5 ms·

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 de

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.
        Jensson 5y ago
        You asked about disparage outcomes in a fair system, I gave it to you. It is on topic. Both CRT advocates and opponents considers it fair that men gets harsher sentences.
        etchalon 5y ago
        CRT does not claim that disparate outcomes based on gender are "fair". It explicitly acknowledges gender as an intersecting variable. The idea disparate outcomes between genders are "fair" isn't supported logically or evidentially, especially when we consider misdemeanor crimes without a component of violence.
        Jensson 5y ago
        > The idea disparate outcomes between genders are "fair" isn't supported logically or evidentially Can you link to a prominent CRT advocate speaking up about white men getting harsher sentences than black women? Otherwise I don't believe you when you say they don't consider this fair. The times I have argued about this they always start bringing up culture or genes to explain the differences, never that men are less privileged under these circumstances.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- ryan93 5y ago
  If black people commit more murders it’s not discrimination if more black people are in prison for murder.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    Your statement hinges on circular reasoning, which is part of what CRT studies try to break apart. You can't use the outcome as evidence the outcome was justified.
    - ryan93 5y ago
      Please explain the different outcomes between second gen African immigrants and American whites. Under your theory every demographic is obligated to want and behave the same as any other. Smart women choosing medicine instead of electrical engineering is prima facie evidence to you some kind of discrimination happened.
      - etchalon 5y ago
        My point wasn't "any difference in outcome is the result of discrimination" it was explicitly "you cannot use the difference in outcome as evidence there should be a difference in outcome." This is why these differences are studied.
        twofornone 5y ago
        The other commenter wrote that is black people commit more murders then it isn't surprising to see more black people in prison for murder. That's not circular, that's an expected outcome. Are you simply unwilling to acknowledge any (subjectively) negative differences between cultures? Does culture influence decisionmaking or not? Is respect for law and academic achievement not a cultural trait? This is such a trivially obvious argument if you are willing to move past the irrational taboo that relegates us to pretending that culture can only vary positively. Does culture influence behavior and decisionmaking or not?

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.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        You asked about disparage outcomes in a fair system, I gave it to you. It is on topic. Both CRT advocates and opponents considers it fair that men gets harsher sentences.
        etchalon 5y ago
        CRT does not claim that disparate outcomes based on gender are "fair". It explicitly acknowledges gender as an intersecting variable. The idea disparate outcomes between genders are "fair" isn't supported logically or evidentially, especially when we consider misdemeanor crimes without a component of violence.
        Jensson 5y ago
        > The idea disparate outcomes between genders are "fair" isn't supported logically or evidentially Can you link to a prominent CRT advocate speaking up about white men getting harsher sentences than black women? Otherwise I don't believe you when you say they don't consider this fair. The times I have argued about this they always start bringing up culture or genes to explain the differences, never that men are less privileged under these circumstances.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ryan93 5y ago
If black people commit more murders it’s not discrimination if more black people are in prison for murder.
- etchalon 5y ago
  Your statement hinges on circular reasoning, which is part of what CRT studies try to break apart. You can't use the outcome as evidence the outcome was justified.
  - ryan93 5y ago
    Please explain the different outcomes between second gen African immigrants and American whites. Under your theory every demographic is obligated to want and behave the same as any other. Smart women choosing medicine instead of electrical engineering is prima facie evidence to you some kind of discrimination happened.
    - etchalon 5y ago
      My point wasn't "any difference in outcome is the result of discrimination" it was explicitly "you cannot use the difference in outcome as evidence there should be a difference in outcome." This is why these differences are studied.
      - twofornone 5y ago
        The other commenter wrote that is black people commit more murders then it isn't surprising to see more black people in prison for murder. That's not circular, that's an expected outcome. Are you simply unwilling to acknowledge any (subjectively) negative differences between cultures? Does culture influence decisionmaking or not? Is respect for law and academic achievement not a cultural trait? This is such a trivially obvious argument if you are willing to move past the irrational taboo that relegates us to pretending that culture can only vary positively. Does culture influence behavior and decisionmaking or not?