4 ms·

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 s

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.
        etchalon 5y ago
        Intersectionality is a core concept of CRT. You seem to want to discredit CRT based not on its actual academic discussion, but how it gets distorted within pop culture.
        Jensson 5y ago
        > Intersectionality is a core concept of CRT. So they say, them saying it doesn't mean it is actually true though. > You seem to want to discredit CRT based not on its actual academic discussion You were free to link an academic discussion where they pointed out these things, but you didn't. Nothing comes up when I try to google for it, hence I'll conclude it doesn't exist. Edit: The problem with these discussions is that you use the ideals for your own things and the actual implementations for others. Take meritocracy for example, meritocracy is inherently anti-racist but in practice it might be racist. So when you see someone argue pro meritocracy you see them as probably racists or at least not anti-racist. Similarly when I see someone argue for CRT I don't see all the things they say CRT to be, but what it is in practice. Ultimately you can't hide behind theoretical definitions, trying to practice meritocracy leads to some problems and we should acknowledge that, similarly the CRT we see in practice also has lots of problems we should acknowledge.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

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.
        etchalon 5y ago
        Intersectionality is a core concept of CRT. You seem to want to discredit CRT based not on its actual academic discussion, but how it gets distorted within pop culture.
        Jensson 5y ago
        > Intersectionality is a core concept of CRT. So they say, them saying it doesn't mean it is actually true though. > You seem to want to discredit CRT based not on its actual academic discussion You were free to link an academic discussion where they pointed out these things, but you didn't. Nothing comes up when I try to google for it, hence I'll conclude it doesn't exist. Edit: The problem with these discussions is that you use the ideals for your own things and the actual implementations for others. Take meritocracy for example, meritocracy is inherently anti-racist but in practice it might be racist. So when you see someone argue pro meritocracy you see them as probably racists or at least not anti-racist. Similarly when I see someone argue for CRT I don't see all the things they say CRT to be, but what it is in practice. Ultimately you can't hide behind theoretical definitions, trying to practice meritocracy leads to some problems and we should acknowledge that, similarly the CRT we see in practice also has lots of problems we should acknowledge.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]