CRT - Page 39 - 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.
By wat0n
#15178382
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


Certainly mere criticism is not enough. However, an outright rejection is a different matter isn't it?

One can criticize the scientific method yet still think it's the best epistemic approach we have figured out this far.

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


You still did not answer the question, though. What does the fact that standpoint theory can lead to concluding two mutually exclusive claims are true say about its quality as an epistemic approach?

In that situation, I would just do away with it and turn to a different one to be able to tell which claim is actually true, or to say if I can't take a position on their veracity, explaining why.

PataOneil wrote:I did answer your question. I said I don't know.


Then why would you claim it's widespread in American society, perhaps even incurable?

PataOneil wrote: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?


I'll give it a thought as it may depend on the situation but you could perhaps infer it if the judge is using over the top stereotyping (for instance, and even more so if it goes against how judges are require to reason their rulings), but it's not necessarily about language is it? You may also see if there are any differences in the judge's opinions for similar situations but for defendants and plaintiffs of different races.
By Pants-of-dog
#15178383
wat0n wrote:Certainly mere criticism is not enough. However, an outright rejection is a different matter isn't it?

One can criticize the scientific method yet still think it's the best epistemic approach we have figured out this far.


So you incorrectly assume that CRT scholars reject the scientific method entirely.

That seems to be what you are arguing.

You still did not answer the question, though. What does the fact that standpoint theory can lead to concluding two mutually exclusive claims are true say about its quality as an epistemic approach?


Provide an example, please and thank you.
By wat0n
#15178386
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you incorrectly assume that CRT scholars reject the scientific method entirely.

That seems to be what you are arguing.


...Only when it clashes with narrative. If I'm wrong, would you provide an example where this does not happen, and in particular where they choose the scientific method over narrative when the latter would lead them to conclude something entirely consistent with the claims by CRT proponents?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide an example, please and thank you.


I already did.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178391
wat0n wrote:Then why would you claim it's widespread in American society, perhaps even incurable?



I'll give it a thought as it may depend on the situation but you could perhaps infer it if the judge is using over the top stereotyping (for instance, and even more so if it goes against how judges are require to reason their rulings), but it's not necessarily about language is it? You may also see if there are any differences in the judge's opinions for similar situations but for defendants and plaintiffs of different races.


This was your question:

"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 never said that racism is widespread in the legal community or incurable. I said I don't know to your question, twice.


So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... not use stereotyping... and yet still make racist decisions through the law?
By wat0n
#15178395
PataOneil wrote:I never said that racism is widespread in the legal community or incurable. I said I don't know to your question.


Earlier ITT you said the following as a response when I asked why is White Nationalism a force to be reckoned with in the US:

PataOneil wrote:By electing a white nationalist president who then went on to support Neo Nazis and White Nationalism. Same dude was acknowledged by his own party as a racist.


And you also said the following about ending all claims in the context of reparations:

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


Let me see if I get this straight.

Racist movements like White Nationalism have a large impact in the USA (such as by electing the President) and racism is seemingly ingrained in American society due to the original sin of slavery yet somehow it's not clear to you if it translates in a widespread manner into the legal profession?

PataOneil wrote:So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his language... not use stereotyping... and yet still make racist decisions through the law?


Isn't that something you claimed earlier? That explicit racism is not necessary for being racist through (abusing) the law.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178396
wat0n wrote:Let me see if I get this straight.

Racist movements like White Nationalism have a large impact in the USA (such as by electing the President) and racism is seemingly ingrained in American society due to the original sin of slavery yet somehow it's not clear to you if it translates in a widespread manner into the legal profession?


Nope, it isn't clear.

wat0n wrote:Isn't that something you claimed earlier? That explicit racism is not necessary for being racist through (abusing) the law.


You didn't answer my question. You asked a question.

So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... avoid stereotyping... and yet still make decisions that are racist through the law?
By Pants-of-dog
#15178397
wat0n wrote:...Only when it clashes with narrative. If I'm wrong, would you provide an example where this does not happen, and in particular where they choose the scientific method over narrative when the latter would lead them to conclude something entirely consistent with the claims by CRT proponents?


No, this seems like a time when you could provide an example of a CRT scholar rejecting the scientific method.

I already did.


No, You did not.
By wat0n
#15178399
PataOneil wrote:Nope, it isn't clear.


How could systemic racism be sustained if it was not the case that the legal profession shares the same prejudices that the general American population has as a result of slavery and also given that White Nationalism is a force to reckon? After all, the legal profession seems to play a key role in sustaining and practicing systemic racism.

PataOneil wrote:You didn't answer my question. You asked a question.

So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... avoid stereotyping... and yet still make decisions that are racist through the law?


You did claim that explicit racism is not necessary for being racist through the law. I presume you are not walking back from that.

Since you made the claim, then surely you must believe the answer to your question is "yes". Also, I don't see how could the judge moderate ruling in different ways when the only difference between the cases is the race of the defendant. That also happens to be one key way in which systemic racism would cause different incarceration rates by race, if it were a widespread yet somehow hidden practice.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this seems like a time when you could provide an example of a CRT scholar rejecting the scientific method.


After you provide the example I requested. I can make those requests too.

You also believe it's possible to prove a negative, so go ahead and do it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, You did not.


Yes, I did. I cited the example of Mr Hershman earlier ITT of a white person claiming to be discriminated against and that the government favors Black people.

And I also cited Kimberle Crenshaw, a Black person who believes that the government discriminates against Black people and favors white people. I also mentioned people like Alicia Garza, one of the founders of the BLM movement, which is self explanatory.

I'm waiting for you to provide a cogent explanation to why would one consider standpoint theory as an useful epistemic approach when consistently using it can lead you to conclude two mutually exclusive propositions are true.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178402
wat0n wrote:How could systemic racism be sustained if that was not the case and the legal profession took a completely different stance on the matter relative to the rest of the population? After all, the legal profession seems to play a key role in it.


Actually I asked you if systemic racism through the law could exist if judges, lawyers, law enforcement and juries did not participate in enforcing racism through the law.

YOU said no. I expressed no opinion on the matter.


wat0n wrote:You did claim that explicit racism is not necessary for being racist through the law. I presume you are not walking back from that.


Would you mind quoting me directly saying just that?

wat0n wrote: Since you made the claim, then surely you must believe the answer to your question is "yes". Also, I don't see how could the judge moderate ruling in different ways when the only difference between the cases is the race of the defendant. That also happens to be one key way in which systemic racism would cause different incarceration rates by race, if it were a widespread yet somehow hidden practice.


I don't understand what you mean by the part in bold. I didn't ask about rulings. I asked about stereotyping language which is what you brought up.

I'll repeat my question:

So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... not use stereotyping... and yet still make racist decisions through the law?
By wat0n
#15178404
PataOneil wrote:Actually I asked you if systemic racism through the law could exist if judges, lawyers, law enforcement and juries did not participate in enforcing racism through the law

YOU said no. I expressed no opinion on the matter.


I see. Then tell me, what's your basis to suspect there is racism through the law if you have no opinion regarding the importance of the behavior of judges, juries, lawyers and law enforcement?

PataOneil wrote:Would you mind quoting me directly saying just that?


I would say it's implied in your position. Am I wrong?

PataOneil wrote:I don't understand what you mean by the part in bold. I didn't ask about rulings. I asked about stereotyping language which is what you brought up.

I'll repeat my question:

So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... not use stereotyping... and yet still make racist decisions through the law?


Hold on. Aren't rulings the bottom line as far as judges are concerned? And furthermore, aren't rulings sustained by opinions? I don't think a judge can issue a verdict without justifying it.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178405
wat0n wrote:I see. Then tell me, what's your basis to suspect there is racism through the law if you have no opinion regarding the importance of the behavior of judges, juries, lawyers and law enforcement?



I would say it's implied in your position. Am I wrong?



Hold on. Aren't rulings the bottom line as far as judges are concerned? And furthermore, aren't rulings sustained by opinions? I don't think a judge can issue a verdict without justifying it.


"So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... not use stereotyping... and yet still make racist decisions through the law?"
By wat0n
#15178406
PataOneil wrote:"So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... not use stereotyping... and yet still make racist decisions through the law?"


I think I already answered this. I think I even said you could compare said rulings, not just for the outcome but also the opinions themselves. And no, it's not just about rhetoric but the merits of the opinions themselves.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178408
wat0n wrote:I think I already answered this. I think I even said you could compare said rulings, not just for the outcome but also the opinions themselves. And no, it's not just about rhetoric but the merits of the opinions themselves.


"Think?",

I still can't tell is that a yes or a no?

"So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... not use stereotyping... and yet still make racist decisions through the law?
By wat0n
#15178409
I don't need to provide you with a binary response, even more so when I gave you an answer that works just fine.

So what's your basis to suspect there is racism embedded through the law if you have no opinion regarding the importance of the behavior of judges, juries, lawyers and law enforcement as far as this topic is concerned?
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178410
wat0n wrote:I don't need to provide you with a binary response, even more so when I gave you an answer that works just fine.

So what's your basis to suspect there is racism embedded through the law if you have no opinion regarding the importance of the behavior of judges, juries, lawyers and law enforcement as far as this topic is concerned?


You do if you want to debate me. I've decided that this is a necessary way to operate with you since you have a difficult time with understanding, accuracy and honesty.
By wat0n
#15178411
PataOneil wrote:You do if you want to debate me. I've decided that this is a necessary way to operate with you since you have a difficult time with understanding, accuracy and honesty.


Funny, that's exactly what I think about you!

After all, upon providing you with evidence as strong as the one you requested, such as when you wanted me to show evidence of economic shocks having differential effects on employment by race, you refused to read it. You also went on to imply a conspirational view about racism among the legal profession and now that you got called out you simply refused to address it. Let's not even start with your tendency to selectively quote from my post and butchering my responses, itself a form of a strawman - one you have yet to acknowledge. As far as understanding goes, you can't even understand the difference between the statements "there are racial differences in an outcome" and "racial differences in an outcome are caused by systemic racism" and why the latter is a much stronger claim.

And let's not get into the realm of outright stupidity, such as believing people should vote as many times as they want does not undermine democracy itself.

:)
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178412
wat0n wrote:Funny, that's exactly what I think about you!

After all, upon providing you with evidence as strong as the one you requested, such as when you wanted me to show evidence of economic shocks having differential effects on employment by race, you refused to read it. You also went on to imply a conspirational view about racism among the legal profession and now that you got called out you simply refused to address it. Let's not even start with your tendency to selectively quote from my post and butchering my responses, itself a form of a strawman - one you have yet to acknowledge. As far as understanding goes, you can't even understand the difference between the statements "there are racial differences in an outcome" and "racial differences in an outcome are caused by systemic racism" and why the latter is a much stronger claim.

And let's not get into the realm of outright stupidity, such as believing people should vote as many times as they want does not undermine democracy itself.

:)




"So, you don't believe a judge could moderate his/her language... not use stereotyping... and yet still make racist decisions through the law?"
By Pants-of-dog
#15178460
wat0n wrote:After you provide the example I requested. I can make those requests too.

You also believe it's possible to prove a negative, so go ahead and do it.


No. Since you made the claim, I will allow you to provide support for your claim.

Yes, I did. I cited the example of Mr Hershman earlier ITT of a white person claiming to be discriminated against and that the government favors Black people.


His “narrative” does not fit the definition that you provided.

And I also cited Kimberle Crenshaw, a Black person who believes that the government discriminates against Black people and favors white people. I also mentioned people like Alicia Garza, one of the founders of the BLM movement, which is self explanatory.


What exactly did these people say and how does it support whatever argument you are now making?

I'm waiting for you to provide a cogent explanation to why would one consider standpoint theory as an useful epistemic approach when consistently using it can lead you to conclude two mutually exclusive propositions are true.


Since I never argued that, I see no reason to defend that claim.
By wat0n
#15178473
@PataOneil let me know when you can come up with a cogent counter-response to my already provided response to your question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Since you made the claim, I will allow you to provide support for your claim.


You are making the claim they do not, I thought you believed you can prove negatives? Do it! :)

But anyway, even CRT scholars themselves recognize that part of their field would only agree to science when it confirms their preestablished political program:

Barnes (2016) wrote:...

While the call to collaborate has been clear, the specifics of those collaborations are somewhat ambiguous. Legal scholars such as Professors Gómez, Obasogie, and Carbado advocate that e-CRT should involve a mutually respectful structure I refer to as a "framing of equals," under which the engagements between CRT and social science research would be understood as mutually beneficial." Additionally, Professor Crenshaw indicated that CRT scholars reaching out to other disciplines should do so keeping CRT's political commitments intact.53 These formation calls did not, however, attempt to specify preferred types of collaborations between critical legal scholars and social scientists or articulate the components of the work to be considered within the e-CRT oeuvre.54 It is for this reason that e-CRT-like CRT itself-should be imagined as a fairly broad umbrella movement. To explore what e-CRT is, then, is not to instantiate an orthodoxy but to assess the work that has been done. One challenge that exists in discerning whether work is e-CRT is that, outside of articles within symposia grouped under the topic, it is not clear which articles touching upon race and social science should be included. Based on that challenge, a primary question to be explored must be what it means for scholars and work to respectively "do" and "be" e-CRT.

...

1. SOLO CROSS-DISCIPLINARIANS

Some e-CRT work is accomplished by scholars with training in empirical methods and a demonstrated awareness of CRT's tenets, methods, and political commitments" as solo cross-disciplinarians. These scholars are so named because, based on their training and knowledge, they conduct their own original empirical work without collaborators. The hallmark of the best work of these scholars is that race is investigated in nuanced and innovative ways. Two notable scholars associated with e-CRT who have produced work of this ilk in recent years are Osagie Obasogie and Kaaryn Gustafson. Professor Obasogie conducted an empirical study that queried how the blind understand the concept of race. He found that race was so central as a social-organizing influence within the United States that related negative stereotypes are effectively communicated even to persons who were blind since birth. Through interviews conducted with aid recipients outside of welfare offices, Gustafson's study explored how welfare policies, including rules criminalizing welfare fraud, disproportionately and negatively affect women of color.63 Both of these scholars conducted empirical research that was attendant not only to how race shapes the phenomena they were studying but to the specific tenets of CRT.' Such a focus is a primary goal of e-CRT work.65

...

3. THEORY ENGAGERS

In the early working groups, a point of tension in the meetings was the assertion that empirical research presented an opportunity for critical scholars to test theories that had long been advanced. As Professor Kimani Paul-Emile asserted, the hopeful understanding of social scientists taking up CRT doctrines involved "the premise that the significant issues raised by CRT could be strengthened by increased reliance on social science research methods that quantitatively and qualitatively measure the structural inequities exposed through CRT analysis."" A number of scholars, however, bristled at the idea that claims emanating from the lived experience of discrimination and subordination needed to be empirically verified. Moreover, these scholars certainly would not have shifted or abandoned their beliefs based on researchers asserting the claims could not be verified through empirical studies. It is for this reason that empirical studies of foundational CRT concepts, even when conducted by well-meaning and sympathetic researchers, have a potential to damage the delicate trust being built between critical and sociolegal scholars. This concern over disconfirming studies, however, ultimately neither derailed future working group meetings nor stalled the emergence of empirical studies seeking to explicate CRT principles

...

As Leachman's article demonstrates, one need not create and conduct a study to test some CRT tenet in order to perform effective theory engagement. In an area other than intersectionality, work by Geoff Ward, in this current collection of articles, is also instructive. Trained as a sociologist, Ward has previously done excellent work on race and juvenile justice91 and historical racial violence.' More recently, however, his work has particularly started to draw on the insights of CRT. In both his work on "slow violence"93 and "Microclimates of Racial Meaning: Historical Racial Violence and Environmental Impacts," 94 he addresses synergies between social sciences and CRT. Additionally, in the latter piece, he engages with CRT founder Richard Delgado's theory of "rotten social background" in his discussion of severe environmental deprivations.9 In much the same way as the empiricists who engaged intersectionality theory, Ward's complementary incorporation of CRT work is likely to raise no concern from either critical scholars or social scientists. A critical moment of fissure may, however, arise in e-CRT when an engagement with a CRT principle or theory seeks to challenge or disprove it.' In other words, the strength of any enterprise is much more likely to be revealed in moments of contest rather than cooperation.

4. EMPIRICAL DIVINERS

Finally, the fourth category identified here describes e-CRT scholars and projects that use existing empirical studies and research to enhance their theories and claims. While not necessarily trained in social science methods, these empirical diviners or dilettantes depending on ones' point of reference about the advisability of such work-seek to make sense of empirical findings within their projects. The engagement with social science research can range from narrow or strategic' to quite broad.98 Much of the work I have done over my entire academic career, alone and with co-authors, has been of this nature.' This also covers quite a bit of work that appears in the two previously mentioned e-CRT symposia and this collection. A concern that arises for this group is whether they have the empirical training and sophistication necessary to understand the findings and potential limitations of a given study. For example, social scientists who are generally supportive of critical scholars drawing on empirical research have expressed the following concern with regard to psychological studies:

In their understandable eagerness to appropriate empirical
evidence that bears the legitimizing authority of psychological
science, perspectives like Critical Race Realism may turn a
blind eye toward the racial positioning inherent in scientific
theory and method.1

It is for this reason that the training of solo cross-disciplinarians and partnerships with social scientists in fruitful collaborations present somewhat safer options. The potential weakness posed by empirical diviners, however, should be regarded as no greater than that which arises for theory engagers. While the e-CRT work accomplished by those in the former category may produce work that insufficiently appreciates or misapplies research findings, work conducted by those in the latter may create studies that are ill-attentive to how race is actually experienced."' If e-CRT is to stand as a true joining of equals, problems resulting from both types of fallacy should be regarded as similarly problematic.


The introduction to a paper shown below makes it clear there are some CRT scholars who believe there is inherent tension between CRT and the scientific method:

Carbado & Roithmayr (2014) wrote:...

The relative newness of this group and the absence of more scholarship at the intersection of CRT and the social sciences may reflect what some have called an “unacknowledged schism” between the two fields (Obasogie 2013, p. 184). Indeed, some critical race theorists have expressly argued that social science is potentially antithetical to the core critical commitments that characterize CRT (Brown 2004, Culp et al. 2003).

...


And several pages of the paper dig into this in detail.

Pants-of-dog wrote:His “narrative” does not fit the definition that you provided.


You conceded he, as a White person, is more apt and believable when speaking about anti-Whiteness. Are you taking this back, showing standpoint theory then is only valid for some but not for all people?

Pants-of-dog wrote:What exactly did these people say and how does it support whatever argument you are now making?


It would seem Crenshaw believes white privilege exists. So who's right, she or Mr Hershman?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I never argued that, I see no reason to defend that claim.


Then why would anyone rely on it when it can conclude two mutually exclusive claims are true?
  • 1
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 53
Did You Get Vaccinated?

@JohnRawls Thailand's rise in Covid-19 infectio[…]

I am personally fearful of possible adverse effec[…]

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

You know what must be done, xué sheng. The ques[…]