What, exactly, is CRT?

[Bomb#20]

Doesn't "Ethnic Studies" mean the study of Non-White people?

The tune don't have to be clever
And it don't matter if you put a couple extra syllables into a line
It sounds more ethnic if it ain't good English
And it don't even gotta rhyme... excuse me: rhyne!

- The Folk Song Army​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there is a difference between CRT and Ethnic Studies, what is the difference?

The only thing not different is they are both supported by the left.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Instead of seeing the world from the perspective of the powerful, we see it from another perspective.

But that is a rotten way to try to understand reality. It only works if you assume that the predominant model of reality has no correlation with the actual reality, so you might as well flip it.

The point isn't to show what is true. The point is to become aware, at all, how power dynamics warp our thinking.

We have all been in love, and once the first infatuation falters, we start seeing flaws we were initially blind to. So we all know how power can warp our thinking.

It's the same kind of psychological effect on people who are abused. We warp our thinking around the abuse to make life more bearable. And it's not until we remove ourselves from the abusive relationship we start seeing it clearly.

The point is that we are all aware of this. It's extremely hard to filter it out. Especially subtle effects on a large population.

I'd argue methods like CRT and gender studies methodology are the only way we have found to uncover these. But if we use these methods we will get a lot of noise. We will find oppression that isn't actually there. So we need to combine these methods of analysis with some other philosophical method or sociological framework.

But is that at all a realistic assumption? It obviously isn't. "Perspective of the powerful" is not an arbitrary perspective. It could be accepted by the "powerful" because it proves a better model than the previous one. Even the Catholic Church had to accept the heliocentric model pretty quickly (for the times) because of the evidence for it. It could also be that the powerful become powerful because they have a better model. Having a better understanding how reality works means a competitive advantage. That's why scientific models became dominant and other so-called "ways of knowing" (like making shit up by the campfire) fell by the wayside. Pretending that science is just dominant because it is an arbitrary "perspective of the powerful" and that therefore we might as well reverse it is idiotic. As is stuff like saying that math is racist because there is a right and wrong answer and that the use of math by Western societies is inherently imperialistic but Babylonian Empire using math is not because they were not European or white.

The scientific method was obviously the best way to do things by. We've known that since Imhotep. It still took until David Hume for us to formalize it in any way, because those in power put their noses in it, because they were afraid to lose power.

Those in power are always afraid to lose power. And if they feel threatened they will.

And excellent example is how the European nobility tried to derail the breakup of feudalism. The European nobility still have power and influence. People still think it's impressive to be a count today. People actually give a shit when the queen of England goes and visits some place. The psychological forces we are talking about are not trivial.

But of course, the funny thing is that now the shoe is on the other foot. Today PoMo has actual power in academia and abusing it, just as the Marxist/PoMo theories predicts that it will. Since they risk losing the power they have achieved they are now sacrificing philosophical accuracy for anything that keeps them in power. Which is why the deplatforming and all the vitriolic attacks on anybody who opposes them. Which is a point for PoMo imho. Since it proves their point.

It's only pseudo intellectual in the hands of somebody who doesn't realize what they're doing.

Are there any PoMos who know they are doing though? The whole PoMo enterprise is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Absolutely. I'm on a philosophy mailing list with established professional philosophers. In the real intellectual world, I assure you, people are well aware of this.

The problem isn't those guys. The problem is the uninformed. You know, the guys who make woke posts on Facebook. Just to signal that they're good guys. In the hopes it will help them to get laid.

The problem now is that the success of Marxist analysis has gone overboard. The success of the feminist and civil rights movements have now gone to the heads of some of its defenders and it's too often become stupid. But that's not the problem of the foundational theory. That's a problem of the people using it.

The foundational theory is deeply flawed in that it assumes that all "metanarratives" are just mental masturbation and that narratives should be reversed to benefit the "oppressed". Well, a reversal is what they got! It is the flaw of the "foundational theory".

What do you think philosophy is, if not mental masturbation?

 

[WAB]

The point isn't to show what is true. The point is to become aware, at all, how power dynamics warp our thinking.

We have all been in love, and once the first infatuation falters, we start seeing flaws we were initially blind to. So we all know how power can warp our thinking.

It's the same kind of psychological effect on people who are abused. We warp our thinking around the abuse to make life more bearable. And it's not until we remove ourselves from the abusive relationship we start seeing it clearly.

The point is that we are all aware of this. It's extremely hard to filter it out. Especially subtle effects on a large population.

I'd argue methods like CRT and gender studies methodology are the only way we have found to uncover these. But if we use these methods we will get a lot of noise. We will find oppression that isn't actually there. So we need to combine these methods of analysis with some other philosophical method or sociological framework.

But is that at all a realistic assumption? It obviously isn't. "Perspective of the powerful" is not an arbitrary perspective. It could be accepted by the "powerful" because it proves a better model than the previous one. Even the Catholic Church had to accept the heliocentric model pretty quickly (for the times) because of the evidence for it. It could also be that the powerful become powerful because they have a better model. Having a better understanding how reality works means a competitive advantage. That's why scientific models became dominant and other so-called "ways of knowing" (like making shit up by the campfire) fell by the wayside. Pretending that science is just dominant because it is an arbitrary "perspective of the powerful" and that therefore we might as well reverse it is idiotic. As is stuff like saying that math is racist because there is a right and wrong answer and that the use of math by Western societies is inherently imperialistic but Babylonian Empire using math is not because they were not European or white.

The scientific method was obviously the best way to do things by. We've known that since Imhotep. It still took until David Hume for us to formalize it in any way, because those in power put their noses in it, because they were afraid to lose power.

Those in power are always afraid to lose power. And if they feel threatened they will.

And excellent example is how the European nobility tried to derail the breakup of feudalism. The European nobility still have power and influence. People still think it's impressive to be a count today. People actually give a shit when the queen of England goes and visits some place. The psychological forces we are talking about are not trivial.

But of course, the funny thing is that now the shoe is on the other foot. Today PoMo has actual power in academia and abusing it, just as the Marxist/PoMo theories predicts that it will. Since they risk losing the power they have achieved they are now sacrificing philosophical accuracy for anything that keeps them in power. Which is why the deplatforming and all the vitriolic attacks on anybody who opposes them. Which is a point for PoMo imho. Since it proves their point.

It's only pseudo intellectual in the hands of somebody who doesn't realize what they're doing.

Are there any PoMos who know they are doing though? The whole PoMo enterprise is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Absolutely. I'm on a philosophy mailing list with established professional philosophers. In the real intellectual world, I assure you, people are well aware of this.

The problem isn't those guys. The problem is the uninformed. You know, the guys who make woke posts on Facebook. Just to signal that they're good guys. In the hopes it will help them to get laid.

The problem now is that the success of Marxist analysis has gone overboard. The success of the feminist and civil rights movements have now gone to the heads of some of its defenders and it's too often become stupid. But that's not the problem of the foundational theory. That's a problem of the people using it.

The foundational theory is deeply flawed in that it assumes that all "metanarratives" are just mental masturbation and that narratives should be reversed to benefit the "oppressed". Well, a reversal is what they got! It is the flaw of the "foundational theory".

What do you think philosophy is, if not mental masturbation?

Interesting question, DrZ.

What do you think philosophy is?

Uh, and please, keep both hands on the keyboard! ( / )

 

[DrZoidberg]

The point isn't to show what is true. The point is to become aware, at all, how power dynamics warp our thinking.

We have all been in love, and once the first infatuation falters, we start seeing flaws we were initially blind to. So we all know how power can warp our thinking.

It's the same kind of psychological effect on people who are abused. We warp our thinking around the abuse to make life more bearable. And it's not until we remove ourselves from the abusive relationship we start seeing it clearly.

The point is that we are all aware of this. It's extremely hard to filter it out. Especially subtle effects on a large population.

I'd argue methods like CRT and gender studies methodology are the only way we have found to uncover these. But if we use these methods we will get a lot of noise. We will find oppression that isn't actually there. So we need to combine these methods of analysis with some other philosophical method or sociological framework.



The scientific method was obviously the best way to do things by. We've known that since Imhotep. It still took until David Hume for us to formalize it in any way, because those in power put their noses in it, because they were afraid to lose power.

Those in power are always afraid to lose power. And if they feel threatened they will.

And excellent example is how the European nobility tried to derail the breakup of feudalism. The European nobility still have power and influence. People still think it's impressive to be a count today. People actually give a shit when the queen of England goes and visits some place. The psychological forces we are talking about are not trivial.

But of course, the funny thing is that now the shoe is on the other foot. Today PoMo has actual power in academia and abusing it, just as the Marxist/PoMo theories predicts that it will. Since they risk losing the power they have achieved they are now sacrificing philosophical accuracy for anything that keeps them in power. Which is why the deplatforming and all the vitriolic attacks on anybody who opposes them. Which is a point for PoMo imho. Since it proves their point.

It's only pseudo intellectual in the hands of somebody who doesn't realize what they're doing.

Are there any PoMos who know they are doing though? The whole PoMo enterprise is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Absolutely. I'm on a philosophy mailing list with established professional philosophers. In the real intellectual world, I assure you, people are well aware of this.

The problem isn't those guys. The problem is the uninformed. You know, the guys who make woke posts on Facebook. Just to signal that they're good guys. In the hopes it will help them to get laid.

The problem now is that the success of Marxist analysis has gone overboard. The success of the feminist and civil rights movements have now gone to the heads of some of its defenders and it's too often become stupid. But that's not the problem of the foundational theory. That's a problem of the people using it.

The foundational theory is deeply flawed in that it assumes that all "metanarratives" are just mental masturbation and that narratives should be reversed to benefit the "oppressed". Well, a reversal is what they got! It is the flaw of the "foundational theory".

What do you think philosophy is, if not mental masturbation?

Interesting question, DrZ.

What do you think philosophy is?

Uh, and please, keep both hands on the keyboard! ( / )

I think it was Whitehead who said "philosophy is asking questions like a child and answering like a lawyer".

Strictly speaking philosophy is any attempt at structured thinking. Every academic subject started out as philosophy and at some point broke off into it's own thing. What we today call philosophy is the leftover stuff. The stuff that's hard to apply and categorize. It's easy to think of it as useless. But that's just because we haven't found a use for it yet. It might happen. It wasn't all that long ago the field of psychology became it's own thing.

It's very nature defies definition because it defines itself. It's the only academic subject that does this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it was Whitehead who said "philosophy is asking questions like a child and answering like a lawyer".

I like. Or maybe, The study of taking one's questions and answers too seriously.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it was Whitehead who said "philosophy is asking questions like a child and answering like a lawyer".

I like. Or maybe, The study of taking one's questions and answers too seriously.

I don't think so. We all live in a world underpinned and motivated by philosophical beliefs. The ONLY reason why anybody listens to Greta Thunberg is because there's a philosophical idea about maintaining a functioning global ecosystem. The ONLY reason anybody thinks we shouldn't listen to Greta Thunberg is because of contradicting philosophical underpinnings.

It's Adam Smith who said in the Wealth of Nations, if you don't know what economic theory you are following, then you are following one that is obsolete. It's the same for philosophy IMHO.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yup, that demonstrates my point very well.

 

[WAB]

All good answers, but I have more to say... anyone surprised? Lol. But not now as I have to get ready for my work as a rocket scientist slash brilliant underappreciated complicated jazz-lounge-metal-chill Satriani-like but not as skillful guitarist slash composer slash unrecognized poet slash philosopher slash peanut gallery numbnuts slash stand up comic wannabe.

 

[Bomb#20]

Every academic subject started out as philosophy and at some point broke off into it's own thing. What we today call philosophy is the leftover stuff. The stuff that's hard to apply and categorize.

^^^^ This ^^^^

I don't think so. We all live in a world underpinned and motivated by philosophical beliefs. The ONLY reason why anybody listens to Greta Thunberg is because there's a philosophical idea about maintaining a functioning global ecosystem. The ONLY reason anybody thinks we shouldn't listen to Greta Thunberg is because of contradicting philosophical underpinnings.

Not so. We shouldn't listen to Greta Thunberg because maintaining a functioning global ecosystem is no longer a philosophical subject. It's one of those subjects that started out as philosophy but by now has broken off into it's own thing. It's a technical problem; it calls for technical solutions; and Greta Thunberg opposes nuclear power, making her part of the problem, not part of the solution. She's still treating maintaining a functioning global ecosystem as a philosophy problem -- much the way CRT theorists are still treating improving the socioeconomic situation of black people as a philosophy problem.

 

[WAB]

Every academic subject started out as philosophy and at some point broke off into it's own thing. What we today call philosophy is the leftover stuff. The stuff that's hard to apply and categorize.

^^^^ This ^^^^

I don't think so. We all live in a world underpinned and motivated by philosophical beliefs. The ONLY reason why anybody listens to Greta Thunberg is because there's a philosophical idea about maintaining a functioning global ecosystem. The ONLY reason anybody thinks we shouldn't listen to Greta Thunberg is because of contradicting philosophical underpinnings.

Not so. We shouldn't listen to Greta Thunberg because maintaining a functioning global ecosystem is no longer a philosophical subject. It's one of those subjects that started out as philosophy but by now has broken off into it's own thing. It's a technical problem; it calls for technical solutions; and Greta Thunberg opposes nuclear power, making her part of the problem, not part of the solution. She's still treating maintaining a functioning global ecosystem as a philosophy problem -- much the way CRT theorists are still treating improving the socioeconomic situation of black people as a philosophy problem.

^^^^THIS^^^^^

As I've said many times, including to Bomb: Bomb#20 seems to have all of ehh...their marbles. Well, at least most of them, since I don't really know.

Angra Mainyu as well. Sharp as a tack. And he's good at getting down to the brass ones.

And Copernicus. Wickedly smart.

***

But anyway, while I agree with almost [will 'splain later...maybe] everything Bomb#20 said, and agree with the spirit of what DrZ said (and even what Jimmy said...if not the spirit then the literal interpretation thereof), I have my own particular thoughts on the matter. Not that these thoughts are original to me, as they are obviously not - but we do not see very much discussion of how and exactly why I personally think philosophy is of the utmost importance. And it has little to do with logic, in and of itself, as a discipline!

But it has much to do with reason, and rational thinking (which is NOT the exact same thing as rationalizing! Some people 'round these parts do not seem to know this yet...)

Philosophy, unlike science (meaning the practitioners of same as professionals, not the BENEFITS that of course everyone reaps), is for every one.

Well, perhaps not squirrels. Goodness knows what they might make of Berkeley's craziness. They might stop gathering acorns, and we can't have that. Why...we'd be up to our collective yazoohs in acorns!

What I mean to say is every-one, even little ones, like children, and even other animals (well, except for really really tiny ones), and even crazy people, have philosophical premises that they know are derived from some kind of view or thought or theory at some time posited by a philosopher and/or popular thinker, or which they don't know of and can't even identify, and who "seem to" have no idea what a premise even is.

But that is all well-known, and obvious, or at least it ought to be if one is posting at a BB consisting largely of braniacs (self not included).

And forget that I used the word "ought"! I can say that if I feel like it! And I don't need to write a sylloggg...a silluh-jjiss-ism... ah hell, one of those logic things with letters and symbols and sh*t that's too hard to remember! What am I, an Oliphaunt?

etc, etc, etc&...

Come Concord, and pull that prop out of your chest! Everyone knows you're just playing possum!

 

[Jarhyn]

^^^^ This ^^^^


Not so. We shouldn't listen to Greta Thunberg because maintaining a functioning global ecosystem is no longer a philosophical subject. It's one of those subjects that started out as philosophy but by now has broken off into it's own thing. It's a technical problem; it calls for technical solutions; and Greta Thunberg opposes nuclear power, making her part of the problem, not part of the solution. She's still treating maintaining a functioning global ecosystem as a philosophy problem -- much the way CRT theorists are still treating improving the socioeconomic situation of black people as a philosophy problem.

^^^^THIS^^^^^

As I've said many times, including to Bomb, Bomb#20 seems to have all of his marbles. Well, at least most of them, since I don't really know.

Angra Mainyu as well. Sharp as a tack. And he's good at getting down to the brass ones.

And Copernicus. Wickedly smart.

***

But anyway, while I agree with everything Bomb#20 said, and agree with the spirit of what DrZ said (and even what Jimmy said...if not the spirit than the literal interpretation thereof), I have my own particular thoughts on the matter. Not that these thoughts are original to me, as they are obviously not - but we do not see very much discussion of how and exactly why I personally think philosophy is of the utmost importance. And it has little to do with logic, in and of itself as a discipline!

But it has much to do with reason, and rational thinking (which is NOT the same as rationalizing! Some people do not seem to know this yet...)

Philosophy, unlike science, is for every one. Well, perhaps not squirrels. Goodness knows what they might make of Berkeley's craziness. They might stop gathering acorns, and we can't have that. Why...we'd be up to our collective yazoohs in acorns!

What I mean to say is everyone, even little ones, like children, and even the other animals, and even crazy people, have philosophical premises that they know are derived from some kind of view at some time posited by a philosopher, or which they don't know of and can't even identify, and have no idea what a premise even is.

But that is all well-known, and obvious, or at least is ought to be if one is posting at a BB consisting largely of braniacs.

And forget that I used the word "ought"! I can say that if I feel like it! And I don't need to write a sylloggg...silly-jiss-ism... ah hell, one of those logic things with letters and symbols and sh*t that's too hard to remember! What am I, an Oliphaunt?

etc, etc, etc&...

Come Concord, and pull that prop out of your chest! Everyone knows you're just playing possum!

Well, I'm going to say that I think that you are wrong. Perhaps not about philosophy being the purview of all that lives (and various things that we don't recognize as "alive"; perhaps of all things).

To that end, philosophy can talk about many things "science" is blind to, or otherwise inappropriate for.

As much as there is climate change science there is also climate change philosophy not-science but still important!

Climate science can absolutely describe well what humans are fucking up about the world, but it will never suitably answer the philosophical question of whether humans ought accede to "wasting effort" on "unprofitable" climate action that, while it means a lot more humans doing work to get the same widget, we might get that widget without the accompanying pile of waste, nor the philosophy of why that is beneficial over having more widgets.

To that end, having a child, the person who has to deal with the waste, as the mouthpiece of the philosophy of stewardship just makes good sense.

When I joined here some ten years ago I opened that the correct solution was "screw cost, make a factory that captures carbon and puts it in a hole to be unused, and run it on tax dollars".

That has not changed. The problem to implement solutions to climate change lies in the philosophical. The science is already settled.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think so. We all live in a world underpinned and motivated by philosophical beliefs. The ONLY reason why anybody listens to Greta Thunberg is because there's a philosophical idea about maintaining a functioning global ecosystem. The ONLY reason anybody thinks we shouldn't listen to Greta Thunberg is because of contradicting philosophical underpinnings.

Not so. We shouldn't listen to Greta Thunberg because maintaining a functioning global ecosystem is no longer a philosophical subject. It's one of those subjects that started out as philosophy but by now has broken off into it's own thing. It's a technical problem; it calls for technical solutions; and Greta Thunberg opposes nuclear power, making her part of the problem, not part of the solution. She's still treating maintaining a functioning global ecosystem as a philosophy problem -- much the way CRT theorists are still treating improving the socioeconomic situation of black people as a philosophy problem.

Thanks for just repeating what I said. Environmentalism is today religion. Not science. Aka philosophy.

The stories we tell ourselves matter. Philosophy creates those stories.

I'm still a full blooded Nietzschean. Ie of course God doesn't exist. But we can't function without God. So we will invent one. aka Affirmative nihilism. Which explains the cult of Greta Thunberg.

The cult of Greta Thunberg also comes with a bunch of other philosophical underpinnings. It's got Rosseauian upheld virtues of virginity and youth as pure and untainted somehow. Ignoring the obvious fact that having a relevant education obviously many times superior to youthful passion. If they wish to convince the opposition she's the worst possible leader to get behind on this. It's also the cult of woke. Where free points are awarded to women, and anything they say must be uncritically accepted. Which is a sexist and condescending position. Since it's acting as if women are dumber than men. But of course, her supporters don't understand they're sexist and misogynist. In their minds anybody who criticizes her are the sexists. Lol. Obviously projecting. Eco friendly food has more to do with signaling wealth and middle class values than saving the planet. Recycling is more about demonstrating that you care, rather than doing what is the most useful.

There's so much that's problematic about the cult of Greta Thunberg.

 

[Swammerdami]

Here's a story about racial injustice in one Tennessee county that is one of the most exasperating and heart-breaking I've ever read.

I wouldn't know how to start to summarize it. The school principal faced with contradictory orders from police listened to the white officer because "he was more aggressive"? (A black cop ordered to help arrest these innocent 9-year-olds called in sick: He thought the nonsense might give him a heart attack.) The judge who flunked the bar exam four times and thinks she should get 12 times the pay because in juvenile court she serves as jury as well as judge? She is "on God's mission ... [and] I’ve locked up one 7-year-old in 13 years, and that was a heartbreak,” she said in 2012. “But 8- and 9-year-olds, and older, are very common now.”

I Googled the Judge's name: Donna Scott Davenport. She is STILL Rutherford County’s juvenile court judge, although the above story is from 2016. Google shows that she's been in the news just in the last day. Something (more public awareness of CRT?) has triggered reporting.

What will our naysayers say about this? Judge Davenport is their hero? Justice is blind and white schoolkids would have suffered the same fate?

 

[none]

I just want my country back.
And for those colonists, fuck you. From America not India. Sorry indigenous folks elsewhere, we'll get to you...

 

[Metaphor]

Here's a story about racial injustice in one Tennessee county that is one of the most exasperating and heart-breaking I've ever read.

I wouldn't know how to start to summarize it. The school principal faced with contradictory orders from police listened to the white officer because "he was more aggressive"? (A black cop ordered to help arrest these innocent 9-year-olds called in sick: He thought the nonsense might give him a heart attack.) The judge who flunked the bar exam four times and thinks she should get 12 times the pay because in juvenile court she serves as jury as well as judge? She is "on God's mission ... [and] I’ve locked up one 7-year-old in 13 years, and that was a heartbreak,” she said in 2012. “But 8- and 9-year-olds, and older, are very common now.”

I Googled the Judge's name: Donna Scott Davenport. She is STILL Rutherford County’s juvenile court judge, although the above story is from 2016. Google shows that she's been in the news just in the last day. Something (more public awareness of CRT?) has triggered reporting.

What will our naysayers say about this? Judge Davenport is their hero? Justice is blind and white schoolkids would have suffered the same fate?

Although the story's headline makes an implication of racism, what in the story indicates it? Were there white children at the fight who were identified but not arrested? Was there a similar fight involving white children that had a video circulated that the police ignored? The only outward appearance of bias would appear to be sex-based: all the boys were detained overnight, but the girls were not.

I assume that, of the people involved had social media accounts, ProPublica would have thoroughly combed them for evidence of racism. The person that seems most responsible to me - the police officer Chrystal Templeton - seems vindictive and incompetent, but I assume if she had said anything with the whiff of racism ProPublica would have uncovered it.

I assume from your challenge that you believe this is a clear cut case of systemic racism. What in the story makes you think that? Can you imagine scenarios (that is, with the emergence of other facts or statistics) where you might change your mind?

 

[none]

Here's a story about racial injustice in one Tennessee county that is one of the most exasperating and heart-breaking I've ever read.

I wouldn't know how to start to summarize it. The school principal faced with contradictory orders from police listened to the white officer because "he was more aggressive"? (A black cop ordered to help arrest these innocent 9-year-olds called in sick: He thought the nonsense might give him a heart attack.) The judge who flunked the bar exam four times and thinks she should get 12 times the pay because in juvenile court she serves as jury as well as judge? She is "on God's mission ... [and] I’ve locked up one 7-year-old in 13 years, and that was a heartbreak,” she said in 2012. “But 8- and 9-year-olds, and older, are very common now.”

I Googled the Judge's name: Donna Scott Davenport. She is STILL Rutherford County’s juvenile court judge, although the above story is from 2016. Google shows that she's been in the news just in the last day. Something (more public awareness of CRT?) has triggered reporting.

What will our naysayers say about this? Judge Davenport is their hero? Justice is blind and white schoolkids would have suffered the same fate?

Although the story's headline makes an implication of racism, what in the story indicates it? Were there white children at the fight who were identified but not arrested? Was there a similar fight involving white children that had a video circulated that the police ignored? The only outward appearance of bias would appear to be sex-based: all the boys were detained overnight, but the girls were not.

I assume that, of the people involved had social media accounts, ProPublica would have thoroughly combed them for evidence of racism. The person that seems most responsible to me - the police officer Chrystal Templeton - seems vindictive and incompetent, but I assume if she had said anything with the whiff of racism ProPublica would have uncovered it.

I assume from your challenge that you believe this is a clear cut case of systemic racism. What in the story makes you think that? Can you imagine scenarios (that is, with the emergence of other facts or statistics) where you might change your mind?

"Hello operator, can you give me number nine?" Yes, say hello six.
I swear there is something wrong with Antarctica.

 

[WAB]

Here's a story about racial injustice in one Tennessee county that is one of the most exasperating and heart-breaking I've ever read.

I wouldn't know how to start to summarize it. The school principal faced with contradictory orders from police listened to the white officer because "he was more aggressive"? (A black cop ordered to help arrest these innocent 9-year-olds called in sick: He thought the nonsense might give him a heart attack.) The judge who flunked the bar exam four times and thinks she should get 12 times the pay because in juvenile court she serves as jury as well as judge? She is "on God's mission ... [and] I’ve locked up one 7-year-old in 13 years, and that was a heartbreak,” she said in 2012. “But 8- and 9-year-olds, and older, are very common now.”

I Googled the Judge's name: Donna Scott Davenport. She is STILL Rutherford County’s juvenile court judge, although the above story is from 2016. Google shows that she's been in the news just in the last day. Something (more public awareness of CRT?) has triggered reporting.

What will our naysayers say about this? Judge Davenport is their hero? Justice is blind and white schoolkids would have suffered the same fate?

Some here (TFT) might say that, or imply it, or say it passive-aggressively - by posting a meme which could be interpreted eighty-eight different ways, and no doubt would be, or just saying it outright. You_know_who I mean. I believe they have admitted to racism and are not here to hide behind something or pretend to be someone else in abstract-digital land, and do not seem to be false-flaggers or people on the FAR-right waving confederate flags, stretching wife-beaters (shirts) to the point of self-mockery (apparently, but not really), and sporting Lynyrd Skynyrd RULEZ! signs, etc, etc...and do not "appear to be" trolls, scammers, spammers, bots, or sock-puppets, etc...

I would never say that myself. Judge Davenport can go fuck herself. Any kind of "lock-up" is BAD ENOUGH for adults. It's unspeakably perverse and unconscionable with respect to a child.

***

ANY police officer or legally-equipped, gov't-hired and/or state-sanctioned authority figure ANYWHERE who puts a CHILD in handcuffs ought to be terminated immediately, pending evaluation and possible trial for harm done; ANY judge, sitting ANYWHERE, from the lowest 'town' courts to the highest judicial offices in the WORLD, should be removed immediately from their position upon sentencing a CHILD to "lock-up", unless it be state-run, state-surveyed, and state-regulated (meaning: including any authoritative body ANYWHERE handling administrative oversight of state, federal, county or municipal institutions)- temporary and safe, healthy, well-run juvenile holding or detention facility - ---

...and afterwards evaluated and possibly, if deemed appropriate, terminated from her position.

...and even get slapped in cuffs and put in an overcrowded, hot, cold, or otherwise uncomfortable police department holding-cell or county holding-cell. Perhaps in Dallas, or Rikers, or maybe the Philippines, or heck, maybe Madagascar, depending on the regularity and/or severity of the sentencing, and age of the convicted persons.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, juvenile offenders do exist, and some kids really are "lost" even at the ages of 8 and 9.

Really, I don't know what to do about a certain class of kid. I'm worried my nephew sits in that class, for reference here.

The reality is that some kids for whatever reason (too much lead in the water?) end up wrong. My count is 2-3 per "class", of about 200, so maybe floating around 1-2%?

The vast majority are inappropriate even for "reform" school. But what do you do with the Little Dahmer? What do you do about the kid who murders their little sibling on the second attempt because that's what they want most in the world, to not have to share (insert shared people/thing here).

But even in a small town there wasn't more of a supply than maybe 1 or 2 born every year... To me the bigger issue is that the kids that end up on trial in front of a judge are never the ones who need to actually be put under oversight. In many ways, the worst end up getting ignored and becoming "free and evil" because they are too much trouble and they are skilled at avoiding consequences.

If I were a judge, I can say emphatically that were into see such a little psychopath on my bench clearly enough that the evidence shows it, I would be very particular about sentencing such to something that, even if it can't fix them, will protect others from them. If the best path to protect their peers is jail over a reform school, the jail is where they will find themselves.

With better resources for parenting (especially for those near, at, or below the poverty line), resources for kids, lead removal programs and the like, I think we can significantly reduce the instance of intractable, young psychopaths. But they are real and we cannot ignore that reality. We just have to take extreme caution not to throw out baby with the bath water.

 

[Swammerdami]

Rutherford County is 15.8% black, but "most" of the juvenile victims of their atrocious practices are black.

Well, juvenile offenders do exist, and some kids really are "lost" even at the ages of 8 and 9.

Really, I don't know what to do about a certain class of kid. I'm worried my nephew sits in that class, for reference here....
If I were a judge, I can say emphatically that were into see such a little psychopath on my bench clearly enough that the evidence shows it, I would be very particular about sentencing such to something that, even if it can't fix them, will protect others from them. If the best path to protect their peers is jail over a reform school, the jail is where they will find themselves.

I bet you didn't read the article; what do I win?

The schoolkids were arrested for watching a fight (if limp punches by 6-year-olds can be called a "fight") while doing nothing to stop it. One of the arrestees DID call out for the fighting to cease. Another wasn't even present at the scene. This was just one case; an estimated 1500 kids have been improperly locked up over an 11-year period. Many of the system's victims have suffered emotionally or attempted suicide. (And yes, some get discouraged and are now more likely to turn criminal.) The county locks up 48% of juvenile referrals compared with a Tennessee average of 5%.

The youths can be held for days without trial (if a hearing in front of that grotesque judge can be called a "trial") They are isolated for minor "offenses." Rutherford County built a large juvenile detention center, and has turned it into a "profit center" (their words) by renting out empty beds to other counties.

Read the article. Or try to: it may turn your stomach before you can finish.