• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's Critique Critical Race Theory

Aunt Antifa said:
Prove what? That various conservatives have argued that there is something inherently inferior about Black people and/or their culture?

This is literally the only argument cons make whenever jobs, crime, and abortion come up.
Click to expand...


Cons veil their racism behind "culture" and "character" and that black people need to, as I'm now hearing more recently, make "better decisions". The fact is, though, in all those cases the one common identifier to do with culture, character and why the need to make better decisions is the color of their skin. Their argument still backs them into, paints them into, that corner.
 
Visbek said:
And again: Skin color is a biological trait... but the only thing it indicates is skin color. It doesn't accurately indicate any other traits (biological or otherwise).
Click to expand...
Of course skin color an accurate gage of ancestry in many cases. It is not a guarantee but little other than a DNA test would be. But if you were to walk into the UN are you telling me you would be at a loss to spot the visible differences between the delegations of, say, Norway and Kenya?

The race as a biological context, and there’s really no arguing that point.
 
bluesmoke said:
Cons veil their racism behind "culture" and "character" and that black people need to, as I'm now hearing more recently, make "better decisions". The fact is, though, in all those cases the one common identifier to do with culture, character and why the need to make better decisions is the color of their skin. Their argument still backs them into, paints them into, that corner.
Click to expand...
People are equal. Cultures are not.
 
NatMorton said:
Even the definition above highlights this absurdity. Think about this passage "the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups." How do subgroups become physically distinct if not as a byproduct of their naturally occurring and distinct DNA? Are we to believe slavery darkens skin and privilege lightens it? This is a farce.

To argue that race is not biological is to argue against the theories of Darwin and nearly everything we believe to be true about genetics. That is critique #1. More to follow.
Click to expand...
How do you not understand simple comments is beyond me. Physically distinct subgroups are subgroups who are physically separated, in other words laws have kept blacks and whites physically separate for decades upon decades and still it is very difficult for black families to join the physically distinct "white neighborhood". Redlining for example has been a problem. An article by Bill Dedman (for which he won the Pulitzer prize) showed how banks would often lend to low income whites but refused to lend a dime to middle income or upper income blacks. Meaning whites of all financial groups were able to buy real estate and blacks who made significantly more could not buy because banks refused lending them money for mortgages.

So poor blacks were mostly worse off than poor whites, moderately successful blacks were not able become upwardly mobile in white society, only in black society because redlining, racist practices would make sure that a house in a reasonably well to do "white neighborhood" would never be sold to a black person.

So the premise is very simple, subgroups are created by design, not by race but by the decisions made by the white government and white people in a neighborhood. Do you think a black family would have been able to move into a white neighborhood in the South for example? No, they were not allowed to buy or if by chance they got the house they would be hounded out by racist neighbors and groups like the KKK.
 
Peter King said:
How do you not understand simple comments is beyond me. Physically distinct subgroups are subgroups who are physically separated, in other words laws have kept blacks and whites physically separate for decades upon decades and still it is very difficult for black families to join the physically distinct "white neighborhood". Redlining for example has been a problem. An article by Bill Dedman (for which he won the Pulitzer prize) showed how banks would often lend to low income whites but refused to lend a dime to middle income or upper income blacks. Meaning whites of all financial groups were able to buy real estate and blacks who made significantly more could not buy because banks refused lending them money for mortgages.

So poor blacks were mostly worse off than poor whites, moderately successful blacks were not able become upwardly mobile in white society, only in black society because redlining, racist practices would make sure that a house in a reasonably well to do "white neighborhood" would never be sold to a black person.

So the premise is very simple, subgroups are created by design, not by race but by the decisions made by the white government and white people in a neighborhood. Do you think a black family would have been able to move into a white neighborhood in the South for example? No, they were not allowed to buy or if by chance they got the house they would be hounded out by racist neighbors and groups like the KKK.
Click to expand...
Um, it is you who is not understanding what's is being discussed here. You citing redlining and other discriminatory practices has absolutely nothing to do with whether race is purely a social construct or also a biological one. So were I you I'd worry more about your on comments and less about those of others.
 
NatMorton said:
From English language references. Words have meanings, and a call by some to change the meaning of a given word does not redefine that word.
Click to expand...

Sure. But some English words are of scientific significance, and some are not.

Alchemy is an English word with an English language reference. Does that mean it is a useful scientific concept?
 
NatMorton said:
Of course skin color an accurate gage of ancestry in many cases. It is not a guarantee but little other than a DNA test would be. But if you were to walk into the UN are you telling me you would be at a loss to spot the visible differences between the delegations of, say, Norway and Kenya?

The race as a biological context, and there’s really no arguing that point.
Click to expand...
You're fixating on shit that doesn't actually matter.
 
Let's NOT critique that theory.

1. The United States until recently was an overwhelmingly Caucasian nation.

a. I read somewhere that when Joseph Biden was born, Caucasians were in the high 80 percentile of the population.

2. Caucasians were naturally accustomed to dealing with other Caucasians.

3. Minorities were really minorities. (Until after World War II, there were very few Asians in the country; there were some Latinos, mostly in the Southwest; most African Americans still lived in the South. All three groups were discriminated against in jobs & housing & public accommodations.)

a. There was NO maliciousness on the part of most Caucasians, who simply were used to living and working and playing with other Caucasians. And they wanted to keep it that way.

4. This is now 2021.

a. In the 1960s (and even before), Caucasians began a sea change in their attitudes.

b. Civil Rights laws were passed.

c. In 2008, the unimaginable happened: an African American became President.

d. And now during the next four years, we may have see another person of color as President.

5. Well, that's it. We do not need any nonsense about Caucasians "oppressing" anyone.

In fact, by the end of this century, Caucasians will be a minority.
 
bluesmoke said:
Cons veil their racism behind "culture" and "character" and that black people need to, as I'm now hearing more recently, make "better decisions". The fact is, though, in all those cases the one common identifier to do with culture, character and why the need to make better decisions is the color of their skin. Their argument still backs them into, paints them into, that corner.
Click to expand...
People of all shapes and sizes need to make the proper decisions for themselves. They also need to own the decisions that they make.

Currently, we have one sub-group making a lot more of those bad decisions than the other sub groups.
It is likely NOT race that causes those bad decisions, but you can make a good argument that it IS the culture (where they live, who they idolize, what they find important).

When they/we can change those few things, I can guarantee you success in them moving away from being over-represented in the bad areas (crime, lack of education, out of wedlock children)

That is probably the furthest thing from racist that you could get. It would actually WORK! That first step is theirs to take though. I would offer help AFTER that decision making process is fixed.
Every 'race' has some percentage of these same problems, not every is represented by the same percentages though.

When Asians come in and blow everyone else out of the water, do you think their culture had anything to do with it?
 
NatMorton said:
That's why I selected first world regions. Are you seriously telling us you believe the only reason there's a four inch average height difference between the Japansense and the Danes is diet?
Click to expand...
No, I said "heavily influenced" -- that's not the same thing as "exclusively controlled." So... Are you seriously telling us you believe the only factor determining height is genetics?

The average height of Japanese 11 year olds has grown over 5.5" since WWII. The average height of South Koreans grew 8" during the 20th century. South Koreans are now on average less than 1" shorter than the average American. Guess what? Their genes didn't change during that time. Their consumption of calcium is also generally lower than Westerners.

The same is true for many other nations in Asia, where lactose tolerance is less common. Lactose tolerance is genetic -- but not a marker of "race," as many South Americans and perhaps half of sub-Saharan Africans are also lactose intolerant.

30310202.jpg


And again, if we look at the haplogroups of Asian populations, it's quite diverse. If we're looking at actual biological markers of population subgroups, it makes no sense to lump in Japanese, Mongolia, Tibetan and Chinese people based on a handful of surface features (or, really, because they reside on the same continent).

1-s2.0-S0960982209020673-gr1_lrg.jpg



The influence of genetics on the total height of a population is still an area of active research. However, at a minimum, there isn't currently any biological evidence that there is an "Asian race," all of which have a specific set of alleles which result in their being shorter.

In fact, the basic concept -- "Asians are one race" -- has no valid biological basis, and never had one in the first place -- it was geographical in nature. "Asians" are not a monolithic group. They don't all share the same traits -- e.g. Afghans don't have the same eye shape as Chinese people. Most of the traits they share turn out to be cultural or heavily influenced by culture, e.g. Japanese people are shorter than Europeans mostly as a result of diet, not genetics. Race is not biological, it's cultural -- which is why Brits commonly refer to Indians as "Asians," and Americans do not.

Talk of an "Asian race" is just racist bullshit, with no real connection to the biological realities. It's just a geographic generalization, which ignores and erases the real differences (biological and cultural) of 60% of the world's population.
 
NatMorton said:
Sorry, that's nonsense. Electing not to "concern" oneself with the scientific reasons why something exists is an exercise in willful ignorance. Any conclusions born of that ignorance can rightly be criticized.

It would be no different were you to not "concern" yourself with the medical reasons why COVID is a greater danger to the old than the young and declare any added precautions taken to protect the elderly as an exercise is age discrimination.

Science isn't an option. Facts are not disposable.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:....says the uneducated white-grievance guy who is about as equipped to discuss "the science" as the man delivers my mail every day.

What the hell do you think you know about " the science", and/or about Critical Race Theory, Nat?

Please, be candid in your response.
 
NatMorton said:
Of course skin color an accurate gage of ancestry in many cases. It is not a guarantee but little other than a DNA test would be.
Click to expand...
Oh, really?

Okay then. What "race" are Mexicans?
 
ultmd said:
:ROFLMAO:....says the uneducated white-grievance guy who is about as equipped to discuss "the science" as the man delivers my mail every day.

What the hell do you think you know about " the science", and/or about Critical Race Theory, Nat?

Please, be candid in your response.
Click to expand...
More that you.
 
NatMorton said:
More that you.
Click to expand...
And you and I both know that's not true. You're a few degrees short, for that kind of bravado, I'm afraid.

As I noted, you (and people like you) are about as qualified to talk about "the science" as the average laborer or salesman in our society. And, in your case, being a white-grievance type only shovels on another layer of ignorance and entitlement.

And yet, you've been pretending to understand "the science" throughout this entire 14+ page thread...while (ironically) declaring that "any conclusions born of ignorance can rightly be criticized" (Oh, the IRONY!!! :ROFLMAO: ).

So now, you're in luck, because I'm here to engage you.

Let's talk "the science", shall we?

Tell me what "the science" says about race.
 
NatMorton said:
Which Mexican?
Click to expand...
Your concession, via an inability to even start to address the question, is noted.

Oh, and guess what? Many Mexicans have lighter skin not because of European ancestry, but because of Native American ancestry.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org www.sciencemag.org

In fact, that study lends strong support to the idea that light skin independently evolved in humans more than once. You can't tell, based on skin color alone, if someone is European or Eurasian. I'm guessing your "studies" didn't reveal that at all.

NatMorton said:
Back at you, whom fo you think is more likely to have recent African ancestry, Mary J Blige or Taylor Swift?
Click to expand...
sigh

You're missing the point. Based on biological data at all, "African" is not a race. Genetically, "Africans" simply don't have much else in common. It's nothing more than a geographical distinction.

Let's try this another way. What biological traits, other than skin color, are accurately indicated by skin color?
 
ultmd said:
Tell me what "the science" says about race.
Click to expand...
I've been telling him. He just keeps resorting to unscientific answers. What a surprise, huh?
 
Visbek said:
I've been telling him. He just keeps resorting to unscientific answers. What a surprise, huh?
Click to expand...
The only thing worse than anti-intellectualism in debate.....is pseudo-intellectualism in debate.

And for a clearly uneducated white-supremacist/white-grievance type, like Nat Morton, to even PRETEND to hold high intellectual ground in a debate about science.....just about breaks the "irony" meter.
 
ultmd said:
The only thing worse than anti-intellectualism in debate.....is pseudo-intellectualism in debate.

And for a clearly uneducated white-supremacist/white-grievance type, like Nat Morton, to even PRETEND to hold high intellectual ground in a debate about science.....just about breaks the "irony" meter.
Click to expand...
If you two would pull your heads out of the echo chamber for a moment you might come to realize this is not complex:

1624466121662.png

There is a scientific context for the term "race" that is base on scientifically verifiable evidence, like ancestry. If you want to pretend this definition does not exist and that race is only a social construct, be my guest. But neither your insistence on such nonsense nor your personal attacks against me make for a convincing argument. Quite the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom