What, exactly, is CRT?

[Rhea]

Now speaking as a mod - I notice additional cases of this as I post. So message to all:

The TOU promotes meaningful discussion. The things that are against the TOU are things that inhibit meaningful discussion.
Ad hominem attacks are against the TOU because they degrade the exchange of ideas and turn this forum into an attack zone.

An ad hominem is a post that attacks the person themself and their character or background or some other personal trait or experience. It is against the TOU. Violators get reported, the reports get discussed, violations result in infractions that limit your access to the forum.

Address the argument, not the person’s character.

 

[laughing dog]

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

I did no such thing. I wrote "I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism." as an application of your method of creating a disingenuous summary to bolster a conclusion. You could be duped into justifying racism.

As usual, you misssed the point and jumped to libelling someone.

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

That is nonsensical. Anyone here is in position to lecture anyone else.
Of course, two sentences does not make lecture make.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The EEOC processses complaints about EEO - they do not go hunting for it. Moreover, the EEOC does more than hunt for discrimination. - theyprovide to prevent discrimination as well.

There will always be complaints whether they are justified or not.

Someone has to process them. The point is the EEOC does not hunt for them.

The fewer the number of cases the smaller the funding and some of them end up unemployed.

Bureaucracies always end up protecting themselves first.

 

[laughing dog]

Someone has to process them. The point is the EEOC does not hunt for them.

The fewer the number of cases the smaller the funding and some of them end up unemployed.

Bureaucracies always end up protecting themselves first.

You stlll have not produced an iota of evidence to support your claim that EEOC hunts discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I was objecting more on a technicality.

Black-skinned homo sapiens have existed for longer than white-skinned homo sapiens. He was wrong in saying they have been around for the same length of time.

 

[laughing dog]

Someone has to process them. The point is the EEOC does not hunt for them.

The fewer the number of cases the smaller the funding and some of them end up unemployed.

You still have not produced an iota of evidence that the EEOC hunts discrimination.

Bureaucracies always end up protecting themselves first.

Even if they do (an empirical question), that does not mean they are successful. Here is a list of federal agencies that are defunct -  Category:Defunct_agencies_of_the_United_States_government.

 

[Rhea]

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.

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".

“Some injury by some scoundrel”?

That does not cover what I wrote. That the whole contract of giving and receiving was broken.

The black soldiers who went to war but did not get the same pay, or the same access to the GI bill. Systemically. Deliberately.
The Black Americans who did not get equal access to justice and were put in prisons. Both early in the century and by different mechanisms later in the century. Systemically. Deliberately.
The Black Americans who were redlined, systemically, deliberately, out of neighborhoods where the values of their houses would increase.
The Black Americans who face job discrimination. Systemically. Deliberately.

You know these things. I know you know them. This is not “some injury by some scoundrel,” and by skipping over that known breach of the socio-economic contract you do indeed ignore this systemic part and minimize the amount of giving, making your communist remarks absurd.

Treating people of the same race as if they were interchangeable parts is racist.

I am not doing that. But I am recognizing that systemic harms against Americans who are Black exists in large enough percentages that trying to cop out of any fix at all because it’s 99.99999999% and not 100% is a lack of justice.

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).

That is true. Systemic racism was not germane to your point that ignored systemic racism to say we don’t have to deal with systemic racism. Or indeed to mock it.

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

Yeah, that. CRT does not imply that communism is needed. This is my whole point. That the history shows it is in fact not needed, all that is needed is righting the wrongs. Genuine, well documented, systemic, deliberate wrongs.

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.

You said

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.

And you expect us to think that you consider the latter “fair” and not the former? Come now, let us not pretend things not in evidence. We have posted together too long.

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."

I daresay this seems like the exact opposite of what you did say quoted above. I’ll post it again, in context, below. You appear to be exactly saying that communism is the only logical outcome of achieving economic parity.

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.

You then follow this with, essentially, “but why would we expect that to work?” Which further demonstrates that no, you don’t think it is fair to create parity. Which is what I said above.

So your words appear to convey:
- there was no systemc problem
- fixing it would require give aways to people who don’t deserve it
- and those fixes wouldn’t work (because a level playing field won’t help them due to their lack of abilities, is perhaps implied in the communist statement?)

 

[Bomb#20]

I was objecting more on a technicality.

Black-skinned homo sapiens have existed for longer than white-skinned homo sapiens. He was wrong in saying they have been around for the same length of time.

But I don't see where Politesse is supposed to have said that. He said "Nonsense. We're all one species, which has existed for the same amount of time wherever you are in the world." That's perfectly true, whether or not black-skinned homo sapiens have existed for longer than white-skinned homo sapiens. What he was calling "Nonsense" was Jarhyn's dubious speculation about past selection pressures, not a claim about which skin color was older.

 

[Bomb#20]

...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.

Um, I already made an argument to that effect back in post #465. You've every right to be unconvinced, but "the bold-faced conclusion is false" is not a counterargument. And I'm making a negative claim: a "There is no teapot orbiting Jupiter" sort of claim; you're the one making the positive claim.

To say "the bold-faced conclusion is false" amounts to an assertion that there exists a non-communist economic system that can avoid socioeconomic inertia. Will you please tell us which system it is?

 

[Bomb#20]

You can stop the cheesy ad hominem attacks.

You had every opportunity to not start them.

My questions are genuine

Could you please point out where, in post #471, you asked a question?

and you trying to poison my contributions is not germane to the discussion.

My pointing out that your "contributions" were poisonous does not qualify as "trying to poison" them. I am the injured party here, not you.

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.

Speaking as a fellow poster, can you explain why "you disdain as unfair" and "you think it is unfair" and "you blame the problem on Black people" qualify as claims about my argument and are not claims about me personally?

What you wrote in post #471 was completely out of line.

Just because your post is not clear,

But my post was clear. Even where you made claims about my argument instead of about me personally, the claims you made had no basis in fact. For example, "Indeed, you imply that there is no wrong to be righted." That never happened. It was a figment of your imagination.

does not mean someone else is lying about it.

I didn't say you were lying about it. I said you libeled me. That's what happens when you elect not to fact-check what you write about other people before you click "Submit Reply". You made false damaging claims about me with reckless disregard for the truth. The circumstance that for no substantive reason you believed your own nonsense means you weren't lying, but it doesn't mean it wasn't libelous.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

I did no such thing. I wrote "I.E. It is possible to phrase an issue to justify racism." as an application of your method of creating a disingenuous summary to bolster a conclusion. You could be duped into justifying racism.

You left out the part where you said "That is fun, I can see why you do it." That's a claim I do it for fun, not a claim I was duped into it. And you're still conflating "racism" with "systemic racism", which CRT theorists keep telling us are not the same thing while counting on people like you to conflate them. And there was nothing disingenuous about my method. I simply took CRT claims to be what Jarhyn said they are, and applied logic to discover their implications. That doesn't justify racism.

It doesn't even justify "systemic racism". The sorts of non-racist activities that CRT mislabels "systemic racism" being justifiable is one possibility, but another possibility is that CRT theorists were simply talking complete bosh when they constructed their ideology-laden jargon's definition of "systemic racism". It is entirely plausible that somebody else -- somebody who's a more competent sociologist than the folks who came up with CRT -- could figure out a criterion for the activities they want to classify as "systemic racism" without generating the same problematic implications that CRT has.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Someone has to process them. The point is the EEOC does not hunt for them.

The fewer the number of cases the smaller the funding and some of them end up unemployed.

Bureaucracies always end up protecting themselves first.

You stlll have not produced an iota of evidence to support your claim that EEOC hunts discrimination.

How about addressing the point?

Investigating claims is a form of hunting. They're just hunters very reliant on guides.

 

[KeepTalking]

You stlll have not produced an iota of evidence to support your claim that EEOC hunts discrimination.

How about addressing the point?

Investigating claims is a form of hunting. They're just hunters very reliant on guides.

What point would that be? That employees of the EEOC are cynically propping up CRT in order to keep their jobs? That's an absurd point that isn't really worth addressing without evidence that it in any way comports with reality.

 

[laughing dog]

You stlll have not produced an iota of evidence to support your claim that EEOC hunts discrimination.

How about addressing the point?

Investigating claims is a form of hunting. They're just hunters very reliant on guides.

. Investigating a complaint is not a form of “hunting”. If you have to redefine the meaning of a word to make your case, your case has mo badis.

 

[laughing dog]

...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.

Um, I already made an argument to that effect back in post #465. You've every right to be unconvinced, but "the bold-faced conclusion is false" is not a counterargument. And I'm making a negative claim: a "There is no teapot orbiting Jupiter" sort of claim; you're the one making the positive claim.

That is ridiculous. You made a positive claim about Communism.

To say "the bold-faced conclusion is false" amounts to an assertion that there exists a non-communist economic system that can avoid socioeconomic inertia. [

No, it is an assertion that Communism will not achieve what you claim.

 

[Bomb#20]

“Some injury by some scoundrel”?

That does not cover what I wrote. That the whole contract of giving and receiving was broken.

Isn't that an injury? And the people who broke the contract -- weren't they scoundrels?

The black soldiers who went to war but did not get the same pay, or the same access to the GI bill. Systemically. Deliberately.
The Black Americans who did not get equal access to justice and were put in prisons. Both early in the century and by different mechanisms later in the century. Systemically. Deliberately.
The Black Americans who were redlined, systemically, deliberately, out of neighborhoods where the values of their houses would increase.
The Black Americans who face job discrimination. Systemically. Deliberately.

Looks to me like a lot of injuries by a lot of scoundrels.

You know these things. I know you know them. This is not “some injury by some scoundrel,” and by skipping over that known breach of the socio-economic contract you do indeed ignore this systemic part and minimize the amount of giving, making your communist remarks absurd.

Your feeling that injuries by scoundrels are not adequately covered by my phrase "some injury by some scoundrel" does not qualify as evidence I skipped over or ignored them. Feel free to critique my literary style any time you can manage to stick to the truth while you do it.

Treating people of the same race as if they were interchangeable parts is racist.

I am not doing that.

No? Feel free then to explain how you managed to make the leap from the individualized and future-focused "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." to the collectivized and past-focused "Your whole analysis assumes that black people have always taken and never given", if you weren't treating people of the same race as if they were interchangeable parts.

But I am recognizing that systemic harms against Americans who are Black exists in large enough percentages that trying to cop out of any fix at all because it’s 99.99999999% and not 100% is a lack of justice.

I didn't try to cop out of any fix at all. You have zero basis in anything I wrote to insinuate that I did. What I tried to do -- and what I did -- is prove CRT is a load of codswallop. You know, the actual topic of the bloody thread! Feel free to think up and post about a non-CRT-based plan for fixing systemic harms against Americans who are Black.

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).

That is true. Systemic racism was not germane to your point that ignored systemic racism to say we don’t have to deal with systemic racism. Or indeed to mock it.

I didn't say we don't have to deal with systemic racism. I pointed out a logical problem with CRT's definition of "systemic racism". Feel free to post your own criterion for whether something is systemic racism.

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

Yeah, that. CRT does not imply that communism is needed. This is my whole point.

No, that is not your whole point. You are misremembering what you wrote, same as when you said "My questions are genuine" about a post that contained no questions. I'm not going to let you get away with historical revisionism. If your whole point were that CRT does not imply that communism is needed then you would have explained why it doesn't imply that without peppering your post with ad hominems about what I think and what I disdain and who I blame.

That the history shows it is in fact not needed, all that is needed is righting the wrongs. Genuine, well documented, systemic, deliberate wrongs.

You and I and history can agree that it is in fact not needed; but what the bejesus do you imagine that has to do with whether CRT implies it is needed? CRT's implications take no heed of our opinions. It's perfectly okay to try to right those systemic, deliberate wrongs while simultaneously recognizing that CRT is cargo-cult science.

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.

You said

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.

And you expect us to think that you consider the latter “fair” and not the former? Come now, let us not pretend things not in evidence. We have posted together too long.

Oh for the love of god! A blatantly out-of-context quote? Seriously? That's your basis for trumping up charges against me? Here's what I wrote, in context:

[beginning of argument]
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.
<long argument snipped>
[conclusion of argument]
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.

As Judge Judy says, "Put on your listening ears." I was obviously describing what CRT implies. I wasn't giving you my own policy preference! Duh!

In case you don't recognize the phrasing, it wasn't me who called "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work" a "conservative motto" that society should get rid of. It was Karl Marx.

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."

I daresay this seems like the exact opposite of what you did say quoted above.

Duh! So why the heck didn't you take note of that, and go back and look again at what I "did say quoted above" and observe that it had been immediately preceded by a "CRT implies that...". Why the bejesus are you hectoring me as though I'm the one who isn't in favor of a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?!?

I’ll post it again, in context, below. You appear to be exactly saying that communism is the only logical outcome of achieving economic parity.

That's your reading comprehension problem, not a problem with anything I wrote. I am saying -- and I appear to be saying -- that communism is the only logical outcome of CRT!!! If in your own mind you equate "achieving economic parity" with "CRT is correct", that's baggage you brought to the table yourself. For you to impute your own premise to me, and jump to the conclusion that I'm saying communism is the only logical outcome of achieving economic parity, well, people imputing their own premises to others is a thing that inhibits meaningful discussion.

What map, then, can CRT possibly provide for breaking out of that vicious circle? ...

You then follow this with, essentially, “but why would we expect that to work?”

Yes, exactly.

Which further demonstrates that no, you don’t think it is fair to create parity.

How on earth do you get these non sequiturs? In the first place, "create parity" and "Follow a map provided by CRT" are not synonyms. Duh! My words that you quote further demonstrate that I think if you want to create parity you need to go find a better map, because the one from CRT is birdcage paper.

And in the second place, how the heck do you make the astronomical conceptual leap from "but why would we expect that to work?" to "you don’t think it is fair"? What, do you decide which ideas you think would work by consulting your inner sense of fairness?

Which is what I said above.

So your words appear to convey:
- there was no systemc problem
- fixing it would require give aways to people who don’t deserve it
- and those fixes wouldn’t work

No, my words don't appear to convey any of that. I expressly stipulated the systemic problem. Which part of "But it's hard to improve your ability to do services for others without first receiving services from others." don't you understand? Which part of "that vicious circle" don't you understand? I said nothing whatsoever about who deserves what; CRT leaves deservingness out, so my analysis of CRT leaves it out. And it isn't fixes in general to the systemic problem that I said wouldn't work; it's the specific fix CRT implies is necessary that I said wouldn't work. Your misinterpretation is due to your preconceptions, not to the words that appeared before your eyes. So quit making believe I'm attacking your whole goal of social justice, and just read my words for what they actually say. I'm attacking CRT, full stop.

 

[Jarhyn]

Um, I already made an argument to that effect back in post #465. You've every right to be unconvinced, but "the bold-faced conclusion is false" is not a counterargument. And I'm making a negative claim: a "There is no teapot orbiting Jupiter" sort of claim; you're the one making the positive claim.

That is ridiculous. You made a positive claim about Communism.

To say "the bold-faced conclusion is false" amounts to an assertion that there exists a non-communist economic system that can avoid socioeconomic inertia. [

No, it is an assertion that Communism will not achieve what you claim.

Not to mention that he's reversing the burden of proof with an appeal to incredulity.

He made a positive claim that would be very hard to support if he ever wishes to actually support it. My prediction? He won't.

 

[Elixir]

Some human has to decide who gets what, in any tax-supported system.
That person, whether communist, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, progressive Democrat or far right Republican, will tend to try to enrich themselves when the opportunity presents itself.

Term limits are a good mitigation measure on paper. But it gives us the revolving door phenomenon, which enables perpetuation of personal power at public expense.

I hope y’all can figure it out some day, but it won’t be in my lifetime afaics. Things that require complete overhauls of human nature can take centuries. And reversion to prior states can happen in an instant.

 

[Rhea]

I am saying -- and I appear to be saying -- that communism is the only logical outcome of CRT!!!

I understand that. I have been arguing that it is a position that holds many flaws and unjust implications.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some human has to decide who gets what, in any tax-supported system.
That person, whether communist, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, progressive Democrat or far right Republican, will tend to try to enrich themselves when the opportunity presents itself.

Term limits are a good mitigation measure on paper. But it gives us the revolving door phenomenon, which enables perpetuation of personal power at public expense.

I hope y’all can figure it out some day, but it won’t be in my lifetime afaics. Things that require complete overhauls of human nature can take centuries. And reversion to prior states can happen in an instant.

So, recently, someone else in my life brought up the idea of public-office-as-sacrifice pathway. I was shocked that I wasn't the one who brought up the subject for once.

The fact is, the easiest way to prevent abuse of public office is to make the people who seek it accept audit and oversight and make the offices they hold a limit to their income.