Why is CRT good?

@TinyViolins [quote]yet your response fails to address a single point I made.[/quote]

That's not really true. Did I address it point by point? No, but I responded relevantly, and acknowledged your passion and sincere interest in the subject.

[quote] You flippantly dismiss the entirety of the argument because it doesn't align with your subjective worldview, and then you deflect to several non-sequiturs and red herrings because the only proof you need for those is the capacity to have an opinion. You're using the exact same approach Flat Earthers use to confront accurate science. Regardless of what you believe, that's pure intellectual laziness. [/quote]

Not at all, and I'm disappointed you are now resorting to personal insults and retorts because I chose to not engage you point by point on this.

[quote]why do you remain unconvinced when there is very unambiguous data showing how the wealth divide and discrimination practices are driven primarily along racial lines, not class lines?[/quote]

Misdirection, and confirmation bias. There is a perversion in the scientific method when it comes to social issues. Instead of asking open ended questions, these type of studies have an answer in mind, then build the study around the answer they want to obtain. That along with poor sample sizes or biased samples, along with just the general acknowledgment that such things are pseudo science, they don't really determine absolutes, rather they provide general evidence that something might be true. If you choose to believe such things to the point of being emotionally invested into the subject, that is not my way.

[quote]How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you can casually disregard a mountain of research in favor of your own personal biases?[/quote]
I could ask you the same question.

[quote]This is the reason why there is a push to teach CRT in the first place. As long as people keep ignoring the direct and disproportionate impacts of policy on minority communities, the issues will never get resolved. CRT isn't about black celebrities, calling people names, or anyone being asked to give up anything (which is the biggest and most egregious red herring of them all), it's about how policies have an impact on people.

Whatever is being taught to the contrary isn't CRT and at best is a misguided approach to highlight racial disparities. Otherwise they'll end up like you and believe whatever they read on social media to justify refusing to do anything towards solving the problems.[/quote]

There is a divisiveness to these teachings that tell me it is a dead end. The way forward isn't to highlight and scapegoat a certain demographic of society, and cast the blame on them, it is to look within our own selves and see the commonalities and goals we all have in common and working together to reach those goals.

I am totally disgusted and disinterested in the culture du jour that seeks to blame most of societies ills on any racial, religious, or gender demographic. Once again, the main divider is class, not race or gender.

@SumKindaMunster Responding to what you project my feelings to be isn't addressing a point. It's a strawman argument and it's disingenuous to claim that you're addressing anything relevant when you failed to touch on a single fact that was presented in my posts. The closest you came to actually being relevant was when you shrugged away the effects of redlining by claiming "that's life". As if it's normal for people to be systemically discriminated against on the basis of their skin.

It's not an insult when it's describing your actions exactly. It's not even that you didn't address the argument point-by-point, but that you failed to address the facts of the case at all. Your response exudes intellectual laziness for the simple fact that you ignored every single piece of data provided. Instead you deflect to the spurious (and baseless) argument that white people are being demanded to surrender something in order to correct government failures, and then bring up black celebrities as if that's the focal point racial inequality. This highlights that you are either incapable or unwilling to think about an issue on anything beyond the rhetorical level.

This entire exchange with you seems to be predicated on your belief that your subjective opinions and biases can be equated with fact-based conclusions and data-driven research. It is a textbook example of anti-intellectualism to disregard the entirety of social sciences because you, without a shred of proof to support your claim, decided that the experts either don't know what they're doing or do know and are intentionally misleading people. This is exactly the Flat Earther response to their debunked claims. How can you honestly sit there and criticize the methodology when you haven't even bothered to look up any of the figures provided?

Even if one or two of the studies were flawed, I deliberately looked at multiple studies on each subject to confirm that they reached the same or similar conclusions. I mentioned as much in my last response because I suspected correctly that you didn't have the intellectual honesty to give a careful look at the actual figures.

The difference between your approach and my approach to the matter is that I rely on facts and carefully controlled research, while you can only muster your heavily biased interpretations of what you see on social media. That's why you can't be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with your beliefs, but rather your ignorant refusal to bring forth any evidence to support it, or at the very minimum to dispute the claims against it. Colin Kaepernick has nothing to do with wealth and income inequalities among black people.

The divisiveness to the teachings is based on the facts that classroom educators are not researchers nor experts in any field. Since most of them only have an education degree or an undergraduate degree in liberal arts, they're not really qualified to conduct statistical analysis. Just like you, they're projecting their own biases onto the argument and conflating opinion with fact.

Speaking of qualifications, what exactly qualifies you to make the (once again, completely unsubstantiated) claim that the problems with race lie solely with class? Or to decide what exactly the problems are that differentiate class from race, as if class hasn't traditionally been divided along ethnic and racial lines?

An easy way to disprove your unfounded claim would be to look solely at Hispanics. They have higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher high school dropout rates, higher gang membership, and lower post-secondary education than black people, yet statistically have higher median new worth, higher income levels, and higher home ownership rates. By your own arbitrary standards of class, these factors alone should have a proportionate impact if race was not an issue.

Besides, none of my facts, figures, or arguments were rooted in the culture war narratives that play out on Facebook and Twitter, so bringing them up in response to my claims is by definition a red herring. They only serve to deflect from the conversation and shield your ego from having to confront conflicting information. If we're going to address a problem, it's better to do it with a fact-based approach, since it's far more reliable than your speculative presumptions.

@TinyViolins [quote]Responding to what you project my feelings to be isn't addressing a point. It's a strawman argument and it's disingenuous to claim that you're addressing anything relevant when you failed to touch on a single fact that was presented in my posts. The closest you came to actually being relevant was when you shrugged away the effects of redlining by claiming "that's life". As if it's normal for people to be systemically discriminated against on the basis of their skin.[/quote]

Oh well excuse me for not responding in the manner of the Harvard debate club.

The fact is, you have chosen to believe a personally curated collection of facts and studies that you have decided are the key and the answer. Then you are demanding I go through your personal collection, point by point and rebut them for you.

Pass.

I'm trying to have a collegiate conversation here and exchange some thoughts and ideas.

[quote] Your response exudes intellectual laziness for the simple fact that you ignored every single piece of data provided. Instead you deflect to the spurious (and baseless) argument that white people are being demanded to surrender something in order to correct government failures, and then bring up black celebrities as if that's the focal point racial inequality. This highlights that you are either incapable or unwilling to think about an issue on anything beyond the rhetorical level.
[/quote]

Or as I stated and you ignored, perhaps the "studies" you are so enamored with are flawed, that's very typical for studies on social issues. It could very well be correlation, but you aren't going to consider that, you know what you know and there is no debating that.

[quote]
The difference between your approach and my approach to the matter is that I rely on facts and carefully controlled research, while you can only muster your heavily biased interpretations of what you see on social media. That's why you can't be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with your beliefs, but rather your ignorant refusal to bring forth any evidence to support it, or at the very minimum to dispute the claims against [/quote]

So don't take me seriously then. It really seems to bother you that I'm not interested in listening to your personal opinion that you developed using confirmation bias, and finding studies that supported what you already believed. I guess that's because you are so emotionally invested in this world view.

[quote]The divisiveness to the teachings is based on the facts that classroom educators are not researchers nor experts in any field. Since most of them only have an education degree or an undergraduate degree in liberal arts, they're not really qualified to conduct statistical analysis. Just like you, they're projecting their own biases onto the argument and conflating opinion with fact.[/quote]

But not you of course, you've done the work, looked at the studies and you know...."THE TRUTH" and it's your weary burden to be the only guy who sees how things really are. Gosh if only everyone would listen.

[quote]Speaking of qualifications, what exactly qualifies you to make the (once again, completely unsubstantiated) claim that the problems with race lie solely with class? Or to decide what exactly the problems are that differentiate class from race, as if class hasn't traditionally been divided along ethnic and racial lines?[/quote]

It wouldn't matter if I had a Masters in Social Policy you've already decided my qualifications.

And what are yours might I ask?


[quote]An easy way to disprove your unfounded claim would be to look solely at Hispanics. They have higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher high school dropout rates, higher gang membership, and lower post-secondary education than black people, yet statistically have higher median new worth, higher income levels, and higher home ownership rates. By your own arbitrary standards of class, these factors alone should have a proportionate impact if race was not an issue.[/quote]

Of course this could also be used to disprove your conclusions, if this is true, why aren't we putting more money into lifitng up Hispanics? Don't they deserve it more since it seems they are suffering higher rates of the same issues you are so obsessed with for black people?

[quote]Besides, none of my facts, figures, or arguments were rooted in the culture war narratives that play out on Facebook and Twitter, so bringing them up in response to my claims is by definition a red herring. They only serve to deflect from the conversation and shield your ego from having to confront conflicting information. If we're going to address a problem, it's better to do it with a fact-based approach, since it's far more reliable than your speculative presumptions.[/quote]

Go punch your pillow and scream about why everyone is so stupid and the world is unfair then.

Sorry you were so triggered.

@SumKindaMunster I think Herman Munster would be disappointed in you.

@BohemianBoo Your speculation as to what a fictional character thinks is of no interest to me.

Anything else?

@MalteseFalconPunch dont change subject now.
youre outraged over conservatives doing shit to kids.
but go all doe eyed when libs run this shit all thru the schools?

weird!

@okaybut and it's good to teach that truth, not pretend it didn't happen

@Pikachu I agree....some people cannot accept that they are part of the animal kingdom and not gods, lost in their own narcissism.

@Human1000 Guy walks away from a discussion on his own post that he initiated...for what it's worth I think what you are saying is interesting..I've made my opinion of this subject clear on this thread as well.

@SumKindaMunster The conflation of CRT and history is something I comment on when it comes up. There is a discipline called historiography which is “the study of the various approaches to historical method, the actual writing of history, and, primarily, the various interpretations of historical events.”

Real historians are for the most part small c conservatives when it comes to their discipline. They don’t want to step too far outside what has come before, but concepts do evolve. This history of the history of the fall of the Roman Empire is a classic example (no pun intended).

It’s not CRT, but it’s worth mentioning in the context of this thread that the NY Times was negligent when it ignored critiques of the 1642 Project by actual historians of American history who had no political agenda. I also think the right wing criticism of the 1642 Project bordered on the hysterical.

So it goes…

@Human1000 Thanks for responding. I don't disagree with anything you said. History is history, if you can't discuss it without becoming overly emotional, it's time to take a step back.