What, exactly, is CRT?

[Jarhyn]

While I agree with ending the drug war I don't believe it's being targeted racially. The targeting of crack is not because it's a black man's drug, but because crack is associated with a lot more serious crime than cocaine. The addiction is stronger and the people don't have the money to simply buy it--and the drug-related crime is mostly about the crime to buy the drugs.



Definitely agree.

Banning 'the box' (questions on pre-employment questionnaires which ask about prior involvement with law enforcement beyond the scope of the original punishment, thus enshrining permanence of such racially biased laws as the drug war).

No. It should be changed to "what crimes have you been convicted of". Arrests shouldn't count and it shouldn't be a binary. Companies quite legitimately do not want to hire workers that are likely to commit crimes at work.

Nope. Ban it. Either our corrections system corrected it, and they have undertaken their full repayment of their debt to society, or it didn't correct it and our corrections system is dysfunctional in the first place.

In the former, you ban the box because the box is creating penalties outside the legally prescribed ones and in the latter you fix the fucking prison system and still let people live down their pasts. I will fight you, and anyone else, to the death on this.

Making higher education a right rather than a "privilege" (as a very large part of structural racism is tied up in education access, and lack thereof).

Community colleges have no admissions requirement beyond high school or GED. Nobody's being kept out other than by themselves.

other than by themselves... and Mammon.

Making it illegal to reference or even access racially revealing information to make distinctions in finance and housing (so as to prevent and end racially closed communities).

While I agree the information should be hidden the data doesn't say it's a problem. Occam's Razor: "Redlining" isn't about race, but about bankers looking at more than the bureaucrats desperate to find discrimination. The simplest explanation for the mortgage differences is that bankers consider expected appreciation in writing low-down mortgages.

So, you are conflating again. Systemic racism is not necessarily put in place for race (though red-lining was explicitly done for racial reasons in Minneapolis). Even so, this is still "systemic", and a supporter of CRT in that it can only be addressed by systemic changes, in this case ones that tell the bankers to suck a lemon and offer the damn mortgage to the person who has the credit for the loan.

And the list goes on. CRT identifies sources of systemic racism specifically so they can be fought against. I assume SOME people just beat their meat talking about what is or is not structural racism, but as for me and I assume most of the others who accept CRT as a description of reality we do it so we can understand how to change said reality.

CRT takes it on faith that the cause is discrimination, if it can't be found that means you didn't dig deep enough. The reality is discrimination is something you're bound to find if you dig deep enough--regardless of whether it's really there or not. Torture the data enough and you can make it show what you want.

No, CRT identifies that causes are systemic, not that people are actively discriminating today (though again, some do). The reality is that there are systemic barriers to economic mobility and these have an outsized impact on communities with few resources and few inlets for said resources.

 

[Politesse]

If the material results of systemic racism still persist, and actively impact people's lives in a negative way, the work of CRT is not done, even if we were to accept the (preposterous) claim that overt racism no longer exists.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yeah.

The problem with CRT isn't only with genetics. We do not know how much influence, if any, genes have on racial disparities - and CRT apparently just denies any influence.

...

2. It denies not only any genetic influence on racial disparities...

​I'm not saying genetics is the issues I just keep bringing up genetics. Meanwhile you just want to talk about history and intentional systemic racism we know existed in the US for centuries and has lasted well into the 20th Century.

Yes, of course, if you do not misconstrue my posts, you will see that I mentioned genetics as an example of epistemically improper CRT beliefs, not as an example of false CRT beliefs (and in response to other people bringing this up first, but in any case, it is a good example of CRT's shortcomings, regardless of whether there are genetic influences). Again, as far as I can tell, we do not know - there is not enough information to tell - whether genetics play a role in current racial disparities. But CRT claims it plays no role. That might be true. Or it might be false. But it is just an improper assessment. And CRTists do not provide any significant evidence in support of the point. Moreover, they even deny that there are races. That one is both improper and false, regardless of whether genes play any influence on racial disparities.

But as I keep arguing, despite your bad cutting of my posts to make it look as if I were arguing that genetics are the causes of the differences (though of course, you do not do this deliberately, as you actually do believe you're right and you have exposed my posts for what they really are! - you shouldn't think so, obviously, but you will never realize that you are wrong) , even if CRT got it 100% right about genetics, it still makes massive blunders because it just denies - on faith, it seems - that cultural differences that are not about the social construction of race may well play - and likely play - a causal role in racial disparities. In fact, it may well be that racial stereotypes are in some (many) cases a consequence of observed racial disparities whose root cause are cultural differences not related to the social construction of race. While there might be some feedback loop sometimes so the stereotypes contribute to increasing the differences, if the stereotypes go away, only a secondary, minor cause of the racial disparities goes away, and the root cause remains. If, for example, the majority of people of race A (or a genetically distinct subracial group, it works the same; but I'll go with race to keep it simple) have cultural traits X - not for genetic reasons, but historical cause - and they believe children ought to spend a huge amount of time and make an effort studying math, science, etc., and the majority of people of race B has no cultural trait or even have a predominant belief that they ought to spend a lot of time studying religion and prayer, it is entirely plausible - even probable - that you will see a racial disparity that has nothing to do with the social construction of race. And then that - and people who jump to conclusion - may cause the stereotype that people of race A are smarter than people of race B. But CRT assumes the causes of the racial disparities are generally the social constructions of race, rather than other cultural traits. That's very probably false (I gave examples) but worse, it is epistemically improper. That's how people do religion, ideology or pseudoscience. It's not how people do science (properly).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You appear confused. Where the heck did AM ever "bring up" genetics? Pro-CRT posters here kept bringing up genetics. Then AM responded to them, because pro-CRT posters kept saying stuff about genetics that was unevidenced and in some cases already known to be wrong.


If your goal is to protect your religious beliefs from contact with contrary reality, good strategy.

No, just to keep from dealing with people who egregiously deal in bad faith. I guess I am adding you to the list, now, too, seeing as how you question whether someone did something, where the post you quoted included the proof of them doing it.

The person who said I kept bringing back genetics - Jimmy Higgins - was falsely accusing me of arguing (or implying) that genetics was the cause of racial differences, whereas I was doing nothing of the sort, and I was using that as an example of CRT's epistemic blunders, because CRT defenders made the blunder before when they denied the influence of genes. And you then go on to accuse me of debating in bath faith. I have to remind myself that you actually believe what you say, because otherwise I would be outraged by your bad faith in making the accusation of bad faith. Alas, you do not realize and you will never realize that you are doing that. You just believe you and your group are correct. As do that vast majority of Catholics debaters, in my experience. And Muslims. And Marxists. And Protestants. And so on.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yeah.

The problem with CRT isn't only with genetics. We do not know how much influence, if any, genes have on racial disparities - and CRT apparently just denies any influence.

...

2. It denies not only any genetic influence on racial disparities...

​I'm not saying genetics is the issues I just keep bringing up genetics. Meanwhile you just want to talk about history and intentional systemic racism we know existed in the US for centuries and has lasted well into the 20th Century.

Yes, of course, if you do not misconstrue my posts, you will see that I mentioned genetics as an example of epistemically improper CRT beliefs, not as an example of false CRT beliefs (and in response to other people bringing this up first, but in any case, it is a good example of CRT's shortcomings, regardless of whether there are genetic influences). Again, as far as I can tell, we do not know - there is not enough information to tell - whether genetics play a role in current racial disparities. But CRT claims it plays no role. That might be true. Or it might be false. But it is just an improper assessment. And CRTists do not provide any significant evidence in support of the point. Moreover, they even deny that there are races. That one is both improper and false, regardless of whether genes play any influence on racial disparities.

But as I keep arguing, despite your bad cutting of my posts to make it look as if I were arguing that genetics are the causes of the differences (though of course, you do not do this deliberately, as you actually do believe you're right and you have exposed my posts for what they really are! - you shouldn't think so, obviously, but you will never realize that you are wrong) , even if CRT got it 100% right about genetics, it still makes massive blunders because it just denies - on faith, it seems - that cultural differences that are not about the social construction of race may well play - and likely play - a causal role in racial disparities. In fact, it may well be that racial stereotypes are in some (many) cases a consequence of observed racial disparities whose root cause are cultural differences not related to the social construction of race. While there might be some feedback loop sometimes so the stereotypes contribute to increasing the differences, if the stereotypes go away, only a secondary, minor cause of the racial disparities goes away, and the root cause remains. If, for example, the majority of people of race A (or a genetically distinct subracial group, it works the same; but I'll go with race to keep it simple) have cultural traits X - not for genetic reasons, but historical cause - and they believe children ought to spend a huge amount of time and make an effort studying math, science, etc., and the majority of people of race B has no cultural trait or even have a predominant belief that they ought to spend a lot of time studying religion and prayer, it is entirely plausible - even probable - that you will see a racial disparity that has nothing to do with the social construction of race. And then that - and people who jump to conclusion - may cause the stereotype that people of race A are smarter than people of race B. But CRT assumes the causes of the racial disparities are generally the social constructions of race, rather than other cultural traits. That's very probably false (I gave examples) but worse, it is epistemically improper. That's how people do religion, ideology or pseudoscience. It's not how people do science (properly).

Those good white southerners liked to think they were taking care of their inferior, darkie brothers, like a father does his children, giving them life. How beautiful of them for thinking so nobly their mission. Hallelujah!

 

[Trausti]

If the material results of systemic racism still persist, and actively impact people's lives in a negative way, the work of CRT is not done, even if we were to accept the (preposterous) claim that overt racism no longer exists.

If systemic racism went away, whatever would the CRT priests do to make money?

 

[Politesse]

If the material results of systemic racism still persist, and actively impact people's lives in a negative way, the work of CRT is not done, even if we were to accept the (preposterous) claim that overt racism no longer exists.

If systemic racism went away, whatever would the CRT priests do to make money?

??

 

[Trausti]

If the material results of systemic racism still persist, and actively impact people's lives in a negative way, the work of CRT is not done, even if we were to accept the (preposterous) claim that overt racism no longer exists.

If systemic racism went away, whatever would the CRT priests do to make money?

??

We can rest assured that the CRT evangelists will always find systemic racism - when no one else can see it - because that's how they make their money.

 

[Politesse]

??

We can rest assured that the CRT evangelists will always find systemic racism - when no one else can see it - because that's how they make their money.

I meet very few wealthy social scientists. Lawyers are often wealthy, but they make their money pursuing cases, not engaging in abstract theory. Who the heck are you talking about?

 

[Toni]

??

We can rest assured that the CRT evangelists will always find systemic racism - when no one else can see it - because that's how they make their money.

There’s money to be made in academia? I need to tell my husband he’s been doing it wrong….

OTOH, there IS a lot of money in maintaining a status quo that includes systemic racism…

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, of course, if you do not misconstrue my posts, you will see that I mentioned genetics as an example of epistemically improper CRT beliefs, not as an example of false CRT beliefs (and in response to other people bringing this up first, but in any case, it is a good example of CRT's shortcomings, regardless of whether there are genetic influences). Again, as far as I can tell, we do not know - there is not enough information to tell - whether genetics play a role in current racial disparities. But CRT claims it plays no role. That might be true. Or it might be false. But it is just an improper assessment. And CRTists do not provide any significant evidence in support of the point. Moreover, they even deny that there are races. That one is both improper and false, regardless of whether genes play any influence on racial disparities.

But as I keep arguing, despite your bad cutting of my posts to make it look as if I were arguing that genetics are the causes of the differences (though of course, you do not do this deliberately, as you actually do believe you're right and you have exposed my posts for what they really are! - you shouldn't think so, obviously, but you will never realize that you are wrong) , even if CRT got it 100% right about genetics, it still makes massive blunders because it just denies - on faith, it seems - that cultural differences that are not about the social construction of race may well play - and likely play - a causal role in racial disparities. In fact, it may well be that racial stereotypes are in some (many) cases a consequence of observed racial disparities whose root cause are cultural differences not related to the social construction of race. While there might be some feedback loop sometimes so the stereotypes contribute to increasing the differences, if the stereotypes go away, only a secondary, minor cause of the racial disparities goes away, and the root cause remains. If, for example, the majority of people of race A (or a genetically distinct subracial group, it works the same; but I'll go with race to keep it simple) have cultural traits X - not for genetic reasons, but historical cause - and they believe children ought to spend a huge amount of time and make an effort studying math, science, etc., and the majority of people of race B has no cultural trait or even have a predominant belief that they ought to spend a lot of time studying religion and prayer, it is entirely plausible - even probable - that you will see a racial disparity that has nothing to do with the social construction of race. And then that - and people who jump to conclusion - may cause the stereotype that people of race A are smarter than people of race B. But CRT assumes the causes of the racial disparities are generally the social constructions of race, rather than other cultural traits. That's very probably false (I gave examples) but worse, it is epistemically improper. That's how people do religion, ideology or pseudoscience. It's not how people do science (properly).

Those good white southerners liked to think they were taking care of their inferior, darkie brothers, like a father does his children, giving them life. How beautiful of them for thinking so nobly their mission. Hallelujah!

Do you believe that your attack against me has any relation whatsoever with what I wrote in the post you are replying to?
If so, could you explain the relation, please.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yeah.

​I'm not saying genetics is the issues I just keep bringing up genetics. <rest snipped>

You appear confused. Where the heck did AM ever "bring up" genetics?

Twice, I quoted it.

You appear confused. Where the heck did AM ever "bring up" genetics? Pro-CRT posters here kept bringing up genetics. Then AM responded to them, because pro-CRT posters kept saying stuff about genetics that was unevidenced and in some cases already known to be wrong.

If your goal is to protect your religious beliefs from contact with contrary reality, good strategy.

No, just to keep from dealing with people who egregiously deal in bad faith. I guess I am adding you to the list, now, too, seeing as how you question whether someone did something, where the post you quoted included the proof of them doing it.

What the heck is wrong with you two? Are you both so logic-challenged that you actually imagine quoting somebody talking about a subject constitutes proof that he's the one who brought the subject up? Or are you merely confused about what the expression "bring up" means because you aren't fluent English speakers?

The Angra post Jimmy quoted and Jarhyn called "proof" was post #356. By quick inspection, we can see that in post #355, Jarhyn was already talking about genetics. In post #354, DrZoidberg was talking about genetics too. In post #352, Politesse was talking about genetics. In post #349, Politesse was talking about genetics. In post #348, Emily was talking about genetics. In post #347, Jarhyn was talking about genetics. In post #346, DrZoidberg was talking about genetics. So as you can easily verify for yourselves, at the time AM posted, the thread was 70% about genetics! So why don't you guys just lay off the self-deception for a bit and quit making believe you proved Angra "keeps bringing up genetics"?

 

[Bomb#20]

King's a Hack. Rushdie actually knows how to write. More in the vein of Tolstoy, Dickens and Dante.

Honestly, I find most works by Dickens to be boring and his characters lack emotional resonance.

A Tale of Two Cities was a ripping-good yarn. But the rest of Dickens, yeah, I have to agree with you...

Great Expectations was one of the most disappointing books I've ever read.

Disappointing? Hang on, are you saying you went into it with, er, an expectation that it would be great?

 

[ideologyhunter]

OMG....I think Great Expectations is his best book, hands down. Pip as a youth is the archetypal adolescent, full of swagger and swollen ego and unable to see the quality of his simple family and the townsfolk. Some Dickens is minor (Little Dorrit and Old Curiosity Shop, and I would add Nicholas Nickleby, although it has its defenders), but the comedy in Dickens is deathless (Chuzzlewit and Pickwick lead the parade), and Copperfield endures -- and Dickens' somewhat overlooked journalism is first-rate. I still have to read 5 of the novels to have read everything, but that's a plus, there's still more to come.

 

[laughing dog]

If the posts in this thread are any indication, it is clear that
1) it is not possible to precisely nail down what CRT is, and
2) ignorance about CRT is not a bar to opining about it.;

Any theory is an intellectual tool that can be used to help understand or explain the world. Theories are only as useful as their applications. Anyone can misuse a tool or a theory.

With that in mind, from what I can tell, some of the criticism of CRT in this thread is simply driven by ignorance, and some of it is really a critique of a particular application of it.

 

[Politesse]

If the posts in this thread are any indication, it is clear that
1) it is not possible to precisely nail down what CRT is, and
2) ignorance about CRT is not a bar to opining about it.;

Any theory is an intellectual tool that can be used to help understand or explain the world. Theories are only as useful as their applications. Anyone can misuse a tool or a theory.

With that in mind, from what I can tell, some of the criticism of CRT in this thread is simply driven by ignorance, and some of it is really a critique of a particular application of it.

I guess I would agree with these points, though the criticisms of particular applications also seem extremely vague, both in terms of who exactly is being accused of misuse, and what they are being accused of particularly.

 

[Emily Lake]

A Tale of Two Cities was a ripping-good yarn. But the rest of Dickens, yeah, I have to agree with you...

Great Expectations was one of the most disappointing books I've ever read.

Disappointing? Hang on, are you saying you went into it with, er, an expectation that it would be great?

Lol

After reading Great Expectations, I just didn't bother with any other Dickens.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, of course, if you do not misconstrue my posts, you will see that I mentioned genetics as an example of epistemically improper CRT beliefs, not as an example of false CRT beliefs (and in response to other people bringing this up first, but in any case, it is a good example of CRT's shortcomings, regardless of whether there are genetic influences). Again, as far as I can tell, we do not know - there is not enough information to tell - whether genetics play a role in current racial disparities. But CRT claims it plays no role. That might be true. Or it might be false. But it is just an improper assessment. And CRTists do not provide any significant evidence in support of the point. Moreover, they even deny that there are races. That one is both improper and false, regardless of whether genes play any influence on racial disparities.

But as I keep arguing, despite your bad cutting of my posts to make it look as if I were arguing that genetics are the causes of the differences (though of course, you do not do this deliberately, as you actually do believe you're right and you have exposed my posts for what they really are! - you shouldn't think so, obviously, but you will never realize that you are wrong) , even if CRT got it 100% right about genetics, it still makes massive blunders because it just denies - on faith, it seems - that cultural differences that are not about the social construction of race may well play - and likely play - a causal role in racial disparities. In fact, it may well be that racial stereotypes are in some (many) cases a consequence of observed racial disparities whose root cause are cultural differences not related to the social construction of race. While there might be some feedback loop sometimes so the stereotypes contribute to increasing the differences, if the stereotypes go away, only a secondary, minor cause of the racial disparities goes away, and the root cause remains. If, for example, the majority of people of race A (or a genetically distinct subracial group, it works the same; but I'll go with race to keep it simple) have cultural traits X - not for genetic reasons, but historical cause - and they believe children ought to spend a huge amount of time and make an effort studying math, science, etc., and the majority of people of race B has no cultural trait or even have a predominant belief that they ought to spend a lot of time studying religion and prayer, it is entirely plausible - even probable - that you will see a racial disparity that has nothing to do with the social construction of race. And then that - and people who jump to conclusion - may cause the stereotype that people of race A are smarter than people of race B. But CRT assumes the causes of the racial disparities are generally the social constructions of race, rather than other cultural traits. That's very probably false (I gave examples) but worse, it is epistemically improper. That's how people do religion, ideology or pseudoscience. It's not how people do science (properly).

Those good white southerners liked to think they were taking care of their inferior, darkie brothers, like a father does his children, giving them life. How beautiful of them for thinking so nobly their mission. Hallelujah!

Do you believe that your attack against me has any relation whatsoever with what I wrote in the post you are replying to?
If so, could you explain the relation, please.

I had just finished watching this video:

How the Monuments Came Down

It is an excellent historical reconstruction of Racism in the city of Richmond. I highly recommend the video.

We obviously sit at opposite ends of the CRT debate because to me racism and continuing racism is real. Maybe your experiences in life have taught you otherwise, so be it. If you watch the video I would like to know what you think about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Equal skill, the taller person will be the better basketball player.

So you are for removing identifying markers of any kind, including name on resumes?

For large companies, yes. Resumes should be anonymized before reaching the people who make the hiring decisions. That's not feasible for small companies, though.

So you choose height over the shorter guy that jumps higher?

Note that I said "equal skill".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nope. Ban it. Either our corrections system corrected it, and they have undertaken their full repayment of their debt to society, or it didn't correct it and our corrections system is dysfunctional in the first place.

In the former, you ban the box because the box is creating penalties outside the legally prescribed ones and in the latter you fix the fucking prison system and still let people live down their pasts. I will fight you, and anyone else, to the death on this.

Then make the second conviction of anything above civil disobedience carry life without parole.

The reality is that correction systems are inherently far from perfect. The first punishment may scare someone straight, but beyond that their role is deterrence. We have no way of removing a criminal mindset.

Community colleges have no admissions requirement beyond high school or GED. Nobody's being kept out other than by themselves.

other than by themselves... and Mammon.

Who is Mammon?

So, you are conflating again. Systemic racism is not necessarily put in place for race (though red-lining was explicitly done for racial reasons in Minneapolis). Even so, this is still "systemic", and a supporter of CRT in that it can only be addressed by systemic changes, in this case ones that tell the bankers to suck a lemon and offer the damn mortgage to the person who has the credit for the loan.

You have it backwards. In this sort of case let the bankers tell the investigators in confidence the formulas they are using to decide who gets the loan. Evaluate whether their behavior is discriminatory on that basis, not on the basis the investigators decide is proper. The justice people don't get to tell the banks what factors matter. Locally it's obvious the bankers didn't like writing low-down mortgages in zip codes where the prices weren't going up. If they are discriminating, why was race irrelevant for 80/20 mortgages? And why was it irrelevant for any given house? The only racial pattern was denials of low-down mortgages in two poor zip codes that had a lot more blacks than average.

No, CRT identifies that causes are systemic, not that people are actively discriminating today (though again, some do). The reality is that there are systemic barriers to economic mobility and these have an outsized impact on communities with few resources and few inlets for said resources.

The answer is always anti-discrimination measures--which only make sense if there is current discrimination.