What does Critical Race Theory teach?

Obviously ONE link wouldn't be enough to support it. That's why I gave FIVE links.

But that's irrelevant. You can argue that my interpretation is wrong (and you haven't and won't.... because you can't). But instead of that you called me a liar.

Retract!!!

 

You gave five links, each towards the same theme but also each with a bolded claim for themselves. Here you wrote

And the link you attached to that absolutely did not support that bolded claim. You may have better evidence for your overall theme, but this sort of inaccuracy is sloppy at best, and possibly dishonest. I won't leap to the latter, but I can see how some would.

This is often what we see in CRT type claims and articles and "studies". It gets so mired in dramatization and virtue signalling that it can't be taken reliable research. And it can then be dismissed as agenda driven propaganda.

You would be better advised to stick to more objective study with rigorous controls. That could be actually useful science instead of the religious dogma that is what passes for most "CRT" these days.

 

Now, look at your next liked article, which this time does match your bolded claim.

It notes that “African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated" and concludes that black people are more likely to be falsely convicted because racism.

Can you see the obvious flaws in the above logic? It doesn't say how much actual crime is committed by black people, how many are convicted (not falsely) or what factors other than racism could be in play here, such as the obvious poverty correlation.

We are meant to simply nod our heads and say it must be racism, and random black guy in exact same situation as random white guy is far more likely to be falsely arrested and convicted because he is black.

It fits the presumption but it fails the logic. You need better and more scientific study, which actually can be done if we can stop preaching and start actually investigating. And I actually do agree with you that such studies will show bias against black people. That is then much harder to dismiss as propaganda.

 

Ok. You got my attention. Never mind if ... whatever you think is dishonest or not. Question is: is it RIGHT?

It is demonstrated on the OP that black people are more likely to be stopped, searched,... without a cause. And if they are stopped and searched more often (with or without a cause), it's more likely they are arrested more often. And if they are arrested more often (with or without a cause), they are more likely to be charged. And if they are charged more offten (with or without a cuase), they are more likely to be convicted. And if they are convicted more often (with or without a cause), they are more likely to be in prison.

This is what the OP demonstrates. This is not about some "individual" report. It's about all what all these reports, in tandem, demonstrate: that systemic racism runs rampant in this country.

So if you are going to contribute something to this thread.. go for it!

Because simply coming here and accusing the poster who is MAKING a case of being dishonest, that's what is known in some circles as trolling.

And we already have enough trolls here. But it does require much much more brain power to actually CONTRIBUTE.

So what is your purpose in this thread? Let's hear your contribution!

But if trolling was the only purpose of your posts... then you can spare us and I can count yet ANOTHER right-winger who is unable to rebut the point I make on the OP.

 

That there are societal race biases against black people. Yes. I am convinced that there are. There are also many other factors here, including poverty, culture, and labelling. If we think about it we can probably think of many more that are not as simple as the "black people violent" or "black people oppressed by white people" narratives.

But reading the OP, the first link isn't what the OP claims it is, and the second link is misleading. So I can see why people wouldn't bother to read the rest of the OP and dismiss it as propaganda, or lies as the one fellow said.

Except it doesn't. What it does do is give the impression of a religious need to believe that. You COULD try to examine the issue objectively but that is given up immediately in the OP. As a result you will only find yourself preaching to the choir and others will dismiss the OP as they have, and not only those who don't want it to be true, or who are "right wing trolls".

Dismiss everyone who does not find you convincing or genuine, as horrible bigots, and you will get where you have gotten in this thread, absolutely nowhere.

Already did. Pointed out multiple factors likely to be involved, and you pounced and declared them "systemic racism". I said ok, let's do something to address those factors and you ignored that, clearly more interested in preaching than finding solutions.

 

Ok. The studies on the OP confirm that there are. So what is the problem?

How is a link "misleading"? A link is a link. It would be "misleading" if somebody made a claim and showed no supporting evidence.

Like, for example, you do in what follows...

That statement is (to say the least) "misleading". Though I can think of better ways to describe it. What is it that is not systemic racism that is in any way relevant to this thread.

Of course there must be other factors in the world that are not systemic racism. But systemic racism exists! And that's what CRT explains.

I fail to find anything of substance in your post. If you agree that systemic racism exists, I don't know what you are arguing against. That it exists is all CRT teaches. And then they show us the studies, analysis, reports, ... that, all together, demonstrate it. You seem to be insistent in trying to isolate one study (even though the OP contains over a dozen) because one study doesn't demonstrate systemic racism. Which is obvious. That's why there are so many (and I have accumulated more since I wrote the OP). Other than that, I see no point in your posts. Did you have a point?

It's as if you understood my point, and had not found an argument to counter it. But you were frantically searching for something to try to hide this. If that's what you're trying to do, you are not succeeding.

 

I explained what is misleading about it a few posts up. Your bolded claim this time does match. But the "Study" itself is flawed.

I named some factors and you declared them to be systemic racism. That's fine with me. I don't care what labels you use. But instead of looking into examining them or anything, you moved along to more preaching.

CRT is ideologically driven and presumes everything is racism. Read those who initially created it and you will see that. CRT is not actual scientific examination of racism or racial dynamics in society and how they adversely effect people. THAT could be of some use.

CRT provides an ideological and political football that is weakly based and is kicked around and very easily dismissed as propaganda and made into a right-wing talking point that can be used to win elections, as we just saw recently in the USA. CRT isn't serious study. CRT is little more than virtue signaling.

This is the crux of your problem. You will presume this regardless of who doesn't agree. I'm on the left, not the right.

 

Explain it again! If you are concerned the screen is going to run out of ink, don't worry.

Then don't just say it! Show the flaw. And explain what this "flaw" implies. How about some substance?

Ok. So then what was your point. I ask again: did you have a point? Because, so far, I have seen none.

Who gives a CRAP if it's ideologically driven? Is it right? If it's right, then it's right. Score one for ideological driving! If it's not, then say why not.

You go on and on in this thread with inane statements like the above. But nothing of substance.

WHAT the hell is it you don't agree with and why?

How can somebody write so many words and not say anything of substance?

 

If you want to avoid the label, don't post falsehoods. The case is simple. You made a claim and listed links. The very first link had nothing to do with your claim. Game over. And btw, you will find no post of mine calling anyone a liar. I said I don't indulge liars.

 

It is literally just a couple of posts up. Don't be so lazy. You don't even have to change the page.

I do. When it is sloppy and more driven by ideology than actual rigorous academic study, it is prone to error and it is prone to being dismissed easily and weaponized by the other side as propaganda. It winds up causing MORE racism, not less. You recently had a guy put into office in the US by running against CRT.

Some of it is right. It is right that there is societal bias. It is not right that everything is racism. There are many factors that can and should be examined in forming an action plan to do something about it, rather than just preaching and looking for social credit points, as you clearly are in this thread.

 

The foundation of critical race theory is that ANY racial disparity that disfavors blacks is by definition systemic racism. Not "helpful" in any situation.

 

They are arrested more often arrested for murder because they more often commit murder.

 

Yes. But that doesn't mean there isn't racial discrimination that disadvantages black people, and THAT could be actually studied and be harder to dismiss like CRT can so easily be.

 

Like math tests. Blacks dont score as well so according to CRT theory, math test are systemic racism. Nothing to study. Its an assumption made without the need for any study.

 

A historian's verdict: MLK would have opposed CRT.
MLK, Not CRT

Paul Kengor, The American Spectator

Here’s a critical question for enthusiasts of critical race theory, particularly its growing number of strange disciples on the religious left: How did MLK do what he did without CRT?

That is, how did the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. manage to do what he did without critical race theory? MLK preceded CRT, which began its rise in the 1970s, exploding in our terrible universities later. King was assassinated in 1968.

Hmm, how in the world did King manage to accomplish what he did without critical race theory? The answer is obvious: MLK didn’t need CRT. Neither did the NAACP, which was founded over 100 years ago. Neither did African American figures as diverse as Malcolm X and Jesse Jackson and Rosa Parks and countless more.

King, in fact, would have rejected CRT, least of all because of its Marxist roots.

I asked David Garrow, the preeminent biographer of King (and certainly no conservative), about King and CRT. “CRT so post-dates him that there’s no connection,” Garrow told me, “but MLK would have most certainly rejected ANY identity-based classification of human beings.”. . . .

 

Wrong. https://www.aaihs.org/critical-race-theory-and-the-misappropriating-of-martin-luther-king-jr/

 

Who cares what King would have supported. Doesn't make it right or wrong. He only matters insofar as he got it right.

That famous bit about not judging by the colour of skin, but by content of character got it right. If he, like CRT people elsewhere went against that and advocated for racial discrimination and racial prejudice, then he got that wrong.

 

Nope. I'll go with the Pulitzer winning historian.
David Garrow - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › David_Garrow

David Jeffries Garrow (born May 11, 1953) is an American author and democratic socialist. He wrote the book Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., ...

 

I'm inclined to believe MLK's position would have been consistent with that of his chief of staff, Wyatt Walker:

I find it hard to believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would have supported a racist Neo-Marxist hate ideology (CRT), and Walker did an excellent job of explaining why.

 

Yup. I already quoted Walker in several posts.

 

That's fine. I have no issue with that. Just don't pretend it's anything other than his opinion.

 

Quite an opinion.
He wrote the book Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1986), which won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Biography.[2][3]

 

He was a great man.

MLK Jr.'s niece Alveda King has been outspoken in her opposition to CRT, as well (you may have posted this already, too - my apologies if you have):

And she's right about CRT theorists' disdain for men (and women) like King and Walker, and the fact that they were preachers may have a lot to do with that. Marxists and the radical Left have a long running history of hostility towards people of faith going all the way back to the French Revolution.

 

Likewise, but I think the people around King have a better grasp of what he would and would not have supported than your young comrade at UNLV.

 

The first link? There were over a DOZEN links! But if you think they don't support what I claim... ARGUE against it. I may be right... I may be wrong... That is NOT a "lie".

Obviously you CAN'T argue. So just retract!