Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

No, not just in the mind of the speaker, but also the consensus opinion of organizations of English language experts who publish dictionaries. Again, I see no reason why your opinion on the word should supercede theirs. If you want to explain why it should, I'll consider it.

I can assure you I am not new to debate nor new to debating on online forums. My online experience predates the web, FWIW, and one thing that experience has given me is the ability to spot sophistry.

It comes down to this: I can believe dictionaries are not authoritative references on the English language or I can believe the dictionary definition of the word "race" creates a problem for your argument. After due consideration, I've decided it's the latter.

You really should drop this limited, binary thinking. "Race" is not a concept that is debunked or not. It's a concept that has more or less utility depending on the context in which it's used.

You're welcome to that opinion, but I've noticed your willing to employ the concept of race when it suits your argument, and you only question its existence when it doesn't. Just look at your OP; it's packed with statements about racism, about black people, about white people, about many things related to race. Yet, somehow, race doesn't exist. It's all rather Schrödinger-like.

 

No it doesn't. You CAN make radical changes. You can even change a Constitutional clause that allows importing slaves, to one that prohibits slavery. That's pretty radical. At least more radical than, for example, the Floyd Bill. But we did it!

So if that was your objection, then history has debunked it.

ZERO interest. Just one more opinion of many. The things I agree with him on have already been stated by other authors. I have noticed he's become the sweetheart of the right, though. If there is anything relevant he said and that you agree with, quote it and defend it.

 

No, I want you to defend your assertion. You're the one saying that race doesn't exist, and I recently read somewhere that in this forum the research to defend your argument is yours to make, not mine.

I have provided several sources that define what race is, which is also a statement implying its existence. It's now on you to make your case for why it doesn't. You can either do that or not, which will it be?

 

Make up your mind! Before you admitted that it meant EXACTLY what I defined: the American legal and political system being inherently racist. You disagree that it was, but not with the definition.

Looks like you're just going around in circles. Why don't you get your own thoughts in order and get back to us when you do.

 

You're quibbling over semantics. CRT's practitioners are not calling for incremental change, or a continuation of the kinds of societal changes we have been making over the last 70 years. They are calling for radical legal and economic policy change, and if you're not aware of that it's still further evidence that you really do not understand CRT and what it's about.

Yes, I'm coming to that realization. You have little interest in information that challenges your opinions on this subject.

IMO, that's what can happen when people spend too much time on internet debate forums. Intellectually, they calcify.

 

Um, I'm the one who cited for you the definition that uses the word "inherent" in this thread, twice. The difference between us is over what the word "inherent" means and what it implies.

Gosh, if only there were an authoritative reference or something that we could use to get a consensus definition on that word.

 

That is correct. Now apply that to what you said before.

Analyzing each individual case doesn't tell us anything about the whole. Analyzing the WHOLE tells us that, in a very significant statistical way, minorities (especially black) are treated different (worse) than white people.

I thought you would perceive the parallel on your own if you looked up the context. I guess I over estimated you.

Exactly. To explain a CONCEPT I only need one case. To discuss the phenomenon you need the whole.

What the hell is the fixation on Kendi by the right. He's like their sweetheart, isn't he?

Look.... let me explain it once. The left is NOT like the right. We don't have "prophets", like the right wing does. Everybody is entitled to opinions. And whether they are right or wrong depends not on who they are, but on WHAT they say. I don't care if their name is Kendy, Obama, Martin Luther King.... They can ALL be right sometimes and wrong at others. Dogmatism like you see so often on the right is extremely rare on the left. And I'm certainly not in the group.

If you agree with Kendi about something he disagrees with me, quote it and tell us why you agree. I'll do the same. If I agree with ANY author about something, I will quote them and defend them.

BTW, Kendi is NOT a "her". You should know the basics about your idols. Like their gender.

 

And the consensus is right. That IS what it means in the minds of the speaker.

Well... this one is a higher quality forum than most I've been in outside of academia. There are flaws but, overall, it's good enough. If you used the Argument from Dictionary fallacy in that other forum, and nobody explained to you that it's a fallacy, you will definitely benefit from the higher quality here.

 

No, he's someone who supports our assertions about CRT and refutes yours.

 

That's nice.

 

Is it? I have NO interest in discussing semantics. So, bottom line, CRT does NOT claim that laws and institutions cannot be changed. Whoever tells you different is WRONG. Which even a 5 year old could verify by observing the fact that laws and institutions (i.e. the "system") have changed for hundreds of years. And that CRT advocates are SEEKING to change laws and institutions.

 

Well.... if you manage to get him to sign up to this forum, I'm pretty sure I can rebut any such assertions with the same effectiveness as I have rebutted yours. Or he can rebut mine, and I will have learned. In the mean time, just know that the left is not like the right. We don't have "prophets" we follow blindly. EVERYBODY needs to show arguments and logic based on facts. Just throwing in a name does not impress us the way it impresses folks on the right.

 

It is CRT's and its advocates fixation on Kendi.

As one of the preeminent scholars of critical race theory and its reading of history, Ibram X. Kendi, professor in the Humanities and the founding director of the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research,.....
Critical Race Theory 101 | The Brian Lehrer Show | WNYC

Kendi was included in Time's 100 Most Influential People of 2020
Ibram X. Kendi - Wikipedia

Author and prominent critical race theory advocate Ibram X. Kendi will headline a discussion about educating children Wednesday at an American Federation of Teachers conference — set to cover "developing anti-racist mindsets and actions" with the second-largest teachers union in America
Critical race theory author headlines AFT conference on educating kids | Fox News

 

Can't turn a blind eye to something not seen.

What Rufo's twitter post?
Who is Rufo? And why would his twitter post matter?

 

You keep saying that, but Who's seen this proof?
Where, when?
You once referred me to a post in this thread that wasn't yours.
So, where does one find this proof you claim?

 

Yes, there were systems the led to certain segments of the population being excluded from capitalism. Legally.

Redlining
...
History[edit]
The specific process termed "redlining" in the United States occurred on the background of racial segregation and discrimination against minority populations. It had its origins in sales practices of the National Association of Real Estate Boards and theories about race and property values codified by economists surrounding Richard T. Ely and his Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities, founded at the University of Wisconsin in 1920.[15] With the National Housing Act of 1934 the federal government began to be involved in the practice and the concurrent establishment of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).[16]
Redlining - Wikipedia

 

It's nothing but a political football for rightists.
Gullible people fall for it being taught in primary schools. Outside of some rouge teachers.

 

You are making a specious argument. My point remains: you cannot know the final form of any Reparations legislation, as none has yet been passed, or has even put up for a legislative vote. Your analysis of what that legislation should look like, regardless of how insightful your political predictions may be, is irrelevant to the fate of that legislation, whenever it does arrive. But to suggest that the concept of "race," has nothing to do with the Reparations issue, is ludicrously clueless, on its face.

I don't know how you painted yourself into this position: to have started a thread on the difference in meaning, between "racism," and Critical Race Theory, while simultaneously maintaining that "race" does not exist. You should, accordingly, be lobbying to change the misnomer, then, of CRT.

 

You're really not making a good faith effort to understand my point.

 

No, you have orthodoxies.

 

Because of its content.

 

I've provided you with the links. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

 

Now, redlining was real. It was a terrible practice and it did indeed deny many black people an opportunity for homeownership. But it denied more white people the same opportunity, since many of the redlined neighborhoods were majority white.
The Truth about Redlining - Glenn Loury (substack.com)

MORE white people were excluded from loans than blacks by redlining. BUT applying the CRT equation that ANY racial disparity that disfavors blacks is racism, it is considered racist.

 

I truly honestly don't know what you're talking about. What in anything I have said gave you the idea that I knew the final form of any Reparations legislation?

I HOPE it has nothing to do, because no such thing exists. I can imagine many many legal challenges if somebody were to base reparations on "race". To the point where black people who deserve them would not receive them for many years to come. The law would have to arbitrarily re-define the term. And I see no point in doing that.

I have made every effort I can think of so my arguments don't appear specious, but I have no idea what misnomer you are referring to? Critical Race Theory is a name that came up in the 1960s when we still weren't sure if "races" existed or not (and even scientists were using the term). But it's even more appropriate now that we know there is no such thing as race, than it ever was in the past.

Let me give you an example. Somebody posted a proposal by somebody (can't remember who) in which there were only two pre-requisites to obtain reparations. One was that the person receiving them had ancestors who had been slaves, and the other that they had identified themselves as black in an official document 10 years ago or more. Obviously I think that is insufficient criteria. But at least it doesn't require the word "race". Or the concept. It doesn't take into account the financial status of the person receiving it either. You know who would qualify? Obama! Who had a white mother and a black father who was NOT a slave in this country. But actually an immigrant from Kenya. How would he qualify? Because his white MOTHER had ancestors who had been black slaves.

Not only does "race" not exist. It's nonsense that can lead to much more confusion than it elucidates. And it's useless and unnecessary!

 

Still no clue what Rufo tweeted, who he is, and why anyone would care?