View Single Post
Old 10-17-2018, 03:00 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,898
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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.
Have you ever asked her?
Losers? I don't recall calling you a loser.
I'm not referring to myself. Reread post #186.
She uses it in those sort of arguments.
You didn't specify "only losers at legal arguments" when you called CRT a cancer or a loser's tactic.
Off the top of my head, facts.
Naah, sorry, facts and truth are not synonymous, and the fact/truth (synthetic/analytic) distinction has been the subject of endless debate. You don't get to declare that resolved for all of Science.
You cannot create stories and narratives and treat them like facts.
No, you cannot pretend like narratives and stories of e.g. experiences of racism are complete fiction unrelated to real lived experience.
You cannot pluck out an anecdote and treat them like data.
Anecdotes are data.

"The plural of anecdote is not data" is a terrible guideline in social sciences, and anyway, it's a horrible misquote of the original.
Never said it was.
Naah, you just treat it that way.
No but the effects of racism are not.
Really? You're blithely saying that on this board, where people will quite happily tell you things were better for everyone 50 years ago? You'd think if the effects of racism are so purely objective, there'd be so much doubting of its existence here?
Yes but I can show you a picture of BLM and that wouldn't make this BLM land.
This would be a fair point ... if BLM had a President and Congress behind it, the way the Nazis continue to have.
You would be wrong.
Not from the posts I'm reading...

Wait, when did I refuse to carry out empirical studies?
I've repeatedly suggested on you refuse to carry out...
Really, that's your quibble?
It's not a "quibble" - you're the one who brought up the self-evident-within-this-thread nature of my politics:
"I think any7one reading this thread does."[sic]
And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even try to actually answer the question.
How does this undercut my argument?
You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between Civil Rights and Revolutions, but your own cite's cite includes Civil Rights movements in the same class of movement as the Revolutions you cited. Proving the distinction is artificial.
OK CR is bullshit because it relies on subjective experience, anecdotes and storytelling. It plays upon emotion rather than reason.
Like I said, we aren't robots, and there's nothing wrong with emotion.
So much for empiricism, eh?
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"
Since neither of those is an accurate quote of what either I or Wood actually wrote, I don't have an opinion on the truth value of your statement.
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.
It's not?
Well, he's Jewish.
...who would be White men
And what do you mean fully succeed?
Not be held back by a gang of White Men.
She is successful by every reasonable measurement.
She did not succeed at the biggest thing she set out to do. That's failure.
Nothing stopped her from becoming the "presumptive nominee of a major political party and frankly the favorite to win the general election.
Do you also excessively celebrate the award of Junior League "Just For Participating" trophies?
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.
The nazis aren't the gatekeepers of whiteness, nor success. They just hang on its coat-tails.
About a dozen. A bit less than their percentage of the population if you only count citizens that are able to vote.
...point made...
How many Jewish presidents? I mean, they white, right?
How many Finns? How many Italians? You don't get to ask "why not this subgroup" when the point is about the group as a whole.
This is indicative of nothing.
Of course it is.I'm aware of the success of African immigrants and the factors involved. The "are you fucking kidding me" was because you already had Barack Obama...consider it exasperation at your repeating yourself.
I mean unless your definition of success is becoming president or senator or something
It's a good proxy measure for the issue under discussion. More so than, say, financial success, because that has more paths which could bypass the routes traditionally blocked or limited to non-White Men.
, 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.
It's not prickly at all. They're a smaller, often much more self-selected sample, compared to the other minorities like African-Americans or Mexicans. And many of them do get to benefit from Whiteness as well.

The argument isn't that no minority would ever succeed. In fact, one could argue that it benefits Whiteness even more to have some smaller, less threatening minorities do just 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.
And if anyone made such a strawman argument, Barack Obama is the example that would put them in their place. Well done, you!
By who? Who is this conspiracy that is Purposely designing and maintaining this white supremacist society?
More-or-less the top 1%. Note that "purposefully" doesn't mean "white supremacy" is the intended purpose. It's more like a side-effect of the actual purpose of maintaining the status quo, wealth and power for oneself and one's heirs.
It is [...] not intellectually honest or principled.
Have you said that to Matsuda?
Sorry, I thought you were talking about America and the American Revolution.
Why the hell would you think that? I specifically said "here", and I'm not American - I'm assuming you know this from reading "the hundreds of other pages of your posts "
I didn't realize you were pontificating about the situation in America from fucking South Africa.
You think racism is a uniquely American problem?

And - "pontificating"? Is that an example of you arguing with logic and reason rather than emotion?
So the end of Apartheid was not the result of a movement by a minority, was it?
Nope. But I wasn't talking about the end, I was talking about the beginning. Which should have been evident from me saying "50 years"
Like what? I'm sure it will be practical.
In the way "pure democracy" is practical?