What, exactly, is CRT?

[Bomb#20]

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?

Mammon

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible explains it as "a Semitic word for money or riches".[15] The International Children's Bible (ICB) uses the wording "You cannot serve God and money at the same time".[16]

Christians began to use "mammon" as a pejorative, a term that was used to describe gluttony, excessive materialism, greed, and unjust worldly gain.​

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Disagree--blacks came first.

Not in any sense that's a reason to disagree with him. You're implying blacks are an older race, but that's not correct -- it's not as though modern black people are unchanged from the black people that all modern races are descended from. Since the ancient migrations that led to geographic separation, people of all populations kept evolving.

(But that's not to say Politesse was correct. Most variance between distinct populations is from neutral mutations, i.e., random genetic drift. Specific environmental adaptations are a small piece of it.)

Whites are mutant blacks with a malfunctioning melanin system that's actually better for life in temperate climates.

No doubt -- but that's a relatively tiny number of mutations in a background where whites and blacks alike accumulated thousands of other mutations, many of which were better for life in their respective environments, and most of which made no difference.

 

[Bomb#20]

But wouldn’t you expect culture to play a role in selection? If for hundreds of years or millennia a culture rewarded a trait, say for high cognition, with greater reproductive success, would it be surprising that people from this population group had higher frequency for the trait than others? Was Darwin wrong?

Your example is wrong. All human society and tribal structure across all of time has highly and efficiently selected for mental traits. There is no artificial selection pressure that would ever out-do that except perhaps racism itself: To make the selection pressure of humanity's primary adaptive trait any stronger, you would need to artificially increase adversity.

Stuff and nonsense -- you're massively overgeneralizing.

Fertility and intelligence

Smarter people have more babies than less smart people in some societies and in some historical eras; in other societies at other times, smarter people have fewer babies. Whether high cognition is efficiently selected for is complicated and depends on local conditions. (And, it should be noted, there's a brand new artificial selection pressure in town that can out-do pretty much every natural selection pressure: the Pill.)

 

[fromderinside]

Fertility and intelligence

Smarter people have more babies than less smart people in some societies and in some historical eras; in other societies at other times, smarter people have fewer babies. Whether high cognition is efficiently selected for is complicated and depends on local conditions. (And, it should be noted, there's a brand new artificial selection pressure in town that can out-do pretty much every natural selection pressure: the Pill.)

Uh, the headline from your reference disagrees with your summarization.

The relationship between fertility and intelligence has been investigated in many demographic studies. There is evidence that, on a population level, intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility rate and positively correlated with survival rate of offspring.^[1]

1. It is postulated that, if the inverse correlation of IQ with fertility rate is stronger than the correlation of IQ with survival rate, and if the correlation between IQ and fertility can be linked to genetic factors, then the hereditary component of IQ will decrease with every new generation, eventually giving rise to a 'reversed Flynn effect', as has been observed in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries, where a slow decline in average IQ scores has been noted since the 1990s.^[2][3][4][5]

2. While the Flynn effect demonstrates an increase in phenotypic IQ scores over time in most other countries, confounding environmental factors during the same period of time preclude any conclusion concerning underlying change in genotypic IQ.

3. Other correlates of IQ include income and educational attainment,^[6] which are also fertility factors that are inversely correlated with fertility rate, and are to some degree heritable.

BTW. The pill is more likely to be used by the more intelligent, affluent, favored.

Now that I've responded how is this related to CRT?

 

[Bomb#20]

Having problems with CRT being thrown around and promoted isn't the same thing as being FOR racism.

You can be skeptical about the use of CRT AND be against racism. You don't need to pick a side.

I understand the kneejerk woke reaction creating a dichotomy where everything in the world is either for or against racism. It's dumb.

And not to point out the obvious, but by continually crying wolf and accusing everything and everyone of a participant of structural racism, you are creating a world where racism is inevitable and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. It creates passivity and victimhood. Ie, just the kind of world we're heading towards.

But that's not exactly what CRT and its promoters are doing. They don't quite call everything and everyone a participant of structural racism. The way they define it, it isn't inevitable. There is one thing people can do to stop it, one thing that isn't structural racism. And there's one kind of person who doesn't implicitly support and willingly participate in structural racism. They leave us an out. What the out is follows inescapably from what they're using the jargon "systemic racism" to mean. And that is...

Also in direct contradiction to the actual descriptions of CRT up thread.

How many times have we all pointed out "overt, gnostic, intentional racism is merely a tiny part; mostly it is a set of otherwise agnostic systems made in ignorance or apathy operated in ignorance and apathy, with the pointed effect of preventing economic mobility generally along cleavage lines of racially self-identified communities?"

Everything is viewed with a lens of "ignorance and apathy".

You are conflating "racism," in this use (apparently, Racism: the bias to favor those who bear similar variances and lacks of variance to the first party) with "(systemic) racism" as per CRT ([Systemic] racism: the tacit result of apathy and ignorance that comes from a lack of consideration for the effects of policy on minority groups which causes retention/concentration of disparity).

"Ignorance and apathy" is a loaded phrase, of course; that phenomenon could more neutrally be described as "People just getting on with their lives instead of making CRT's goals their top priority." So we could do with a less hand-wavy definition...

CRT is about "systemic racism". A system within society that perpetuates divisions largely on boundary lines created by slavery is the very definition of systemic racism. It creates a suggestion of how to solve the racial issues and YES, their solutions DO seem to not be directly racial. Because they aren't directly racial. Because CRT is not about direct, or even gnostic racism, and it's solutions are not going to be directly "racial".
...
CRT is useful because it is the very basis for me and many others fighting for this list of priorities specifically. It is useful in the same way a road map is. It does not prove anything. It is merely a useful description of the terrain for the purposes of moving from point A to point B.

So there we have a crisp definition. It's supplemented with examples of the sorts of systems that satisfy it...

I have pointed to A problem. That problem I pointed to IS systemic racism. Definitionally, in fact. I have pointedly and explicitly impugned "lack of financial resources in a group of heritage" as a systemic element as a driver of continuing racial disparities.

The reality is that my parents are still alive. I have inherited nothing. ... And yet I still had a place with food and free housing ... I got a small no-interest loan from, you guessed it, my parents. ... One thing that few black kids have is parents with money.

That's systemic.

I.e., the policy of allowing parents to help out their children is "systemic racism".

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 ... 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.
...
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.

I.e., the policy of allowing people to lend for good investments but not poor investments is "systemic racism".

So what's the out? What is there that isn't "systemic racism"? There must be something. We know there has to be some possible policy that isn't "systemic racism", because Jarhyn says so...

The issue here being that we have every reason to believe a benefit to overall systemic quality will happen when the systemic racism is removed and we reach populational parity.

So apparently it is possible to remove the "systemic racism". It's possible to remove the ignorant apathetic practice that perpetuates divisions largely on boundary lines created by slavery and is a systemic barrier to the economic mobility of communities with few resources and few inlets for said resources.

And that practice is, in a word, reciprocity. What ignorant apathetic people generally do when they get on with their lives instead of making CRT's goals their top priority is they do stuff for somebody who does stuff for them in return. Parents help out their child because the family relationship lets their child provide them with emotional well-being they wouldn't get from a stranger. Bankers lend for good investments but not poor investments because the appreciation of the investment insures that the borrower will be able to pay back the loan with interest. People help their friends do stuff because it helps cement the friendship. People do jobs because employers pay them; people pay grocers because grocers feed them.

But reciprocity means the more you do for others, the more others will do for you. And that means when you have little ability to do anything for others, you won't do much for others, so others won't do much for you. So when some people in the community find themselves in the position of having little ability to provide services to others, regardless of whether its because of their own poor choices or because of bad luck or because of some injury by some scoundrel, reciprocity means others in the community won't provide much in the way of services to those people. But it's hard to improve your ability to do services for others without first receiving services from others. So reciprocity per se creates a cycle of inertia, obstructing economic mobility, making those with few inlets for resources tend to continue to have few inlets for resources. And all the rest of the things CRT calls "structural racism" from the drug war to college tuition could be done away with, but as long as people continue to do others services in exchange for services received, those in a poor position to help others will receive less in exchange, and this will make it hard for them to become more helpful.

What map, then, can CRT possibly provide for breaking out of that vicious circle? What can the description of the terrain of systems within society that perpetuate divisions largely on lines created by slavery as "systemic racism" tell us about how to move from point A to point B? The question answers itself: CRT can tell us to abolish reciprocity.

So that's the out. CRT implies that to remove the "systemic racism", we have to break the link between what you do for others and what others do for you. Society must scratch out the conservative motto "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work" and inscribe on its banners "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That is what, and that is whom, CRT is not accusing of engaging in structural racism.

That leaves us with just one remaining question about CRT:

The issue here being that we have every reason to believe a benefit to overall systemic quality will happen when the systemic racism is removed and we reach populational parity.

What reason is there in the dismal history of the 20th century to believe that doing what it would take to "remove the systemic racism" would in fact result in "a benefit to overall systemic quality"?

 

[Bomb#20]

Fertility and intelligence

Smarter people have more babies than less smart people in some societies and in some historical eras; in other societies at other times, smarter people have fewer babies. Whether high cognition is efficiently selected for is complicated and depends on local conditions. (And, it should be noted, there's a brand new artificial selection pressure in town that can out-do pretty much every natural selection pressure: the Pill.)

Uh, the headline from your reference disagrees with your summarization.

But the content doesn't. The headline was a simplification.

More rigorous studies carried out on Americans alive after the Second World War returned different results suggesting a slight positive correlation with respect to intelligence. The findings from these investigations were consistent enough for Osborn and Bajema, writing as late as 1972, to conclude that fertility patterns were eugenic, and that "the reproductive trend toward an increase in the frequency of genes associated with higher IQ... will probably continue in the foreseeable future in the United States and will be found also in other industrial welfare-state democracies."[12]

Several reviewers considered the findings premature, arguing that the samples were nationally unrepresentative, generally being confined to whites born between 1910 and 1940 in the Great Lakes States.[13][14] Other researchers began to report a negative correlation in the 1960s after two decades of neutral or positive fertility.[15]​

I.e., the Wikipedia executive summary you posted suggests Jarhyn was completely wrong; but to be fair, the full story is complicated and he's probably only mostly wrong.

BTW. The pill is more likely to be used by the more intelligent, affluent, favored.

I.e., even if what he said had been right about most of human history, it's wrong now.

Now that I've responded how is this related to CRT?

Beats me; you'd have to ask Jarhyn.

 

[Trausti]

It would be nutty to think that the transition from hunter-gathers to agriculture and urbanism (plus admixture with archaic humans)(and plus geographic/reproductive separation) was inconsequential to cognition in the multitude of human population groups. Unless you’re a creationist.

Holocene Selection for Variants Associated With General Cognitive Ability: Comparing Ancient and Modern Genomes

 

[Trausti]

 

[laughing dog]

I.e., the policy of allowing parents to help out their children is "systemic racism".That's systemic.

I.e., the policy of allowing people to lend for good investments but not poor investments is "systemic racism".

I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism.

That is fun, I can see why you do it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I.e., the policy of allowing expecting parents to help out their children is "systemic racism".That's systemic.

I.e., the policy of [only] allowing people to lend for goodhigh profit investments but not poorlow profit investments is "systemic racism".

So, bomb's nonsense nonetheless exposes something real: it is not "ALLOWING" that is problematic. It's expecting.

If someone wants to make 1% or even intends to break even that's also not anyone else's business. This is, I think, one of the most problematic things in modern finance in fact: the expectation that others be as greedy as possible.

It is interesting in that there is one thing that the "Isrealites" who shout in angry racist diatribe are right about: "white people" do experience less sense of community. This is because in poor communities in the US, support comes from a much wider network of people because it has to.

There's less focus on taking "for me" and more focus on "let's get through this shit". Because that's the only way people in that resource situation survive.

We all identify that "taking for me" cultures are generally the problem, and are at the core of gang hierarchies that we ALL despise and are ashamed of.

It IS a problem that banks don't want to invest in things that won't gain much money. The goal should not be concentrating money! The goal should be improving the whole world's ability to have access to the things they value, all but "power over", to the extent of your reach. Anything else is systemic idiocy. It's shitty self-serving game theory and anyone who believes in personal edification over universal --and so greater personal-- edification... Well, you can very well see the silliness of that. That's not racism though, that's Mammonism. I worship no thing, except perhaps doubt. That includes myself. That includes money and power over

 

[Rhea]

What map, then, can CRT possibly provide for breaking out of that vicious circle? What can the description of the terrain of systems within society that perpetuate divisions largely on lines created by slavery as "systemic racism" tell us about how to move from point A to point B? The question answers itself: CRT can tell us to abolish reciprocity.

So that's the out. CRT implies that to remove the "systemic racism", we have to break the link between what you do for others and what others do for you. Society must scratch out the conservative motto "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work" and inscribe on its banners "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That is what, and that is whom, CRT is not accusing of engaging in structural racism.

I’m reading this and wondering how you could have skipped the part about how “you do for other and others do for you” was already broken to the detriment of the population of Black people.

Your whole analysis assumes that black people have always taken and never given, and that you disdain as unfair this idea that righting that wrong needs to happen in order to provide American Black people with the same ability to receive as they labored by giving alongside American white people.

You avoid discussing that wrong
You think it is “unfair” to right that wrong.
Indeed, you imply that there is no wrong to be righted.
And then you blame the problem on Black people for not giving enough.

 

[Bomb#20]

I’m reading this and wondering how you could have skipped the part about how “you do for other and others do for you” was already broken to the detriment of the population of Black people.

Your whole analysis assumes that black people have always taken and never given, and that you disdain as unfair this idea that righting that wrong needs to happen in order to provide American Black people with the same ability to receive as they labored by giving alongside American white people.

You avoid discussing that wrong
You think it is “unfair” to right that wrong.
Indeed, you imply that there is no wrong to be righted.
And then you blame the problem on Black people for not giving enough.

Rhea, you are a serial libelist. You and I have been through this enough times you should have learned by now not to invent positions out of whole cloth and impute them to your opponents. But you'll just keep doing it and doing it, apparently because you think I'm bad and you think that relieves you of the moral obligation to fact-check the garbage it pleases you to believe about your enemies before you post it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I didn't skip the part about how "you do for other and others do for you" was already broken to the detriment of the population of Black people. That possibility was covered under "because of some injury by some scoundrel".

Nothing whatsoever about my analysis assumes that black people have always taken and never given. You just made that up. The observation that some poor black guy hadn't given any emotional feedback to Jarhyn's parents so Jarhyn's parents didn't lend money to that poor black guy when he needed it even though they lent money to Jarhyn in no way relies on assuming that the black guy, let alone black guys in general, took and never gave. Your analysis assumes that all black people can be sensibly treated as a single person and all white people can be sensibly treated as a single person and if black guy A gave to white guy X then that makes it reciprocal for white guy Y to give to black guy B. Treating people of the same race as if they were interchangeable parts is racist.

I didn't "avoid discussing" the wrong; it simply wasn't germane to my point about the logical implications of CRT (as Jarhyn explained CRT). The fact that CRT implies we should adopt Communism is independent of the wrongs that were done to black people.

And no, I did not indicate it is "unfair" to right that wrong, or imply that there is no wrong to be righted, or disdain as unfair this idea that righting that wrong needs to happen in order to provide American Black people with the same ability to receive as they labored by giving alongside American white people. That's yet another false accusation you just made up about me because you automatically assume it about your outgroup whom you viciously stereotype because you are phenomenally prejudiced. I didn't say a bloody word about what's fair or unfair. Go ahead, search my post long and hard, and see if you can find anything whatsoever that's a moral claim.

No, I did not "blame the problem on Black people for not giving enough". Quote me, libelist. Pointing out that a person is poor because nobody's paying him because he isn't working because he has no hands would not qualify as "blaming the problem on disabled people for not giving enough."

And finally, the only thing I implied one way or the other about what does or doesn't need to happen, in order to increase American Black people's ability to receive, was "Whatever it is that needs to happen, it isn't Communism."

 

[laughing dog]

The fact that CRT implies we should adopt Communism is independent of the wrongs that were done to black people.

Show your work. Otherwise that appears to be delusional.

 

[Bomb#20]

I.e., the policy of allowing parents to help out their children is "systemic racism".

I.e., the policy of allowing people to lend for good investments but not poor investments is "systemic racism".

I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism.

That is fun, I can see why you do it.

What say we make Jarhyn answer this one for me?

You are conflating "racism," in this use (apparently, Racism: the bias to favor those who bear similar variances and lacks of variance to the first party) with "(systemic) racism" as per CRT...

Problems like having poor parents, or not being able to afford a home except in a neighborhood where home prices aren't going up, are problems for poor people whether they're white, black or Vulcan, that can persist across generations. Nobody created those problems in order to hold The Black Man down. CRT theorists know this perfectly well; when somebody reacts to CRT with "You're saying all white people are racists", they'll happily take cover against the charge by explaining the distinction between "systemic racism" and "racism".

And yet, the CRT theorists deliberately chose to name the phenomenon "systemic racism" instead of "systemic classism" or "systemic socioeconomic inertia" or "systemic obstacles to upward mobility". And sure enough, we see the foreseeable result: some non-initiates' reaction is "You're saying all white people are racists", while other non-initiates' reaction is "I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism." Of course, it does no good for the CRT agenda when some people get their backs up and think they're being unfairly maligned as racists. So CRT theorists can't have chosen the phrase in order to get that reaction; and they're eager to correct that misunderstanding among their foes. But on the other hand, it's good for the CRT agenda when their friends make that same conflation and consequently equate opposition to CRT with "justifying racism"; and we don't see CRT advocates jumping at the chance to correct their friends. Funny how that works out...

CRT calls socioeconomic inertia "systemic racism" because CRT is a con. Laughing dog is the mark.

 

[laughing dog]

I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism.

That is fun, I can see why you do it.

What say we make Jarhyn answer this one for me?

You are conflating "racism," in this use (apparently, Racism: the bias to favor those who bear similar variances and lacks of variance to the first party) with "(systemic) racism" as per CRT...

Problems like having poor parents, or not being able to afford a home except in a neighborhood where home prices aren't going up, are problems for poor people whether they're white, black or Vulcan, that can persist across generations. Nobody created those problems in order to hold The Black Man down. CRT theorists know this perfectly well; when somebody reacts to CRT with "You're saying all white people are racists", they'll happily take cover against the charge by explaining the distinction between "systemic racism" and "racism".

And yet, the CRT theorists deliberately chose to name the phenomenon "systemic racism" instead of "systemic classism" or "systemic socioeconomic inertia" or "systemic obstacles to upward mobility". And sure enough, we see the foreseeable result: some non-initiates' reaction is "You're saying all white people are racists", while other non-initiates' reaction is "I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism." Of course, it does no good for the CRT agenda when some people get their backs up and think they're being unfairly maligned as racists. So CRT theorists can't have chosen the phrase in order to get that reaction; and they're eager to correct that misunderstanding among their foes. But on the other hand, it's good for the CRT agenda when their friends make that same conflation and consequently equate opposition to CRT with "justifying racism"; and we don't see CRT advocates jumping at the chance to correct their friends. Funny how that works out...

CRT calls socioeconomic inertia "systemic racism" because CRT is a con. Laughing dog is the mark.

As intelligent people understand, racism need not be intentional. So using your standards, our claim about "Nobody created those problems in order to hold The Black Man down." is just another example of you making up something to justify racism.

My point, which you clearly missed, is that anyone can summarize anything to make it look false or stupid.

I will give you credit that you refer to CRT theorists not CRT. As we all know, whether or not any tool (which theory is) is useful depends on the user. CRT in the right hands may yield valuable insights. In the wrong hands, it yields reactionary claptrap that is prevalent in this thread.

BTW, thanks for ad hom - it truly reveals the depth of your adherence to civility.

 

[Bomb#20]

The fact that CRT implies we should adopt Communism is independent of the wrongs that were done to black people.

Show your work. Otherwise that appears to be delusional.

No problemo. Here's the CRT definition of "[Systemic] racism" as phrased by Jarhyn:

the tacit result of apathy and ignorance that comes from a lack of consideration for the effects of policy on minority groups which causes retention/concentration of disparity.​

Nothing in there about the wrongs that were done to black people.

Imagine a scenario from an alternate history, in which large numbers of impoverished immigrants came to the U.S. in steerage in the 1890s, just like my own ancestors, only from an ethnic group from Boozovia that had the cultural practice of being drunk much of the time. Consequently, while some poor ethnic groups found social mobility and gradually made their way up the American Dream and worked nights to send their kids to college so they could break out into the middle class, the Boozovians trained their kids to drink heavily and stayed poor generation after generation because they kept going to work drunk, screwing up, and getting fired.

Fast forward to 2021. A Boozovian-American teetotaler is poor, and he can't escape the consequences of poverty because, unlike Jarhyn, his parents are too poor to lend him the money he needs. And when he tries to buy a house with 1% down, the banker won't give him a mortgage, because he's trying to buying into a poor neighborhood where home prices aren't going up, so the banker tells him he has to put 20% down so the banker won't find himself with a defaulting underwater mortgage on his hands. And the banker, and Jarhyn's parents, who won't lend him the money he needs, are making that decision without consideration for the effects of their respective lending policies on the Boozovian minority group which causes retention/concentration of disparity. So the Boozovian's difficulty getting into the middle class is a result of "systemic racism", as defined by CRT. The definition fits to a T.

CRTists call it "systemic racism" for the purpose of moral opprobrium -- they're trying to get people to think of socioeconomic inertia as a form of racism because racism is bad and they want people to judge socioeconomic inertia using guilt-by-association. CRT is implying America should remove socioeconomic inertia for the sake of not being systemically racist against Boozovians; and the only economic system that can avoid socioeconomic inertia is Communism.

Note that nowhere in this scenario did any American of any other ethnicity commit any historic wrong against the Boozovian people. The fact that CRT implies we should adopt Communism is independent of the wrongs that were done to minority groups.

 

[laughing dog]

The fact that CRT implies we should adopt Communism is independent of the wrongs that were done to black people.

Show your work. Otherwise that appears to be delusional.

No problemo. Here's the CRT definition of "[Systemic] racism" as phrased by Jarhyn:

the tacit result of apathy and ignorance that comes from a lack of consideration for the effects of policy on minority groups which causes retention/concentration of disparity.​

Nothing in there about the wrongs that were done to black people.

Imagine a scenario from an alternate history, in which large numbers of impoverished immigrants came to the U.S. in steerage in the 1890s, just like my own ancestors, only from an ethnic group from Boozovia that had the cultural practice of being drunk much of the time. Consequently, while some poor ethnic groups found social mobility and gradually made their way up the American Dream and worked nights to send their kids to college so they could break out into the middle class, the Boozovians trained their kids to drink heavily and stayed poor generation after generation because they kept going to work drunk, screwing up, and getting fired.

Fast forward to 2021. A Boozovian-American teetotaler is poor, and he can't escape the consequences of poverty because, unlike Jarhyn, his parents are too poor to lend him the money he needs. And when he tries to buy a house with 1% down, the banker won't give him a mortgage, because he's trying to buying into a poor neighborhood where home prices aren't going up, so the banker tells him he has to put 20% down so the banker won't find himself with a defaulting underwater mortgage on his hands. And the banker, and Jarhyn's parents, who won't lend him the money he needs, are making that decision without consideration for the effects of their respective lending policies on the Boozovian minority group which causes retention/concentration of disparity. So the Boozovian's difficulty getting into the middle class is a result of "systemic racism", as defined by CRT. The definition fits to a T.

CRTists call it "systemic racism" for the purpose of moral opprobrium -- they're trying to get people to think of socioeconomic inertia as a form of racism because racism is bad and they want people to judge socioeconomic inertia using guilt-by-association. CRT is implying America should remove socioeconomic inertia for the sake of not being systemically racist against Boozovians; and the only economic system that can avoid socioeconomic inertia is Communism.

Sorry, not only does the bold-faced conclusion not follow, the bold-faced conclusion is false.

You need to show your work why Communishm is the only economic system can avoid socioeconomic inertia.

 

[Bomb#20]

BTW, thanks for ad hom - it truly reveals the depth of your adherence to civility.

I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism.

That is fun, I can see why you do it.

I accused you of having been duped. You accused me of racism. You are in no position to lecture others about ad homs and civility.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, thanks for ad hom - it truly reveals the depth of your adherence to civility.

I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism.

That is fun, I can see why you do it.

I accused you of having been duped. You accused me of racism.

I did no such thing. I see you are back to libelling people. I made the point that your summaries justify racism. Whether or not you intended them to do that or that you are just a dupe or naive or correct is another question.

You are in no position to lecture others about ad homs and civility.

Of course I am. Anyone is in position to comment about anything here. Really, what a stupid claim to make.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, you are a serial libelist. You and I have been through this enough times you should have learned by now not to invent positions out of whole cloth and impute them to your opponents.

You can stop the cheesy ad hominem attacks. My questions are genuine and you trying to poison my contributions is not germane to the discussion.

I’ll read the rest of your post later, but needed to speak up about the gratuitous insults. I am speaking as a fellow poster,, not a mod. Just step away from the deliberate poison.

Just because your post is not clear, does not mean someone else is lying about it.