NBC's false definition of CRT

[NatMorton]

My guess is that you are misrepresenting the lesson plan by only providing a snippet and that revealing the whole thing would provide context that shows you're full of shit.More

And we have more willful ignorance. That framework is on the web. You can go look it up and see that I've not taken the slide out of context. In fact, if you did, you'd see that slide is far from the most ridiculous component in the Pathway framework. You could educate yourself on the framework and learn would learn that the supposedly rational adults who wrote it believe that getting the right answers on math questions is a form of white supremacy, as is showing one's work on a math problem.

But you won't go look it up, and we both know it. Per my earlier message, I think you literally can't because it's the sort of thing that would unravel you.

 

[code1211]

I agree, though I don't see it as propaganda. It's just the method we use. There is no conspiracy here.

And the official stats I see are divided into Hispanic and non-Hispanic, which is then divided into Black, White and Native.

Do you see it as odd, in any way at all, that "Black" and "White" are the only racial demographic groups that are labeled by colors that recognized to be opposites?

The other racial demographic groups seem to indicate geographical areas of the planet. Asian. Hispanic. American Indian. Why "Black" and "White"?

Why would the racial demographics of "Black" and "White" be used if there was not some ulterior motivation? I am classed as "White", but I am pink. I was born in the USA and so i am a native American.

Why are not ALL racial demographics defined by the very inaccurate color references or by the much more accurate geographical references?

This, to me, seems to be a very intentional and very politically motivated labeling technique designed with the purpose of dividing by people with the purpose of dividing.

 

[code1211]

You hate the challenged. Shocker.

What on Earth would make you infer this?

 

[code1211]

It goes to 'the probabilities of what someone can accomplish to in face of prejudice and discrimination. It is looking at the data, and trying to understand the roll laws and solemnity has it influencing the outcomes that are observed.

For example, if you take two first time offenders, one black one white.. The justice system treats them differently. There are different outcomes on the results because how the justice system is enforced differently based on race.

For the same actions, a first time white offender is much more likely to have a lesser charge, and get probation, while the black offender is much more likely to have a higher charge, and go to jail. That is basically how two different people are treated differently under the same set of laws , based on race. The defines the measure of one's possiblity.. how society treats you based on your ethnic group... and in this example specifically, how the justice system , using the same set of laws, will give different results based on race. This is true even when factoring in economics.

Examining that , and the reasons for that is part of Critical race theory. The evidence for that is examining court records, and see what charges are brought, and the outcomes of those charges.


There is hard and objective data for that

2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing

(November 2023) A report updating the Commission's data analysis concerning demographic differences in federal sentencing practices.

www.ussc.gov

I believe that it is a well demonstrated FACT that money plays a large role in the conduct of court cases.

Whether a defendant is "White" or "Black", if their representation is crap, they are screwed. If they have a Dream Team defense, they will very likely skate. Being "White" or "Black" is only incidental to the outcome in court.



Using statistical outcomes that rise from various factors and attributing them to only one of the factors is disingenuous.

 

[RAMOSS]

I believe that it is a well demonstrated FACT that money plays a large role in the conduct of court cases.

Whether a defendant is "White" or "Black", if their representation is crap, they are screwed. If they have a Dream Team defense, they will very likely skate. Being "White" or "Black" is only incidental to the outcome in court.



Using statistical outcomes that rise from various factors and attributing them to only one of the factors is disingenuous.

Oh, money is also a factor. But, not the only factor. Race is also a factor, because if you compare people with similar economic status, you will see the same pattern.

 

[code1211]

Touch a nerve?

Several, sounds like.

Only the nerves involved in shaking my head when witnessing stupidity.

 

[code1211]

I don’t think that is the definition. At least not what I found when I looked it up. It’s a “…framework of analysis … that seeks challenge the intersection of race and law in the United States…” Examples I suggested, tho I don’t know if proponents would buy my analysis, were 1- the anti-coke laws that were neutral on their face but punished crack different than powder; and 2- the GI Bill, which helped create the post-war middle class, also race-neutral, but which in practice excluded black vets.

Sadly, CRT has become like the 1619 project, with lots of heat and little calm discussion.

I suppose that the various things I've heard about this are slanted.

One thing I've heard is that one exercise lines up everyone in a classroom and instructs them to take a step forward if they ARE "whatever": orphaned, race, rich, poor or whatever.

To my way of thinking, it would be more helpful and productive, if they need to be lined up, to tell them to take a step forward based on if they DO "whatever". Read, work out, socialize, interact, pray.

You can have, inborn, various advantages. You can also work to develop those inborn traits. Or not. Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning are a GREAT pair to compare to see the differences between the inborn and the developed.

Reaching the next level, whatever that is, usually comes down to what you are prepared to do to get there.

Teaching kids that they are predestined to success or failure due to factors and influences that they cannot control seems to be defeating.

 

[ecofarm]

What on Earth would make you infer this?

You used the disabled as a pejorative. That's hate against the disabled. That's very nazi.

How stupid is it to not understand that? You have no self awareness at all? And you try to defend yourself by questioning the other. What a pathetic joke.

 

[Master Debator]

Ah, no. Allow me to explain to you what you are doing since you don't seem to have a clue about it.

Studies were cited from two very different think-tanks that asserted one can escape poverty by three behavioral changes independent of race.

Yeah, you've said that already. You're simply repeating yourself because you don't actually understand the study or the link you provided which says the study misses a lot of nuance and context.

Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but they say what they say. No one, not these studies nor those agreeing with them, are saying that racism doesn't exist or doesn't create problems for Black Americans. What these studies do say is that escaping racism is not the only path out of poverty. In fact, given the patterns of poverty for white Americans, were poor Blacks able to escape racism but not leave these behaviors behind it is most likely they would remain poor, and that, specifically, is what you cannot handle.

You have one talking point and it's very clear you don't have the intellectual chops to veer from it. You are specifically discussing escaping poverty through higher income while ignoring that the vast majority of black people aren't living poverty and the disparity that still exists with regards to wealth is not at all mitigated through higher wages. A little less than 20% of black Americans live in poverty, 80% do not and still face incredible disadvantages due to systemic racism.

I think it crumbles your world. For you it's about race and nothing else. The interesting question is why you believe that, despite the evidence at hand.

Which now brings us to your motivation. Judging by the irrationality of your comments, I think you like Blacks being victims of racism and having high poverty rates. What they suffer gives you pleasure because, rather than discuss ideas that might actually allow impoverished Blacks to help themselves, their current condition gives you a tool to wield against those who disagree with you. You get to call them "racists," and that feels good. It's quite likely there's something missing in your makeup that demands you place yourself above others; and what better way to preen your "superiority" than by calling those who disagree with you "racist."

That's right. I, a black man, with a black family likes blacks being victims of racism and high poverty rates. That makes sense.

I've got news for you though; your ad hominem might make you feel better, but it makes you look far worse.

Have a lovely day.

Sure. Care to completely ignore the information I provided you in my two links for the 3rd time like I said you would because you are obviously a dishonest actor?

 

[Nickyjo]

I suppose that the various things I've heard about this are slanted.

One thing I've heard is that one exercise lines up everyone in a classroom and instructs them to take a step forward if they ARE "whatever": orphaned, race, rich, poor or whatever.

To my way of thinking, it would be more helpful and productive, if they need to be lined up, to tell them to take a step forward based on if they DO "whatever". Read, work out, socialize, interact, pray.

You can have, inborn, various advantages. You can also work to develop those inborn traits. Or not. Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning are a GREAT pair to compare to see the differences between the inborn and the developed.

Reaching the next level, whatever that is, usually comes down to what you are prepared to do to get there.

Teaching kids that they are predestined to success or failure due to factors and influences that they cannot control seems to be defeating.

Agreed. (Lining people up as you described seems weird, slightly cruel, and counter productive.) The kind of education and community organizing that I learned suggested acknowledging the difficult situation poor people found themselves in, but letting them brainstorm to find and implement solutions. It was outlined in the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” by Brazilian Paulo Freire, a method of teaching literacy that involved what he called “consciousness raisin,” a term also used by the women’s movement in the US.

 

[NatMorton]

Yeah, you've said that already. You're simply repeating yourself because you don't actually understand the study or the link you provided which says the study misses a lot of nuance and context.

You have one talking point and it's very clear you don't have the intellectual chops to veer from it. You are specifically discussing escaping poverty through higher income while ignoring that the vast majority of black people aren't living poverty and the disparity that still exists with regards to wealth is not at all mitigated through higher wages. A little less than 20% of black Americans live in poverty, 80% do not and still face incredible disadvantages due to systemic racism.

That's right. I, a black man, with a black family likes blacks being victims of racism and high poverty rates. That makes sense.

Sure. Care to completely ignore the information I provided you in my two links for the 3rd time like I said you would because you are obviously a dishonest actor?

What ultimately motivates you is anyone's guess, and you may very well be satisfied with the current state of affairs for the reasons I gave, but that you like calling others "racist" requires little guess work. It's a pattern with you (though you're by no means alone here on DP).

For example, let's get back to those studies you deem "racist" for mentioning. There's a very relevant fact you keep glossing over, and I'd like you to speak to it. Those studies (plural) both demonstrate that those three behaviors (finishing high school, being 21 when you have your first child, being married when you have your first child) reduce the chances of poverty by as much as 90% regardless of race. It's this last point that you keep avoiding. If, as you assert, racism is what's keeping Black people poor, then we should have seen different results. More specifically, if you're correct we should have seen equal groups of white and black people exhibiting those behaviors and seen a lower rate of Blacks escaping poverty. We didn't. We saw the same percentage of Blacks escaping poverty. How do you reconcile that data with your position?

 

[Master Debator]

What ultimately motivates you is anyone's guess, and you may very well be satisfied with the current state of affairs for the reasons I gave, but that you like calling others "racist" requires little guess work. It's a pattern with you (though you're by no means alone here on DP).

For example, let's get back to those studies you deem "racist" for mentioning. There's a very relevant fact you keep glossing over, and I'd like you to speak to it. Those studies (plural) both demonstrate that those three behaviors (finishing high school, being 21 when you have your first child, being married when you have your first child) reduce the chances of poverty by as much as 90% regardless of race. It's this last point that you keep avoiding.

Again with the shameless and obvious strawman. I've actually addressed that 3 times already. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring all the comments I've made toward that end.

If, as you assert, racism is what's keeping Black people poor, then we should have seen different results.

That's not what I'm asserting but if you actually cared to read anything anyone responds to you with youd know that. Again this conversation is just an excuse to jump to your racist tropes rather than actual discuss the articles you and i mentioned.

More specifically, if you're correct we should have seen equal groups of white and black people exhibiting those behaviors and seen a lower rate of Blacks escaping poverty. We didn't. We saw the same percentage of Blacks escaping poverty. How do you reconcile that data with your position?

Again, your own link that you yourself provided said the opposite. Maybe read it next time.

 

[NatMorton]

Again with the shameless and obvious strawman. I've actually addressed that 3 times already. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring all the comments I've made toward that end.

Cite, please.

 

[code1211]

Oh, money is also a factor. But, not the only factor. Race is also a factor, because if you compare people with similar economic status, you will see the same pattern.

OJ certainly demonstrates the case for the rich being treated equally.

Do you have a link that demonstrates that the Race Card has a strong impact on the rendering of justice in courts when all other factors are equal?

 

[Master Debator]

Cite, please.

No. It's right here in this thread. Go look for it. You should of read them first damn time but as I said you're a dishonest actor. This is just more evidence. Not that anyone around here wasn't clued into that already but I'm more than happy to watch you repeat and embarrass yourself ad nauseum. At least @Rickeroo is smart enough to know that I'll embarrass his ass which is why he tries not to engage. Your racist arguments are easy to pick apart. Hell even the article you yourself posted took it apart but you didn't actually read it did you? I bet you thought it was this op-ed in Brookings. It wasn't. What you posted was actually a critique of the study rather than the cheerleading piece about the study. Also if you take a look at the actual study and did a little reading you'd know the study presents a little chicken and egg scenario. On marriage for instance it says:

Married-parent families enjoy substantially higher levels of economic well-being than lone-parent families or co-habiting families. A host of reasons exist to explain why this might be the case. Most important, married couples have a second potential earner. Indeed, in more than 60 percent of marriages, both spouses work. Conversely, only 38 percent of single parents receive any financial support from the absent parent, and such support is usually quite limited.

However, as discussed above, causation might easily run in the reverse direction. Financial distress might place untenable strain on marriages. Low or stagnant earnings among less educated men may have reduced their marriage prospects and women from poor families may see little reason to defer childbearing given their own or a potential partner’s limited economic prospects.

 

[Rickeroo]

No. It's right here in this thread. Go look for it. You should of read them first damn time but as I said you're a dishonest actor. This is just more evidence. Not that anyone around here wasn't clued into that already but I'm more than happy to watch you repeat and embarrass yourself ad nauseum. At least @Rickeroo is smart enough to know that I'll embarrass his ass which is why he tries not to engage. Your racist arguments are easy to pick apart. Hell even the article you yourself posted took it apart but you didn't actually read it did you? I bet you thought it was this op-ed in Brookings. It wasn't. What you posted was actually a critique of the study rather than the cheerleading piece about the study. Also if you take a look at the actual study and did a little reading you'd know the study presents a little chicken and egg scenario. On marriage for instance it says:

I'm not sure I wouldn't engage - at times I veer away from DP because it's basically like watching a very aggravating tv show or even worse, the news.

My baseline feeling is that marriage (or at least 2 adults in the household) is a massive factor in eliminating poverty. There's also an expense-side economy of scale where there's just one rent/mortgage to pay, one electric bill, transportation efficiency, etc.

 

[Master Debator]

I'm not sure I wouldn't engage - at times I veer away from DP because it's basically like watching a very aggravating tv show or even worse, the news.

My baseline feeling is that marriage (or at least 2 adults in the household) is a massive factor in eliminating poverty. There's also an expense-side economy of scale where there's just one rent/mortgage to pay, one electric bill, transportation efficiency, etc.

You don't engage Ricky. You pose racism and discrimination as an if because you're frightened of the remedy and can't abide the medicine.

 

[NatMorton]

No. It's right here in this thread. Go look for it.

Ah, no. Your bluff has been called and you've come up empty.

As for the rest of your post, it's exactly the type of ad hominem I said you engage in when you're cornered. Thank you (again) for demonstrating my point.

 

[Master Debator]

Ah, no. Your bluff has been called and you've come up empty.

As for the rest of your post, it's exactly the type of ad hominem I said you engage in when you're cornered. Thank you (again) for demonstrating my point.

Don't have the intellectual chops huh? It's okay Nat.

 

[NatMorton]

You don't engage Ricky. You pose racism and discrimination as an if because you're frightened of the remedy and can't abide the medicine.

^^^ Just can't help himself.

 

[NatMorton]

Don't have the intellectual chops huh? It's okay Nat.

Oh, but I do. I've proven your argument empty, and we both know it.

 

[Master Debator]

Oh, but I do. I've proven your argument empty, and we both know it.

Have you? Where? In your imagination?

 

[code1211]

You used the disabled as a pejorative. That's hate against the disabled. That's very nazi.

How stupid is it to not understand that? You have no self awareness at all? And you try to defend yourself by questioning the other. What a pathetic joke.

I believe I merely posted a word as a question.

What you infer based on your oddly biased interpretations is on you, not me.

 

[Slyfox696]

In what way(s) is the message different from this?

Every way. Literally nothing you said was correct.

Finally.

Finally...I said something I've repeatedly said, which is that the NEA supports an honest discussion in which no relevant and credible academic framework is prohibited from being taught? Is this you waving the white flag, acknowledging the NEA wasn't promoting or advocating, as you falsely claimed?

I'm answering for Nat here.

Possibly the only time I'll feel sorry for Nat.

The NEA says "..the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory".

What is with you people refusing to quote the full statements? The NEA said:

"The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory."

You then claim than the NEA promotes the "teaching of accurate history".

I'm claiming that is what the NEA is claiming. The little memo that NatMorton swears is an indictment on all K-12 education (which is simply laughable) is merely saying to teach the full history and to not ban relevant and credible academic frameworks. This is obvious if you read the memo with an objective eye.

 

[code1211]

Agreed. (Lining people up as you described seems weird, slightly cruel, and counter productive.) The kind of education and community organizing that I learned suggested acknowledging the difficult situation poor people found themselves in, but letting them brainstorm to find and implement solutions. It was outlined in the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” by Brazilian Paulo Freire, a method of teaching literacy that involved what he called “consciousness raisin,” a term also used by the women’s movement in the US.

The tendency to remove the effort involved in achieving seems to be particularly removed from what I've heard regarding the teaching of CRT.

IF you are either selected or rejected before any effort is expended, THEN any effort expended is wasted.

This seems to be particularly hurtful to EVERYONE whether they are the SELECTED or the REJECTED.