CRT - Page 33 - 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 PataOneil
#15178046
wat0n wrote:Why would you inquire more about Cuba if you don't care?


I said I don't care if Cuba is racist. I did care about your statement that the USA and Cuba are "qualitatively comparable". You still haven't actually established that.

wat0n wrote:And yes, actually it does since some people who believe the USA is systemically racist don't believe Cuba is. I don't like inconsistency at all.


I do my best not to concern myself with other people's feelings when it comes to debate.

wat0n wrote:So you are contributing to white supremacy if you simply work in whatever you like?


I said systemic racism, not white supremacy. Please be as precise as you are demanding CRT advocates be.

wat0n wrote:Why?


I already answered that, but I will do so again for clarity. Because differences in occupational choices do not deny systemic racism but do sometimes define it. By which I mean that, traditionally speaking, some choices simply are not available or are intentionally put out of reach of certain ethnic groups.

wat0n wrote:Past racism, you mean. I'm not sure though about what you believe could be done about it. Some of the effects don't seem to be easily solvable regardless of what you do.


Assuming they are past, then that could be true. But it can also be true that racism has a reach after some particular form of it has passed. For example, poverty is known to be generational. And racism has caused poverty in certain groups, as you've noted. This legacy effect of racism can continue forward, even if we assume that all elements of the original racism have ceased. As I've said you can tend to the financial effects of legacy effects by paying reparations... in one form or the other.

wat0n wrote:You could say there needs to be an effort to catch up to close the gaps more quickly, but that effort most definitely exists.


Maybe, but in so saying you are acknowledging that the effects of racism carry forward even if the original form has passed... Which you certainly have not established.

wat0n wrote:I don't disagree with that idea, as long as it ended all claims afterwards and it truly means society will move on. There is some of that in the form of affirmative action, but I also believe reparations would be more straight to the point and not limited to upper middle and upper class African Americans.


Not sure you could end ALL claims unless you ended all racism in the present, which would seem to be problematic. Present racism in regards to black people in the USa has one ironclad fact... Black people wouldn't be suffering the legacy effects of slavery if they hadn't been brought here in the first place to be slaves. Not meaning that black people don't immigrate into the country now, but that the racist attitudes in this country arise out of that original crime of slavery.

wat0n wrote:See? You are obsessed with finding confirmation of your preconceived beliefs here. I simply listed possible explanations for the racial gaps in the labor market. That's all.


You've combined two there and only responded to one. I asked for a specific example of #4 you didn't come up with one.

And no, simply noting the fact that location matters doesn't deny racism isn't evidence that I'm pushing a preconceived notion. Location matters doesn't in fact deny systemic racism... and it does often define it. A lot of real estate was red-lined to control location. This is an observed fact that was sanctioned by the USA government.

wat0n wrote:It is, but it still remains to be proven.


Almost nothing can be rigorously proven. It's a weight of the evidence thing.

wat0n wrote:Where exactly did I claim race is anything else but a social construct? Of course it does, but you may be getting something wrong: Occupational segregation does not necessarily mean it's a result of discrimination, it only means there are racial differences in occupations. And since race is a social construct as you say, that construct may be correlated with occupational choices even if there is no discrimination at all.


I did not say you claimed that race was not a social construct. I said that CRT claims that racial disparities are the result of social constructs as a core tenet, and unless I've missed something you seem to have some problem with the tenets or maybe methodology of CRT.

wat0n wrote:Not just statistics, but please well done statistics at that. That includes accepting the limitations of your methodology.

Being a statistician myself, I get tired of people making all sorts of unjustified claims about some research. Then some are surprised much of published research is not actually replicable.


So you agree that statistics can be rigorous or not?

wat0n wrote:No, knowledge is not always objective but that does not mean we should do away with objectivity or rigor and replace those with narratives. You say knowledge is often relative to the person doing the knowing, but I don't think it subjective to say that if you jump from the top of Burj Khalifa building you'll likely not like what happens after and it is also not subjective to say that COVID vaccines generally work. And yes, the same can perfectly be done in social science, and don't see why you would seriously want to live in a world where something like systemic racism is left to mere subjective judgment, even more so when any policy you take on the matter will affect society as a whole. Answering this question should not be left simply to narrative, and not doing so requires acknowledging the limits of what we can know even using rigorous approaches - indeed, this is part of why an approach is rigorous. Rigorous approaches do not oversell.


Not sure if you are implying that CRT has done away with rigor and is pushing a narrative or not here.

If I jump with a parachute chances are I'll be fine.

"Generally" IS subjective, not rigorous.

Systemic racism is not left to narrative. There is a lot of statistical evidence that it is still in operation. I've already cited a good deal of it. In most cases I've cited you have preferred to find some other reason that hasn't actually held up to the rigorous analysis you seem to be applying to CRT.

Like I said, rigor can be impossible when dealing with trends. As a statistician you should know that. You can't apply statistics generated by studying a group to an individual. Even when it comes to public policy it can be impossible to determine the effects of any single law or policy... until after it's been observed in operation.

Your idea that we can't leave systemic racism to mere subjective judgement assumes that all we have is subjective judgement. We have statistics that I've already cited to you that deny that all we have is subjective judgement. And your overall assertion is a matter of your opinion. We actually could set policy based on the subjective judgement of systemic racism. And in fact in the past we have done so, with things like chattel slavery and Jim Crow. Nothing at all says we couldn't do the same thing but in favor of the groups that have suffered systemic racism.

wat0n wrote:There is no reason to believe that people may not also choose the narratives that fit their interests regardless of whether these narratives are true or not. Narratives are useful, I think, to be able to come up with new hypotheses but they don't really prove anything by themselves.


This response is a straw man. You pulled narrative out when I was pointing out that statistics are heavily involved in documenting systemic racism.

wat0n wrote:Bias is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair" (from Oxford's dictionary). Skepticism is not necessarily motivated by bias, and ironically obsession with racial issues themselves may actually also correlate with being biased. After all, being prejudiced for or against a racial or ethnic groups requires thinking quite a bit about race.


Again this is another straw man. Bias/prejudice is a trend a behavior or idea that is expressed more than once. I said nothing about skepticism.

wat0n wrote:What I don't like however is the rather extreme essentialism shown by CRT and the dishonesty its advocates show in denying it, along with much of the philosophical currents CRT is based on (e.g. postmodernism and some bastardized Marxist concepts, as shown by its use of standpoint epistemology). The tendency of CRT advocates to undermine key civil rights like presumption of innocence or equality before the law is also extremely regressive, and let's not get into their stance on freedom of speech (they most definitely do not like it). More generally, I have no reason to like CRT's illiberalism, lack of rigour and inconsistency at all.


As I said above, what you like or do not like is not really an issue I'm concerned with here. Presumption of innocence in the USA is only in front of courts (as you say, before the law), and is not an appropriate measure for all social interactions. So if a person espouses racist ideas enough to get the social reputation as a racist, that individual can not rationally complain that his/her civil rights have been violated. So unless you are claiming that CRT advocates are operating in a court environment, no one's civil rights are being abused by the theory.

You have acknowledged that CRT could be correct or incorrect. But there seems to me sufficient statistical evidence that systemic racism is in operation here in the USA. You haven't really done anything at all to address that evidence except to propose alternate reasons that you can't support with the rigorous proof you demand of CRT.

Since most things can not be rigorously proven (this even extends to some fundamental mathematical ideas)



I'm not certain why you seem to think that CRT must be rigorously proven before it is espoused except that you have repeatedly claimed not to like it. Which doesn't have much bearing.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178048
Unthinking Majority wrote:Can you point to that definition, I tried looking back through this thread I couldn't find your post.


So, it's there, I quoted it, and you are asking me to go back and find it instead of you. I've done my due diligence here.

Unthinking Majority wrote:So if white students get suspended more than asians and drop out of school at a higher rate than asians that's evidence of systemic racism against white people? As you can see, there's the possibility of more than one variable involved here.


Yup. If it's statistically significant. Parenting is also subject to systemic racism. By which I mean that there are social problems here in the USA that white people are subject to that Asian people aren't. And these factors can lead to poor parenting.

Unthinking Majority wrote:I don't know if you mean current racism or poverty resulting from historical systemic racism.


I mean both.

Unthinking Majority wrote:If it's statistics then we can assume there's systemic racism against white people compared to asians in education, by your logic. You can quote stats, but you're not providing evidence of a causation of racism causing the stats. Correlation doesn't equal causation.


That's because you can't prove most things rigorously. Especially when it's something people lie about. The stats themselves aren't about causation... but that there is disparity in treatment. That disparity IS systemic racism. The stats are not talking about the cause of the disparity. The stats are defining systemic racism. Has nothing to do with cause. Most likely the cause of racism is based in emotions which are not subject to rigorous proof.

Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm not saying racism isn't a cause, or isn't the primary cause. What is the systemic racism causing these stats? How do we know if it's racism happening now, or racism that happened 100 years ago?


Again the statistics are not defining the cause. They are defining systemic racism. You are simply misunderstanding this point.
By wat0n
#15178050
PataOneil wrote:I said I don't care if Cuba is racist. I did care about your statement that the USA and Cuba are "qualitatively comparable". You still haven't actually established that.


I already provided you with an example of that. You have yet to explain why it somehow is not valid.

PataOneil wrote:I do my best not to concern myself with other people's feelings when it comes to debate.


Inconsistency is not about feelings. Supposedly, neither is systemic racism.

PataOneil wrote:I said systemic racism, not white supremacy. Please be as precise as you are demanding CRT advocates be.


Systemic racism in the US is an expression of the white supremacy embedded in US culture and laws if we are to believe CRT. Why would choosing your own occupation be racist?

PataOneil wrote:I already answered that, but I will do so again for clarity. Because differences in occupational choices do not deny systemic racism but do sometimes define it. By which I mean that, traditionally speaking, some choices simply are not available or are intentionally put out of reach of certain ethnic groups.


Please provide evidence that this is literally the case in the US, namely, that some occupational choices are not available for some people or intentionally put out of reach based on ethnicity or race. If so, then you are to explain why didn't you like the comparison with Cuba - my qualitative similarity was only centered on the fact that there are occupational differences by race, I could have picked any other country too, but Cuba is special because its Black history has several parallels with Black history in the US South and it also happens to be opposite to what the US has in terms of economic policy and political system.

PataOneil wrote:Assuming they are past, then that could be true. But it can also be true that racism has a reach after some particular form of it has passed. For example, poverty is known to be generational. And racism has caused poverty in certain groups, as you've noted. This legacy effect of racism can continue forward, even if we assume that all elements of the original racism have ceased. As I've said you can tend to the financial effects of legacy effects by paying reparations... in one form or the other.


But this reality does not mean that the system is itself racist, as you have acknowledged by saying the effects of racism can remain even after it's gone.

PataOneil wrote:Maybe, but in so saying you are acknowledging that the effects of racism carry forward even if the original form has passed... Which you certainly have not established.


The original form being what, exactly? I don't think Jim Crow or slavery are in place anymore. Indeed, what I can see is that the US has its own civil rights and antidiscrimination laws.

PataOneil wrote:Not sure you could end ALL claims unless you ended all racism in the present, which would seem to be problematic. Present racism in regards to black people in the USa has one ironclad fact... Black people wouldn't be suffering the legacy effects of slavery if they hadn't been brought here in the first place to be slaves. Not meaning that black people don't immigrate into the country now, but that the racist attitudes in this country arise out of that original crime of slavery.


And so what you are saying is that even paying reparations won't ever clean the stain of slavery and Jim Crow, thereby ending racism, because somehow present-day Americans are to be held responsible for what their ancestors did. Am I misunderstanding you? How can racism end, then?

PataOneil wrote:You've combined two there and only responded to one. I asked for a specific example of #4 you didn't come up with one.


Here's an example of research on the matter:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1061719

PataOneil wrote:And no, simply noting the fact that location matters doesn't deny racism isn't evidence that I'm pushing a preconceived notion. Location matters doesn't in fact deny systemic racism... and it does often define it. A lot of real estate was red-lined to control location. This is an observed fact that was sanctioned by the USA government.


Perhaps, but for instance redlining is illegal nowadays. Although my point about location had more to do with prevailing wages depending on local labor market conditions.

PataOneil wrote:Almost nothing can be rigorously proven. It's a weight of the evidence thing.


Then you shouldn't be surprised there may be skeptics here. I don't think it's as easy as it used to be when the law itself was discriminatory, often explicitly so.

PataOneil wrote:I did not say you claimed that race was not a social construct. I said that CRT claims that racial disparities are the result of social constructs as a core tenet, and unless I've missed something you seem to have some problem with the tenets or maybe methodology of CRT.


The methodology, for sure.

PataOneil wrote:So you agree that statistics can be rigorous or not?


Statistics can be rigorous, but it can often be done in a sloppy way too.

PataOneil wrote:Not sure if you are implying that CRT has done away with rigor and is pushing a narrative or not here.


I did imply that, yes.

PataOneil wrote:If I jump with a parachute chances are I'll be fine.


Do you know that because you understand the science behind parachutes or because of someone's narrative?

PataOneil wrote:"Generally" IS subjective, not rigorous.

Systemic racism is not left to narrative. There is a lot of statistical evidence that it is still in operation. I've already cited a good deal of it. In most cases I've cited you have preferred to find some other reason that hasn't actually held up to the rigorous analysis you seem to be applying to CRT.


What you have found, is statistical evidence of differences by race for some given outcome, not of these differences by race being caused by systemic racism. The latter is a much stronger claim, as it implies not only the existence of differences but also a specific causal claim regarding their origin.

That there are differences by race for some key outcomes is not something I have argued against. What I'm arguing against, is making the jump into claiming we can necessarily conclude it is caused by an institutional or cultural issue like systemic racism. This part is far from being clear, even if it's indeed possible there is something going on there.

PataOneil wrote:Like I said, rigor can be impossible when dealing with trends. As a statistician you should know that. You can't apply statistics generated by studying a group to an individual. Even when it comes to public policy it can be impossible to determine the effects of any single law or policy... until after it's been observed in operation.


Right, although there are strategies to tease that out based precisely on analyzing trends (sometimes changes of trends).

PataOneil wrote:Your idea that we can't leave systemic racism to mere subjective judgement assumes that all we have is subjective judgement. We have statistics that I've already cited to you that deny that all we have is subjective judgement. And your overall assertion is a matter of your opinion. We actually could set policy based on the subjective judgement of systemic racism. And in fact in the past we have done so, with things like chattel slavery and Jim Crow. Nothing at all says we couldn't do the same thing but in favor of the groups that have suffered systemic racism.


The problem is that, as I mentioned above, you are making a modeling assumption when you say the mere existence of racial differences for an outcome is clear evidence of systemic racism. Whether that's the case or not is an open question - I don't think you'll find easy smoking guns here.

Instead, though, I'd try to figure out with more research why do these gaps remain. As you mentioned before, we're dealing with trends here and there is a general trend of closing of racial gaps in relevant outcomes like poverty rates (thankfully). Why do you think that is happening if the US has a system that has racism embedded into it, as CRT claims?

PataOneil wrote:This response is a straw man. You pulled narrative out when I was pointing out that statistics are heavily involved in documenting systemic racism.


I was responding to your comment about the reliability of narratives.

PataOneil wrote:Again this is another straw man. Bias/prejudice is a trend a behavior or idea that is expressed more than once. I said nothing about skepticism.


It's not just that, as the definition I put shows. Also, skepticism is an idea on itself.

PataOneil wrote:As I said above, what you like or do not like is not really an issue I'm concerned with here. Presumption of innocence in the USA is only in front of courts (as you say, before the law), and is not an appropriate measure for all social interactions. So if a person espouses racist ideas enough to get the social reputation as a racist, that individual can not rationally complain that his/her civil rights have been violated. So unless you are claiming that CRT advocates are operating in a court environment, no one's civil rights are being abused by the theory.


CRT is a legal theory and aims, as far as I'm aware, to change the legal system to uproot the racism it sees in the law (and other institutions). Indeed, it's a key postulate that the social problems related to racism are not so much the result of individual behavior but of cultural and institutional features.

PataOneil wrote:You have acknowledged that CRT could be correct or incorrect. But there seems to me sufficient statistical evidence that systemic racism is in operation here in the USA. You haven't really done anything at all to address that evidence except to propose alternate reasons that you can't support with the rigorous proof you demand of CRT.

Since most things can not be rigorously proven (this even extends to some fundamental mathematical ideas)



I'm not certain why you seem to think that CRT must be rigorously proven before it is espoused except that you have repeatedly claimed not to like it. Which doesn't have much bearing.


Here I defer to Russell's teapot - "you can't prove me wrong" does not mean you are right. Developing an opinion on the matter is not a binary choice between either "the US is systemically racist" and "the US is not systemically racist", it is perfectly rational to say "we lack sufficient evidence to make that call". The only binary thing here is whether the US is in fact suffering from systemic racism, and it is cogent to say "given the available evidence, we can't know for sure" in the same way one can adopt an agnostic position on other topics (e.g. the existence of the Abrahamic God, for starters, where an agnostic may push back against both believers and atheists).

I do believe it's harder to sustain the US is systemically racist than it used to be given the existence of antidiscrimination and civil rights law, along with the trend of decreased differences in several relevant outcomes by race over time (including, for instance, incarceration and poverty rates) but you indeed would only be certain systemic racism is not an issue if the gaps in these outcomes ever closed (since even if there was systemic racism, it would have no practical effect on average) - and that may as well never truly happen. Before the Civil Rights Movement, i.e. during Jim Crow, it is unquestionably true the US had a problem of systemic racism as it was baked into statute and often explicitly so as in (for example) laws upholding racial segregation, this is not an issue of statistics or narrative but squarely a matter of reading the prevailing law at the time. Right now, however, the US is in a grey area and I tend to believe African Americans have been undergoing a transition not unlike other groups experienced here (such as the Irish and Italians, who were not considered to be truly White at some point, and Asians and Jews becoming largely whitefied at this point). The next one is probably Hispanics, and then I think African Americans will be the last one - based squarely in looking at data such as the racial gaps in the very outcomes you and others have brought up here have been gradually closing over time, and for Blacks specifically it has to do with the fact that the legacy effects are particularly large in their case, as they had been especially barred from access to several key rights and also social services until the 20th century, and they have been in far less unequal terms with Whites in the latter dimension since the second half of the 20th century only. This stuff doesn't come for free, at all.

However, even this belief is just that, a belief - not a certainty like e.g. that there was systemic racism in the US during Jim Crow - and it's as such perfectly open to revision, as it should be (maybe the trend of closing of gaps will eventually stop or even reverse - who knows? I'm no prophet, but if that happened it would be a serious problem, one that would warrant massive intervention to find a solution).
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178068
"I believe"

So your position is based in faith? I thought you were requiring rigor? You seem to be requiring rigor from CRT that you are not willing to require of yourself.

Are you subject to some special privilege in this matter?
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178069
"The problem is that, as I mentioned above, you are making a modeling assumption when you say the mere existence of racial differences for an outcome is clear evidence of systemic racism. Whether that's the case or not is an open question - I don't think you'll find easy smoking guns here."

Not at all, CRT is saying that racial disparities in treatment define systemic racism.
Last edited by PataOneil on 24 Jun 2021 13:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178070
"Statistics can be rigorous, but it can often be done in a sloppy way too."

Haven't noticed that you've done your due diligence to prove that the statistics I've cited are sloppy. Until you do, I'll assume that you agree that they are rigorous.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178071
"Here I defer to Russell's teapot - "you can't prove me wrong" does not mean you are right."

I am satisfied that you haven't proven CRT wrong. Far from it. Until you do, it stands. You are the one standing in opposition to the thesis here. It is your responsibility to affirmatively prove it wrong.... or the thesis stands.

Debate 101.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178072
"CRT is a legal theory and aims"

This is inaccurate. It is a theory that uses legal analysis. Which broadly speaking means that the application of law is open to interpretation. Which further means that your demand for rigor is rather specious.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178073
"Here's an example of research on the matter:"

Actually I asked for a specific example of an economic shock that leads to a mere perception of systemic racism. Not a study.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178075
"But this reality does not mean that the system is itself racist, as you have acknowledged by saying the effects of racism can remain even after it's gone. "

Nope what I said was when some particular instance of systemic racism may have passed. I specifically remained skeptical that all racism might be alleviated.
Last edited by PataOneil on 24 Jun 2021 13:27, edited 1 time in total.
By late
#15178082
If ya can't blind them with your brilliance, bury them in your BS...
By wat0n
#15178094
PataOneil wrote:"I believe"

So your position is based in faith? I thought you were requiring rigor? You seem to be requiring rigor from CRT that you are not willing to require of yourself.

Are you subject to some special privilege in this matter?


Please quote the full text there, so 1) I can tell what you mean here and 2) you are forced to deal with all the argument and not a disconnected cherry picked version of it, yet another form of strawman fallacy.

PataOneil wrote:"The problem is that, as I mentioned above, you are making a modeling assumption when you say the mere existence of racial differences for an outcome is clear evidence of systemic racism. Whether that's the case or not is an open question - I don't think you'll find easy smoking guns here."

Not at all, CRT is saying that racial disparities in treatment define systemic racism.


And what I'm saying is that you have yet to prove these differences arise from racial differences in treatment.

PataOneil wrote:"Statistics can be rigorous, but it can often be done in a sloppy way too."

Haven't noticed that you've done your due diligence to prove that the statistics I've cited are sloppy. Until you do, I'll assume that you agree that they are rigorous.


I also explained why your use of statistics is sloppy here. Another example of sloppy statistics is interpreting them incorrectly.

PataOneil wrote:"Here I defer to Russell's teapot - "you can't prove me wrong" does not mean you are right."

I am satisfied that you haven't proven CRT wrong. Far from it. Until you do, it stands. You are the one standing in opposition to the thesis here. It is your responsibility to affirmatively prove it wrong.... or the thesis stands.

Debate 101.


No, that's not how debating works. Again, if so then I can also say there is a completely imperceptible unicorn in my garage and this would also stand until you prove me wrong. I can also accuse you of a felony and this would also stand until you prove me wrong (interestingly, this is exactly what Blacks were subjected to during Jim Crow too).

PataOneil wrote:"CRT is a legal theory and aims"

This is inaccurate. It is a theory that uses legal analysis. Which broadly speaking means that the application of law is open to interpretation. Which further means that your demand for rigor is rather specious.


No, it's not inaccurate CRT aims to change the law. Interpretation of the law also falls into this category, an example of this is how Plessy kick-started officially sanctioned segregation and Brown ended it, even though the corresponding relevant parts of the Constitution for each case remained the same.

Also, again, please quote the whole sentence and not just a cherry picked and disconnected part of it. Not doing so is a strawman and I won't bother addressing those again.

PataOneil wrote:"Here's an example of research on the matter:"

Actually I asked for a specific example of an economic shock that leads to a mere perception of systemic racism. Not a study.


No, you asked an example of #4, namely, examples of economic shocks that affect racial groups differently in the labor market. I gave you a full paper about it.

Pretty dishonest to pretend otherwise, by the way.

PataOneil wrote:"But this reality does not mean that the system is itself racist, as you have acknowledged by saying the effects of racism can remain even after it's gone. "

Nope what I said was when some particular instance of systemic racism may have passed. I specifically remained skeptical that all racism might be alleviated.


Either systemic racism exists or it does not, and furthermore your claim does not logically negate the idea that even if all instances of systemic racism passed, their cumulative effects would still be felt. If you think there will always be instances of systemic racism, it's possible but I don't see why that would necessarily be the case. "Always" is a very long time.

PataOneil wrote:"Please provide evidence that this is literally the case in the US"

Sure, in prison you are not allowed to pick your own occupation. You should read "The New Jim Crow"

The USA locks up more people than any other country in the world.

https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-t ... my_tid=All


This does not mean people are banned from choosing their occupation based on race, unless you are claiming White prisoners can choose their occupation while others can't. Is that so?
By Pants-of-dog
#15178105
33 pages of debate, and I have yet to see a criticism of CRT that is clear and correct.
By wat0n
#15178109
Pants-of-dog wrote:33 pages of debate, and I have yet to see a criticism of CRT that is clear and correct.


Will you finally respond to this?

wat0n wrote:You tell me. Is it true that standpoint theory was initially based from a loose Marxist idea? At least Britannica seems to claim so ("Standpoint theory, a feminist theoretical perspective that argues that knowledge stems from social position. The perspective denies that traditional science is objective and suggests that research and theory have ignored and marginalized women and feminist ways of thinking. The theory emerged from the Marxist argument that people from an oppressed class have special access to knowledge that is not available to those from a privileged class. In the 1970s feminist writers inspired by that Marxist insight began to examine how inequalities between men and women influence knowledge production. Their work is related to epistemology, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature and origins of knowledge, and stresses that knowledge is always socially situated. In societies stratified by gender and other categories, such as race and class, one’s social positions shape what one can know").

Is it true standpoint epistemology is not quite in agreement with the scientific method? Again, the article would suggest so too ("Standpoint theorists also question objective empiricism—the idea that science can be objective through rigorous methodology. For instance, Harding stated that scientists have ignored their own androcentric and sexist research methods and results, despite their claims of neutrality, and that recognizing the standpoint of knowledge-producers makes people more aware of the power inherent in positions of scientific authority. According to standpoint theorists, when one starts from the perspective of women or other marginalized people, one is more likely to acknowledge the importance of standpoint and to create knowledge that is embodied, self-critical, and coherent").


Are you saying then that my critique of CRT's reliance on standpoint theory is not both clear and correct? Because the above does not help to make that case and you have yet to provide a response.
By Pants-of-dog
#15178110
wat0n wrote:Will you finally respond to this?



Are you saying then that my critique of CRT's reliance on standpoint theory is not both clear and correct? Because the above does not help to make that case and you have yet to provide a response.


Please rewrite this and your other post that you quoted so that it is not in the form of questions.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178116
"I also explained why your use of statistics is sloppy here. Another example of sloppy statistics is interpreting them incorrectly."

No you didn't. You made some hazy claim about some stats could be sloppy others could be rigorous.

So prove which are. Not much to interpret when I'm simply quoting a stat.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178118
"Please quote the full text there, so 1) I can tell what you mean here and 2) you are forced to deal with all the argument and not a disconnected cherry picked version of it, yet another form of strawman fallacy."

You wrote it. And belief isn't an argument.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178120
"And what I'm saying is that you have yet to prove these differences arise from racial differences in treatment."

A definition doesn't have to be proven. I thought you said you are a math guy?
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178121
"No, that's not how debating works. Again, if so then I can also say there is a completely imperceptible unicorn in my garage and this would also stand until you prove me wrong. I can also accuse you of a felony and this would also stand until you prove me wrong (interestingly, this is exactly what Blacks were subjected to during Jim Crow too)."

Yes in fact that is how debate works.

I would not choose to debate you about a unicorn in your garage. I'd simply think you were having an episode.

You choose to oppose the thesis... on you to prove it wrong.

You've failed verbosely.
  • 1
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 53
Did You Get Vaccinated?

Cope. Still not getting jigglypuffed. :)

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

I am personally fearful of possible adverse effec[…]

Tyler Durden is Zero Hedge, meaning you've jump[…]