disproven.

Replace "prove" with "demonstrate" and Loren hit the nail on the head. I would add cultural to socio-economic as well.
Take segregated housing. Redlining has been gone for decades. Nevertheless, there's plenty of neighborhoods that are extremely black. Which has the side effect of putting black kids into 3rd rate public school corporations, because of how schools are funded. Etc. Etc.

But that's not due to racism much anymore. It's just human nature to choose living around people like you.
Tom

It's not due to present legalized and system racism, but it is certainly due to racism.

 

[TomC]

Replace "prove" with "demonstrate" and Loren hit the nail on the head. I would add cultural to socio-economic as well.
Take segregated housing. Redlining has been gone for decades. Nevertheless, there's plenty of neighborhoods that are extremely black. Which has the side effect of putting black kids into 3rd rate public school corporations, because of how schools are funded. Etc. Etc.

But that's not due to racism much anymore. It's just human nature to choose living around people like you.
Tom

It's not due to present legalized and system racism, but it is certainly due to racism.

In what way, though?
Modern racism. How does that make people move to nearly all black neighborhoods with crummy schools?
Tom

 

[Trausti]

The whole idea of structural racism is that the even non-racists can't help but maintaining systematic racism, simply based on how incentives work in a free market. Ok, fine. Doesn't that mean that it can't be fixed within a capitalist free market paradigm? Is the best solution really to disband capitalist free market capitalism? On another note, the USSR, even though they applied socialist theory to an extreme degree failed to create an equal society. We're fully capable of fixing one problem while making everything worse for everybody. The USSR failed to even fix that one problem they employed their extreme solution to fix.

Soviet secret police sketches profiling ethnic groups for easy identification by witnesses of crimes.

 

[Politesse]

Or maybe the perception that there's a social problem needing to be solved is itself a racist perception arising out of the systemic racism that infects all of us, including anyone claiming to have answers or solutions to an alleged problem, or anyone casting doubt on someone else's answer.

Yes. Hence the need for a working paradigm nuanced enough to encapsulate the complexities of a problem that is not and has never been simple in character. If you look at this situation and your only prerogative is to avoid "feeling guilty" at any cost, even if that means sticking your head in the sand and denying the very existence of obvious social problems, you are going to be worse than useless to anyone else. Facts don't care about your feelings, and neither will anyone who has to deal with the facts on a regular basis whether they feel like it or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And obviously your claim is that past racism cannot and does not affect present socioeconomic reality.

I make no such claim--past racism certainly is a factor.

It would seem you are making the argument that socioeconomic reality is the culprit and that it causes racism to occur. Would that be an accurate take on your position?

Completely wrong. You're still assuming your conclusion. I'm saying that while there is some current racism the main thing we are seeing now is socioeconomic effects of past racism. CRT is just the latest version of pretending these socioeconomic effects are current racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What do you mean by "proves racism"? If there are substantial disparate legal and economic outcomes for different citizens that can be predicted by their race independent of any other factors, that is the very definition of structural racism as per the CRT outlook. Science is not and has never been about "proof", but we do believe in following evidence where it leads, until such time as an idea is improved upon or disproven.

The bolded part is where you get it wrong--what we actually find is that with proper controls the racial effects generally vanish. It's just most of the "research" utterly ignores this possibility. Sticking your head in the sand about other factors doesn't make them go away.

 

[Politesse]

What do you mean by "proves racism"? If there are substantial disparate legal and economic outcomes for different citizens that can be predicted by their race independent of any other factors, that is the very definition of structural racism as per the CRT outlook. Science is not and has never been about "proof", but we do believe in following evidence where it leads, until such time as an idea is improved upon or disproven.

The bolded part is where you get it wrong--what we actually find is that with proper controls the racial effects generally vanish. It's just most of the "research" utterly ignores this possibility. Sticking your head in the sand about other factors doesn't make them go away.

Who is "we"? That contradicts all research on this issue that I am familiar with.

 

[Trausti]

Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?

Answer: No.

Darity, the economist, told me that he doesn’t see how Harden can insist that differences within groups are genetic but that differences between them are not

 

[DrZoidberg]

Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?

Answer: No.

Darity, the economist, told me that he doesn’t see how Harden can insist that differences within groups are genetic but that differences between them are not

Reminds me of conservatives who think legalising abortions will lead us down the path of immorality

 

[laughing dog]

Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?

Answer: No.

Darity, the economist, told me that he doesn’t see how Harden can insist that differences within groups are genetic but that differences between them are not

Interesting that you quote from Professor Darity who disparages research who distrusts research that tries to distinguish between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes including intelligence and who recently argued for reparations to repair the wealth gap of blacks.

 

[Trausti]

Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?

Answer: No.

Darity, the economist, told me that he doesn’t see how Harden can insist that differences within groups are genetic but that differences between them are not

Interesting that you quote from Professor Darity who disparages research who distrusts research that tries to distinguish between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes including intelligence and who recently argued for reparations to repair the wealth gap of blacks.

While he disparages knowledge that offends his politics, his observation that it is inconsistent to accept that in-group differences are genetic but out-group differences are not is correct.

 

[Jarhyn]

Interesting that you quote from Professor Darity who disparages research who distrusts research that tries to distinguish between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes including intelligence and who recently argued for reparations to repair the wealth gap of blacks.

While he disparages knowledge that offends his politics, his observation that it is inconsistent to accept that in-group differences are genetic but out-group differences are not is correct.

Out-group differences are lower than in-group differences.

I know you've read this before. It doesn't seem that you understand why this matters, though.

When out-group differences exceed in-group differences, it becomes logically worthwhile to discriminate between groups: evaluating group membership becomes more powerful than evaluating individual capabilities.

But when out-group differences are smaller, individual assessment is the logical path. This is especially true when, as Lauren is fond of pointing out, much of the out-group differences are comorbid with economic and educational status, and the out-group difference is close to zero when correcting for that.

Realistically, you want to reward and encourage all members of all groups whose performance is above the cutoff value.

But thanks for at least demonstrating why CRT is correct: we still have people in our world who want to enshrine racism systemically. To assume these individuals have no effect is delusion. To assume these individuals do not exist in positions where they hold some leverage is delusion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?

Answer: No.

Darity, the economist, told me that he doesn’t see how Harden can insist that differences within groups are genetic but that differences between them are not

Interesting that you quote from Professor Darity who disparages research who distrusts research that tries to distinguish between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes including intelligence and who recently argued for reparations to repair the wealth gap of blacks.

So when Trausti was trying to find a specialist doctor, he was asking for genetic codes of each of the candidates he was researching on?

It seems funny... Genetics matter, expect when actually researching these things they want to base Genetics on. If Genetics "mattered", we could easily prove it. We could take the genetic coding from 35,000 random people, sort their genetics both by races and how smart they were.

 

[laughing dog]

Interesting that you quote from Professor Darity who disparages research who distrusts research that tries to distinguish between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes including intelligence and who recently argued for reparations to repair the wealth gap of blacks.

While he disparages knowledge that offends his politics, his observation that it is inconsistent to accept that in-group differences are genetic but out-group differences are not is correct.

Irony never ends around here: Darity is correct when he agree with your bias, otherwise he is wrong.

 

[Politesse]

Of course genetics matter. That's why real scientists study actual genetics, rather than Victorian-era pseudoscience.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course genetics matter. That's why real scientists study actual genetics, rather than Victorian-era pseudoscience.

Not to mention the fact that Darwin's realizations indicate that some traits that allow specific environmental access (being tall) are separate from traits that are responsible for say, intelligence insofar as traits involving rough body geometry are not general, where intelligence is.

Selection will always happen in favor of generally useful traits. It is likely then that the most intelligent and adapted people's to social and mental issues are in fact the ones who had the longest time to diverge and adapt without the cultural complications that are created when people stop moving. This would indicate that the best genetics as far as human adaptability and intelligence, or at least the most novel, are probably finding reservoir in first peoples communities in the Americas.

I might also note that the enforced adversity and success in the face of that adversity, is likely to put GREATER selection pressure onto minority communities towards general (mental) traits.

I analogically compare this with the way that abuse victims tend toward being overly consolatory: the environment places undue pressure on the group, so the trait becomes hyper-expressive.

Recently I was watching Big Mouth, and I was exposed to some new, and altogether problematic elements of being Black in America, namely the Code Switch.

This is something so beyond the pale I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, that black people are forced all in varying degrees to create a menu of personalities they present to people for the sake of social navigation. And this is just considered normal!

A whole tool, and all the biological tooling necessary to drive it, has had selection pressure on it. Yet racists want to pretend that genetics explain some things while ignoring the implications of the very selection pressures racism created.

 

[Politesse]

Nonsense. We're all one species, which has existed for the same amount of time wherever you are in the world. Any variance between distinct populations has arisen within a very short span of time from an evolutionary perspective, and is mostly comprised of very specific environmental adaptations like adjustments to latitude, altitude, or resistances to local pathogens or food allergies.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nonsense. We're all one species, which has existed for the same amount of time wherever you are in the world. Any variance between distinct populations has arisen within a very short span of time from an evolutionary perspective, and is mostly comprised of very specific environmental adaptations like adjustments to latitude, altitude, or resistances to local pathogens or food allergies.

I don't think it's entirely nonsense. I just think that the effects are small and likely to be inverse of anything the racist presents: we have created selection pressures which unduely and strongly filter for adaptive traits, moreso in minority communities than elsewhere.

Darwin's theory DEMANDS that such pressures yield filtration towards more adaptive traits more aggressively; this is a fact implied by the structure of the system.

It would be like attaching weights on one kid and then laughing at them when they cannot finish the race with everyone else, saying they are weak and small. If the weights were ever removed, I expect the "weak and slow" child, on account of the exercise, is actually more capable than the rest, if allowed to ever exist free of the burden.

I expect that the time frames are too short, and populations too freely mixed for it to be significantly "hoarded" within any population group. But this does not change the fact of the pressure.

And for communities more isolated genetically, or for longer periods, I expect this hoarding to be greater.