What does Critical Race Theory teach?

I think it's about time people stopped blaming others for their problems. I came from a poor family but worked hard and worked smart, got a degree and got to senior positions in companies, made some money and retired early. Plenty of others in my position did the same.
Lots of poor people came to America from Ireland, Italy and other places, and did well for themselves too.
Lots of black people do well for themselves too, and not just in sport and music. The rest should take a good look at themselves, stop looking for excuses and get on and work hard to improve their situation instead of blaming the system.

 

While we seem to be pretty much on the same page I see CRT for what it is, a legal tool developed by the legal academy in 1970. It was recently weaponized by a right wing activist, Christopher Rufo and disseminated through Fox and their ilk for consumption by the right wing sheeples that get their world view exclusively through Fox and its ilk. Any course that touches on racism is being lumped together and painted with the CRT brush. Other than that, nice post!

 

I agree with everything you said, but what does that have to do with the OP, how does it relate?

 

Yes it does! It explains EXACTLY that. As a matter of fact, it proves it's false. But the fact that you didn't see it is the same reason you STILL don't realize that what you are writing on is not a typewriter, and that you don't have to hit enter when you get to the edge of the screen.

 

Convenient. You actually don't have a way to defend, so deflect. It's awesome.

 

If you are going to assert that the statistics offered was manipulated and therefore false,
the onus is on you to prove they are false by showing us the original unmanipulated statistics, in an apples to apples comparison.

All you did was link to a website.

No, that doesn't cut it. Don't expect others to do your work for you.

Not to mention the fact that the phrase 'fake news' didn't exist but for Donald Trump planting that particular thought terminating cliché in your mind.

 

Yeah... it's two genes down from the one that makes Arians a superior race, right?

 

So, let us see if we dissect that a little. As you note, local examples, not able to be generalized by the actual national statistics in this case do in fact undermine the veracity of the CRT models. The FBI statistics are the standard then to which CRT must be evaluated, and admitting that the localized reviews aren't extrapolatable to generalize about. Thanks for admitting that part. Second, the UK statistics are theirs, they don't have a bearing on our nation. It's an easy example then to exclude as it provides some insight into how the UK are dealing with these things, but not a model for the US>

Here's the thing though. In this country, the national numbers don't in fact support the assertions being pushed in CRT. CRT doesn't consider national statistics because they obviously don't actually support their narrative. To put a real point on this discussion, the assertion that racial policy has an impact on actual crime is actually quite an impugnment of democratic social policies. Many of us have made that observation over the years. Now the democratic party are attempting anything to distract from those set of facts, and are instead attempting to distract folks from that reality by introducing the new narrative that suddenly policy is not a root cause of the racism they are now attempting ignore.

The purpose of said discussion is simply to incite racial tension into a mix of statistical scarcity that actually demonstrates their trashing.

And now, we're at the gist of it. The attempt to isolate and marginalize sizable minorities to instill fear is a common method used in communist countries (simply replace class with race and it is the same approach). And folks simply paid attention to it and have rejected the method because of the obvious stupidity of the method. CRT is laughable in the face of reality here.

 

I couldn't care less if you missed it or not. Anybody can make a mistake. But you used your mistake to insult and call me dishonest. That's a completely different ball game.

Retract!!!

 

LOL... you said this into a mirror then.... Got it. When you find any way to describe how any of the citations demonstrates a national problem, you get back with us....

 

The prove exactly the opposite. But why would we expect reason and facts to convince somebody who believes that there is a "gene" that makes black people criminals!

 

Don't be a science denier.

"Roux 2014 , Vaughn et al. 2009 , Beaver et al. 2009 , and Beaver et al. 2013 have all found that possession of low-activity MAOA genes increase the risk that the individual will end up in prison. He writes in "Exploring the association between the 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene promoter polymorphism and psychopathic personality traits, arrests, incarceration, and lifetime antisocial behavior":

Controversially, there is a great deal of race-differential in the distribution of these genes. In one study of 2,574 whites and 164 blacks, Beaver et al. (2013) found that 5.2 of the black subjects possessed the highest risk 2R allele whereas only 0.1 percent of whites had it. Widom and Brzustowicz (2006) in a study of 180 whites and 98 non-whites found that 6.2 percent of the non-whites had it and 0.6 percent of whites had it. In one study of psychiatric patients, Reti et al. (2011) found that 4.7 percent of 232 blacks had the gene whereas only 0.5 percent of the 232 whites had it. Choe et al. (2014) found that 6 percent of 86 blacks had it whereas 0 percent of 106 whites had it.
The same thing has been found for the 3R version of the gene. This gene is still associated with increased violence, but not as severely as the 2R gene, which causes lower levels of monoamine oxidase. Sabo, Hu and Hamer (199 found among 539 whites and 52 blacks that 59.1 percent of blacks had it and 33.1 percent of whites had it."
https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/african-americans-possess-violence-gene-researchers-find

Furthermore, the same source found this:
"Numerous other researchers replicated these findings in rats in 2002, 2007, 2008. A breakthrough emerged in 2002 when Caspi and colleagues find that individuals with a 2R or 3R version of the gene exhibited aggression, but only when they had difficult upbringings."

IF this is true, then you have a deadly combination that results in repeated cycles of poverty and crime. One continues to beget the other, and IF it is genetically linked, we should work to find a way to help mitigate it, don't you think?

After all, addressing root causes of problems is the way to fix them. This is in no way racist. It's just science. We cannot help what genes we might be born with. We can, however, start to tackle a culture that aggravates the genetic dispositions. This is the ULTIMATE "it's not all your fault" excuse liberals have been searching for, but refuse to acknowledge. Instead, blaming others for the actions of some is the standard liberal fare. Why not address the actual issues?

 

So, you still can't read a chart and are challenged by percentages. That's okay. We can help you.

What part of the percentages do you find particularly confusing?

 

The great misfortune is the name. That's what they are trying to exploit. Of course, it dates from 50 years ago, when the name seemed appropriate. Now we know that biology, anthropology, .. and all related sciences have discarded the use of the term "race". Because no such thing exists.

 

Of course! Being black increases the risk of an individual will end up in prison. Read the OP!

Now... I'm still waiting for your retraction.

 

The one in which you jumped into a debate where we were discussing a poster's claim that blacks commit 7 times more violent crimes, and then it turns out you didn't even understand what the discussion was about, so you instead resorted to insulting me.

Now retract!!!

 

You get the reasons for that wrong. You're something else when you know you're wrong and want to keep peddling your partisan BS.

I will when you admit that your charts prove the same point we were saying. Let 'er rip, tater chip.

 

So now you've had to resort to hair-splitting (something someone else said - not me) to make a point. A sure sign you've lost your argument. I never made the claim, though the direction of the facts are the same as the other poster, as my math shows.

When will you retract? You've said our posts are false a half dozen times now, yet it's you that can't read a chart or do basic math.

 

No. My charts definitely DO NOT prove your point.

Now, retract!

 

They do. LOL.

Unless you think that 12.5% is more than 50%. (50% is actually more than 12.5% - You do understand that, correct?)

But hey, I want to help you get better at math, so I'll walk you through it.

Assume 1,000 people.
130 are black.
870 are not black.

2 murders occur. A black committed one and a white committed the other. Ergo, blacks have committed 50% of the murders, and whites have committed half of the murders.

With me so far?

Blacks are 13% of the population (130/1,000).
Blacks commit 50% of the murders (1/2).

See how the math works? Your charts were consistent with this. Let me know if you need help.

This might help you:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=online+calculator&atb=v266-1&ia=calculator

 

What the hell? When did I say your posts are "false"? What does that even MEAN?

Now you have TWO statements to retract.

 

No idea what you're talking about. I already retracted and admitted I misread and posted a snapshot of the wrong column from your chart.

Now it's your turn... retract! And now you have TWO statements to retract.

 

You've said they were wrong/false in posts:
117
119
137
140
147
159
166
and
169

 

Just about all your posts are wrong. You said I claimed they were FALSE. That denotes intent. Now, retract or quote.

And retract your insult about "dishonesty"

 

Prove it. It's very basic math here. Surely you have a mathematical, logical retort instead of continuing to prove you're bad at math and cannot read a graph properly, move the goalposts by slicing part of your graph to show something not even being argued (and in the process, inadvertently proving our point anyway).

Hair splitting nonsense. You claimed that the stats don't prove what we say they prove, and now you're waving the white flag of surrender because you can't make a logical point.

Nope. See posts:
117
119
137
140
147
159
166
169 and now
174 as evidence of such. I only can conclude, based on your incessant, documented persistence in misrepresenting posts of others, ignoring basic mathematics, and the sheer volume of such posts that it's not a misunderstanding on your part, it's intentional.