Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

What do you think his premise WAS?

 

Well, part of it was the writings of Kendi. Whats false about it? String together a few words if you can and formulate an argument. Your proclamations of fact have become rather meaningless around here.

 

If you this mean this:

Critical Race Theory: Wrong! Even though there are racist individuals (and white supremacist groups do exist) the fundamental problem with racism is that it's systemic. The system, (implicitly or explicitly) assumes that minorities can be treated differently​

Then my answer is still no. Yes, CRT certainly has systemic racism at the core of the theory, but it leaves out so much as to almost make the theory unrecognizable. It's a bit like me saying "Between the two of us, Bill Gates and I are worth billions." The statement is accurate, but I'm leaving out a rather important detail.

CRT not only asserts there is systemic racism, it asserts that systemic racism is at foundational element of our laws and our political system. It justifies this extreme view by demanding a flight from reality. Whether it's the rejection of classical liberalism, the rejection of the tenets of the 60s era civil rights movement, or the theory's veneration of anecdotal reasoning, it goes well beyond saying "we have a problem."

CRT is a warped, dogmatic algorithm that always produces the same answer. Their circular logic demands that every problem facing black America must be a product of systemic racism because systemic racism is the cause of all of black America's problems. Even your earlier comment about the Memphis killing is a kind of example. Do you think there's a CRT advocate on the planet who would entertain for a moment the possibility that Nicols's death could be something other than a product of systemic racism?

Nope, CRT is about more than a simple theory saying "it's systemic." It's an social and legal orthodoxy.

 

Actually, no. I want equal treatment under the law. "Equity," another slippery concept, is more about outcomes.

For example, laws that result in a higher percentage of one ethnic group winding up in prison are often deemed "not equitable." Such an outcome does not, on its own, indicate that the laws are not fairly administered with regard to ethnicity.

 

No, I didn't say that. The Encyclopedia Britannica said that, It said CRT defines systemic racism is inherent to our legal system, and the word "inherent" means what is means: a thing that is essential and permanent to another thing.

 

I don't see the value in splitting hairs here. If race doesn't exist then what is racism?

 

I read the OP, and I'd make this statement if you wrote 50 more just like it.

 

So you claim the premise is not false, and don't even know what the premise was. No! It was the assumption that our laws and legal institutions cannot be reformed. Not only is that not true, but CRT does not hold anything of the kind.

 

I didn't make this thread, Golem did.

Not sure what you are talking about.

 

So is it "no" or "yes"? You wrote both. Yes, CRT leaves all the politics out. It's just a framework. Which you can then fill in with your favorite political ideology. This thread is intended to describe the framework.

Of course! What else did you think "systemic" MEANS?

"Extreme"? Dear God! You like red hearings, don't you! "Marxist", "extreme", "dogmatic algorithm"... who cares? Only thing I care is if the frameworks is ACCURATE! Is it? If it's not, then argue THAT. You seem to be going around and around in circles trying to avoid the REAL topic of this thread.

I don't know if it was or it wasn't. I only used it as an example to explain the meaning of the term. Maybe the cops WERE f..ing racists. I don't know their biographies, so... who knows...

 

Ok. So you DON'T want equitable laws. So what was that about accusing me of a strawman fallacy? I interpreted your post correctly!

 

oops, sorry

 

Ok. Now this is getting ridiculous.

YOU said

That's YOU. Not the Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica is correct. YOU are wrong. Our legal system CAN be changed and is NOT permanent.

This is getting ridiculous. And it appeared at the beginning like a serious worthwhile debate. Now you're obviously getting desperate. Too bad!

 

For starters, it's the belief that races exist....

Not the topic of this thread, though. Here...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ace-but-there-is-such-thing-as-racism.603819/

 

Nonsense. According to CRT capitalism produces racial disparities that disfavor blacks. So by definition, capitalism is racism.


"To love capitalism is to end up loving racism"

"But it is impossible to know racism without understanding its intersection with capitalism"

"Historically capitalism + racism are interlinked, which is why I call them the conjoined twins + historians like me call them “racial capitalism” in the singular. But some self-described forms of “antiracism” are not anti-capitalist, which in my book means they’re not antiracism." Kendi

 

Yes, I am arguing that CRT, as a theory, is wrong. The American legal and political system is not inherently racist. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that no other system in human history has done a better job removing the shackles placed on a historically marginalized ethnic minority than has the US has done for black Americans.

If you doubt this, show us where else we've seen something like Barack Obama's Presidency: a black man elected to the nation's highest office by an electorate that was 75% white, twice. From a nation of any consequence, we've not seen anything like this anywhere else in the world. (Note, the UK is now close, but Sunak has yet to win a general election.)

Systems that are fundamentally racist do not hand over meaingful political power to targets of that racism.

(And please, and because I've been down this road before, please resist the urge to assert that I'm saying racism doesn't exist.)

 

First you say capitalism PRODUCES racism. Not that it is racism.

I don't know what leads you to assume that communism, fascism, anarchism and... ... probably every political system in the world wouldn't. Makes sense that, with a history like ours, they all would. As a matter of fact, they HAVE.

But you got the premise wrong. Which tells me you automatically disagree without bothering to read what it is you are disagreeing about. Now you make a statement, and very next sentence you contradict it.

 

I thought you were questioning who applied the term "inherent," which was Britanica, not the word's definition.

Yes, I said that is its definition, but I'm not alone:




CRT asserts that racism is a permanent and essential component of our legal system. Any definition of CRT that ignores this is, as I stated earlier, fatally flawed.

What's next, quibbling over what "permanent" and "essential" mean?

 

Sorry, you just don't get to say "race doesn't exist" and be taken seriously.



Now, if you want to say that race, as a concept, has limitations in biology, the law, etc., then you'd have a point, but in describing it as you do you're engaging in hyperbole.

(And don't bother with your "elf" example; race is a defined, legal concept that has both meaning and consequences, which you cannot say for elves.)

 

if it looks like a dog turd, smells like a dog turd and is hanging out of the butt of a dog then I call it what it plainly is.

And NO one is not an equivalent to the other.

I showed how those so called “science based sources” were vilified by the very scientists whose work they were quoting

 

Ok. There you go. As far as this thread is concerned, my task is done. Which was to clarify what CRT means.

I don't know if that's true or not. But, either way, it doesn't mean the system is NOT inherently racist.

If you had read the OP (I'm still not sure that you have... or maybe you didn't grasp the idea fully) you would have inferred that the fact that the SYSTEM is racist, doesn't mean the voters are racist.

Many nations have elected blacks, women, native-indians, ...as Head of State. But this is not about comparing us to other countries. It's about equality in THIS country.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what "fundamentally racist" means. We are racist enough that black people are stopped by police more often, falsely arrested, and imprisoned more often... where black people have a disadvantage in the job market, with a higher poverty rate, and the least chances to get out of their situation through education. Comparing us to some mythical "fundamentally racist" system is not going to fix the disparaty.

I have not assumed that for a second.

 

Which does nothing to “prove” that distinct human races exist

 

You are obviously misinterpreting Britannica. But I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this nonsense. Assume that that's what it says, if you want. The fact that we CAN change laws means that it's wrong. I have no stock in Britannica, so I could care less.

 

The word RACE exists. But there are no "races"! It doesn't have "limitations". They just don't EXIST. And disciplines like Anthropology, Biology, Sociology, Medicine,... have had a hard time removing them from the vocabulary only because there was an assumption that they did for far too long. But slowly but surely, it's going away.

You also show you don't understand the purpose of dictionaries. The purpose of dictionaries is to describe what an average speaker means when they are using a word. That doesn't make what they are describing REAL.

 

Um, ya, you asked me if I thought CRT was, as a theory, wrong. Don't complain just because I've given you an answer.

Yes, it does. The political power now possible for blacks in 21st century America an antithetical to a system that is designed to keep blacks from political power.

Please define what you mean by "equality" in this context. Equal treatment under the law? Equal economic outcomes? What?

By this standard it would seem you will believe we are inherently (what I meant by "fundamentally"), systemically racist so long as examples of racism can be cited. This is a basic logic error, IMO. It's like saying all policing is inherently flawed because we've found one policeman (or five) who is.

Racism is not a American failing; it's a human failing. We should judge political and legal systems by how well they deal with this failing. Eradication of that failing is a fantasy.