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.
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.