[PataOneil]

"No, it's not inaccurate CRT aims to change the law."

Aiming to change the law, doesn't mean it's legal. No one's civil rights are being violated by other people's response to CRT.



Rabbit hole.

[PataOneil]

I asked for an example you gave me a paper.

You can't tell the difference between and example and a paper?

[PataOneil]

"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?"

Please refer to the stat I quoted about incarceration for your answer.

[PataOneil]

"Pretty dishonest to pretend otherwise, by the way."

No need to get personal. Please don't get upset again... we are just chatting.

[PataOneil]

"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."

You've misunderstood... again.

[PataOneil]

"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."

I think I'll keep on doing what I'm doing. But thanks for being polite about it.

[PataOneil]

"I can also accuse you of a felony and this would also stand until you prove me wrong"

So? Wouldn't have any legal force. You could accuse me of being a murderous unicorn... Can't see why that would bother me. Felonies and such are matters before the court. Guilt is rarely rigorously proven. Different standards of evidence.

It would likely drive you nuts.

[PataOneil]

"Always" is a very long time."

Time might be eternal.

[PataOneil]

"Plessy kick-started officially sanctioned segregation..."

Geez here I thought chattel slavery kick-started officially sanctioned segregation.

Silly me.

[PataOneil]

"Either systemic racism exists or it does not"

Can you prove this rigorously? Can you prove it exists?

[PataOneil]

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

I haven't been trying to prove that. What I've said is that CRT claims such differences define systemic racism... not cause it.

You are a stat guy, and you aren't aware that correlation does not equal causation?

" def•i•ni•tion dĕf″ə-nĭsh′ən►

n.
A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
n.
A statement or description of the fundamental character or scope of something."

Can you rigorously prove the definition of blue?

No?

Gosh, I guess that means you aren't sure whether or not blue exists.

[Godstud]

@PataOneil You really need to start editing your posts instead of doing multiple posts, which are against the forum rules. The button just to the right of the 'Like' button on the right hand side of your post, is where you'll find 'edit' option.

Just a heads up!

[PataOneil]

@PataOneil You really need to start editing your posts instead of doing multiple posts, which are against the forum rules. The button just to the right of the 'Like' button on the right hand side of your post, is where you'll find 'edit' option.

Just a heads up!

Oops my bad. Will do. Thanks.

[wat0n]

Please rewrite this and your other post that you quoted so that it is not in the form of questions.

Just respond if the following statements by Britannica are true:

1) 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".

2) "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".

If they are true, then please say what does it say about CRT's reliance on standpoint epistemology.

"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.

I already did so: The fact that differences by race exist for an outcome does not mean they are caused by discrimination.

"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.

So you are going all in your strawman. Quote all of the response and then make your argument from it.

By the way, a belief is simply "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing" so when I say "I believe claim X" I'm simply saying my state or habit of mind in which I have trust X is true. I don't say I know whether X is actually true or not because I acknowledge the answer may be uncertain. Beliefs are not necessarily unrigorous either as it is possible to rigorously arrive to the state or habit of mind in which I place trust that claim X is true, even if I'm in fact wrong (perhaps because I unknowingly started from a false premise) and also even if I acknowledge I could be wrong.

"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?

That's not the definition of "racial differences in an outcome". The definition of "racial differences in an outcome" is that, on average, members of the difference racial groups have different outcomes. It does not make any claims about the causes behind those differences.

"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.

So in your view, I can claim you committed a felony and it's on you to prove you did not. If you can't, then you are the one who can't debate and you are guilty.

"No, it's not inaccurate CRT aims to change the law."

Aiming to change the law, doesn't mean it's legal. No one's civil rights are being violated by other people's response to CRT.



Rabbit hole.

So if for instance CRT advocates want the government to restrict certain political speech, there are no civil rights being violated here?

I asked for an example you gave me a paper.

You can't tell the difference between and example and a paper?

A paper is a lot more systematic, and stronger, than some random example.

"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?"

Please refer to the stat I quoted about incarceration for your answer.

No, that does not get to the issue. Just because there is a greater probability of incarceration for some racial groups than others, it does not mean prisoners are treated differently while in jail. Are white prisoners allowed to choose their occupation while nonwhite ones are not?

"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."

You've misunderstood... again.

So what did you mean here?

"I can also accuse you of a felony and this would also stand until you prove me wrong"

So? Wouldn't have any legal force. You could accuse me of being a murderous unicorn... Can't see why that would bother me. Felonies and such are matters before the court. Guilt is rarely rigorously proven. Different standards of evidence.

It would likely drive you nuts.

Oh, but libel is something that can be taken to court. So yes, claiming you committed a felony would indeed get me to pay for it if you took me to court for it.

"Plessy kick-started officially sanctioned segregation..."

Geez here I thought chattel slavery kick-started officially sanctioned segregation.

Silly me.

Even segregation assumes the different groups are composed of persons, a chattel slave OTOH is not even a person and is not different from a pet (in fact, enslaved Blacks probably had less legal protections than pets nowadays). When you go to a restaurant that does not allow pets, we don't say it's segregating humans and pets.

"Either systemic racism exists or it does not"

Can you prove this rigorously?

Follows from its definition: Either racism is embedded in the legal system and society or it's not.

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

I haven't been trying to prove that. What I've said is that CRT claims such difference define racism... not cause it.

You are a stat guy, and you aren't aware the correlation does not equal causation?

" def•i•ni•tion dĕf″ə-nĭsh′ən►

n.
A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
n.
A statement or description of the fundamental character or scope of something."

Can you rigorously prove the definition of blue?

No?

Gosh, I guess that means you aren't sure whether or not blue exists.

And I'm saying CRT's definition does not make sense, because then even random variation would be racist if it leads to differences in an outcome for different racial or ethnic groups.

Also, saying the existence of racial differences in an outcome means it's caused by systemic racism is in fact assuming correlation is causation. It seems you have no idea of what this means.

And we can tell the color blue exists to the point that we understand the physical properties that define the color blue.

"Pretty dishonest to pretend otherwise, by the way."

No need to get personal. Please don't get upset again... we are just chatting.

I'm pretty chill. Also, please try to condense everything in a single post - it makes it hard to follow the thread when you respond to each point in different posts. Thanks.

[PataOneil]

I already did so: The fact that differences by race exist for an outcome does not mean they are caused by discrimination.

It does when the thesis you are arguing against defines systemic racism that way. And you haven't actually proven anything, you've made a statement. If you have a problem with the stats... then deal with the stats.

So you are going all in your strawman. Quote all of the response and then make your argument from it.

{shrugs} You wrote it, you have to read it to respond. Not sure why I should take up a bunch of room when you know what you wrote.

By the way, a belief is simply "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing" so when I say "I believe claim X" I'm simply saying my state or habit of mind in which I have trust X is true. I don't say I know whether X is actually true or not because I acknowledge the answer may be uncertain. Beliefs are not necessarily unrigorous either as it is possible to rigorously arrive to the state or habit of mind in which I place trust that claim X is true, even if I'm in fact wrong (perhaps because I unknowingly started from a false premise) and also even if I acknowledge I could be wrong.

Right so you are expecting a rigorous proof of others without holding yourself to the same standard. See? You didn't need the whole thing quoted... you knew exactly what I was talking about. What's funny is that you gigged someone else for belief in this same thread awhile back.

{shrugs again}

That's not the definition of "racial differences in an outcome". The definition of "racial differences in an outcome" is that, on average, members of the difference racial groups have different outcomes. It does not make any claims about the causes behind those differences.

Actually CRT specifically defines the thesis. It never says anything at all about cause. You keep confusing the two.

"critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour"

See nothing in there about causes... just a definition of way CRT views the socially constructed way society tends to oppress and exploit people of color.

"A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. It is an assumption that something is true."

So I start in this debate from an assumption that the premise is true. You start from an assumption that it is false. Thus it behooves you to prove YOUR case. And in fact, what you've actually done is admitted that CRT might be true, without proving that it isn't.

So the statistics I've cited define the ways in which people of color are treated differently. Until you can discredit the stats... rigorously... which you haven't even attempted to do... you haven't taken a single step in disproving thesis.

So in your view, I can claim you committed a felony and it's on you to prove you did not. If you can't, then you are the one who can't debate and you are guilty.

We are not going to get anywhere until you read what I say. It's a prerequisite for understanding what I said. Then you have to be able to paraphrase what I said while retaining the actual meaning of what I said. You are slipping up somewhere in that process.

So if for instance CRT advocates want the government to restrict certain political speech, there are no civil rights being violated here?

If? I thought you wanted to be rigorous? Have you established that CRT advocates have actually gotten the government to restrict free speech in regards to CRT?

A paper is a lot more systematic, and stronger, than some random example.

But I was looking for a specific example...

No, that does not get to the issue. Just because there is a greater probability of incarceration for some racial groups than others, it does not mean prisoners are treated differently while in jail. Are white prisoners allowed to choose their occupation while nonwhite ones are not?

It means they are treated differently to get into prison which means they as a group have less choice about their occupations. Which is what you asked for.

So what did you mean here?

I have no idea which word or group of words you don't understand. Would you mind being more specific?

Oh, but libel is something that can be taken to court. So yes, claiming you committed a felony would indeed get me to pay for it if you took me to court for it.

You are assuming that I would take you to court when I specifically said I would not. Again, please read and understand what I write.

Even segregation assumes the different groups are composed of persons, a chattel slave OTOH is not even a person and is not different from a pet (in fact, enslaved Blacks probably had less legal protections than pets nowadays). When you go to a restaurant that does not allow pets, we don't say it's segregating humans and pets.

This is you distracting from the fact that Plessy did not kick start segregation in the USA. Do you ever admit it when you are wrong?

Follows from its definition: Either racism is embedded in the legal system and society or it's not.

So racism can't crop up for a short time and disappear? You seem to have made the point that it can. I thought you were all about consistency?

And I'm saying CRT's definition does not make sense, because then even random variation would be racist if it leads to differences in an outcome for different racial or ethnic groups

Also, saying the existence of racial differences in an outcome means it's caused by systemic racism is in fact assuming correlation is causation. It seems you have no idea of what this means.

You can say it doesn't make sense, doesn't get you very far in proving that systemic racism doesn't exist. And no once again the stats simply define the way in which systemic racism exploits minorities. Doesn't say anything about cause. Random variation is why statisticians define a confidence interval. Are you sure you are a stat guy? Seems to me that you are simply avoiding trying to do the job you set out to do. Go ahead and prove that the stats I cited are sloppy or the result of random variation.

I mean at least try to prove something...

And we can tell the color blue exists to the point that we understand the physical properties that define the color blue.

"Blue" is an epiphenomenon, not a physical property. The physical property you are discussing is a range of wavelengths of visible light. Means jack to a blind person. What color is microwave? See?

[Pants-of-dog]

Just respond if the following statements by Britannica are true:

1) 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".

2) "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".

If they are true, then please say what does it say about CRT's reliance on standpoint epistemology.

Please define what you mean by “CRT's reliance on standpoint epistemology”.

[wat0n]

It does when the thesis you are arguing against defines systemic racism that way. And you haven't actually proven anything, you've made a statement. If you have a problem with the stats... then deal with the stats.

Where did you get though that systemic racism is defined in that way? Would you cite a definition?

Also, why should I accept their vocabulary at all?

{shrugs} You wrote it, you have to read it to respond. Not sure why I should take up a bunch of room when you know what you wrote.

Nope, because I think you are selectively responding to my statement. Address all of it, since it forms a cohesive unit.

Right so you are expecting a rigorous proof of others without holding yourself to the same standard. See? You didn't need the whole thing quoted... you knew exactly what I was talking about. What's funny is that you gigged someone else for belief in this same thread awhile back.

{shrugs again}

I am holding myself to that standard, which is why I stated I have a belief that discrimination may not be not behind those differences in outcomes (for reasons I already stated) as opposed to claiming it's a fact that discrimination does not cause those differences.

Actually CRT specifically defines the thesis. It never says anything at all about cause. You keep confusing the two.

"critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour"

See nothing in there about causes... just a definition of way CRT views the socially constructed way society tends to oppress and exploit people of color.

That's a statement about what race is (as a concept), it does not say anything about differences in outcomes by that socially constructed category (i.e. "race") being defined as systemic racism. In fact, that is most certainly not the definition of systemic racism that I've been used elsewhere either.

"A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. It is an assumption that something is true."

So I start in this debate from an assumption that the premise is true. You start from an assumption that it is false. Thus it behooves you to prove YOUR case. And in fact, what you've actually done is admitted that CRT might be true, without proving that it isn't.

So you are basically saying your premise is true because it is true. Am I correct here?

So the statistics I've cited define the ways in which people of color are treated differently. Until you can discredit the stats... rigorously... which you haven't even attempted to do... you haven't taken a single step in disproving thesis.

No, you defined such results as being the result of discrimination but that's a circular reasoning and, again, it leads to you even claim random variation can be a form of discrimination.

We are not going to get anywhere until you read what I say. It's a prerequisite for understanding what I said. Then you have to be able to paraphrase what I said while retaining the actual meaning of what I said. You are slipping up somewhere in that process.

Care to explain why my statement would be wrong? What is it that I'm not understanding?

If? I thought you wanted to be rigorous? Have you established that CRT advocates have actually gotten the government to restrict free speech in regards to CRT?

Fair, here's an example:

Scholars of critical race theory have focused, with some particularity, on the issues of hate crime and hate speech. In response to the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the hate speech case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), in which the Court struck down an anti-bias ordinance as applied to a teenager who had burned a cross, Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawrence argued that the Court had paid insufficient attention to the history of racist speech and the actual injury produced by such speech.[48]

You can read about the case here, it includes some of the reasons for the original ruling.

But I was looking for a specific example...

You can read the paper then

It means they are treated differently to get into prison which means they as a group have less choice about their occupations. Which is what you asked for.

That's a very roundabout way to say it, even worse, it's not clear that they getting into prison at different rates as a result from discrimination.

I have no idea which word or group of words you don't understand. Would you mind being more specific?

What didn't I understand about your original claim?

You are assuming that I would take you to court when I specifically said I would not. Again, please read and understand what I write.

That would only be a result of your indifference, though.

This is you distracting from the fact that Plessy did not kick start segregation in the USA. Do you ever admit it when you are wrong?

Did you even understand what I said?

Anyway: Before the Civil War, segregation was indeed a thing as well, including the North where there were jurisdictions that mandated segregating free whites and free blacks. But I don't think it had ever been tested in court, as it was clearly Constitutional given the lack of the Equal Protection concepts in the Constitution. Plessy is different since it also enshrined it as being Constitutional despite the 14th Amendment and the civil rights gains after the Civil War.

So racism can't crop up for a short time and disappear? You seem to have made the point that it can. I thought you were all about consistency?

Sure, it can be embedded into the law for a short time and then disappear. Indeed, it could become embedded in the law again in the future.

That does not mean it is possible to find some sort of Shroedinger's systemic racism under this definition

You can say it doesn't make sense, doesn't get you very far in proving that systemic racism doesn't exist. And no once again the stats simply define the way in which systemic racism exploits minorities. Doesn't say anything about cause. Random variation is why statisticians define a confidence interval. Are you sure you are a stat guy? Seems to me that you are simply avoiding trying to do the job you set out to do. Go ahead and prove that the stats I cited are sloppy or the result of random variation.

I mean at least try to prove something...

Yes, I'm a stat guy. I also understand confidence intervals may not be reliable in practice, if your statistical model is inadequate.

But you are missing the point here: Even if you find a difference for a group, it can be caused by random variation too. For example, if a farming community suffers from a drought (a weather phenomenon that may in fact be the result of a stochastic phenomenon) and loses income as a result, you would not take average income by community, find that this and other communities affected by the draught earn less and then claim they suffer from discrimination "by definition". If it happened that the communities affected are largely from a single racial group, and they are large enough to affect the nationwide estimate of income for that group, you could then find that this community has statistically lower income than others and (again) it would be not be obvious this is a result of discrimination let alone proper to simply presume all of these differences arise due to discrimination. Sure, you may be rigorously wrong (you made a claim that is logically sound but factually false), but wrong nonetheless.

"Blue" is an epiphenomenon, not a physical property. The physical property you are discussing is a range of wavelengths of visible light. Means jack to a blind person. What color is microwave? See?

Even a blind person should be able to understand the physical phenomenon of the color blue. What he may not understand is the sensorial aspects of that and any other color, if he's blind since birth.

For instance, just because we cannot perceive some frequencies when hearing does not mean we don't understand other animals do. We cannot understand how those frequencies sound like, like some animals can, but we can understand how these are defined and their physical properties.

Please define what you mean by “CRT's reliance on standpoint epistemology”.

Sure. I mean CRT's acceptance and application of standpoint theory as part of its epistemology.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

What of it?

How is CRT’s use of standpoint epistemology a criticism?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

What of it?

How is CRT’s use of standpoint epistemology a criticism?

Is this a serious question?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Yes.