OK. I’m showing the disastrous results of critical race theory in practice. You deciding that this thing that is actually going on somehow doesn’t count and you won’t acknowledge it unless someone you arbitrarily agree is a “scholar” endorses it is your business. It’s not binding on me or on reality.
Not really, in the cites there has not been implementation of any measures, not from CRT scholars or from the activists for that matter, considering change does not mean that everything will be obtained by them. That it will be a disaster is just an opinion.
It shows how ignorant is your position, so yeah. It is not my problem but yours that you where completely wrong about what CRT was actually saying about the Uyghurs.
What is this gibberish?
I’m confused. WTF does crt do for asians? On the one hand, asians are not a monolith and on the other hand we must become a political monolith? You seem to be in over your head trying to explain things you don’t understand to people who know more than you.
So you think that we should disregard posner’s criticisms of crt because stephen gottlieb thinks posner is a conservative (that believes in abortion rights, gay rights, decriminalizing drugs, etc.)? If you’re going to use appeal to authority, you need a more compelling authority than posner, and in the world of law, there are very few of those. It certainly isn’t this guy.
If you want to address his concerns, then go ahead. If you just want to call people you disagree with racists, then I guess you can still just go ahead.
Just curious, do you actually have that cite that says that white hispanics make more than asians or not, I think this is the 3rd or 4th time i am asking for your cite? Because, you can be wrong about that and still be right about other things. I don’t think a slip up on the facts is damning, but a stubborn refusal to admit you were wrong about something says a lot about how seriously we should take you.
Again, there is no input there from CRT proponents, but I can grant you that the activists did get something; as they say though, a disaster will have to be demonstrated, not just a guess or a lawsuit.
Nope, it is clear that in academia they are way, way beyond what you know. So thanks for showing that,
Sure, I think I may had gotten that from other sources, not that one, but the last times you asked it clearly was to avoid dealing with what was posted last.
I remember that I used some logic on that, more than 50% of Hispanics do self identify as racially white, and several researchers when talking about gaps in income and racial relations do not put them in a separate category.
When looking at poverty rates, it is clear that White Hispanics do have less poverty than other Hispanics. (looking at 2000 data)
Then I read what the researcher pointed out about not all Asians doing as it is assumed. they have poverty rates higher than white Americans.
For that and other reasons I made the point early that you mentioning casually that Hispanic was a race is a problem. Hispanics that are not white do have it worse.
Again - what?
Pffft. They are making this all up as they go along. Their answer to everything is racism. When confronted with the paradox of a successful minority, they disparage those minorities.
Nope, it’s because i looked at your cite and I couldn’t find it. What I saw was a line saying that NON-hispanic whites made more than asians. I’m just trying to see how long it takes for you to admit you made an error. You could have preserved some of your credibility by admitting it right away, we have all misread our own cites in the past and some of us say “oops, I thought it said this other thing but even if that one little item is incorrect, it doesn’t really undermine my point”: but I think you feel you are in too deep to back out now. This undermines your credibility. It is hard to take you seriously when you seem to be more intent on making yourself right than actually being right.
I don’t want to belabor this point. It’s not really very relevant to the substance of the debate but i am hoping that it will make you realize that you are not infallible and that a little humility every now and then is probably good for your credibility.
Only that the one cited does not. But thanks for showing how you are ignoring what they actually write about.
And that shows that you don’t know what it means when one says “Sure” it was at the beginning, what you missed was that, Sure it was not there, so I mentioned where instead I got that.
So done and done, and as usual you missed what I said, and what the writers of CRT write about Asians, they are not ignored, your point about CRT disparaging other minorities is an ignorant point as usual.
Q2. CRT shifts ways of knowing from the dominant emphasis on objectivity, neutrality, and ‘evidence-based’ (which fetishises science) to contextual, story telling and lived experiences; a different epistemology. How can we challenge the dominance of the former? #ClearTheAirUK
Shifting away from evidence based ways of knowing? So, they support quackery and religion, then?
We can go around and around on this. I think you’re wrong and that you are making excuses for a philosophy that is incapable of withstanding reason because it can be used to pursue what you think is a virtuous goal. I am more concerned about the process than the result. I think if the process is fair, the results will be fair. you are not making the process fairer, you are simply declaring what the fair result would be and adjusting the process to meet that result.
Can you provide the cite? Because, your original post certainly seemed like you were referring to something in the cite that doesn’t actually mention the relative incomes of white hispanics vs asians (but does mention the relative incomes of non-hispanic whites vs asians). Now you are saying you did some math in your head to come to the conclusion that white hispanics make more than asians? IOW you are your own cite? Pffft. You are undermining your own credibility.
I think I understand what you said. The first part was “I believe in the one true faith you are wrong not to believe it too” and the second part was “I came up with the numbers on my own so i am my own cite” Your inability to say you made a mistake makes you less convincing, less serious, and safely ignored. Credibility is earned.
You may have some valid points somewhere in your posts but I hope someone else comes along and tries to make your points because you are not doing a very good job.
You are fetishizing science! What makes you think that objectivity, neutrality and evidence are any more valid than lived experiences (anecdote) and storytelling (parables). What makes you think that objective facts are more reliable than subjective feelings? What makes you think that policies based on facts are fairer and more effective than policies based on feelings? You are simply a science fetishizer and we all know where that leads.
Plentiful food and indoor plumbing? Long and healthy lives? Comfort and convenience. Entertainment at the flick of a switch. The ability to argue pointlessly with someone on the other side of the planet. But apart from all that, what has science ever done for us??
No, I think the evidence showed that to reach your conclusion you had to ignore what was going on, again it was telling that you did not know or that you are dismissing the evidence that showed that CRT scholars have guided Asian and other minority scholars to approach the issue with their methods. As noted too, they do use evidence to make reports about the Uyghurs in China, it is clear it was ignorant to declare that they are not looking at evidence, the unfair thing is to declare that they are not doing so to declare that your conclusion is the only valid one.
Again, as I already acknowledged that I got the concept from other places and not the cite I made, you only continue to grasp this straw because it is the only pathetic thing you have to keep going.
global warming
nuclear holocaust
global pandemics
colonialism
slavery
twitter
Nope, asian crt is just an anthology of shit we all knew before. It is little more than an attempt to say racism hurts asians to. Well duh.
But they are not. The entire point behind crt is that empirical evidence, logic and reason could not get you where you wanted to go so crt casts them aside and makes their argument with anecdote and parable.
OK, so what other place did you get that from? Can you provide a cite?
This is not to say that hispanics do not have high incomes. In fact asian hispanics in america (see filipinos) have among the highest incomes among all asians (by a fairly convincing margin). But they are not white hispanics.
I am trying to get you to admit error. I think it is because your position is based in large part on faith and not evidence. I can admit error because being wrong about one thing does not undermine the other evidence presented, nor does it undermine the logic behind my arguments. Sure it’s embarrassing but for the most part it does not damage my arguments. Your argument relies in part on your judgment and moral certitude. You need infallibility more than I do. A facts based scientific approach allows for errors or even incorrect conclusions from time to time. Your faith based method of working your way backwards from the conclusion you desire requires almost religious infallibility.
When you forgo reason and empirical evidence for anecdote and parable as your main tools of persuasion, you are mere steps away from mob rule.
Well, that is… like your opinion Dude! If you think yours have weight you should be able to convince the Universities and other institutions to drop that “shit”. However it is clear that you ignored that those institutions have been not only looking at, but teaching that. I will wait to see how easily you will convince them (/s)…
But I will not hold my breath that you will bother. It is clear that you are also ignoring cites made before too and that they are not really ignoring evidence, that is your caricature.
You’re right. Science is evil! Burn it down.
(Also I think pandemics and slavery predate science.)
Global pandemics are made much more possible by modern travel.
Slavery in the usa was extended by decades by the invention of the cotton gin, combing cotton was labor intensive and the cotton gin made this step cheap enough that the demand for cotton skyrocketed, reviving the waning demand for slave labor.
There you go, proof that science is racist.
I am truly astonished at the slack level of argumentation against CRT in this thread. It’s pretty clear that the people arguing against it are lumping all antiracist efforts under a specific academic theory, and then doing their best to choose a very few antiracist efforts that they consider misguided as a means for criticizing this academic theory. It’s incredibly absurd and ignorant.
I opened the thread hoping for a reasonable discussion of CRT. I’ll look elsewhere for that.
I don’t think you really understand what it’s talking about, although that’s partly because the statement could have been more clearly worded to avoid startling lay audiences.
No mathematician at the MAA or anywhere else, AFAIK, is trying to claim that “human biases” inherently affect whether some determined mathematical fact is objectively true or not. The point is that how mathematics as a subject is perceived, and what questions it studies, is very much influenced by human biases.
As a historian of mathematics, I find that this impact of human biases on the perceived nature of mathematics shows up everywhere in the development of the subject in different cultures and eras. Should integers with no proper divisors other than unity be assigned to a special category? Does mathematics have useful insights to contribute about predicted outcomes of non-deterministic events? How large a number can be represented in verbal or written notation? What criteria should a mathematical argument satisfy in order to qualify as a “proof”? To what extent does a mathematical claim need to have a proof in order to be accepted as true? Is a non-human-checkable computer program result acceptable as a proof? What mathematical models are valid in economics and other social sciences? All these questions have been answered differently in different mathematical traditions and different chronological periods, and the answers to some of them are still in flux in contemporary “global” mathematics.
Like I said, the statement should have been more clearly worded for the benefit of the many, many people who naively view mathematics as some sort of ideally objective monolith of unchanging fact, and believe that only Nazis could possibly imagine that math is culturally influenced in any way. But just because the statement as worded unnecessarily upset and confused people with naive views doesn’t mean that naive views are a good thing in themselves.
Sure, one can legitimately defend the “objective monolith of unchanging fact” concept as a sort of Platonic ideal of what mathematics ought to be. And certainly nobody’s arguing that any of the proven and consistent mathematical facts that we’re all used to dealing with is not actually true, within the axiomatic structure supporting it. Nobody’s trying to argue that whether 2+2=4 or not depends on what race you are, which is doubtless how some dumbass racists somewhere are attempting to spin the MAA’s statement.
But what mathematics as a field is considered to be, and what it’s considered capable of doing or entitled to do, most definitely are affected by human biases. So the statement that shocks you as “disgusting effrontery” is really just an acknowledgement of reality.
We need to get out of the grade-school mindset of imagining that mathematics is nothing but a neutral collection of objectively true facts unaffected by human particularity or cultural context. And no, that doesn’t require us to believe that the truth of 2+2=4 depends on what race you are, or that German “Aryans” inherently approach mathematics differently than French Jews, or any such literalist strawman arguments.