CRT - Page 31 - 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.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177947
wat0n wrote:Antidiscrimination law is often used as a way to nullify discriminatory local laws, particularly those in place before the antidiscrimination law was enacted to begin with :|


Exactly. Anti-discrimination law does not prevent racist laws.

It imperfectly nullifies said laws.

You have yet to show they are quite obviously and not simply possible examples of systemic racism. In reality, it's far from clear that's actually the case and even researchers often make it clear discrimination is only one possible (non-mutually exclusive) explanation for those differences.

It's precisely why it's not that easy to detect systemic racism in the US today, as opposed to the time when it was an explicit or very thinly veiled policy enshrined under the law and there were no laws to fight discrimination.


If you wish to not believe in the existence of systemic racism in US law, you are free to believe that.

I doubt you will convince anyone of this.
By wat0n
#15177952
Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly. Anti-discrimination law does not prevent racist laws.


Why not?

Pants-of-dog wrote:It imperfectly nullifies said laws.


Either a law is in effect or it's not. How can nullification be imperfect?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to not believe in the existence of systemic racism in US law, you are free to believe that.

I doubt you will convince anyone of this.


Are you trying to imply your position here is a matter of belief?
By Pants-of-dog
#15177953
wat0n wrote:Why not?


Because of the simple fact that racist laws are still being created.

Either a law is in effect or it's not. How can nullification be imperfect?


You misunderstood.

By “imperfect”, I mean that not all racist laws have been nullified.

Are you trying to imply your position here is a matter of belief?


No. I think I am explicitly saying that your position is one of belief, and an erroneous belief at that.
By wat0n
#15177956
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because of the simple fact that racist laws are still being created.


If so, they can then be subsequently nullified.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You misunderstood.

By “imperfect”, I mean that not all racist laws have been nullified.


Why not? Do you have an example of a racist law that was challenged and was not nullified? This includes explaining why is it racist.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I think I am explicitly saying that your position is one of belief, and an erroneous belief at that.


You mean one of erroneous disbelief, don't you? Unfortunately for you, though, the burden of proof here falls on you, not on me.

Honestly, and this is to make it even clearer to you: It's of course not impossible the US is systemically racist, after all, as proponents of CRT like yourself say the US does have its history. But that history alone does not prove it's systemically racist now, the current body of law does now shift the burden of proof as it's not as simple as just reading the prevailing laws (e.g. those mandating or regulating segregation) or analyzing them superficially to understand their effect (e.g. grandfather clauses that tried to turn the clock back to a period where Black people were explicitly barred from voting). Proving it now is a lot harder, and indeed you should be able to tell yourself by your reliance on disparate impact instead of disparate treatment claims - the former of which require a lot more work to prove, since there's the business justification issue to consider and as such the process will inherently be drawn. And yes the latter can perfectly apply to the workings and results of complex structures like the justice system among other things. And yes, the burden of proof falls on whoever is making the positive claim of existence here, in this case it would also otherwise mean that a society that moves away from systemic racism is automatically assumed to still be enforcing such system even though it's not and even if those responsible from initially imposing such systemic discrimination are already deceased. Here you may wish to apply this to the US, but as we both know you don't apply it elsewhere, particularly a certain island that is very close to Florida...
By Pants-of-dog
#15177958
wat0n wrote:If so, they can then be subsequently nullified.

Why not? Do you have an example of a racist law that was challenged and was not nullified? This includes explaining why is it racist.


I have examples of racist laws that are not challenged yet.

And yes, we also see examples of discrimination that are being treated as legal.

You mean one of erroneous disbelief, don't you? Unfortunately for you, though, the burden of proof here falls on you, not on me.

Honestly, and this is to make it even clearer to you: It's of course not impossible the US is systemically racist, after all, as proponents of CRT like yourself say the US does have its history. But that history alone does not prove it's systemically racist now, the current body of law does now shift the burden of proof as it's not as simple as just reading the prevailing laws (e.g. those mandating or regulating segregation) or analyzing them superficially to understand their effect (e.g. grandfather clauses that tried to turn the clock back to a period where Black people were explicitly barred from voting). Proving it now is a lot harder, and indeed you should be able to tell yourself by your reliance on disparate impact instead of disparate treatment claims - the former of which require a lot more work to prove, since there's the business justification issue to consider and as such the process will inherently be drawn. And yes the latter can perfectly apply to the workings and results of complex structures like the justice system among other things. And yes, the burden of proof falls on whoever is making the positive claim of existence here, in this case it would also otherwise mean that a society that moves away from systemic racism is automatically assumed to still be enforcing such system even though it's not and even if those responsible from initially imposing such systemic discrimination are already deceased. Here you may wish to apply this to the US, but as we both know you don't apply it elsewhere, particularly a certain island that is very close to Florida...


I did not think you would support your erroneous belief.
By wat0n
#15177962
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have examples of racist laws that are not challenged yet.

And yes, we also see examples of discrimination that are being treated as legal.


I'm waiting for one that you believe is racist (explaining why), that was challenged and the challenge failed (also stating why).

Pants-of-dog wrote:I did not think you would support your erroneous belief.


I'm not the one who's making the positive claim. Do you want to play this game, but applying CRT to (say) Cuba?
By Pants-of-dog
#15177969
wat0n wrote:I'm waiting for one that you believe is racist (explaining why), that was challenged and the challenge failed (also stating why).


This seems like an arbitrary standard.

I'm not the one who's making the positive claim. Do you want to play this game, but applying CRT to (say) Cuba?


Since you are not willing to support your claim, I see no reason to continue this tangent.
User avatar
By Unthinking Majority
#15177971
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to not believe in the existence of systemic racism in US law, you are free to believe that.

I doubt you will convince anyone of this.

I don't find the term "systemic racism" very useful, whether systemic racism exists or not. It's an extremely vague term that could mean anything, or nothing at all. What would be much more useful is for us to point to a specific law(s) or policy that is racist, and then work to correct/overturn it.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177973
"What would be much more useful is for us to point to a specific law(s) or policy that is racist, and then work to correct/overturn it."

Correct laws from what? If you don't allow the term... because you don't find it useful. Which is a kind of silly standard to force everyone else to go by.

https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565

"Systemic racism includes the complex array of antiblack practices, the unjustly gained political-economic power of whites, the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power. Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts [...] each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism."
Last edited by PataOneil on 23 Jun 2021 22:52, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177976
Unthinking Majority wrote:I don't find the term "systemic racism" very useful, whether systemic racism exists or not. It's an extremely vague term that could mean anything, or nothing at all. What would be much more useful is for us to point to a specific law(s) or policy that is racist, and then work to correct/overturn it.


Well, I find the term useful.

Would you consider it racist if there were a policy that made it illegal to discuss how law can and does contribute to racism?
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177979
Systemic Racism in School and Childhood

1. 65% of black children live in a single-parent home, compared to 24% of white children - Kids Count Data Center

2. Black preschoolers are 3.6X more likely to be suspended than white preschoolers - US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

3. Black students are 3.2X more likely to be suspended for infractions at school - US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

4. Predominantly black school districts receive far less financial funding than white school districts - ED Build

5. Black students/children have less access to computers and the internet - National Center for Education Statistics

6. Black high school students are less likely to receive a high school diploma - National Center for Education Statistics

7. A higher percentage of black Americans with a GPA of 3.5 or higher attend community colleges vs top-tier selective institutions - Georgetown University

8. Only 46% of black college students finish a four-year degree within six years, compared to 72% of white college students - National Student Clearinghouse

9. Black college students are more likely to go into debt to pay for college - US Department of Education

10. The average Black college graduate leaves a public four-year institution with $111,486 in debt; 55% more debt than the average white college student. - American Council on Education

https://curiousrefuge.com/blog/systemic-racism
By wat0n
#15177984
Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems like an arbitrary standard.


Why? I think it's a proper when you are claiming antidiscrimination law is imperfectly nullifying racist laws.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you are not willing to support your claim, I see no reason to continue this tangent.


I think I did plenty to that effect. The Cuba analogy seems fitting, since it has differences in outcomes by race and prior history qualitatively comparable to those of the US.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177990
wat0n wrote:Why? I think it's a proper when you are claiming antidiscrimination law is imperfectly nullifying racist laws.



I think I did plenty to that effect. The Cuba analogy seems fitting, since it has differences in outcomes by race and prior history qualitatively comparable to those of the US.



Qualitatively comparable?

How do you figure?
By wat0n
#15177991
PataOneil wrote:Qualitatively comparable?

How do you figure?


Ever read about racism in Cuba or you'll need to have your fantasy bubble popped?
By Pants-of-dog
#15177992
wat0n wrote:Why? I think it's a proper when you are claiming antidiscrimination law is imperfectly nullifying racist laws.


Because it seems like an odd fixation of only one way that anti-discrimination law can apply, and there seems to be no logical reason to focus on this one way.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177993
wat0n wrote:Ever read about racism in Cuba or you'll need to have your fantasy bubble popped?



Answering a question with a question is not an answer or an argument. It's avoiding the question and avoiding making an arugment.

Please do your own work supporting your ideas.
User avatar
By Unthinking Majority
#15177995
PataOneil wrote:Systemic Racism in School and Childhood

1. 65% of black children live in a single-parent home, compared to 24% of white children - Kids Count Data Center

2. Black preschoolers are 3.6X more likely to be suspended than white preschoolers - US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

3. Black students are 3.2X more likely to be suspended for infractions at school - US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

4. Predominantly black school districts receive far less financial funding than white school districts - ED Build

5. Black students/children have less access to computers and the internet - National Center for Education Statistics

6. Black high school students are less likely to receive a high school diploma - National Center for Education Statistics

7. A higher percentage of black Americans with a GPA of 3.5 or higher attend community colleges vs top-tier selective institutions - Georgetown University

8. Only 46% of black college students finish a four-year degree within six years, compared to 72% of white college students - National Student Clearinghouse

9. Black college students are more likely to go into debt to pay for college - US Department of Education

10. The average Black college graduate leaves a public four-year institution with $111,486 in debt; 55% more debt than the average white college student. - American Council on Education

https://curiousrefuge.com/blog/systemic-racism


Pretty much all of these could also be explained by poverty, not simply racism. Correlation doesn't equal causation. We need to isolate variables. Do poor white kids have similar disparities vs rich white kids?

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist vs black students, of course it does, but you can't just go around yelling "racism" without proof when you find correlations in stats. Men make up the vast majority of people convicted of violent crimes, that doesn't mean the justice system is systemically sexist against men. Most NBA players are black, that doesn't mean the NBA is racist against whites and other non-black people.
By wat0n
#15177996
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because it seems like an odd fixation of only one way that anti-discrimination law can apply, and there seems to be no logical reason to focus on this one way.


How else would it be applied to nullify laws?

PataOneil wrote:Answering a question with a question is not an answer or an argument. It's avoiding the question and avoiding making an arugment.

Please do your own work supporting your ideas.


Sure, feel free to read these two examples:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=1894945
https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/ ... ontext=etd

And of course there's the Wiki article on racism in Cuba.

If you believe socioeconomic disparities are evidence of systemic racism, then it is definitely present in Cuba. It's actually a stronger case than the US, since the government operates large swaths of the economy.

And if you are curious about Cuban history, Cuba abolished slavery after the US did (slavery was a reason for the independence war against Spain, if anything) and segregation was legal and enforced until the Revolution.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177997
Unthinking Majority wrote:Pretty much all of these could also be explained by poverty, not simply racism.


They could be explained by systemic racism. Do you have some reason to deny that they are?
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 53

Never said otherwise, though dropping a graph wit[…]

@SpecialOlympian @B0ycey @late I am not an[…]

But Dems can in fact win. They actually won i[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

It is becoming more likely Vaccination will be re[…]