"They’re trying to George Floyd me" before dead

You then dont know what you are talking about. "EQUITY" equal outcomes is a foundational principle of CRT.

And you dont understand critical theory.

Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it. Wanting to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxist philosophy,

Research is only needed for understanding or explaining society, not to change it. Generally they have to avoid such research that doesnt fit with their narrative.

"Ideological dissemination" doesnt require research.
Neo-Marxism - Wikipedia

Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified.
What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack? (edweek.org)

And how are they "rectified"?

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi

 

I couldn't care less what somebody in 1937 said unless their words are being strictly followed today. It's about how it's applied today.

The research I've seen does fit their narrative. But the whole point is to understand or explain society to improve it. They start with the assumption that ethnicities are equal. So from there they will hypothesize that unequal outcomes means racism. But the relationship is often more complex than suspected. I think where it fails is its reliance upon postmodernist thinking (which is idiotic and may cause them to underestimate culture). But that doesn't mean we should ignore systemic racism in addition to cultural issues.

Well of course it isn't just about individual beliefs. If they start out at a disadvantage, it doesn't require explicit prejudice for them to have unfair outcomes based upon race. I think your link supports my position more than yours.

One person's opinion. It's certainly possible to intervene more delicately/thoughtfully, e.g. to change how schools are funded (to be more fair!) to help the poor, which disproportionately helps black persons.

 

That somebody is one of the originators of critical theory, just as I quote Derrick Bell as the originator of Critical race theory and Kendi, CRT's current rock star. All showing that Max from 1937 is very closely being followed today.

Nope. For instance we could put the nations police force through extensive training to avoid the need to use force and eliminate 90% of the deaths at the hands of the police, but that remaining 10% would still reflect the exact same racial disparity. Still just as systemically racist as it was before according to CRT. Thus the push to defund the police instead.

 

A rock star of Fox News and NYT maybe, due to being sensational. Serious research is what really matters.

By any reasonable account what you described would be an improvement because black people, being disproportionately affected, would disproportionately benefit from an improvement in it. Making rational policy needs to be research-driven. For example, the shooting simulations showed that police did better, but still showed racial bias at a lower rate than non-police. This shows us that training helps. Perhaps increased training, or changes in training, could result in further improvements to excellence in police discretion that would make the bias less significant. Keeping in mind, of course, that there are diminishing returns and other things to spend resources on that may give more benefit.

Defunding the police was a stupid idea, and now most liberals realize it was.

It's fine to disagree with particular ideas, but the push by republicans to vaguely outlaw CRT in classrooms is basically stopping discourse on race, which is a disservice to students.

 

A rock star in academia and education where CRT is being promoted. And the NYT
Ibram X. Kendi’s Antiracist Reading List - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
presented as the answer to Americas racism.

 

Nothing in the statutes does that.

Floridas anti woke statute prohibits teaching

1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
52 morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
53 national origin.
54 2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,
56 whether consciously or unconsciously.
57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
59 race, color, sex, or national origin.
60 4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin
61 cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to
62 race, color, sex, or national origin.
63 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be
65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,
66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,
67 color, sex, or national origin.
68 6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive
70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or
72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or
73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
74 8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,
75 neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or
76 sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color,
77 sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race,
78 color, sex, or national origin.


Liberals just cant engage in a discourse regarding race without them.

 

That's fine.

This eliminates discourse. It starts with the conclusion that racism doesn't exist, and even outlaws the discussion of this. Basically, buy into the republican narrative, or else. Hypocrisy at its best.

Is this misquoted? Doesn't make sense.

Adopt republican talking points on race mandated. Interesting. More hypocrisy.

Nothing wrong with discomfort with unfairness. Doesn't have to be their fault to feel discomfort.

Well yeah, of course there can be no discourse with those rules. Those rules simply demand that classrooms pretend racism is an irrelevant relic of history. Something that is gone unless somebody breaks these rules. It also suggests diversity cannot be encouraged. It's pretty hypocritical and naive.

 

Youre high. Doesnt start or finish with any such conclusion.

 

Privilege or oppression by race must be taught to not be occurring (or not taught at all) by those rules. How then, could one discuss whether racism currently occurs? So is it okay if the teacher presents evidence but refuses to take a position? Or is discussing it at all risky for violating this gag rule?

 

Like I said regarding the listed exclusions from curriculum-

Liberals just cant engage in a discourse regarding race without them.

You are demonstrating my point.

 

Ah cute. You cherry pick a picture of black people being criminals and white people having a fun party to claim this is how these ethic groups behave. Racist much?


And what you say aint true. It's been academically investigated. And cops do not arrest black people that much when it gets dark, when it's hard to see who is behind the wheel. The only logical conclusion that can be made out of it, is that cops racist profile black people and that is the reason why they pull over. Percentage wise, it's white people who got more problems with the law when pulled over.

Going back to your example, and in regard with that white people statistically got more trouble with the law when pulled over but aren't pulled over that much at all: you wouldn't be pulling that group of white people over after they had a nice party, but probably half could be arrested on a DUI. And only your racist bias is the cause that they get away with it.

 

It's also a fact that white people commit more violent crime in overal numbers. At that point you lot demand that %-wise it's black people, whining that they are punching above their weight. Fact is fact. But when the stats show that %-wise the predominantly white police force kill far more unarmed black people %-wise, you guys always demand that we must eyeball overall numbers. As if, Dixon. As if...


So yeah. It's a typical white far right wing approach of hypocritically pick the numbers to make black people look bad.

Fact is that the predominantly white police force uses far more often force against black people
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/...e-use-of-force-is-more-likely-for-blacks.html

Get over it.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ops-use-force-more-often-than-black-officers/

 

I proved it the post you're responding to with the links to articles, and you edited it out.
It's pathetic of you to think I wouldn't notice.

 

Using proof anything want you to have to prove is that Mr Anderson is not bound to conform to law or follow lawful orders delivered by police officer.

If you can't do that you've had it.

The only question is is whether the force was excessive that's for courts to decide not you.

 

You said "I'm just not not accepting your bizarre interpretation of the Constitution"
I proved the cop violated the 4th amendment. And you edited it out.


You edited it out, and distract away as if there is a discussion possible if Mr Anderson is above the law.
How massively childish.

 

that's because it's cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

you didn't prove that you're not a court of law you can't do that.

No I didn't you didn't prove anything. I don't care about the twaddle in the nonsense you post it means nothing because again like I said above you're not a court of law you don't get to determine these things.

There's a reason we have court systems and the justice system and we don't just ask you.

 

I sourced excess force by the police is breaching the 4th amendment in a court of law.
I sourced the cop wasn't allowed to use a taser in this instance.
I sourced if a cop was allowed, they may only do that for 5 seconds. He did 42.
So that proves it's excess force = the cop breached the constitution.

Your claim it's "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" is not based on any source, but just you far right wing emotions.

 

The decision of the court about Tony Timpa has been successfully appealed and the end of 2021 and the family is able to file a suit against the cop. It so far hasn't started as far as I know. I guess they are still repairing for it.

 

Thats civil court. And further demonstrates the disparity. 7 years later and his family hasnt been able to even get the case to a civil court let alone a criminal court, yet while Floyds family was paid millions faster than they could get the cop convicted in a criminal court. All because Tony's skin is white and Floyds skin is black. .

 

No, you did no such thing. You made all of that up.

 

Indeed. That is civil court and their still busy with it. While the problem is of Tony is that nobody else taped what the cops did, and that cops refused to release their tapes for 3 years straight.

 

And 4 years later they still havent been able to get the case into a civil court trial. They call it "equity".

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi

 

They could have started their trial in dec 2021, since that's when their court of appeal was won. But so far they haven't done a thing with it. That's on the attorneys of Tony's family. That it took 3 years to get the vids out, is also on the attorneys of Tony's family for being so slow on winning something so simple in a court case.

They're just slow as hell. Maybe it's because they are white. I dunno. You dragged in their skin color.

 

No you didn't.

You have pointed yourself judge jury and executioner I don't respect your authority.