CRT - Page 27 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15177239
late wrote:Except when it's true, and we all know it's true.

Logic, not your friend...

Please post anything that I said that was not true.
Are you talking about an opinion? Are you talking about facts? Be specific.
If I stated a fact that was untrue I want to know about it. Maybe I can learn something new.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177240
Gardener wrote:In a cocked hat it has ! I repeat: the abstracts do NOT support your assertion, and it would cost me £35 to access the full study.


You asked for evidence. I provided it.

The fact that you do not accept the evidence is predictable, so I will, instead, ask what you would accept as evidence.

Utter piffle. That is NOT my analysis, and I'd prefer you to STOP putting words into my mouth. My approach is to seek evidence when people make assertions.


It is a simple fact:

Either systemic racism is a significant factor in modern US society or it is not.

You are asking for evidence that it is. This implies that you are holding the position that systemic racism is not relevant. If you are not holding that position, then please clarify.

Once more, you ask me to prove a negative. I would suggest that it is down to the proponents of CRH to justify THEIR assertions that inequities are caused by racism, and that "systemic racism" actually exists.


I am tempted to start a thread to explain to everyone that proving a negative is very possible. I can, for example, prove that no living elephants are in my nose.

I will, instead, note that you have not provided an argument.

Right now, CRT and similar arguments are being censored by US government forces. I think it should be the censors explaining why they must censor it. So far, no one has been able to explain this to me.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15177257
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Either systemic racism is a significant factor in modern US society or it is not.

You are asking for evidence that it is. This implies that you are holding the position that systemic racism is not relevant. If you are not holding that position, then please clarify.


POD

POC immigrants from Nigeria, Jamaica, and India do quite well in the USA. I leave the East Asians out because I do not believe they are POC, they have fair skin. Are they immune to racism? What is your explanation? One would think that they would also be victimized by the racism of the system.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177262
Julian658 wrote:POD

POC immigrants from Nigeria, Jamaica, and India do quite well in the USA. I leave the East Asians out because I do not believe they are POC, they have fair skin. Are they immune to racism? What is your explanation? One would think that they would also be victimized by the racism of the system.


I predict you will not support any of these claims with evidence.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15177268
Pants-of-dog wrote:I predict you will not support any of these claims with evidence.


I can do a POD imitation:

I say: The Earth is round.
POD says: Provided a citation
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

POD, there is no one like you in the world. Or perhaps I do not know that many marxists. :roll:
By late
#15177269
Pants-of-dog wrote:
I predict you will not support any of these claims with evidence.



A lot of immigrants are let in because they have skills we need, or lots of money.

It has not a thing to do with racism here, it's the lamest dodge in the world. Hey, they can do it, ignoring the advantages they had...

The reality is that the damage racism does, in a wide variety of ways, has been proven in court hundreds of times.

Take comfort in the fact that when his pals win, he thinks his position on their side will protect him. If he took a look at American history, he would realise that is simply not the case.
By wat0n
#15177271
late wrote:The reality is that the damage racism does, in a wide variety of ways, has been proven in court hundreds of times.


But if such damage is proven in court, and properly punished, then it's hard to claim the system is somehow designed to discriminate. A truly discriminatory system, like Jim Crow, would legalize such discrimination (if not legally mandate it) and courts would not even hear those cases at all - unlike what the US has now, with its civil rights and antidiscrimination laws.

According to CRT, none of that should be happening at all.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15177279
late wrote:A lot of immigrants are let in because they have skills we need, or lots of money.


Nigerians, Jamaicans, and many Indians POCs just like AAs. Somehow they climb to the top. Indian immigrants have a higher level of income and education than whites. You are correct they have skills. Perhaps AAs would do better if they acquire those skills. Complaining about systemic racism will not give them the skills they need. They need a home where education and hard work is valued. That is the only difference between an Indian immigrant and AAs. Meanwhile, not a single leader in the AA community preaches that sort of work ethic. I suspect the Democrats need AAs as victims to win elections.

The reality is that the damage racism does, in a wide variety of ways, has been proven in court hundreds of times.


Racism is real, no one denies that. The best way to stop racism is by changing a negative stereotype into a positive stereotype. Asking white people to feel guilt and to have compassion is not the way to go. It is a position of weakness. I dare say it is humiliating. This cannot be overstated enough. Why are first generation African immigrants less susceptible to the racism?

Take comfort in the fact that when his pals win, he thinks his position on their side will protect him. If he took a look at American history, he would realise that is simply not the case.


As a group AAs in America are the highest income group out of Africa in world history. They are not on par with whites because it has only been a few decades since Jim Crow was eliminated. However, at the same time many remain behind because of the dependency created by the Democrats who run the plantations in the inner cities. Here in my neck of the woods there are plantations in Baltimore and Washington DC. They have been under Democratic AA management for over five decades. I ask again: Who benefits from these plantations?
Last edited by Julian658 on 18 Jun 2021 13:07, edited 1 time in total.
By late
#15177304
wat0n wrote:
But if such damage is proven in court, and properly punished, then it's hard to claim the system is somehow designed to discriminate. A truly discriminatory system, like Jim Crow, would legalize such discrimination (if not legally mandate it) and courts would not even hear those cases at all - unlike what the US has now, with its civil rights and antidiscrimination laws.

According to CRT, none of that should be happening at all.




Are you missing the obvious, or just running away from it..
By wat0n
#15177309
late wrote:Are you missing the obvious, or just running away from it..


Your inability to provide a cogent argument? No, I have actually been calling you out several times now.

I can't think of anything more obvious than that, by the way.
By late
#15177325
wat0n wrote:
Your inability to provide a cogent argument? No, I have actually been calling you out several times now.

I can't think of anything more obvious than that, by the way.



You don't have an argument, just lies.

So when you said you were 'calling me out', you are under the hilarious impression you had a basis with which to challenge someone.

You don't.
By wat0n
#15177335
late wrote:You don't have an argument, just lies.

So when you said you were 'calling me out', you are under the hilarious impression you had a basis with which to challenge someone.

You don't.


It would be a lot better if you could muster an argument instead of internally contradictory nonsense. After all, CRT is all about claiming the law is itself racist, as such, it's contradictory to use the court system to claim courts on one hand recognize the damage racism does and on the other believe CRT is correct. If courts are in fact fighting racism then you are saying CRT is just wrong about its main claims about US laws and systemic racism.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15177342
late wrote:You don't have an argument, just lies.

So when you said you were 'calling me out', you are under the hilarious impression you had a basis with which to challenge someone.

You don't.

late
You are using kinder garden cheap sophistry. Why are you afraid to confront the subject? Your posture is consistent with insecurity. If you were sure of your position you would debate openly.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177348
If the argument is that systemic discrimination in law does not exist because courts have supported anti-discrimination law, it fails on two levels.

1. It assumes intent is necessary in discrimination. Courts may have found evidence of disparate treatment and/or disparate impact and still not charged the person or group doing said discrimination for one reason or another, such as a technicality.

2. It assumes that the court system is catching most or all episodes of anti-discrimination. It is completely possible that systemic racism and discrimination is so prevalent that these cases are only scratching the surface.
User avatar
By Gardener
#15177349
Godstud wrote:@Pants-of-dog and @Gardener
I am sure Pants means this:

Over the course of their lives, white people are more likely than Black people to use illicit drugs in general, as well as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and prescription drugs (for non-medical purposes) specifically. Data on more recent drug use (for example, in the past year) shows that Black and white adults use illicit drugs other than marijuana at the same rates and that they use marijuana at similar rates.

Yet around the country, Black adults are more than two-and-a-half times as likely as white adults to be arrested for drug possession. In 2014, Black adults accounted for just 14 percent of those who used drugs in the previous year but close to a third of those arrested for drug possession. In the 39 states for which we have sufficient police data, Black adults were more than four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white adults.[2]

In every state for which we have sufficient data, Black adults were arrested for drug possession at higher rates than white adults, and in many states the disparities were substantially higher than the national rate—over 6 to 1 in Montana, Iowa, and Vermont. In Manhattan, Black people are nearly 11 times more likely than white people to be arrested for drug possession.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/10/12/e ... ted-states


Also:
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf

Thank you for that @Godstud . It is most interesting, and I will have to look into that. On the face of it, that DOES open up the POSSIBILITY of 'institutional racism'; I'd have to look at this more closely.

One thought occurs to me; according to the citation, this occurs in ALL American states ? (or at least, all the ones that the reports authors had data for). I was under the impression that different states could have quite widely differing cultures; and yet - according to CRH - they all share anti-black racism in common ?

And why is it - under CRH - that despite the reliance on the theory of "White Privlidge', then, is there not similar statistics for anti-Asian animosities ? (or ARE there ? )
By wat0n
#15177355
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the argument is that systemic discrimination in law does not exist because courts have supported anti-discrimination law, it fails on two levels.

1. It assumes intent is necessary in discrimination. Courts may have found evidence of disparate treatment and/or disparate impact and still not charged the person or group doing said discrimination for one reason or another, such as a technicality.


If they get off due to a technicality (do you have any examples?) how is it any different from pretty much any other case where the defendant gets off due to a technicality?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. It assumes that the court system is catching most or all episodes of anti-discrimination. It is completely possible that systemic racism and discrimination is so prevalent that these cases are only scratching the surface.


...But then it's not accurate to say the legal system is geared to that effect. It's also not a matter of the standpoint epistemology you have been unable to defend, but requires a far more systematic evidence than narrative.

Is it possible that's the case? Maybe, but it's hard to know. The mere difference in outcomes does not mean it's caused by a systemic issue, let alone discrimination.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177359
The current culture war against CRT seems to be a backlash against all the gains made by anti-racism activists in the wake of the murder of Mr. George Floyd.

After his murder, there were many discussions about the role of policing in his death. The murder was so blatant that there were a lot fewer people on the right who tried to excuse it when compared to other killings. For the first time, a spotlight was shone on policing itself, and people were having serious discussions about getting rid of police altogether.

One can understand why many on the right decided to argue that Mr. Floyd’s murderer was a bad apple. An aberration, an outlier. Not part of the system.

So this is where the battle line is now. And this is why we see these attempts to stifle discussions about whether or not the system is killing people
By late
#15177361
Pants-of-dog wrote:
The current culture war against CRT seems to be a backlash against all the gains made by anti-racism activists in the wake of the murder of Mr. George Floyd.

After his murder, there were many discussions about the role of policing in his death. The murder was so blatant that there were a lot fewer people on the right who tried to excuse it when compared to other killings. For the first time, a spotlight was shone on policing itself, and people were having serious discussions about getting rid of police altogether.

One can understand why many on the right decided to argue that Mr. Floyd’s murderer was a bad apple. An aberration, an outlier. Not part of the system.

So this is where the battle line is now. And this is why we see these attempts to stifle discussions about whether or not the system is killing people



Ever get the feeling there might be someone here paid by the word?
By wat0n
#15177365
Pants-of-dog wrote:The current culture war against CRT seems to be a backlash against all the gains made by anti-racism activists in the wake of the murder of Mr. George Floyd.

After his murder, there were many discussions about the role of policing in his death. The murder was so blatant that there were a lot fewer people on the right who tried to excuse it when compared to other killings. For the first time, a spotlight was shone on policing itself, and people were having serious discussions about getting rid of police altogether.

One can understand why many on the right decided to argue that Mr. Floyd’s murderer was a bad apple. An aberration, an outlier. Not part of the system.

So this is where the battle line is now. And this is why we see these attempts to stifle discussions about whether or not the system is killing people


And yet it's precisely that murder that showed that courts did not just let a White cop get away with murder, contrary to your own predictions on the matter.

As for stifling debate, let's not pretend both sides don't do it. Some will try to use the government to that effect, others will simply cancel those they disagree with through other means. Often the latter will try to silence others by calling them names and providing zero arguments like @late has been doing ITT, but there are other more subtle ways to do so such as by granting institutional support to things like people in position of authority making those in a subordinated position publicly apologize for the sins of others who happen to share their skin pigmentation.
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 53
Japan Sontaku again.

According to the Wiki entry, 'sontaku' is close to[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

:roll: Getting a vaccine, during a pandemic is ha[…]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57984[…]

I am personally fearful of possible adverse effec[…]