View Single Post
Old 10-17-2018, 12:34 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,317
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Oh, and have you told her your views on CRT?
Yes in conversations about how CRT and law and economics intersect. One of the basic premises of law & economics is that in a system without transaction costs, society still ends up maximizing value so society is no better or worse off regardless of where the law places a burden. CRT intersects with law and econ by saying that society has historically placed that burden on the shoulders of women and minorities and contrary to law and econ's premise that all we have to do is sufficiently reduce transaction costs and the rest basically takes care of itself; the racial architecture in this country places a disproportionate amount of the burden of reaching optimal outcomes is placed on women and minorities. So while society might still maximizes value, the individual identity of who benefits from the maximization of value is not equitably distributed. There's a lot more to it but you get the flavor.

She does not really defend the use of CRT outside of legal scholarship. She certainly doesn't go as far as some people do to say that minorities are virtually precluded from success in this country.

I wouldn't know, I don't follow her cases. But you admit she uses it for arguing what the law should be. How does that gel with CRT only gaining traction with losers?
Losers? I don't recall calling you a loser. Matsuda doesn't use it in cases, she uses it in law review articles and essays. She uses it in those sort of arguments. She uses it to explain how the apparently fair laws are distorted because they have been set up so the toast always lands buttered side up for some groups and buttered side down for others. And even if the laws were entirely fair, they administered by human lawyers and judges who have implicit biases.

Give me the scientific definition of "Truth", then...
Off the top of my head, facts.

You cannot create stories and narratives and treat them like facts.

You cannot pluck out an anecdote and treat them like data.

Dude, that's a (stupid) fucking marketing slogan. Not holy writ. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is.
Never said it was. Like I said, you are free to proselytize and you are effectively preaching Christianity in Kansas here. But I still think it is a worthwhile endeavor to fight ignorance.

No, I'm just highlighting one implication of that fact.Social constructs are inherently subjective. You disagree?
No but the effects of racism are not.

Are those not Nazis?
Yes but I can show you a picture of BLM and that wouldn't make this BLM land.

I'd say the same for you
You would be wrong.

As your refusal to carry out empirical studies shows.
Wait, when did I refuse to carry out empirical studies? Why the fuck should I when others have already done so?

Oh, really? From this thread(not elsewhere on the Dope) you think you can identify my political views? What would those be, then, pray tell? In 5 words or less.
Really, that's your quibble? That I couldn't tell from only reading the 5 pages of this thread rather than the hundreds of other pages of your posts that make your political views pretty clear. Your beliefs are no secret, I do not distort them or misrepresent them. I believe you on the other hand have almost no idea what I believe. I suspect it is because you don't care what I believe, you only know that I am not toeing the ultra-liberal CRT orthodoxy that this site seems to require these days.

Sure. Of course, it wouldn't look like the Civil Rights movement of King by the end. Probably end up a lot more like the ANC...
"Not to quibble" but you're going to anyway. And like all quibbles it's a distinction without real difference you choose to make.

Let me expand - the first sentence of your cite is:
The Revolutions of 1989 formed part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond.
What do we find under the heading of "20th C" at that 1st link?
The Black Power movement and the Civil Rights Movement organized successful protests against government and private discrimination. Continuing unrest in African-American communities led to the multi-city riots during the "Long Hot Summer of 1967" and the various 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In Trinidad the Black Power Revolution is successful.
Please, by all means continue to give cites that undercut your own arguments...
How does this undercut my argument? None of those are examples of minorities getting what they want from a tyrannical government through a civil rights movement like the one we had. In fact one of the quoted examples IS the civil rights movement that we had.

Except you're not, though. You're just posting a link. "making an argument" would be, you know, actually making all those critique points in this thread,
OK CR is bullshit because it relies on subjective experience, anecdotes and storytelling. It plays upon emotion rather than reason.

Try it and see. It doesn't have to be your own shit. You could try a big handful of bullshit, for instance...

Peter Wood. More specifically, he said "Its pretense, [...], is that the Civil Rights Movement was hollow and that we continue to live in a nation the laws of which are pervasively racist."

Oh, I bet you're going to "quibble" that that's not exactly the same as "no white racism inherent in the US legal system" - knock yourself out.
WTF!?!?! You think there is negligible distance between "there is no white racism in the US legal system" and we do not "continue to live in a world that is a nation of laws that is pervasively racist"

That is in fact a common criticism of CRT. CRT would have you believe that racism is so bad in America that the American dream is an illusion.

People's experience of same, is.
Firstly, "general rule". Secondly -
  • Not allowed to fully succeed - by a Congress of mostly White Males, I might add
  • Zuckerberg is a White Male, what is that supposed to refute?
Well, he's Jewish.
And what do you mean fully succeed?

[*]Is Clinton president? Stop making my arguments for me.
She is successful by every reasonable measurement.
Nothing stopped her from becoming the "presumptive nominee of a major political party and frankly the favorite to win the general election.

Do those Nazis/White Supremecists think Jews are white too? Whiteness is not something you can measure with a Pantene color swatch. Some Jews may have convinced themselves that they are white, the Nazis aren't convinced.

How many Asian congresspeople?
About a dozen. A bit less than their percentage of the population if you only count citizens that are able to vote.

How many Presidents?
How many Jewish presidents? I mean, they white, right? This is indicative of nothing.

Are you fucking kidding me?

The White ones, like Cruz and Rubio...
No, just run of the mill Cubans in Miami. I mean unless your definition of success is becoming president or senator or something, I think most people consider the Cuban community to be reasonably well off. This is all just a list of model minorities. Model minorities are a prickly issue for CRT academics because its hard to explain why they aren't all living in abject poverty under the overwhelming racism in society.

You saying that's not the case? And "But, Barack Obama..." is, under it all,the sum total of your "logical" reasoning for that?
It is one example that provides strong evidence against the notion.

If you said women can't fight on the front lines and then a woman earned a congressional medal of honor for singlehandedly punching every terrorist in the balls, it would make your statement much less tenable. So, while an Obama presidency doesn't prove that racism doesn't exist it does prove that it can be overcome.

No, CRT is not that fatalistic. What CRT points out is that not only is the deck stacked, it's that way by design. And purposefully kept that way.
By who? Who is this conspiracy that is Purposely designing and maintaining this white supremacist society?

ISTM that CRT doesn't believe that society can be made fair and that we must have things like AA until we achieve fairness (which will be evidenced by the lack of a need for AA to achieve proportional representation at every socio economic level). It is ends driven and not intellectually honest or principled.

Errm, no. Learn about South African history before you attempt a gotchya at me about it, please. The faction that set Apartheid in place got into power through a democratic process.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about America and the American Revolution. I didn't realize you were pontificating about the situation in America from fucking South Africa. So the end of Apartheid was not the result of a movement by a minority, was it?

We've come up with better. They just weren't allowed to succeed by outside forces.
Like what? I'm sure it will be practical.