CRT - Page 38 - 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
#15178346
wat0n wrote:If some lawyers, juries and judges are not involved then you'll find the smoking gun sooner or later. You'll get judges, for instance, that will not be willing to allow of a coverup of a video showing a law enforcement officer uttering a racial slur before killing an African American or allow a coverup of an order by a law enforcement agency to enforce the law differently depending on the racial identity of one or multiple civilians.

So no, I don't agree with you: It is definitely possible to find a smoking gun of systemic racism like what I described.

Do you have anything else to add?


So, just to be clear you do agree that if systematic racism through the law, the way it's been defined by the definition you cited, existed, it would necessarily involve at least some judges, lawyers, juries and law enforcement?
By wat0n
#15178349
PataOneil wrote:So, just to be clear you do agree that if systematic racism through the law, the way it's been defined by the definition you cited, existed, it would necessarily involve at least some judges, lawyers, juries and law enforcement?


Sure, some would be involved. What's your point? I hope you are not trying to say that, since there are racial differences in incarceration rates or some other similar outcome related to the criminal justice system, then it necessarily implies that there are at least some judges, juries, lawyers and law enforcement enforcing systemic racism through the law.

If so, no, that inference is wrong.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178350
wat0n wrote:Sure, some would be involved. What's your point? I hope you are not trying to say that, since there are racial differences in incarceration rates or some other similar outcome related to the criminal justice system, then it necessarily implies that there are at least some judges, juries, lawyers and law enforcement enforcing systemic racism through the law.

If so, no, that inference is wrong.


So, for it to be systemic, it would need to be widespread?
By wat0n
#15178352
PataOneil wrote:So, for it to be systemic, it would need to be widespread?


You tell me: Can specific instances of discrimination by a few judges, juries, lawyers and law enforcement cause nationwide differences by race in outcomes like incarceration rates?

Also, how likely would it be for them to get away with it if it's not widespread?

But to answer your question directly: Technically, not if you limit your analysis to some specific jurisdiction, for instance. It's also possible that discrimination exists in few lowly populated jurisdiction only and not in the others. And it's possible to have systemic racism if it's widespread and massive. At last, it is also possible that there is no such systemic racism and differences in outcomes by race arise for other reasons.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178354
wat0n wrote:You tell me: Can specific instances of discrimination by a few judges, juries, lawyers and law enforcement cause nationwide differences by race in outcomes like incarceration rates?

Also, how likely would it be for them to get away with it if it's not widespread?

But to answer your question directly: Technically, not if you limit your analysis to some specific jurisdiction, for instance. It's also possible that discrimination exists in few lowly populated jurisdiction only and not in the others. And it's possible to have systemic racism if it's widespread and massive. At last, it is also possible that there is no such systemic racism and differences in outcomes by race arise for other reasons.


So it's possible to have systemic racism through law if it's wide spread and massive?
By wat0n
#15178358
PataOneil wrote:And how would you identify that situation if it happened?


You can read, for example, legal opinions by judges or lawyers and infer what do they think about race.

But... Is it really widespread? CRT is not a powerless current in the legal profession, at all. For instance, the American Bar Association for instance has its own articles about CRT and several law schools require training on anti-racism as part of their curriculum.

So no, the plot is not thick.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178359
wat0n wrote:You can read, for example, legal opinions by judges or lawyers and infer what do they think about race.

But... Is it really widespread? CRT is not a powerless current in the legal profession, at all. For instance, the American Bar Association for instance has its own articles about CRT and several law schools require training on anti-racism as part of their curriculum.

So no, the plot is not thick.


So by inference. What would such inferences look like specifically? What evidence would you expect to find and how would it carry forward logically, step by step, to a conclusion of systemic racism through law?
By wat0n
#15178360
I already have you concrete smoking gun evidence you could find. You could also find it in opinions by judges if you wanted, or (as with law enforcement officers and agencies) leaks of private communications.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178361
wat0n wrote:I already have you concrete smoking gun evidence you could find. You could also find it in opinions by judges if you wanted, or (as with law enforcement officers and agencies) leaks of private communications.


And you just said inference from judge's decisions. And I'd like to know what kind of things you could infer a pattern of systemic racism though law from from judge's decisions and interviewing law enforcement.
By wat0n
#15178362
PataOneil wrote:And you just said inference from judge's decisions. And I'd like to know what kind of things you could infer a pattern of systemic racism though law from from judge's decisions and interviewing law enforcement.


You can read a judge's opinions, yes. Perhaps, you could tell us how would you prove that racism is widespread in the legal profession given the popularity of CRT (as shown by how it's featured even by the American Bar Association) and given that several law schools require anti-racism training in their curriculum.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178363
wat0n wrote:You can read a judge's opinions, yes. Perhaps, you could tell us how would you prove that racism is widespread in the legal profession given the popularity of CRT (as shown by how it's featured even by the American Bar Association) and given that several law schools require anti-racism training in their curriculum.



And what kinds of things in a judge's decisions would lead you to infer that the judge was exhibiting a pattern of racism?
By wat0n
#15178365
PataOneil wrote:And what kinds of things in a judge's decisions would lead you to infer that the judge was exhibiting a pattern of racism?


You can infer from the language and terms the judge uses. I provided you an example from a 1912 opinion from a TX court that I think we can agree shows the judge was racist (and that it was accepted enough to be racist that he would write something like that).

I'll answer further questions when you tell us how would you prove that racism is widespread in the legal profession given the popularity of CRT (as shown by how it's featured even by the American Bar Association) and given that several law schools require anti-racism training in their curriculum.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178366
wat0n wrote:You can infer from the language and terms the judge uses. I provided you an example from a 1912 opinion from a TX court that I think we can agree shows the judge was racist (and that it was accepted enough to be racist that he would write something like that).

I'll answer further questions when you tell us how would you prove that racism is widespread in the legal profession given the popularity of CRT (as shown by how it's featured even by the American Bar Association) and given that several law schools require anti-racism training in their curriculum.


I don't know. That's why I'm asking you. You seem to have this all figured out.

So what kind of language and terms would lead you to believe that a judge is pursing a pattern of racism through the law?
By Pants-of-dog
#15178367
wat0n wrote:I'm still waiting for you to respond which approach takes precedence when they reach differing conclusions according to CRT advocates, narratives or the scientific method?

Just because it's not illogical to be able to reach the same conclusion using different epistemic approaches it does not mean there is no preference for ones over the others. The way to infer so is to decide which is relied on when they do not reach the same conclusions, of course.


I do not know, and neither do you.

I predict you assume that they discard the scientific method, ad then you will use this assumption as your criticism, and ignore the fact that this is merely your assumption.

So which claim is true here, does the US government discriminate against Whites or it discriminates in favor of Whites?


No one cares and it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Since you seem to agree that people who have experienced something know more about that thing than people who have not experienced it, I will assume that this tangent no longer contains any criticisms about CRT and will be ignored.
By wat0n
#15178369
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not know, and neither do you.

I predict you assume that they discard the scientific method, ad then you will use this assumption as your criticism, and ignore the fact that this is merely your assumption.


It's not an assumption when standpoint theory itself claims the scientific method is not reliable.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No one cares and it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Since you seem to agree that people who have experienced something know more about that thing than people who have not experienced it, I will assume that this tangent no longer contains any criticisms about CRT and will be ignored.


No, you don't care and it definitely is relevant to the discussion. You don't care and are trying to evade the question because using standpoint epistemology would lead you to conclude two mutually exclusive claims are true, which is a contradiction. Therefore, it's not a good epistemic approach.

@PataOneil since you did not answer my question, I won't answer yours until you do.
By Pants-of-dog
#15178372
wat0n wrote:It's not an assumption when standpoint theory itself claims the scientific method is not reliable.


I see.

You are incorrectly assuming that any criticism of the scientific method, correct or not, logically demands that the critic must dismiss the scientific method at any point where there is conflict regardless of anything else.

That is an unrealistic and illogical assumption.

No, you don't care and it definitely is relevant to the discussion. You don't care and are trying to evade the question because using standpoint epistemology would lead you to conclude two mutually exclusive claims are true, which is a contradiction. Therefore, it's not a good epistemic approach.


No, this caricature of standpoint epistemology that you use is based on unrealistic and illogical assumptions, such as the assumption that people who use it think it is 100% accurate all the time.

It is ridiculous to assume that CRT scholars do that.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178375
wat0n wrote:since you did not answer my question, I won't answer yours until you do.


I did answer your question. I said I don't know.

So, what kinds of language and terms would a judge have to use to convince you that s/he were pursuing a pattern of systemic racism through law?
  • 1
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 55

More stupid arguments, I see. It won't matter be[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all of[…]