16 ms·

>If a system is consistently producing outcomes that are different from its value, the system is broken, and it people are going to rationally lost faith in its

>If a system is consistently producing outcomes that are different from its value, the system is broken, and it people are going to rationally lost faith in its old customs. Except the evidence that these ideologues cite for this divergence from values is inequality of outcome, which is a ridiculous metric to gauge the fairness of a system which presides over a culturally and genetically heterogeneous population. And that's the key issue with so called CRT, which has become somewhat of an umbrella term both for directly influenced pedagogy and ideologies with underpinnings which are simply similar to CRT in spirit: when you naively presume that all peoples are identical in ability and behavior, save for influences of the economic and justice systems (i.e. ignoring culture and genes), then naturally the only allowable answer to the question of inequity is discriminatory injustice. And the outcome of such shortsightedness is broken, often reverse racist policy, which is exceedingly quick to make excuses for suspects of the "right" (minority) demographic and particularly harsh on suspects of the "wrong" ("privileged") demographic. This is ultimately an overcorrection to the injustices of slavery/jim crow and WWII-era nazism - we've taken race and cultural blindness a step too far, conflating equal treatment under the law with equal outcome under the law (and in other institutions as well). If your ideology does not allow for differences in average behavior/ability/values as an explanation for different average outcomes then it becomes trivially easy to see the boogeyman of racism/sexism across institutions and justify what amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

etchalon 5y ago
CRT specifically attacks equal treatment under the law. The idea it attacks outcomes is a woefully simplistic understanding of its core criticism.
- twofornone 5y ago
  Again my point was that the only justification that these ideologues have for attacking equal treatment under the law is the "evidence" of unequal outcome by demographic. That and a healthy amount of cherry picking, like exaggerating the implications of 19 unarmed black male deaths in 2019 in a country of 300MM+. Unfortunately the standard for evidence in soft sciences is not particularly rigorous.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    You seem to be implying that statistically-significant deviations from expected averages isn't "evidence". I'm not sure what to say to that.
    - twofornone 5y ago
      I'm explicitly saying that discrimination is not the only cause for the multimodal distribution of outcomes, and that in a perfectly demographic blind justice system you would still see such statistical groupings, assuming all people were treated equally before the law.
      - etchalon 5y ago
        To believe that, you'd need to start with evidence of at least one demographically blind system that resulted in significantly disparate outcomes amongst otherwise equal classes. But such evidence would point to the system not being demographically blind.
        Jensson 5y ago
        The by far strongest factor for getting harsh sentences is being male. Not being black, it is being a man. Yet CRT still considers male a privileged attribute, so obviously we can conclude that men getting harsher sentences than women is fair according to them, which satisfies your condition that fair trials can result in disparage outcomes. If you disagree then you disagree with CRT, meaning we don't have to convince you that CRT is bad, you already agree with us.
        etchalon 5y ago
        There exists a disparity between men and women when it comes to sentencing. There exists a disparity between black men and white men when it comes to sentencing, and a disparity between black women and white women. So while yes, gender is a variable in outcomes, race is an additional variable, that's constant between genders. The "what about gender!?" argument against CRT is just what-aboutalism that addresses neither issue. But it's a funny one in that it acknowledges the core complaint of CRT (a facially neutral system can result in discrimination based on secondary characteristics evidenced by outcomes) while shifting the characteristic that is being discriminated against. If only there was some field of study or theory that considered the intersection of these characteristics and how they can overlap and impact outcomes.
kelseyfrog 5y ago
> ignoring culture and genes Am I reading this wrong? Interested in hearing which cultural and genetic elements impact legal outcomes.
- MockObject 5y ago
  You're asking for a citation that...culture affects behavior?
- twofornone 5y ago
  Culture is your value system, your sense of right and wrong, just and unjust, fair and unfair, it encapsulates aspirations, defines self-actualization...if certain subcultures see clout in prison time, for a example, how could you possibly expect such a demographic to produce the same per capita number of convicts as a demographic which shuns law breaking? And then genes have direct (e.g. warrior gene, brain structure) and indirect (e.g. hormone concentrations/sensitivity) influences on behavior and decision making. In addition to the heritability of intelligence which is going to influence both propensity for law breaking and conviction rate. You can't celebrate diversity while only pretending that demographic differences are positive (itself a culturally subjective measure). That's a recipe for cross-demographic resentment and suboptimal legal and social outcomes, as we're increasingly seeing with this new generation of up and coming ideologues across our institutions. People see sentiment like this and recoil in horror as though it justifies racism against individuals; on the contrary, these differences are merely shifts in normal-like distributions, i.e. we should still treat individuals equally in law and industry, but we must acknowledge that there will be average differences in outcome across demographics if we want a society based on equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome can only be achieved by handicapping the competent individuals that we rely on for progress of technology and civilization. Despite what you may have heard, reality does not have a liberal bias, it unfortunately has a racial bias, because of the nature of evolution. Thousands of generations of adaptation to vastly different geographies has left it's mark, and denying this truth, while well intentioned, is dangerously misguided.
- eli_gottlieb 5y ago
  Prepare for a lecture on the genetic inferiority of poor people and minorities.

etchalon 5y ago

CRT specifically attacks equal treatment under the law. The idea it attacks outcomes is a woefully simplistic understanding of its core criticism.

twofornone 5y ago
Again my point was that the only justification that these ideologues have for attacking equal treatment under the law is the "evidence" of unequal outcome by demographic. That and a healthy amount of cherry picking, like exaggerating the implications of 19 unarmed black male deaths in 2019 in a country of 300MM+. Unfortunately the standard for evidence in soft sciences is not particularly rigorous.
- etchalon 5y ago
  You seem to be implying that statistically-significant deviations from expected averages isn't "evidence". I'm not sure what to say to that.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    I'm explicitly saying that discrimination is not the only cause for the multimodal distribution of outcomes, and that in a perfectly demographic blind justice system you would still see such statistical groupings, assuming all people were treated equally before the law.
    - etchalon 5y ago
      To believe that, you'd need to start with evidence of at least one demographically blind system that resulted in significantly disparate outcomes amongst otherwise equal classes. But such evidence would point to the system not being demographically blind.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        The by far strongest factor for getting harsh sentences is being male. Not being black, it is being a man. Yet CRT still considers male a privileged attribute, so obviously we can conclude that men getting harsher sentences than women is fair according to them, which satisfies your condition that fair trials can result in disparage outcomes. If you disagree then you disagree with CRT, meaning we don't have to convince you that CRT is bad, you already agree with us.
        etchalon 5y ago
        There exists a disparity between men and women when it comes to sentencing. There exists a disparity between black men and white men when it comes to sentencing, and a disparity between black women and white women. So while yes, gender is a variable in outcomes, race is an additional variable, that's constant between genders. The "what about gender!?" argument against CRT is just what-aboutalism that addresses neither issue. But it's a funny one in that it acknowledges the core complaint of CRT (a facially neutral system can result in discrimination based on secondary characteristics evidenced by outcomes) while shifting the characteristic that is being discriminated against. If only there was some field of study or theory that considered the intersection of these characteristics and how they can overlap and impact outcomes.

kelseyfrog 5y ago

> ignoring culture and genes Am I reading this wrong? Interested in hearing which cultural and genetic elements impact legal outcomes.

MockObject 5y ago
You're asking for a citation that...culture affects behavior?
twofornone 5y ago
Culture is your value system, your sense of right and wrong, just and unjust, fair and unfair, it encapsulates aspirations, defines self-actualization...if certain subcultures see clout in prison time, for a example, how could you possibly expect such a demographic to produce the same per capita number of convicts as a demographic which shuns law breaking? And then genes have direct (e.g. warrior gene, brain structure) and indirect (e.g. hormone concentrations/sensitivity) influences on behavior and decision making. In addition to the heritability of intelligence which is going to influence both propensity for law breaking and conviction rate. You can't celebrate diversity while only pretending that demographic differences are positive (itself a culturally subjective measure). That's a recipe for cross-demographic resentment and suboptimal legal and social outcomes, as we're increasingly seeing with this new generation of up and coming ideologues across our institutions. People see sentiment like this and recoil in horror as though it justifies racism against individuals; on the contrary, these differences are merely shifts in normal-like distributions, i.e. we should still treat individuals equally in law and industry, but we must acknowledge that there will be average differences in outcome across demographics if we want a society based on equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome can only be achieved by handicapping the competent individuals that we rely on for progress of technology and civilization. Despite what you may have heard, reality does not have a liberal bias, it unfortunately has a racial bias, because of the nature of evolution. Thousands of generations of adaptation to vastly different geographies has left it's mark, and denying this truth, while well intentioned, is dangerously misguided.
eli_gottlieb 5y ago
Prepare for a lecture on the genetic inferiority of poor people and minorities.