What, exactly, is CRT?

[Bomb#20]

... Attempts to create Soviet Man notwithstanding, however, human psychology isn't going away -- and it's only communism that has a plan for preventing human psychology from converting one-day-at-a-time socioeconomic inertia into intergenerational socioeconomic inertia.

There is no plan under communism, there is the handwaved expectation that human psychology will magically morph into a more hospitable ground for communism.

I see what I wrote was unclear; my bad. The communist plan I was referring to is not a plan to change human psychology but a plan to eliminate the opportunity. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the plan. When money, wage labor and private property are abolished, there will be no one-day-at-a-time socioeconomic inertia for human psychology to convert into intergenerational socioeconomic inertia: what others received from you yesterday has no bearing on what you need, so it has no bearing on what resources come to you today.

(ETA: Thanks for coming to my defense, Politesse, but there's no need -- my clumsy wording was asking for it.)

 

[laughing dog]

There is no plan under communism, there is the handwaved expectation that human psychology will magically morph into a more hospitable ground for communism.

I have found that answering a thoughtful detailed post with shallow dismissal connoting nothing of value gives the strong impression that you never knew what you were talking about in the first place.

As your post illustrates, you found wrong.

 

[Emily Lake]

Tell that to the black jogger's family after he was murdered and the system tried to cover it up.

Arbery's murder wasn't the result of systemic racism. It was the result of actual individual racism. The cover-up is a result of actual idnividual racism and favoritism in a "good ol' boy network".

There isn't anything inherent in the structure of the law that resulted in the cover-up. The cover-up was illegal.

The "good ol' boy" network is a sign of a systemic system.

Favoritism and nepotism aren't an inherent part of the system though. In fact, we generally view favoritism that grants undue advantage to people on the basis of familiarity rather than merit or skill to be anathema to our systems - it's something we seek to avoid, and regularly call out as inappropriate in many cases, including Arbery's case.

Even if somehow you could argue that favoritism is a systemic part of the justice system, that still wouldn't make it systemic racism.

 

[ZiprHead]

The "good ol' boy" network is a sign of a systemic system.

Favoritism and nepotism aren't an inherent part of the system though. In fact, we generally view favoritism that grants undue advantage to people on the basis of familiarity rather than merit or skill to be anathema to our systems - it's something we seek to avoid, and regularly call out as inappropriate in many cases, including Arbery's case.

Even if somehow you could argue that favoritism is a systemic part of the justice system, that still wouldn't make it systemic racism.

If that were true, we wouldn't see it over and over and over again in our nation's police departments and prosecutor's offices.

 

[laughing dog]

... Attempts to create Soviet Man notwithstanding, however, human psychology isn't going away -- and it's only communism that has a plan for preventing human psychology from converting one-day-at-a-time socioeconomic inertia into intergenerational socioeconomic inertia.

There is no plan under communism, there is the handwaved expectation that human psychology will magically morph into a more hospitable ground for communism.

I see what I wrote was unclear; my bad. The communist plan I was referring to is not a plan to change human psychology but a plan to eliminate the opportunity. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the plan. When money, wage labor and private property are abolished, there will be no one-day-at-a-time socioeconomic inertia for human psychology to convert into intergenerational socioeconomic inertia: what others received from you yesterday has no bearing on what you need, so it has no bearing on what resources come to you today.

(ETA: Thanks for coming to my defense, Politesse, but there's no need -- my clumsy wording was asking for it.)

I guess my understanding of communism is different. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is the expected natural outgrowth from the unexplained evolution in human psychology. For that goal to be achievable, human psychology has to fundamentally change. And it must change so that people are not envious or jealous. And, in order for the day to day socioeconomic inertia to disappear, there must be no need for trading of any kind - and trade appears to a fundamental human trait.

So, all in all, I do not think any ism can inherently eliminate what you call socioeconomic inertia.

 

[laughing dog]

The "good ol' boy" network is a sign of a systemic system.

Favoritism and nepotism aren't an inherent part of the system though. In fact, we generally view favoritism that grants undue advantage to people on the basis of familiarity rather than merit or skill to be anathema to our systems - it's something we seek to avoid, and regularly call out as inappropriate in many cases, including Arbery's case.

Even if somehow you could argue that favoritism is a systemic part of the justice system, that still wouldn't make it systemic racism.

It does when the favoritism is also based on race.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I'm saying that their jobs depend on the "existence" of discrimination. You don't trust an organization to determine that it is now not needed.

I don't believe they are propping up CRT--that's a symptom, not a cause.

 

[Gospel]

The system having been used to illegally cover it up makes it a system problem.

The system wasn't used to cover it up.

Just the opposite. Extremely illegal means, way outside the system, were used to cover it up.

Once this legal breach became generally known all hell broke loose. As it should be. A government official deliberately broached the system for personal reasons. Off with her head! But it was just the opposite of systemic, it was anti-systemic, if that's a word.
Tom

It went from

Brunswick District Attorney Jackie L. Johnson (recused because one of the perps worked for that office)

to

Waycross District Attorney George Barnhill - who said there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone for killing Arbery. (The same evidence that's available today btw).

Then after the above Attorney was thrown in the trash bin because a family member worked for the Brunswick District Attorney

District Attorney Tom Durden of the Atlantic Judicial Circuit took over and recommends the case be sent to a grand jury

Mind you, with all the movement through the system no one has decided to charge anyone yet. Then finally after 3 months have passed and with strong media attention, the system relents and does its fucking job. You are a god damn fool if you think this is an isolated case and that this sort of shit only happened once.

 

[Jarhyn]

The system having been used to illegally cover it up makes it a system problem.

The system wasn't used to cover it up.

Just the opposite. Extremely illegal means, way outside the system, were used to cover it up.

Once this legal breach became generally known all hell broke loose. As it should be. A government official deliberately broached the system for personal reasons. Off with her head! But it was just the opposite of systemic, it was anti-systemic, if that's a word.
Tom

It went from

Brunswick District Attorney Jackie L. Johnson (recused because one of the perps worked for that office)

to

Waycross District Attorney George Barnhill - who said there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone for killing Arbery. (The same evidence that's available today btw).

Then after the above Attorney was thrown in the trash bin because a family member worked for the Brunswick District Attorney

District Attorney Tom Durden of the Atlantic Judicial Circuit took over and recommends the case be sent to a grand jury

Mind you, with all the movement through the system no one has decided to charge anyone yet. Then finally after 3 months have passed and with strong media attention, the system relents and does its fucking job. You are a god damn fool if you think this is an isolated case and that this sort of shit only happened once.

Yeah, this reeks of SOP

 

[ZiprHead]

It went from

Brunswick District Attorney Jackie L. Johnson (recused because one of the perps worked for that office)

to

Waycross District Attorney George Barnhill - who said there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone for killing Arbery. (The same evidence that's available today btw).

Then after the above Attorney was thrown in the trash bin because a family member worked for the Brunswick District Attorney

District Attorney Tom Durden of the Atlantic Judicial Circuit took over and recommends the case be sent to a grand jury

Mind you, with all the movement through the system no one has decided to charge anyone yet. Then finally after 3 months have passed and with strong media attention, the system relents and does its fucking job. You are a god damn fool if you think this is an isolated case and that this sort of shit only happened once.

Yeah, this reeks of SOP

Yup, it doesn't need to be mandated in law for it to be systemic, as some here seem to think.

 

[Bomb#20]

I guess my understanding of communism is different. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is the expected natural outgrowth from the unexplained evolution in human psychology. For that goal to be achievable, human psychology has to fundamentally change.

That's a fair point; but my understanding of communism is that communist authorities typically have no compunctions about applying force to achieve their objectives when what they want to happen doesn't happen spontaneously. I was presuming "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" would be instituted when the Politburo decided it was time.

And, in order for the day to day socioeconomic inertia to disappear, there must be no need for trading of any kind - and trade appears to a fundamental human trait.

True; but lots of fundamental human traits have been suppressed by force at one time or another. It seems to me trade would be pretty effectively squelched if whenever two citizens felt motivated to swap two items that had been allotted to them, they were discouraged by the knowledge that if the authorities ever found out they'd quite logically infer that neither citizen actually needed the item he gave up, and confiscate both items. The authorities would no doubt be hoping there'd be enough cultist-like true believers in Communism to voluntarily turn in all the counterrevolutionary backsliders trying to secretly trade with one another, and would no doubt design their "education system" to try to instill that trait; but if that approach failed they'd happily settle for intimidating a couple percent of the population into becoming Stasi informants. Then even if people thought they could trade and not be observed, each would-be trader would know there was a serious risk the other was a police agent.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, my god,

I am laughing hard enough to puke.

 

[TomC]

Oh, my god,
View attachment 35379
I am laughing hard enough to puke.

I'm also laughing.
But I've gotta ask.

What grade level does she teach? There's an important difference between 5th graders wanting answers and college sophomores asking the same questions.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Oh, my god,
View attachment 35379
I am laughing hard enough to puke.

I'm also laughing.
But I've gotta ask.

What grade level does she teach? There's an important difference between 5th graders wanting answers and college sophomores asking the same questions.
Tom

I imagine they're all asking now. That's what a media blitz will do to ya.

 

[Rhea]

I'm also laughing.
But I've gotta ask.

What grade level does she teach? There's an important difference between 5th graders wanting answers and college sophomores asking the same questions.
Tom

Does it matter? If the students ask, should she not answer their questions? If our culture has raised their awareness on this by effectively book-burning it, however old they are to want answers, that’s how old they are.

 

[Politesse]

I also don't think it's unreasonable for a fifth grader to want to know what the major political questions of their day are about, no matter what those issues happen to be. That's exactly when they should start taking an interest. Are you seriously saying we should wait to start civic education until a year after students are eligible to vote, TomC?

 

[TomC]

I'm also laughing.
But I've gotta ask.

What grade level does she teach? There's an important difference between 5th graders wanting answers and college sophomores asking the same questions.
Tom

Does it matter? If the students ask, should she not answer their questions? If our culture has raised their awareness on this by effectively book-burning it, however old they are to want answers, that’s how old they are.

Yes, actually, it does matter.

Young people being shaped by their authority figures are very different from older, less malleable, people.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I also don't think it's unreasonable for a fifth grader to want to know what the major political questions of their day are about, no matter what those issues happen to be. That's exactly when they should start taking an interest. Are you seriously saying we should wait to start civic education until a year after students are eligible to vote, TomC?

I said no such thing, I don't believe any of that, but I do understand you just a little bit better.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

I'm also laughing.
But I've gotta ask.

What grade level does she teach? There's an important difference between 5th graders wanting answers and college sophomores asking the same questions.
Tom

Does it matter? If the students ask, should she not answer their questions? If our culture has raised their awareness on this by effectively book-burning it, however old they are to want answers, that’s how old they are.

This is a good point. If a student asks about God, shouldn’t the student be told how Jesus was sacrificed so that we may be saved from sin?

 

[Politesse]

I also don't think it's unreasonable for a fifth grader to want to know what the major political questions of their day are about, no matter what those issues happen to be. That's exactly when they should start taking an interest. Are you seriously saying we should wait to start civic education until a year after students are eligible to vote, TomC?

I said no such thing, I don't believe any of that, but I do understand you just a little bit better.
Tom

College sophomores were your only provided example of where the education bar should be set; if you think otherwise, clarify your position rather than attacking me personally, please. At what age should the major political issues of the day be explained to students and their curiosity encouraged? For that matter, what do you think a fifth grade teacher should say when asked questions about CRT. "Ask again three years from now and we'll consider telling you"?