Are you saying that it is nonsensical for someone to apply that part of CRT to health care?
This said something else before, and I was about to reply to it. Looks like LHOD already did for anyone confused.
ETA: The gist seemed to be that because universal health care would benefit more whites than blacks, CRT should be opposed to it, or it is a useless hypothesis. @Ludovic can correct me if I’m wrong.
It sounds like you are using a strawman version of CRT to spread “chicken little” fear against CRT.
Which is why convincing people to be nothing but slaves to that kind of proof is a favoured tactic of White supremacy.
This is the thing that CRT says, that White supremacists mischaracterize as a denial of science - that it’s acceptable to start out from just believing PoC’s truth about this.
Also that it’s OK to say “if White supremacists have an explanation for anything, it is prima facie not-even-wrong”. It’s not that no evidence is needed for their lies, it’s that no evidence is needed for their lies any more. They don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
Who said anything of the kind?
Did I say someone in this thread had?
Although - I thought you were done replying to me in this thread?
Look, 20% of the population of America think that I’m literally a satanic child killer. Even given much less radicalizability on racial topics, which is generous given human nature, there are a huge number of people susceptible to emphasizing other things over health care which would not benefit as many people if they think people only want it because it benefits the white power structure.
It is much more important than people simply thinking you’re automatically a racist.
I really have no idea what you’re getting at here. Maybe somebody else has a better understanding and can help me figure it out.
?
No idea
I’m lost. You appear to be contributing a level of malice to CRT that is beyond what is reasonable or predictable.
Its just difficult to productively discuss (what appears to be) your fears. Why do you find CRT so pernicious?
**This post has been heavly edited. I’m not sure how to word it.
I don’t find CRT pernicious. I should have emphasized that it would have more power to change peoples minds, for the good, bad, or indifferent, if it had a broader reach than it currently has, much like fewer people would think I was in cahoots with Satan had Q-Anon existed before the Internet.
The evidence points at minorities having less access to health care and as a result they die earlier or have less treatment. As my example of the racist difference on how white families are cared for regarding the opioid crisis, minorities like me agree that the compassion and care that most white families receive in that case is for the greater good and the war against drugs is a colossal waste of resources and it is stupid.
What is nonsense is to see that and think that CRT scholars are demanding that to end. In reality is the reverse (Why do you think Orwell has been mentioned many times?), CRT scholars and me want more of that, that blacks and other minorities get the same access to compassion and care when opioids and other drugs are involved.
Critics of CRT out there seem to try to try set any wedge whenever they can, but in case it is only to ignore that they are projecting their dislikes like an IMAX theater. (in this case they want to keep the current case of affairs, less care for minorities who some in power do dislike and many others do ignore.)
I’m still lost. Why would CRT make universal health care less likely?
If people with a half-baked understanding of it - much like people who are half-baked in general with regards to QAnon - vote for people in primaries who would spend their political capital on police reform or other racial justice issues in preference to health care. I don’t have any specifics on who the former person would be, but the latter person could obviously be Bernie. I’m not sure if there is anyone who is slightly to the right of Clinton-Obama on most things financial yet wants to emphasize racial justice. But universal health care is more beneficial than any similarly-achievable goal of racial justice, so it is preferential to have fewer people voting for someone who would emphasize the thing that would bring the lesser benefit rather than the greater.
That is, if there are candidates that offer that sharp a contrast, which I’m not sure there are.
OK, let’s check if I’m understanding you correctly:
You concern is that (purely hypothetical) politicians focusing mainly on racial justice will pull attention and political capital away from UHC?
What is worse regarding what Ludovic posted is that he continues to ignore that he has the motivations of CRT scholars totally backwards and ignores that UHC is also a goal of them.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200630.184036/full/
It’s contentious because it’s so trifling. On a literal level, it can be falsified, but come on: nobody’s gonna suddenly demonstrate that “Black homeowners on average receive the same estimate for a home price as White homeowners with similar homes”. The theory is based on well-established fact patterns, and figuring out how to falsify them is an exercise in fantasy. WHat, you think we’re gonna discover that “no significant number of White people inherited wealth from people in the past”?
Looking for how to falsify this theory comes across a bit like asking how to falsify natural selection. Sure, it can be done, but folks who ask the question are generally motivated to ask it by belief in some seriously ridiculous bullshit.
Now I understand, though I hardly think that is the biggest risk. The Defund the Police slogan did a lot of damage all by itself; Democrats are lucky the Republicans are so bloody awful or they’d be just as fucked as the British Labour party.