PataOneil wrote:"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. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans."
It's the premise, you don't get to redefine it. But the good news is that you don't have to accept it either. But if you are going to debate the premise then... do so.
No, firstly that's what CRT claims
and is thus subject to scrutiny. But also, that is most certainly not the definition of "systemic racism".
PataOneil wrote:Ambiguity is not an argument. This is just you believing that discrimination may or may not be behind differences in outcome. This is obviously not rigorous... it's wishy washy, and it once again concedes that the premise may be true without proving it is not.
On the contrary, it's rigorous to acknowledge your belief is not a fact. It is also not ambiguous to say so, the word you may be looking for is nuanced
PataOneil wrote:I've included a more complete definition of CRT above. Check it out. Doesn't matter what you've seen elsewhere. We aren't debating that.
This is a red herring and does not address what I said.
PataOneil wrote:Actually I said that CRT said it is true and you are supposed to be trying to prove it isn't.
What I'm saying is that 1) it's not rigorous, 2) it has not proven its claims properly. It's possible for CRT to be right but not being able to prove so in a rigorous manner.
PataOneil wrote:Can you quote me directly claiming that random variation is a form of discrimination? Don't see that I'm responsible for your misunderstandings.
I didn't say you
claimed so, I said that under your premises you could conclude that.
PataOneil wrote:Not my job to teach you reading comprehension. Puzzle it out. Given your intelligence, I seriously doubt you are confused In court, lawyers do this kind of thing to throw up a smokescreen in an attempt to obscure what their opponent is saying and to force them to spend time responding to BS. If you can't understand what I'm saying... Oh well. Go find someone you can understand to debate with.
I take it you have not supported that claim.
PataOneil wrote:So, where does it say that it was CRT advocates that wrote the law that SCOTUS struck down?
How about the part that the SCOTUS is ignoring the racial history involved here?
PataOneil wrote:Some reason you can't quote the pertinent section? I'm not going to bulldoze through all that when you can just quote the relevant parts... assuming they exist.
I would say you may as well start by reading the abstract
PataOneil wrote:Sorry you don't like the way I said it. Do you have some alternate explanation why black people are locked up at almost four times the rate of their incidence in the population?
There are differences in (for starters) criminal history, the actual crimes they are being tried for, etc. There is a long literature that mentions these as options and none is mutually exclusive with discrimination, by the way. It's entirely cogent to say "there are racial differences in behavior yet the system is still racially discriminatory", but normally the explanation by CRT advocates is exclusively the latter. In fact, you
are saying this is a premise of CRT proponents (it's not, BTW, it's a claim implied by their actual premises that societal problems are caused by systemic and cultural factors and that racism is embedded in US laws and society).
PataOneil wrote:How would I know? You tell me. Seems pretty clear to me.
I don't know, since I don't understand you could explain it to me.
PataOneil wrote:That's what I said. Still blows the hell out of your argument the way you phrased it.
I see. Would your family, for example, sue me instead?
PataOneil wrote:Yup, you said Plessy kick started segregation in the USA... you were wrong. At this point I can't decide if you just can't figure out when you are wrong, or have some problem directly admitting it.
Fine, you are right. Then let me rephrase and add some nuance I'm surprised I need to add: It started segregation as most remember it
. People have forgotten the North was segregated prior to the Civil War.
PataOneil wrote:Now if you had said that... you would have been correct. But you didn't... Isn't precision important to you?
It is indeed, so I hope you don't mind if I'm more precise
PataOneil wrote:Well then, I don't see how this helps your assertion that a society either has racism embedded in it or not. Seems like you are saying now... sometimes it might and sometime it might not. Can you clear up which you mean?
Do you think society could have racism embedded in itself for, say, 2 ms only? How about society cycling between having racism embedded within itself and then not having racism embedded within itself in intervals of 2 ms?
PataOneil wrote:Don't know what to tell you, you are the one that said "either racism is embedded in the society or it is not". Seemed a rather rash statement on your part. Which is why I pointed it out.
Well, that's why I'm saying it doesn't seem possible that systemic racism is like Schrodinger's cat.
PataOneil wrote:Your statement that "my model" is inadequate is not sufficient. In fact I don't even think I personally am using anything that can be formally characterized as a model.
It doesn't have to be a formal model, though. Just a short causal chain, like racial discrimination -> differences in outcome X by race. Although if I understand you correctly, you claimed CRT has the premise that racial discrimination <=> differences in outcome X by race
PataOneil wrote: All I'm saying is that the stats I cited indicate that racial groups are treated differently in the USA and that CRT says that such things are exploitative and oppressive due to social constructs not biology. You are supposed to be proving they aren't... rigorously.
You haven't even tried to do so.
No, the only thing those stats truly indicate is that there are differences in outcomes. Everything else you mentioned is possible reasons for these differences in outcomes, and it's up to you to back this explanation up.
By the way, this is something I've even read researchers who have found those differences say about what their research says (example)
. The fact that these differences exist is also of inherent interest, as their existence is possibly indicating a problem.
PataOneil wrote:Except you haven't actually proven this to be the case of any of the statistics I cited. In fact all you've been doing is saying could be. Have you ever taken a debate course? It doesn't seem that you are aware that you are supposed to be proving your assertions, not make unsupported statements and guesses.
My assertion is that you are jumping to conclusions here.
PataOneil wrote:You are just making the same mistake again. "Blue" is NOT a physical phenomenon, it's an epiphenomenon that depends on a person experiencing sight. I specifically said "blue" not a physical property with a wave length of such and such. This is you not being able to either understand you were wrong, or refusing to admit it. Either way you are confusing the primary phenomenon with the secondary one.
"An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon"
Do you understand?
Interesting definition of "blue" then. In reality though we understand the physics behind why a normal person will perceive something as being blue.
PataOneil wrote:Just out of curiosity, what would you consider proof that a society has racism embedded in it?
I already gave you an example of a smoking gun with regards to Jim Crow and earlier: Discrimination is made legal or even mandatory under the law, as it happened in the South at the time. You can also add that the law itself is discriminatory based on its direct effects, which it can be even if it is not done explicitly (such as the grandfather clauses back in the day, that were worded in such a way that their effects violated the 15th Amendment).
I don't think it's accurate to say there is such a smoking gun in current American laws, as discriminatory laws can be challenged in court if they violate the Constitution itself or anti-discrimination laws. Indeed, the latter is precisely what "discriminatory law" means, for legal purposes at least.