>If a system is consistently producing outcomes that are different from its value, the system is broken, and it people are going to rationally lost faith in its old customs.
Except the evidence that these ideologues cite for this divergence from values is inequality of outcome, which is a ridiculous metric to gauge the fairness of a system which presides over a culturally and genetically heterogeneous population. And that's the key issue with so called CRT, which has become somewhat of an umbrella term both for directly influenced pedagogy and ideologies with underpinnings which are simply similar to CRT in spirit: when you naively presume that all peoples are identical in ability and behavior, save for influences of the economic and justice systems (i.e. ignoring culture and genes), then naturally the only allowable answer to the question of inequity is discriminatory injustice. And the outcome of such shortsightedness is broken, often reverse racist policy, which is exceedingly quick to make excuses for suspects of the "right" (minority) demographic and particularly harsh on suspects of the "wrong" ("privileged") demographic.
This is ultimately an overcorrection to the injustices of slavery/jim crow and WWII-era nazism - we've taken race and cultural blindness a step too far, conflating equal treatment under the law with equal outcome under the law (and in other institutions as well). If your ideology does not allow for differences in average behavior/ability/values as an explanation for different average outcomes then it becomes trivially easy to see the boogeyman of racism/sexism across institutions and justify what amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Again my point was that the only justification that these ideologues have for attacking equal treatment under the law is the "evidence" of unequal outcome by demographic. That and a healthy amount of cherry picking, like exaggerating the implications of 19 unarmed black male deaths in 2019 in a country of 300MM+. Unfortunately the standard for evidence in soft sciences is not particularly rigorous.
I'm explicitly saying that discrimination is not the only cause for the multimodal distribution of outcomes, and that in a perfectly demographic blind justice system you would still see such statistical groupings, assuming all people were treated equally before the law.
To believe that, you'd need to start with evidence of at least one demographically blind system that resulted in significantly disparate outcomes amongst otherwise equal classes.
But such evidence would point to the system not being demographically blind.
The by far strongest factor for getting harsh sentences is being male. Not being black, it is being a man. Yet CRT still considers male a privileged attribute, so obviously we can conclude that men getting harsher sentences than women is fair according to them, which satisfies your condition that fair trials can result in disparage outcomes.
If you disagree then you disagree with CRT, meaning we don't have to convince you that CRT is bad, you already agree with us.
There exists a disparity between men and women when it comes to sentencing.
There exists a disparity between black men and white men when it comes to sentencing, and a disparity between black women and white women.
So while yes, gender is a variable in outcomes, race is an additional variable, that's constant between genders.
The "what about gender!?" argument against CRT is just what-aboutalism that addresses neither issue.
But it's a funny one in that it acknowledges the core complaint of CRT (a facially neutral system can result in discrimination based on secondary characteristics evidenced by outcomes) while shifting the characteristic that is being discriminated against.
If only there was some field of study or theory that considered the intersection of these characteristics and how they can overlap and impact outcomes.
>There exists a disparity between men and women when it comes to sentencing
There exists a disparity between men and women when it comes to behavior, which is reflected in sentencing. This is the key component that people are unwilling to acknowledge because they have been conditioned to express a visceral reaction to anything remotely appearing to suggest differences in behavior/decisionmaking among demographics. Which, again, leads us to the invalid assertion that all differences in outcome are born of unequal treatment; invalid because the other half of the answer is socially taboo.
No, my argument is that outcomes are worse for some subsets of black people because they are more likely to make decisions which put them in conflict with the legal system. Which is an objective, statistically supported fact, and even if you want to shift to poverty as a scapegoat, that still is primarily expressed through culture and ultimately up to the individual to change.
"Deserve" is a loaded term, a moral judgement and has no actual bearing on this argument. And let's also acknowledge that not all blacks in the US have these problems, Nigerian immigrants are one of the most successful demographics in the country by all measures, despite the supposed abundance of racism holding all other African Americans back.
You can restate your argument however you'd like, but my summary holds.
That the Nigerian Diaspora is relatively successful, especially when compared to the native population isn't shocking when we remember that most "legal" immigrant communities are more successful than the native population.
That disparity generally disappears by the third or fourth generation.
Turns out the process of immigration is a fairly good self-selection process [0].
But, the differences between immigrant groups has a racial component too.
I've not done enough in depth reading on the disparity (mostly summaries from other people I vaguely remember), but I do often think about Gladwell's piece "Black like them" [1] when the topic comes up.
You asked about disparage outcomes in a fair system, I gave it to you. It is on topic. Both CRT advocates and opponents considers it fair that men gets harsher sentences.
CRT does not claim that disparate outcomes based on gender are "fair".
It explicitly acknowledges gender as an intersecting variable.
The idea disparate outcomes between genders are "fair" isn't supported logically or evidentially, especially when we consider misdemeanor crimes without a component of violence.
> The idea disparate outcomes between genders are "fair" isn't supported logically or evidentially
Can you link to a prominent CRT advocate speaking up about white men getting harsher sentences than black women? Otherwise I don't believe you when you say they don't consider this fair. The times I have argued about this they always start bringing up culture or genes to explain the differences, never that men are less privileged under these circumstances.
So they say, them saying it doesn't mean it is actually true though.
> You seem to want to discredit CRT based not on its actual academic discussion
You were free to link an academic discussion where they pointed out these things, but you didn't. Nothing comes up when I try to google for it, hence I'll conclude it doesn't exist.
Edit: The problem with these discussions is that you use the ideals for your own things and the actual implementations for others. Take meritocracy for example, meritocracy is inherently anti-racist but in practice it might be racist. So when you see someone argue pro meritocracy you see them as probably racists or at least not anti-racist. Similarly when I see someone argue for CRT I don't see all the things they say CRT to be, but what it is in practice. Ultimately you can't hide behind theoretical definitions, trying to practice meritocracy leads to some problems and we should acknowledge that, similarly the CRT we see in practice also has lots of problems we should acknowledge.
Your edit is basically "You're arguing what CRT actually is and means but I wanna argue about what I think CRT is based on the narrow set of sources I personally interact with."
I can't prove that something doesn't exist, no. You have to prove that it does exist.
Hence you can't just say that I need to read more, I have read enough that I know the topic isn't something they care about so it is basically absent everywhere. If they actually do care about it I would like to read the book or study, I have searched a lot for them but they don't seem to exist.
And you can't say that the topic is so obscure that it wouldn't be covered anywhere. The rate at which men get shot by police and get put into prison more is one of the highest and most notable disparage effects any demographic faces, black people are twice as likely to get shot as white people, but men are 20 times as likely to get shot as women. If they really cared about those things then this would be covered in every introductory book to the subject, yet I fail to find even a single one who even brings it up as a footnote.
I'd be fine with CRT if it was practiced properly, but everything I've seen of it tells me it isn't practiced properly. That is what happens when you call everyone who criticises it racists or similar, then you don't listen to feedback and the field gets corrupted.
"I'd be fine with CRT if practiced properly is" is a weird statement.
It's a critical academic framework. "Practiced properly" it's something academics debate. There is no "proper practice" beyond applying the generalized methodology by examining outcomes and asking whether they're the result of bias.
Based on this thread, my assumption is, despite your rather vocal criticism of CRT, you haven't read any scholarly works on the topic and have only a passing understanding based on pop-culture exposure.
I'm not here to provide you a free education, but literally all of the foundational works by Bell, Crenshaw, Guinier, et. al. cover intersectional as a component of their criticism.
Please explain the different outcomes between second gen African immigrants and American whites. Under your theory every demographic is obligated to want and behave the same as any other. Smart women choosing medicine instead of electrical engineering is prima facie evidence to you some kind of discrimination happened.
My point wasn't "any difference in outcome is the result of discrimination" it was explicitly "you cannot use the difference in outcome as evidence there should be a difference in outcome."
The other commenter wrote that is black people commit more murders then it isn't surprising to see more black people in prison for murder. That's not circular, that's an expected outcome.
Are you simply unwilling to acknowledge any (subjectively) negative differences between cultures? Does culture influence decisionmaking or not? Is respect for law and academic achievement not a cultural trait? This is such a trivially obvious argument if you are willing to move past the irrational taboo that relegates us to pretending that culture can only vary positively. Does culture influence behavior and decisionmaking or not?
Right, all those inner city murders in overwhelmingly black neighborhoods are being committed by white supremacists from out of town.
Don't you think you're reaching a little? Or do you honestly mean to imply that whites commit just as much murder per capita, but are simply 10x more likely to avoid arrest and conviction, because racism?
The disparity is so wide that we know with 100% confidence the black murder rate is a decent multiple of the white rate. Murder is relatively easy to track since there is a body
That the authors of the paper included that statistic, based on the exact same data set you linked, without acknowledging that their own paper is arguing there is a massive disparity in wrongful conviction rates and thus FBI data set is, I believe, a benign mistake by the author.
We do not have a good understanding of the violence incidence rate amongst Black Americans (or any demographic). We do have a precise understanding of victimization across demographics.
But, even if you just assume that any wrongfully convicted Black American would be replaced by a different Black offender, you still have to deal with the disparity in wrongful convictions and its implications in terms of criminal justice and race.
That you managed to skim that paper and find the one already established statistic from the same flawed data set, without considering those implications is unsurprising.
>We do not have a good understanding of the violence incidence rate amongst Black Americans (or any demographic). We do have a precise understanding of victimization across demographics.
You are bending over backwards to deny the fact that black men are killing black men in black communities in significantly higher numbers than any other group. No amount of false convictions erases this fact, the bodies are hard to miss. That alone indicates a cause other than discrimination in the legal system.
I'm not denying that fact. I'm debating the precision of the statistic, and pointing towards other evidenced disparities that are not directly related to the murder rate.
You seem to be bending over backward to skim past those, focusing on a single statistic that allows you to push a simplistic, prejudiced narrative.
Even if the murder rate disparities are 100% accurate, that does not explain or justify any of the other disparities we see in evidence.
The number of black people in prison would PLUMMET if they didn’t commit crimes. Same for every race. Makes it hard to give a shit. You are obviously right that innocent people are in prison and I’m right the black murder rate is high
Murder, rape and assault are “criminalized poverty”? People who satisfy addicts destructive drug habits are good? Heavily black cities have worse detectives(possibly racism). Equal enforcement would see more blacks people in prison for murder at least
Murder, rape and assault represent a minority of people in prison[0], and a full quarter of people in jail nationwide are only in jail because they can't afford bail.
If you believe people should be in jail for non-violent drug offenses, we can agree to disagree. I'm primarily a libertarian, and believe in the basic ethos of bodily autonomy.
It's not circular at all. Rephrased and generalized: "If more people end up in jail, because people are committing more crimes, it's not ____."
Now add race: "If more black people end up in jail, because blacks are committing more crimes, it's not discrimination towards blacks, but discrimination towards crimes".
But yes, to your point, you can't judge solely based on how many are in jail, that they must be committing more crimes... because the justice system isn't perfect, and innocents do end up in jail. But again, to the other's points, it's entirely in the realm of possibility that black people are in fact committing more crimes, and hence there should be disproportionately more of them in jail. As to whether that's actually the case, is not easy to say.
Culture is your value system, your sense of right and wrong, just and unjust, fair and unfair, it encapsulates aspirations, defines self-actualization...if certain subcultures see clout in prison time, for a example, how could you possibly expect such a demographic to produce the same per capita number of convicts as a demographic which shuns law breaking?
And then genes have direct (e.g. warrior gene, brain structure) and indirect (e.g. hormone concentrations/sensitivity) influences on behavior and decision making. In addition to the heritability of intelligence which is going to influence both propensity for law breaking and conviction rate.
You can't celebrate diversity while only pretending that demographic differences are positive (itself a culturally subjective measure). That's a recipe for cross-demographic resentment and suboptimal legal and social outcomes, as we're increasingly seeing with this new generation of up and coming ideologues across our institutions.
People see sentiment like this and recoil in horror as though it justifies racism against individuals; on the contrary, these differences are merely shifts in normal-like distributions, i.e. we should still treat individuals equally in law and industry, but we must acknowledge that there will be average differences in outcome across demographics if we want a society based on equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome can only be achieved by handicapping the competent individuals that we rely on for progress of technology and civilization.
Despite what you may have heard, reality does not have a liberal bias, it unfortunately has a racial bias, because of the nature of evolution. Thousands of generations of adaptation to vastly different geographies has left it's mark, and denying this truth, while well intentioned, is dangerously misguided.
Except the evidence that these ideologues cite for this divergence from values is inequality of outcome, which is a ridiculous metric to gauge the fairness of a system which presides over a culturally and genetically heterogeneous population. And that's the key issue with so called CRT, which has become somewhat of an umbrella term both for directly influenced pedagogy and ideologies with underpinnings which are simply similar to CRT in spirit: when you naively presume that all peoples are identical in ability and behavior, save for influences of the economic and justice systems (i.e. ignoring culture and genes), then naturally the only allowable answer to the question of inequity is discriminatory injustice. And the outcome of such shortsightedness is broken, often reverse racist policy, which is exceedingly quick to make excuses for suspects of the "right" (minority) demographic and particularly harsh on suspects of the "wrong" ("privileged") demographic.
This is ultimately an overcorrection to the injustices of slavery/jim crow and WWII-era nazism - we've taken race and cultural blindness a step too far, conflating equal treatment under the law with equal outcome under the law (and in other institutions as well). If your ideology does not allow for differences in average behavior/ability/values as an explanation for different average outcomes then it becomes trivially easy to see the boogeyman of racism/sexism across institutions and justify what amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.