4 ms·

CRT does not claim that disparate outcomes based on gender are "fair". It explicitly acknowledges gender as an intersecting variable. The idea disparate outco

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.
    - etchalon 5y ago
      Your edit is basically "You're arguing what CRT actually is and means but I wanna argue about what I think CRT is based on the narrow set of sources I personally interact with." That's not a debate worth having.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        I can't prove that something doesn't exist, no. You have to prove that it does exist. Hence you can't just say that I need to read more, I have read enough that I know the topic isn't something they care about so it is basically absent everywhere. If they actually do care about it I would like to read the book or study, I have searched a lot for them but they don't seem to exist. And you can't say that the topic is so obscure that it wouldn't be covered anywhere. The rate at which men get shot by police and get put into prison more is one of the highest and most notable disparage effects any demographic faces, black people are twice as likely to get shot as white people, but men are 20 times as likely to get shot as women. If they really cared about those things then this would be covered in every introductory book to the subject, yet I fail to find even a single one who even brings it up as a footnote. I'd be fine with CRT if it was practiced properly, but everything I've seen of it tells me it isn't practiced properly. That is what happens when you call everyone who criticises it racists or similar, then you don't listen to feedback and the field gets corrupted.
        etchalon 5y ago
        "I'd be fine with CRT if practiced properly is" is a weird statement. It's a critical academic framework. "Practiced properly" it's something academics debate. There is no "proper practice" beyond applying the generalized methodology by examining outcomes and asking whether they're the result of bias.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - etchalon 5y ago
    Based on this thread, my assumption is, despite your rather vocal criticism of CRT, you haven't read any scholarly works on the topic and have only a passing understanding based on pop-culture exposure. I'm not here to provide you a free education, but literally all of the foundational works by Bell, Crenshaw, Guinier, et. al. cover intersectional as a component of their criticism.

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.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    Your edit is basically "You're arguing what CRT actually is and means but I wanna argue about what I think CRT is based on the narrow set of sources I personally interact with." That's not a debate worth having.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      I can't prove that something doesn't exist, no. You have to prove that it does exist. Hence you can't just say that I need to read more, I have read enough that I know the topic isn't something they care about so it is basically absent everywhere. If they actually do care about it I would like to read the book or study, I have searched a lot for them but they don't seem to exist. And you can't say that the topic is so obscure that it wouldn't be covered anywhere. The rate at which men get shot by police and get put into prison more is one of the highest and most notable disparage effects any demographic faces, black people are twice as likely to get shot as white people, but men are 20 times as likely to get shot as women. If they really cared about those things then this would be covered in every introductory book to the subject, yet I fail to find even a single one who even brings it up as a footnote. I'd be fine with CRT if it was practiced properly, but everything I've seen of it tells me it isn't practiced properly. That is what happens when you call everyone who criticises it racists or similar, then you don't listen to feedback and the field gets corrupted.
      - etchalon 5y ago
        "I'd be fine with CRT if practiced properly is" is a weird statement. It's a critical academic framework. "Practiced properly" it's something academics debate. There is no "proper practice" beyond applying the generalized methodology by examining outcomes and asking whether they're the result of bias.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- etchalon 5y ago
  Based on this thread, my assumption is, despite your rather vocal criticism of CRT, you haven't read any scholarly works on the topic and have only a passing understanding based on pop-culture exposure. I'm not here to provide you a free education, but literally all of the foundational works by Bell, Crenshaw, Guinier, et. al. cover intersectional as a component of their criticism.