CRT: Critical Race Theory as Bogeyman

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Jun 13, 2021.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You do understand that the KKK Democrats switched to the Republican Party more than fifty years ago, right? That the people you are talking about - the ones waving Confederate Flags at political rallies, the ones that gerrymander voting districts to isolate the black vote and expose black people to systemic racism without democratic recourse - are Republicans now and have been for your entire adult life?

    Even if you haven't read any American history, or paid any attention to modern American politics, you have the advantage of getting such information from the posters here - in bite sized pieces that shouldn't overwhelm anyone's capabilities of comprehension. Try looking up "Dixiecrat" on the internet, for example - the Wiki entry is less than two pages long:
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Ah, another science illiterate, who doesn't understand what a default assumption (null hypothesis) is. "Centuries old" does not logically equate to "current" or "continuing." So this little conflation by you is just your dodge of providing any evidence for your own claim, like your typical conspiracy theorizing crackpot.
    The null hypothesis is that personal choices can lead to personal suffering. So if this boogeyman of "systemic white racism" exists, the onus is purely yours to demonstrate it. You know, not just proclaim it, as a bare assertion and quasi-religious dogma.

    More quasi-religious dogma, proclaiming the "truth." There are rules against proselytizing here, you know.

    Again, chalk it up to your poor education. Or should I call it indoctrination?

    Yeah, the dogmatic often do need to ignore actual facts and numbers.

    More dogmatic defensiveness.
    Try to keep up. If black children raised in single-parent homes has increased since LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, it's Marxist redistribution, not capitalism, that has been the contributing factor. You do know that single parents get more welfare, right? That's called perverse incentives.

    Again, only the dogmatic would fail to understand the importance of the distinction between subjective belief and objective evidence.

    Everyone knows this is pure projection, as you've been so eager to ignore evidence and provide none of your own.

    Which demonstrates you have no clue what CRT is.

    No, that's a non-rhetorical question. If the system is supposedly designed to benefit whites, why do they so often fail?

    You mean racial divisions that are still imposed by Democrats and leftists, who demand that color-blindness is somehow wrong and we must always view everyone through the prism of racial/group identities. That's their grift. CRT is all about maintaining those identity divisions. So no, arguing against them is not subsumed by CRT. Again, that would be your quasi-religious dogmatism.

    And since it seems to have gone completely over your head, even though I use examples from CLS, etc. for rhetorical purposes, I don't espouse any of the race/class nonsense of CRT, CLS, or Marxism. I'm just using CRT's own history against it.

    Let me spell it out for you. None of these are rhetorical:
    Do you have current examples that Appalachians "have" power over black people?
    Who said different demographics fail at equivalent rates? I certainly did not.

    If whites can fail because they're "fuckups," why can't black people?
    If whites can fail due to luck, why can't black people?
    If whites can fail due to class warfare (which includes rich and powerful blacks), why can't black people?

    Are you starting to see how these assumptions of yours are racist?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    I can't help you if you willfully believe lies. The current Democrat party is still the party of institutional power that causes the most racial segregation, the highest income inequality, etc..
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I know the difference between a default assumption and a null hypothesis. So that makes me more literate than some.
    "Centuries old now" would be the quote. "Logical equation" is irrelevant - it's an observation, not a theoretical deduction.
    No, it isn't. There is no argument or assertion otherwise.
    The racial divisions that overpolice, detain, prosecute, and jail black people at several times the frequency X length of white people under otherwise matched circumstances are not imposed by leftists and Democrats.
    The racial divisions obvious in the segregation of white churches and schools and neighborhoods and nonunion jobsites are not imposed by leftists and Democrats.
    Bankers and policemen and white fundie Christians and small business executives are not leftists or Democrats, in general. They are predominantly Republican and rightwing.
    For starters, there is no "the" contributing factor. There are lots of contributing factors.
    The bad effects of LBJ's partially and sparsely implemented Great Society programs, a couple of which were "welfare" programs, did not make all the other bad in the world vanish. They did not even cancel out the good effects, which have become even more easily visible as they have eroded under the Reagan rollbacks.
    Once again: character flaws, inability, bad luck, different definitions of "success", lots of reasons. Do you have some kind of point you are trying to make?
    By "Appalachians" you mean white people born and raised in a certain locale and among a certain demographic, presumably.
    Of course.
    The suppression of the black vote in North Carolina, for example.
    And that is in addition to the greater powers and privileges they enjoy that are extraneous to, rather than "over", black people. And we are talking about some of the least powerful, least privileged, white people in the US, compared to the average and ordinary black person. The average, ordinary white person of course has higher comparative status yet.
    You're getting kind of silly. Are you sure you have ever read any CRT stuff at all, outside of your own typing?
    Nobody said you, or anybody, did.
    They can and do, all the time, of course. They also fall out of trees in the "down" direction, just like white people.
    Are you ok? Running a fever?
    Not sure what you are trying to talk about - you forgot to post my supposed assumptions.
    Reagan and all his policies (which are still in force), were and are Republican. Not Democratic. The Klan, the White Citizens Councils and the like, the Proud Boys and all their kind, are Republican now. Many years ago they were Democratic.
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2021
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    considering your essentially demanding we take your word for it because as usual you provide no proof other than your pronouncements of fact, which are really hard to accept as evidence when you apparently don't know the name of one of the major parties in the country you live in.

    its the republican party and the democratic party. there is no democrat party in the us.

    the KKK would disagree with you considering they endorsed trump

    your pathological inability to deal with realty doesn't mean people are lying it just means you are delusional which you are.
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Ah, the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display.
    The null hypothesis represents what we would believe by default, before seeing any evidence.

    In inferential statistics, the null hypothesis (often denoted H0)[1] is a default hypothesis that a quantity to be measured is zero (null).
    It is suggested that the default position (the null hypothesis) should be that the treatments are not equivalent.

    In any hypothesis test, you have a default hypothesis (the null hypothesis) and the theory you’re curious about (the alternative hypothesis).

    The null hypothesis is considered the default in a scientific experiment.
    Notice how the overly-confident ignorant will always fail to define, in any way, what they claim to understand. Their only option is to proclaim what they "know," as a bare assertion, devoid of any actual facts, reason, or justification. They can only repeat the claim, perhaps hoping to one day convince themselves (as soothe their needy ego), as it's always meaningless prattle to anyone else.
    That's called begging the question, where you arrive at your conclusion solely based on your own assumptions. Your obviously blinkered observations are completely meaningless.
    Yes, if there's "no argument or assertion otherwise," that's literally a null hypothesis. But thanks for continuing to demonstrate your scientific illiteracy.
    Yes, all that occurs at much higher rates in Democrat-run cities and states. Kamala Harris was a prominent spearhead of just such policies↑. I know the facts are inconvenient for you, but they do include that Democrat-run cities have the highest racial segregation (enforced by things like the party platform against school vouchers) and income inequality (exacerbated by other party platforms, like abortion, welfare, etc.). These things do not occur at such rates in Republican-run cities. All your proselytizing proclamations, devoid of evidence, do not change those facts. No wonder you keep your head buried so deep in...
    I know you're desperate for any meaningless victory you think you can muster, but this nit-pick is defeated by the simple definition of "contributing."
    contribute - help to cause or bring about​
    That doesn't say "cause or bring about," otherwise we'd just use the word "cause." It says "help to cause," which literally means it may not be the only cause. Maybe you're illiterate of more than just science.
    If the Great Society helped, why did black, single-parent households increase precipitously after it was implemented?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then why the special pleading about why black people fail? Just more begging the question with your foregone conclusions?
    So that would be a "no." You don't have any current, specific evidence you can point to that justifies your claim. Otherwise, simply link to any evidence showing Appalachians currently suppressing black votes. You can't, because you're obviously just making bare assertions.
    If you really didn't think I understood CRT, you shouldn't have said nonsense like this:
    The implication being that different demographics do fail at different rates under "racism's influence." That's either a claim you must support, or more meaningless prattle we can all just ignore.
    Then it's on you to show your special pleading for black people failing for other reasons white people do not.
    It's your argument that black people are more prone to failure than white people.
  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Considering your pathological inability to use capitalization, I guess we have to make concessions for you not realizing that the proper name of the party would be the Democratic Party (both capitalized, as the proper name). Hence "Democrat party" is the party of Democrats, not the proper name of the party.
    And those are guilt by association fallacies. Marxists, communists, and anti-Semites call the Democratic Party their home. Should we infer from those that it is representative of the whole party?

    Likewise, throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s, Democratic governors and overwhelmingly Democratic State Legislatures controlled the South, which steadfastly opposed the push for civil rights. In contrast, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, openly praised school desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education decision and sent federalized Arkansas National Guard troops to Little Rock to protect nine black students after Democratic Governor Orval Faubus threatened to keep them out of a previously all-white high school.

    Eisenhower was a phenomenally popular war hero when he was elected in 1952, and even though only one Republican had ever before won any southern states in the Electoral College (Herbert Hoover in 1928), Eisenhower began to make inroads for the Republican Party; winning Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee. In his landslide victory four years later, Eisenhower picked up Louisiana and Kentucky.
    A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

    Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

    From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

    If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

    The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

    In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

    In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.
    sculptor likes this.
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    It just seems useful to point out just how afraid of "CRT" white supremacists are. This is how desperate they are to change the subject.
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    and now
    a brief musical interlude

    that required an extra o

    ah well
    fun anyway
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Aw, Tiassa failed to notice who changed the subject, thus undermining his point. Or just blatant intellectual dishonesty.
    But I agree, it was a leftist changing the subject, and they are the people who currently push racist policies.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    History is indeed interesting stuff. CRT has been enlightening the alert about that old time stuff for a few decades now - and it has been startling, apparently, even to many black people.*
    It was your claim - you assigned it to me, mistakenly, and apparently under the assumption that it was rhetorical.
    Amusingly enough, it wasn't - it was quite easy to come up with very obvious examples, and I picked this one:
    The North Carolina legislative suppression of the black vote, just this past year.
    The exact people you required, exerting raw power over black people just as you required, with no real complications of interpretation.
    Such as the obvious and dominating effects of white racism in America. Done and done. CRT built that case like granite igloo.

    *It was called the Solid South. Nixon was the first Republican Pres candidate to figure out how to get all those racially bigoted southerners to vote Republican without being a war hero like Eisenhower - it was called the Southern Strategy, and involved directly and clearly running against LBJ's Civil Rights policies and legislation. Nixon realized that LBJ had alienated the racial bigots in the Confederacy and elsewhere, they were a majority of the white voters in those States, and a Republican could win a national election by appealing to them (and suppressing the black vote).

    It worked, and ever since Nixon the American white male racial bigot has voted Republican in Presidential elections - that's how Nixon, Reagan, Bush, W, and Trump became Presidents. Every single Republican President since Nixon has run by appealing to white racial bigotry, in the Confederacy and elsewhere, and if they won that's how they won.

    It worked so well that many Democratic Southern segregationists running for Federal office - such as Strom Thurmond - switched Parties in the middle of their careers. No politician appealing to the American white racial bigot vote since the Korean War has switched from Republican to Democrat.
    If any of them ever did represent their Party, winning their Party's nomination for President and support in leadership roles and so forth as Nixon, Reagan, Bush, W, and Trump did, we would be correct in noting the fact.
    When the association is the evil, it's not a fallacy. It's an observation.
    In Presidential elections, from 1964 until 1968. Nixon derailed it by disgracing himself, Reagan rehabilitated it in 1980. House and Senate turnover is much slower, of course. But it did happen - look around.

    nb: The Klan has been overtly endorsing and voting Republican in Presidential elections for Vociferous's entire adult life. So has the modern Confederacy in general - not just the Klan proper, but all those White Citizens Councils and white slaver's flag wavers and similar folk.

    If you look at a map of the Confederacy and a map of the States won by Republican Presidential candidates, election by election since Reagan whitewashed Nixon's disgrace, the overlap is obvious. If you look at the polling data and demographic distribution of votes within the States, the conclusion is obvious. Vociferous doesn't know what that means, because he is not capable of recognizing systemic and institutionalized and culturally dominant racial bigotry in action. It looks like ordinary, normal, human nature to him. It looks like his own nature.

    And not just his: "sculptor likes this."
    That cat was out of that bag long ago. But the occasional confirmation is welcome - they can post innuendo and asscovering "just curious" slanders forever, like a cat burying its shit, but the smell doesn't ever go away.
    No. The implication - now a confirmed claim - was that you don't know what the assumptions of CRT are. My suspicion that you haven't actually read any CRT outside of your own typing is solidifying into a supported observation.
    You claimed "the cause". As you have now confirmed, that was wrong. You were wrong, and your entire argument depended on that boneheaded claim.
    Once again: Do you have some kind of argument or point in mind? The topic was the role, value, and validity, of CRT, if you recall.
    If you keep this up, you will force the conclusion that you are trying to deny the dominant influence of white racism on the culture and society of the United States. You dumb enough to do that?
    It isn't. As is ubiquitous in your replies: Almost exactly the opposite appears in my posting.
    I have been remaining more on topic, for starters. The topic is CRT. My observation - which you and I have both argued for, although you don't seem to have noticed - is that CRT has been invaluable and enlightening, especially in its clarifications and explanations of American society and civilization - by which it has (among other contributions) buried once and for all the bigot's claim that the differences in failure rates between American black and American white people, as "races", must by the evidence be due to American black people being somehow more prone to failure (culturally or genetically) than American white people.
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2021
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Notice how iceaura lacks the intellectual honesty to simply admit when he demonstrably doesn't understand things like the null hypothesis. He just ignores it, like anything else that doesn't comport with his motivated reasoning and obviously biased perspective.

    So you needed CRT to tell you that, huh? Again, that seems a pretty strong indictment of either your education or your intellectual honesty. Baby bird has to have mama bird regurgitate the facts for him.
    Voter ID is not a suppression of black votes, according to most black people themselves. You know, because we all agree they can speak for themselves.
    Only ~18% or NC's population reside in Appalachia, so pinning anything the whole NC legislature does on them is intellectually dishonest.
    Again, your/CRT reference to the past does not equate to current evidence, no matter how much you may wish it so.
    Ah, another of your regurgitated leftist myths. You have to be ignorant of a lot of history to buy that garbage.
    Progressives insist that Nixon’s appeals to drugs and law and order were coded racist messaging. Yet when Nixon ran for president in 1968 the main issue was the Vietnam War. One popular Republican slogan of the period described the Democrats as the party of “acid, amnesty and abortion.” Clearly there is no suggestion here of race.

    Nixon’s references to drugs and law and order in 1968 were quite obviously directed at the antiwar protesters who had just disrupted the Democratic Convention in Chicago. His target was radical activists such as Abbie Hoffman and Bill Ayers. Nixon scorned the hippies, champions of the drug culture such as Timothy Leary, and draft-dodgers who fled to Canada. The vast majority of these people were white.

    Nixon had an excellent record on civil rights. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was an avid champion of the desegregation of public schools. The progressive columnist Tom Wicker wrote in the New York Times, “There’s no doubt about it — the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years or probably since. There’s no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived and led the administration’s desegregation effort.”

    Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere. Now, would a man seeking to build an electoral base of Deep South white supremacists actually promote the first program to legally discriminate in favor of blacks? This is absurd.
    And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.
    Educate yourself. The facts simply don't align with your leftist, revisionist history.
    Considering guilt by association is all about criticism by fallacy, evil by association most certainly is just as fallacious, no matter how dogmatically you deny it. Note the complete lack of argument here, and just the quasi-religious proclamation.
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2021
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member


    Citing the evolving change in Southern voting patterns over decades, due to industrialization more aligned with Republican fiscal policies, is no evidence of your mythical sudden switch.
    Reagan won everywhere but a small handful of states. Was the rest of the country also racist that year? Including all those Democrat voters? In 84, he only lost 2 states. So are you claiming the entire country was as racist as the South for at least four years? Do you realize that Carter won almost the entire south just before Reagan? So the Democrats were still the racists, even after Nixon? Then Clinton won a handful of Southern states, twice. I guess still some racist Democrat hold outs, in 92 and 96. Even Obama won 3 Southern states. Was that due to racists too?! Holy crap! They're diabolical.
    Facts just don't jive with your fantasy.
    It looks like your paranoid boogeyman. It must be hard on you, so afraid of both Republicans and black people becoming too dominant.
    Wait, so you don't think black people fail due to "racism's influence?" Since that is what CRT argues, we can only assume you're talking about things of which you have no clue. Not really a surprise.
    You really shouldn't put things in quotes that you just made up. That's just a lying straw man.
    Oh, I get why you'd feel the need to change the subject. When you're so dogmatic, inconvenient questions can be very threatening to your ideology.
    If you haven't yet gleaned that I've been repeatedly and explicitly saying that racism is not a dominant factor in the current society, you're far too obtuse for me to continue wasting my time on. Now be a good, predictable little boy and gloat about your fantasy victory. I'll let you.
    So black people don't fail at any greater rate than white people? And they also fail for the same reasons white people do?
    So where does the racism, systemic or otherwise, come in?
    No, CRT seems to have only "enlightened" you because of your lacking education, lack of intellectual honesty, etc..
    CRT is no replacement for non-revisionist history. If anything CRT perverts the history with leftist (explicitly activist) assumptions.
    Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. If "black people fail at the same rate as whites" and "for the same reasons," how is there any difference and where does racism enter into it?
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The assumptions of CRT seem to be your area of greatest ignorance about it. Which ones are "leftist", in your opinion?
    In American society, culture, history, social structure - American civilization. You sure you know what CRT is? You seem to have missed some basics.
    Wrong direction of influence - the shift of the southern bigot vote to Republican altered the policies governing industrialization of the South, with consequences everywhere visible today. (That prevented the establishment of unions or tax policies favorable to community development, cost the southern States control of their national border and city growth and the development of prosperity among the black population, buried the entire region in continuing poor education and medical care and a degraded environment, and so forth. The entire region became dependent on Federal government largesse, especially military expenditures, and various Federal welfare or subsidy programs. Reagan's influence on border control - his de facto opening of the southern border to anybody willing to work in non-union Southern industry, legal immigrant or not - has proven to be a particularly flagrant example).
    How would you know? You've never read anything except revisionist history. Like this:
    Not just revisionist, but recent and blatantly Partisan revisionist.
    You were the one who defined "contributing factor" as "cause". That makes "the contributing factor" a synonym for "the cause".
    I realize you are a lousy source for such things, but hey - - I agreed with that one in that context.
    Without the white racist vote, especially the Southern white racist vote, Reagan loses in 1980. Nixon loses in 1968. Bush quite possibly loses in 1988 (Willie Horton - remember?) W doesn't get close enough to steal 2000. And Trump never even gets nominated.
    For that matter, without the Democratic Party's cowardly and bare-assed whoring after the white bigot vote they regretted losing, Clinton never gets nominated either. Either Clinton.
    And they say I have no sense of humor.
    Nope. Try harder. Use actual quotes.
    ? You are the one confusing "null hypothesis" with "default assumption", still, despite your very own posting of definitions of null hypothesis as a small and technically specific kind of default assumption used in statistical inference and experimental design. I can't help you with that. And it isn't relevant here. (If it were, you would still be wrong, btw. Do you know why?)
    You have serious reading comprehension problems.
    Take your time, take it slowly:
    Racism is an additional factor - it doesn't make the rest of the world go away. Black people are not made perfect and failure-proof by white people's racism - black people remain ordinary human beings, just like white people. The large, obvious, and continuing damages inflicted upon them by the saturating racism of American civilization are added on top of the ordinary hazards of life as ordinary human beings. James Baldwin explained all this, long ago - you can see him on youtube videos dealing with this exact delusion he describes as being common to white Americans (I thought he was exaggerating, when I first read his essays - then I ran into people like you).
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Do you deny that systemic racism exists in the United States?
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Does that make it a bad thing, then?

    You have spent quite a bit of time and effort above trying to talk up a scare about Marxism. Why? Is it because you equate Marxism = socialism = communism = evil, automatically? Or you're scared of Marxism? Or what?

    Does it really matter what the antecedents of CRT were? If so, tell us why it matters so much to you?

    For me, the only thing that matters is whether CRT is correct or wrong. But you seem far more concerned about ideologies and Reds under the Beds.
    Racism doesn't exist? Or people aren't victimised because of racism? What is your claim, exactly? And do you plan on trying to advance an argument at any point, in support?

    Ah, the evil Left. Bastards! Trump for 2024! Right? Make America great again again.

    How do you go about determining the lived experience of other people, Vociferous? Do tell us what objective facts you rely on.

    Ooh Er! That does sound scarily Leftist. Run for the hills! The communists are coming!

    Must be a bad thing. Socialist theories? Who'da thunk it? The only theories worth having are good American Capitalist theories! Give the commies an inch and they'll take a mile! Never forget the Soviet Union! If you start believing racism exist, you might turn into a socialist yourself!

    Would you consider yourself an anti-critical race theory activist, Vociferous? Are you fighting the good fight?

    Even a tinge of Marxism is unthinkable. Out damned spot! Out, I say!

    I know a black person who doesn't think racism exists. Obviously, they must be right. On the other hand, anybody who says racism is a problem in America hasn't got a clue! (Right, Vociferous?)

    Nonsense. You really ought to read more widely. Give the right-wing propaganda a rest for a while. Give yourself a chance to connect with reality. Trust me: you'll end up much more relaxed and less angry than you are now. Those right wing demagogues have got you all riled up.

    Do you, personally, identify as historically privileged or historically underprivileged? Do you think it matters?
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    This is a fun graph.

    Did white people disappear around 1990?

    But wait! There's a line for "non-Latino White". Does that mean that "Latino" were categorised as "White" for the purposes of this graph before 1990?

    Now, adding up those "Non-Latino White" and "Latino" people, it looks like that "White" curve would cross over the "Black" curve somewhere between 1990 and now.

    Sorry. I got distracted. What's this graph supposed to prove, exactly? Please remind me.
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2021
  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Like an atheist's view on God, I've yet to see any actual evidence to that effect. Might help to start by defining the boogeyman of "systemic racism" in some sort of tangible way, that could avail itself to actual evidence. Point to an objectively racist person, policy, practice, etc. and we can work together to address it.

    Which of these do you feel is supposed to "scare" anyone about Marxism?
    Or was it when I cited Encyclopedia Britannica?
    CRT isn't even wrong because its antecedent, Critical theory, is not about finding or asserting "correct" answers. It's all about critique for the sake of activism (read agenda). Neat trick though, trying to slip in a jab about ideology. If you're going to straw man someone on this subject, might as well be the bête noire of Critical theory and its offshoots.
    Why are you so touchy about Marx? Are you a true believer?

    Try to keep the thread's context in mind, e.g. CRT and systemic racism. Of course, individual racism exists and people can fall victim to it, but that's a far cry from some systemic specter that victimizes an entire demographic. Let me know if you need me to draw a picture. Since the null hypothesis is that there isn't some society-wide plot afoot to victimize certain people, the onus is on those making the positive claim of "systemic racism."

    Are you intentionally making a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, or did you just not bother to read my earlier posts?
    I've already mentioned welfare, abortion on demand, etc..

    I don't. But neither do I accept subjective opinion as fact, without any supporting objective evidence. As a moderator on an ostensibly science forum, I presume you can appreciate that. Someone proclaiming their "truth" is proselytizing, not itself justification of a claim. It's like a blind person claiming it's always night. True enough to them, but meaningless as evidence of anything but their own blindness.

    So you do resort to reductio ad absurdum nowadays. Pity. Again, why is me citing something like so threatening? Did you intentionally leave off my citation of the source, to try to attribute it to me? Isn't misattribution against forum rules, or at least intellectually dishonest?

    Again, I'm citing Harvard there:
    Must of been another oversight, you leaving off the source.
    That was a direct rebut to the accusation that I was the one who added Marxism to CRT, but you already know that. If you don't like it, go have a talk with billvon.

    I'm not any kind of activist. Chalk it up to projection from the activist CRT source that quote comes from:
    BTW, you ever going to actually weigh in on the topic of this thread? Do you agree with CRT, or do you prefer to be noncommittal so as to avoid having to support anything yourself? Is taking jabs designed to avoid any real challenge fun for you?

    Do you even realize what a caricature you're becoming?

    Depends. Does the latter have actual evidence, or just a lot of opinion, cherry-picking/misrepresenting data, and conflating correlation for causation?

    Oops, you accidentally weighed in. So go ahead, show us your evidence. Or is this just a lot of self-gratifying puffery?

    You omitted the citation there again:
    Is that what passes for intellectual honesty around here nowadays?
    I don't identify as anything "historically," as I've only lived in present time.
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, I should have cited the source (although it's readily found on a Google image search of its title):,_1940-2014.png

    As the source for that time period states: "Until the early 1990’s, rates for white women included births to Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women because the necessary detailed population denominators were not available. Rates have been computed separately for Hispanic women since 1990, and non-Hispanic women, since 1994."

    Wait, so now an ostensibly science forum moderator either can't read a simple graph and/or doesn't understand pretty simple math?
    Those are the percentages per demographic, which *should* be clear by the fact that they don't sum to 100%. Adding the Latino and Non-Latino White together isn't just adding their percentages. 25% of 100 plus 25% of 100 isn't just 50%. It's 25% of 200.
    Man, have your reasoning skills really slipped that far?

    If you'd only read the post you quoted (which seems to be asking too much at this point), the point was:
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2021
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Already have, but since I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about, why don't you try telling me some CRT assumptions, and I'll tell you which are leftist and why. But I know you won't take me up on that. Too much work for the intellectually lazy.
    Those are the exact sort of vague, unsupported answers CRT is known for. I know you take it on faith, but some of us need more than leftist dogma.
    As I've already cited for you:
    Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere.
    And here's:
    Nixon tried to woo unions by signing the most significant pro-labor legislation since the 1930s, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
    So affirmative action in unions prevented the establishment of unions? What, were unions so racist they simply would not form under those stipulations? Those unions were as Democrat then as they are today:
    Labor leaders were also indignant at President Nixon's proposed corporate investment tax credit, which they described as “a blatant tax giveaway to big business.”
    Since of the two of us, I've cited more history, we'll be going with you being ignorant of non-revisionist history. And more unsupported, dogmatic pronouncements from your quasi-religious ideology to boot.
    Wow, your reading comprehension really is atrocious.
    Again, "help to cause" is not the same as "cause." Please learn to read.
    I'm done guessing at what you might be arguing. I'll give it a miss until you get around to it yourself.
    That you think there's a difference, while being unable to define either, much less actually manage to contrast them, just shows you're talking out of your hat. So much vacuous puffery. Must do something for your ego.
    Ah, there's the expected projection, as a delayed response to your own lack of such.
    So you are saying that black people fail at higher rates than whites, the difference being wholly accounted for by racism. Can you point to the actual racism in each case? Or is it still just this vague specter of which no one can manage to catch a convincing photo? That is a rhetorical question, as I already know you have no evidence to offer. Go take your nap now.

Share This Page