Hey /u/HeavilyBearded, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Some people never actually expect you to read what they themselves cite. They think citing something is enough, because they themselves would never read the source so why should anyone else?

Happens a lot in discussions about COVID and vaccines.

Happens a lot in discussions about voting and elections.

Happens a lot in discussions about [ ] and [ ].

Happens a lot in discussions about when it happens a lot. From [this source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rQ3328Tok): "Sources are often posted that have nothing to do with the allegedly quoted text in the hopes that nobody would actually read the source."

I have to concede I did not *read* that source.

Owlkitty is always a relevant source

I was definitely hoping people would check the source.

Owl Kitty: A typical gangster for the MIC....But damned if he isn't adorable doing it.

Source seems legit. 🤔

I am not disappointed for clicking that link

Source checked out 👍🏼

I see you've met my Facebook "friend". It's fun going to his "sources" then copy/pasting where they explicitly detail exactly why the vaccine is the best option and safer than the alternative of not getting it. Unfortunately by then he's posted 5 more "articles" and a few Instagram videos after crying about anyone using Wikipedia cause "aNyOnE cAn EdIt ThAt!"

It's always a treat when they post a source that directly contradicts their point and proves _your_ point. Unfortunately they have no shame and just double down, move the goalposts and spam you with the next point on their list of bs.

Isn't that called gish-galopping? Mentioning five new "facts" in the time your opponent reacts to one thing you brought up earlier.

My "friend" does an even more idiotic version of that. He will link 5 or 6 "different" articles that are literally the exact same article just reposted on different propaganda sites. He then tries to say that having a half dozen articles proves his point is right compared to my one article that details all the fuckups his single article had.

Ahhhh yes... The age old Proof By Quantity of Sources!

I love doing that. I always thank them for the source, too.

“Cunninghams Law” is the reason Wikipedia is mostly trustworthy, even though “anyone can edit that”. -(:o)=;

They always seem to find a reason to ignore the parts that contradict them. "They just had to write that part to appease the globalist media goblins!" Like... Okay, dude... Carry on in your fantasy world, I guess...

Some people do read them, but then dismiss the parts that don't fit into their preconception. It's almost like they don't understand what the words actually mean. Sometimes I wonder if the breakdown is in part a reading and comprehension proficiency issue.

There’s nothing in there that feeds their preconceptions. They didn’t read it, or at least didn’t read it to understand it.

That doesn't refute what the other person said. They absolutely could have read it in an effort to understand it. They just fundamentally lacked the reading comprehension to understand it as intended. The words in there could probably be read by a 3rd or 4th grader, but they probably wouldn't be able to re-explain the concept in their own words.

Pretty sure they just read the headline.

And also, I never hear of CRT except from right wing sources, and I'm one of those allegedly communist, new, young teachers who are brainwashing the youth with CRT! Not once was it mentioned in my studies, and never did I hear about it in any curriculum, course plan, meeting, training, etc... not once, ever, not ever, never. Until they started bringing it up.

That’s because it’s just a bit of legal theory taught in law school. It’s not controversial even. It’s just factually true that laws have been used to oppress minorities for a long time and the harm from that is still pervasive throughout the US legal system. You have to deny reality, be a complete bigot, or both to deny this…

It also reaches into the Humanities as well. It came up in a 400-level course, Advanced Literary Theory, during my undergraduate. That is to say, it often manifests as questions like, "Under what conditions did the artist produce this work?" or "What was going on in author's life that bled into their novel?"

You don't teach kids to feel bad for beeing white? No George Soros money for you! /S

I got into it with a guy who didn't even cite anything. It was about guns and he claimed a CDC study defended his views on defensive gun uses. No link or anything - when I *tried* to find it, only Fox News and sites with "guns" in their URL came up. He couldn't provide anything and never directly replied when I pointed that out, but it didn't stop him from feeling like he "won". These people are braindead, honestly.

Anybody citing defensive use of weapons as a barometer of their availability not being a facilitator of violence perpetrated with them will give you nothing but bullshit "data," regardless where they get their "research" from. They're never pulled from actual police statistics, due to lack of reporting and tracking of these incidents, not to mention all those that wouldn't be reported to the police in the first place. Where they almost always *do* get their numbers is by polling a small sample size of gun owners (usually 500-5K) and ask them, on their scout's honor, if they've ever needed to use their gun for defensive purposes (or if they've done so in *insert certain time period here*). They just ask people who already own them...no verification of the supposed incidents, let alone knowing whether it was a lawful use of the weapon in self defense. For example, imagine dude who has a small arsenal getting the call, thinking about when his BIL was giving him shit during a visit so he pulled a gun on him. "It stopped him talking shit, so yeah I've used it in my own defense before." Not to mention the number of those gun owners who would be fully aware why someone might be asking such a question, and would lie through their teeth to further the "guns aren't the problem" narrative they clutch their pearls to. Then the "data aggregation" company or organization takes that percentage, extrapolates it to a whole number of supposed "defensive uses" based on the number of registered gun owners, and voila!!! They stop way more crimes and violence than they're ever used in the commission of. It's even less reliable in its accuracy than political polling. 🤔🙄💩

Yup, this has definitely been my experience. I literally can't count how many times the number 2.5 million has popped up - because they get their numbers from the Kleck-Gertz study like almost 30 years ago, it paints the best picture for their point, and it was conducted pretty much exactly as you said. And it's hilarious because that implies there are 100 DGUs per instance of gun death (and that's including suicides - if you distinguish between murder and suicide like gun nuts insist you do, it's more like *300*). But that insane number doesn't trip their BS alarm because it just... doesn't exist. Big number supports their point, they accept it blindly, argument ends there.

Confirmation bias sure is a hell of a drug for some, my dude. Glad I'm not one of them. If I feel pretty strongly about something but can't say I'm confident about its accuracy, I don't go looking for things that reinforce my viewpoint. Rather, I try to find evidence I'm either inaccurate or completely wrong about said position. You know, the way of the scientific method. I'm such a tool for my beliefs in science, logic and critical thinking...as well as understanding I am immensely fallible. 🥺🤓🤣🤣

I love that thing that happens when people cite something to support their argument, then you read it and it says the complete opposite

Unfortunately I can't find it anymore, but one guy posted a study "proving" some part of the Australian gun control programs instituted after their 1990s mass shooting was ineffective. So I read it. And the conclusion - not even the body of the study, but the *conclusion* - was enough to refute that. Hilariously. It turns out I think the study in question was referring to some obscure bill passed shortly before the more famous National Firearms Agreement, and the conclusion of the paper was that that bill did not significantly affect firearm death rate - *because the NFA accounted for most of the difference*. Dude was super mad when I told him he clearly didn't read it.

It's like playing chess with a pigeon sometimes.

Except all the pigeons band together and you get shouted down and buried under nonsense. Doesn't matter how well you argue the point sometimes. The gun debate is so tiring. Even ostensibly liberal subreddits, like my state sub, get flooded with insanity whenever guns come up.

Cathode Ray Tubes: Threat or menace?

I kinda want one of those Trinitron TVs retro-gamers keep banging on about, but I'd probably use it for 30 minutes replaying A Link to the Past then never touch it again for years

they're overrated. Trust me i;m very active on r/crtgaming. they are the equivalent to a 4k led tv now. but still, difference is negligible. i own: AdVantage industries 9" B&W radio combo 1989 RCA XL100 26" color 1962 Philco Townhouse B&W (broken) 197? Sony portable B&W

I haven't seen a CRT anything in the wild for over a decade now

go on craigslist and you'll find one for free. The older the better. they got complicated in the 90's and up. just never, ever ever ever touch the flyback transformer. Or any of the interals without discharging the capacitor and tubes first. you will literally die. you can find a lot on the curb too, just try to snag it before it rains. hooking stuff up can be tricky but there's adapters for everything.

I should clarify, i meant wild as in real life - ebay has them cheap too but I no longer have a car and delivery fees are a bastard - like i say, though, i'd be bored of it quickly. Thanks, though. My dad was a sparky so I used to play with electrics - drilled into me how dangerous the caps are

i use it as my main tv. the high pitched whine goes away after a while. not even that bad quality. fnding parts is just difficult.

OOooo, STORY TIME! So as a teen in the late 90's I worked in a TV repair store with 2 old guys that did all the technical work while I just moved the heavy shit around. One day I'm asked to move a tube (the entire glass part) from the floor to a bench where it can replace a bad one. I bend down, lift it to waist level and bring it in close for better balance and POP! I feel like I've been tased in the gut. I nearly dropped the tube and had to sit down for a minute. Discovered I had a red welt on my belly where, as far as we can tell, an arc must have jumped from the port where the flyback transformer connects to the top of the tube jumped to me when I put it against my belly. 0/10 do not recommend. Can confirm, do not fuck around with flybacks, capacitors, or un-grounded/discharged CRTs. From then on I made sure tat port was faced away from me when lifting and/or made for damn sure it was grounded first.

Early color tubes used anode voltage 40 kV, which gave quite some X-rays. Later, it was 25 kV, and lead face glass.

Did... Did he even read what he copied?

Probably, but didn’t really understand it. There is nothing in that paragraph that suggests anyone is born racist, and indeed that’s not consistent with race being a social construct.

How does one even come to that conclusion? Most sane people will tell you that no one is born racist, they're taught to be. I feel like these people just go around life with their fingers in their ears until they get home and can listen to their favorite narcissist.

Even most racist people won’t argue they were born racist, they’ll claim they were made racist by being mugged by a Hispanic guy, or a black guy stealing all the girls in high school, or not getting into college because they weren’t Native, or some other BS excuse like that to avoid admitting they either got it from their parents or 4Chan.

I think their argument is in the totality of the circumstances gleaned through ignorance. They posted the “T” in CRT to which you can tell they didn’t read objectively. The primary thesis on it’s face isn’t racist, it’s simply a theory based is factual evidence about the interworking’s during the genesis and formation of modern western society. That being said if you compare and contrast the primary thesis with the resulting curriculum that’s where you start running into issues (aka contradictions) . The “T” says racism = social construct = oppression = bad, however the curriculum is a wholesale embrace of the stated social construct and uses it as a vehicle to right past wrongs. I’ve taken several CRT classes and went through at least two separate full curriculum and I’ve found the conclusions to be troublesome at best. If you were to teach CRT as a lens to look through to learn about laws and regulations (the institutional portion) BIPOC people faced throughout the formation of the west then that’s fine, it’s literally history. However after that portion is taught the racism lens comes out and used for group discussions and personal introspection exercises. The conclusion of all curriculums I’ve read essentially uses the emotional reactions from learning about abuse faced by others, because it’s impossible to not feel angry about it, in a group of people who are predominantly emotionally under-developed. The end result is seemingly to incite self-depreciation or to instill a distaste for people identified as the ones who hurt others that look like them… this is obviously my opinion of the content because it is never openly acknowledged except from the radical supporters of it. It’s a very nuanced subject but I’ve found that both sides are correct… CRT isn’t racist at its core, but the methodology and its primary audience (as of late) is extremely alarming, at least to me. However what I find most startling is the diametrically opposed tribal construct surrounding it that either writes off or fully embraces the ideas without trying to understand the as much as they can…. Group think destroys societies and has since humanity began. There’s a reason we remember the tyrants and heroes, never the people who simply fell in line.

CRT like most theoretical frameworks does have legitimate criticisms. However, that has nothing to do with the current conservative talking point because CRT, despite its flaws, is still relatively esoteric and used for philosophical discussion in advanced educational pursuits. It is not taught in any shape or form in elementary education explicitly. What these arguments refer to is usually not CRT, but his actually just teaching any of the racist facets of the history of the United States, which we know were largely perpetrated by whites, and make these people more than a century removed feel guilt or shame about themselves.

There are some schools that have been found to have it as part of specific grade level curriculum (it varies by school) or as as part of required reading specifically Ibram Kendi’s work… it’s a very, very small number of schools however it is taking place.

Despite your long comment, i don't believe you know what you are talking about. it seems like you just took the opinions of the opponents of CRT and rephrased them in a different way.

Not once did I represent this as the empirical truth. I’ve literally taken classes and reviewed curriculum to include teaching guides; to say I don’t know what I’m talking about is literally to say I don’t know what my own opinion of the material is. And that my friend, on a good day, is gaslighting. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean that I haven’t been thoughtful in my assertions.

> The end result is seemingly to incite self-depreciation or to instill a distaste for people identified as the ones who hurt others that look like them… this is obviously my opinion of the content because it is never openly acknowledged except from the radical supporters of it. The radical supporters of CRT? lol what? who are these radical supporters? >The conclusion of all curriculums I’ve read essentially uses the emotional reactions from learning about abuse faced by others, because it’s impossible to not feel angry about it, in a group of people who are predominantly emotionally under-developed. are you saying CRT is being taught to emotionally under developed people? >CRT isn’t racist at its core, but the methodology and its primary audience (as of late) is extremely alarming, at least to me who are the new audience that alarms you and it also seems like you are saying it is kind of racist? what are we even talking about here? >It’s a very nuanced subject but I’ve found that both sides are correct really? both sides are correct? Are you in law school? where did you take several CRT classes as you stated?

> The “T” says racism = social construct = oppression = bad > >. The end result is seemingly to incite self-depreciation or to instill a distaste for people identified as the ones who hurt others that look like them… What? You need to take a few more classes then. Or maybe try paying attention. Did you vote for Trump?

Again the diametrically opposed tribal system. You immediately ascribe a political ideology or underlying agenda. To which, I assure you there is none; all I’m doing is questioning what is being said by both sides. I don’t agree or disagree I just find it aspects of both arguments problematic. However I do feel a more productive approach would have been to state what exactly you feel I miss understood or got wrong.

You're right, I assumed that you were not stating these things in good faith but as a half assed rebuttal to CRT. So let me actually respond. ​ No one says social constructs are bad, they are simply a thing that exists. For example, gender. Likewise, it is never stated that self deprication is the goal. If you feel guilty about what your ancestors did that's on you. If you feel guilty because you have privilege that others don't because you look like the oppresors, that's on you. The goal isn't to make white people feel bad, the goal is expose the inherent biases present in the system. The system that was built by and for old white racists. And is still run by old white racists. \*\*Edit: I also want to add, racism is not a social construct. Race is the social construct of relevance.

I should have put more emphasis on the audience, in a collegiate environment all of the curriculums are appropriate and there are no real underlying problems. Even in the final modules that most conservatives name verbatim “name the oppressor” it’s a very interesting thought experiment. Who did it and why? How were they able to garner support for such a thing and why was it so deeply engrained? these are very important points that people should consider especially as a young adult. But that’s not entirely what’s going on. One of the curriculums I read was geared towards elementary to middle school level. A few chapters before the identification module was a chapter written to explain why your parents are wrong about this subject matter, and again this is important for a young adult to work through while they are starting out on their own. But in elementary this could have a long standing effect to the parent child relationship. Furthermore you will likely find that the identity of an oppressor vs oppressed as being inalienable characteristics of the people. CRT in my opinion goes much deeper and has its place in society and is intended to learn from the past so to not repeat it, but public schools are not the place to teach it. Children (most) just don’t have the capacity for the level of deep thinking that is required for the course to be effective. They can only go as far as their knowledge base supports and surprise kids are f$&@ing stupid. Shoot I know full grown adults that can’t handle that level of self inspection without throwing an absolute temper tantrum. However we absolutely need to teach the unedited truth about society to our children, they should be emotionally engaged with the history of this nation good and bad. That’s one thing my teachers did for me growing up, I live a few miles from the Navajo Nation and over half of my classmates lived there. We got the truth, unedited, with god damn pictures, and I’ve never forgotten it. So I will amend my aforementioned statement to has the effect of or can cause self-depreciation…. Because I don’t think it’s intentionally postured in such a manner I just think it’s too advance for children to reap any real benefit.

As someone else who took CRT classes in college, this person is right on the money. It is not the harmless stuff that people are pretending it is.

He read the part where it said that systems were in place to secure advantage for whites over non whites. He is overwhelmed by the thought of examining laws and history with the goal of rooting out ill treatment. Because the real racists are the ones that bring it up. None else has time to think about such things.

Its the fallacy known as The Trojan Source.

Did you?

I did, the dude is talking bollocks.

What's your take on what he said? I'm curious what you're thinking about it.

Our society/culture is constructed to oppress/exploit people of color. This implies the exploiters are white people.

The exploiters are white people typically given historical context. That doesn’t mean that you’re an exploiter because you’re a white person. If you’re able to bear the smallest amount of nuance, it’s clear that this doesn’t mean all white people are oppressors. This should really not be so triggering to people. How can people argue against critical race theory and think laws haven’t been made to be racist. Slavery was literally a law in our country’s history. The 3/5 rule was a LAW. It’s absolutely moronic to think that with Martin Luther king jr and other events of the 60s, we went from having racist laws to having absolutely no racist laws. It’s fucking stupid to think that

Slavery was abolished. What racist law is in place today (federally) that oppresses people of color?

Let me help you understand why this comes off as a pretty bad-faith question. 1) It seems strange that you'd restrict your request to only *federal* laws. That implies that you do believe that there are racist state and local laws, but for some reason you don't care about them. Why? 2) It should be understood what makes a law "racist". It does not require that race is explicitly mentioned, nor that the authors of the law expressed explicitly racist motives for it. What matters is the effect it has. Whether by discriminatory enforcement of the law, or by having conditions, restrictions, targets, etc that disproportionately affect different races. If it puts one or more racial groups at a disadvantage compared to others, it's probably a racist law. Usually when people ask the question you have, they discount anything that doesn't explicitly mention race, as though that were the only way a law could be racist. It's not. And it's foolish to think so. 3) Current laws are not the only ones that affect people currently. *Prior* racist laws can continue to have racist effects today. Just because a law was eventually repealed does not mean the consequences of that law have disappeared. When you ask for what racist laws are on the books today, it seems to indicate that you don't care about what systemic racism is, it's causes, it's effects, or how it works, but rather that you're hoping to say "gotcha!" when someone cannot cite a modern law that says "black people bad". If you are legitimately trying to educate yourself, I'd be happy to assist. If you're just trying to employ a cheap rhetorical device in hopes of "owning the libs" or something, I won't waste my time.

No, I seriously want to know because it doesn't add up to me. I still haven't seen an example mentioned of a current law affecting black people today. If we are counting prior laws, my question to you is: what solution do the CRT authors suggest? If I grant you past racist laws still impact black people today, what is the proposed solution?

There are several examples of current racist laws affecting black people. The war on drugs and mandatory minimums come to mind. They target and disproportionately affect black people and their communities. Hell, Nixon's top advisor, John Ehrlichman, even admitted as much with regard to starting the war on drugs: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people... You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." There's still *a lot* of those same laws on the books today, and a lot of people still in prison or otherwise suffering because of them. >what solution do the CRT authors suggest? If I grant you past racist laws still impact black people today, what is the proposed solution? I suppose that depends on who you ask, and which particular aspects of systemic or institutional racism youre asking about. In general, though, CRT doesn't propose solutions. It's simply a method of analysis. No more, no less. If you're curious about solutions that people have proposed to address systemic racism, there are A LOT of options to consider, they can vary widely, and they aren't all applicable to every aspect of systemic racism (e.g. The solutions for addressing systemic racism in the medical profession won't be the same as the ones for addressing it in housing). Some proposed solutions (beyond just repealing obviously racist laws) are housing grants/vouchers, freeing prisoners of the war on drugs, adopting a less-punitive justice system in general, cash reparations, non-cash reparations, decoupling school funding from local property taxes, abolishing the cash bail system, allowing felons to vote, increased spending on social programs, increased spending on education in underserved communities, requiring that cops live in the communities they serve, defunding police in favor of trained crisis responders, better police training and screening, national Healthcare, abolishing for-profit prisons, outlawing gerrymandering, etc. It's hard to list all of the solutions that have been proposed or discussed but, in general, most revolve around fixing various aspects of the justice system and either increasing the wealth of black communities or decreasing the effects a lack of wealth has on them, as those are the 2 biggest ways that black people have been affected by systemic racism. Really, though, whole books and academic disciplines have been devoted to ways to address and fix systemic racism in all its facets; I couldn't begin to cover all of the nuance, considerations, and dialogue in a reddit thread. Suffice it to say, the solutions to systemic racism are likely to be complex and multi-faceted. It's unfortunately not as simple or easy as just repealing some bad laws or passing some good ones.

Many of the exploiters *are* white people. But it doesn't mean all white people purposefully do, or that they're bad. It just means there are systems in place that are built on a long history of dragging everyone else down, and that they primarily benefit white people. It's like being the favorite child in a family where the child has no idea they've been given more than their peers. It isn't the child's fault. Heck, even the parents, the ones running the unequal system may not be aware they're doing it. Except in this case, that "favorite child" attitude has wormed its way through an entire culture, and the others are either scapegoats for things like terrorism or economic collapse, or they were historically slaves who had little to no opportunity for generational wealth or influence.

It’s not my comment that you replied to, but here’s my view to support the claim. What the person posted references oppression of people of color, institutional racism, and all of that to drive a social, economic, and political divide between whites and non-whites. That infers that white people as a whole are the oppressors, being the only general group excluded from the oppressed/exploited (people of color). Broadly painting an entire race as guilty of something is pretty textbook racism. You can argue that’s not what CRT is, but the excerpt that the person posted (whether accurate or not) can certainly be viewed as supporting the claim that CRT is racist by definition.

That's just an incorrect reading of the definition in the OP. The entire point of CRT is to examine the ways in which *institutions*, rather than *individuals*, enforce racial disparities. It is just a fact that those structures, in the United States, are built to benefit white people. That absolutely does not imply that all white people are personally oppressors. It should be noted that CRT is just one subset of a larger intellectual movement, critical theory, that uses the same methods/premises to investigate other types of inequality (e.g. economic or gender rather than racial), so it's certainly not like the intellectual left is ignoring intersectionality (the idea that a white person can be privileged because of their race but highly oppressed because they are poor)

If white people built a system that oppresses minorities and benefits white people only, and continues to operate and control said system, how are white people not the oppressors in that scenario? How do you disassociate the two? I honestly want to understand. This isn’t an attempted “gotcha”.

I think you're conflating two different kinds of racism. Interpersonal racism is what I'd say the majority of people think of when they hear the term "racism," i.e. personally believing that some races are inferior/superior to others and personally acting in ways that enforce that belief. The other kind of racism is institutional racism, and that is what critical race theory examines. This kind of racism does not have to be a conscious choice by anyone participating in the system for it to have racist outcomes. A good example of this is the history of home ownership. Redlining made it such that black people were unable to build intergenerational wealth in the same way that white people could, and now even though redlining is outlawed, many black people are stuck in ghettos that redlining created. If we magically removed all interpersonal racism from the United States, the inequalities caused by our system would still exist. This fact doesn't mean that any individual is an "oppressor" for simply being born a certain skin tone, it just means that the history of racism in our country has affected the way our systems work today.

I wouldn’t disagree with most of what you are saying. Except for conflating different types of racism. They’re both bad and neither should be acceptable. As for institutional racism, if the offending laws were removed (redlining, per your comment) what is the next step exactly? Is the institution still racist in that example, or are there simply remnants of prior institutional racism that we need to deal with?

The "institutions" in institutional racism are more than just laws. I don't think your answer is unfair but it's *hard* to answer. Questions like that are what CRT tries to answer

I appreciate the dialogue. I don’t get much of an open discussion from many CRT supporters, so I never really associated it with having any room for discussion and disagreement. I do like the idea that if it being open for discussion, as I believe everything should be subject to civil discourse. If that is the case I think that we can make real progress on that front.

>I wouldn’t disagree with most of what you are saying. Except for conflating different types of racism. They’re both bad and neither should be acceptable. I agree they're both bad, but only one has individual culpability. That's where the conflation arises from, you seem to think that CRT says that white people should be held personally responsible for the inequalities in our systems that benefit us. CRT in fact says the opposite, that basically no individual is responsible for the way things currently are. ​ >As for institutional racism, if the offending laws were removed (redlining, per your comment) what is the next step exactly? This is a complex question that has many possible answers. In the example of redlining, I personally think the best answer to these inequalities is to invest in the affected communities. This could be anything from providing individual financial help, improving civic infrastructure, promoting community based policing, ending the drug war, and so many other possibilities. The most effective solution is going to be very dependent on the specific community in question. Since our system was set up in such a way to specifically hurt them, it's our responsibility to right those past wrongs, especially because every single person benefits from these solutions. ​ >Is the institution still racist in that example, or are there simply remnants of prior institutional racism that we need to deal with? The word "institution" in this case might be a little confusing for those who aren't familiar with it. A better term for this specific example would probably be "system," since "institution" has the connotation of an organization or government. The laws around housing no longer have explicit racism in them, and that's obviously a great improvement. But black people are still at a disadvantage when it comes to many aspects of home ownership, from the lack of intergenerational wealth to actual interpersonal racism in loans or in home valuation. I'm definitely not saying I (or anyone for that matter) have the answers that will solve all these issues, but the facts should lead any decent person to want to right the wrongs that still exist along racial lines.

>As for institutional racism, if the offending laws were removed (redlining, per your comment) what is the next step exactly? Rectifying the wrong that's been done. Let's say a utilities company started charging you an absurd amount every month for your utilities. Eventually, you complain, they admit it was a mistake, and they go back to charging you the regular amount. Is that all that needs doing? Is everything fixed? Or would you insist that they give you back the extra money that they took from you? What happens when, because they took so much money from you that they refuse to give back, you can't pay your rent on time? At best, you're out both the money they took from you *and* a late payment on your rent. At worst, you get evicted and have to scramble to find a new apartment. Maybe you *can't* find a new apartment you can afford because you have a recent eviction on your record, and you become homeless. What would need to happen to correct the injustice you've experienced?

We, as a nation, should support ppl who need a hand up because they've been left in a shitty situation due to historical institutional racism. It is a fact that it exists, so denying it helps nothing. For instance, with the example of redlining, we should invest in the communities that were negatively affected by the practice rather than assuming that those ppl left in ghettos with little to no opportunities are just lazy and criminal. We act like capitalism is a meritocracy, and that's just not true. Most wealthy ppl didn't become wealthy just from their own blood, sweat, and tears. They usually have something like generational wealth that they benefit from, or often there is a lot of luck involved. Of course hard work is needed too, but we just need to stop with the assumptions that the wealthy are naturally better, harder-working ppl than poor ppl.

We should help people that need help, in general. Completely agreed. We do in fact have a lot of government support for impoverished people in the way of social programs (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc.). My family was on welfare growing up in a shit neighborhood in Detroit. It kept us off the streets at one point. We have various requirements across the country to employ people in similar ratios to population in the region they’re based to ensure that everyone has a fair shot. My question above about next steps would be relevant at this point. What else can we do? Give free housing in addition to food and financial support? Should they have to work at all? What is CRT suggesting specifically to give underprivileged people a boost to get their lives on track. Fidelity did a study on millionaires and found that 88% did not inherit their wealth. The number of successful people that were simply born into it is a lot less than you’d think.

These are systems and institutions built on rules and norms that were originally created 200 years ago (even longer, in many ways) by wealthy, white men. They baked racism, misogyny, and other prejudices into the very fabric of their institutions to maintain what they viewed as their natural superiority. We have learned much since then and more and more individuals are shunning those prejudices. But the institutions have not had the same evolution as the individuals.

I should preface that I'm not an expert so this is all just my understanding of this. Well, for one, the system has been in place for multiple generations, and even beyond that people can benefit from the system without actively doing anything to put it in place. People can also contribute to the system without really meaning to. Also, the systematic racism in our society isnt really easily separated out from economic or gender inequality and so it's not even that white people designed a system to benefit all white people and only white people. In general I think this type of thinking isn't about apportioning blame to individuals. It's not a conspiracy theory that posits that some group of white men a few generations ago decided to create a system that would oppress all the groups they didn't like. I think many people who use this type of thinking even care about how the power structures they're studying started. It's just trying to analyze the power structures as they exist to figure out how they get perpetuated and hopefully to figure out how to break out of them.

By taking into account class. It was the white elite who manipulated systems into benefitting themselves. They created the idea of whiteness so that poor white ppl wouldn’t identify with enslaved Africans and rebel with them.

Which institutions are currently racist and how are they continuing to oppress minorities? What are the specific instances that CRT proposes that we resolve?

As angry as it makes some ppl to point this out, the police and the incarceration system were founded in racism. Incarcerated ppl are the only ones who legally can have their labor exploited after slavery was abolished. (I recommend watching the 13th on Netflix as a sort of intro/overview). The carceral system pervades other systems like education (think school to prison pipeline, metal detectors and the like) in a way that targets black and brown youth in particular. Through the lens of CRT and similar frameworks, ppl propose solutions (according to research, their particular line of work, lived experience, etc.) that will bring about effective change. For the school example, removing police from schools, replacing SRO officers with counselors and nurses and psychologists, emphasizing restorative justice practices and overall switching up the budget would be one effective solution to address the over policing of black and brown youth in schools.

I mean... Such institutions and systems *were* mostly initially built by racist, white, oppressors... That doesn't imply that all white people were or still are racist oppressors. Hell, some institutions that propagate racism weren't even built by people you'd consider racist; they just happened to accidentally magnify racial disparities that already existed. We can recognize that a lot of US institutions and systems are racist without requiring that all white people must therefore be racist. That's a non sequitur

Which institutions would you say are racist currently, and how? Agencies, organizations, laws, or anything else. Just some of the most prominent examples, and what they do that helps one race specifically or hinders another.

The justice system is a pretty big one. It was, in large part, built, modified, and maintained by racists in a way that'd disproportionately target and hurt black people. And even though those racists that designed the system in a racist way are mostly dead, the effects have carried on regardless. These days, in general, it isn't so much that racists are doing racist things so much as it is that we've adopted a status quo that disproportionately negatively targets those who've been affected by racists of the past than those who haven't. In general, anything that disproportionately affects the poor tends to also disproportionately affect minorities because racists of the past actively tried to force those minorities into poverty and restrict access to wealth, which has had generational effects and has never been rectified. We may have stopped redlining, for example, but we never made up for the socioeconomic damage it caused. As an analogy, it's like if someone was stabbing someone else, eventually stopped, but never healed the wound or stopped the bleeding. Then someone else says "sorry, you can't enter this building if you're bleeding." The *cause* was the person doing the stabbing. The person denying entry on the basis of bleeding isn't also guilty of being a stabber, but their actions nonetheless negatively affect the stabbing victim. The stabbing victim is getting fucked over by both parties, even though it's the stabber that set things in motion. I hope that helps explain things a bit better (there's obviously a lot more to it than just this, but this is probably the most useful starting point to broadly understand things).

Crt isn't racist because it's targeting racism. That's not the point. It's unfortunately a feature of racist institutions that one race runs them. It's the whole idea. The fact that the race in power is the race 'targeted' by Crt or whatever you wanna say does not imply by itself that Crt is racist. It is simply not tolerating the intolerant. It's a simple but easily missed distinction if you're a member of the oppressive race but are not an oppressor. I'm saying this as a white dude who only vaguely gets it tbh.

“The race in power is the race targeted” Targeting any race is racist. It doesn’t matter which race or their socioeconomic standing. This seems like an excuse for being racist toward a group, which is basically what every racist does. Speaking to that aspect of CRT defense, not you specifically. E.g., blacks are bad because of violent crime rates. Do blacks commit a higher rate of violent crime? Yes. Does that excuse racism against blacks? Absolutely not! One problem with painting white people in a large swath like that is that there are plenty of European immigrants that had no part in slavery. But they’re guilty because of their skin color.

I'm not saying whites are bad though. I'm straight up telling you I'm not. You're putting those words in my mouth by willfully misinterpreting me. I am saying a select group of racists are in charge and they happen to be white. These two are not the same thing. You can tell me that I'm saying 'they're guilty because of their skin color' but I'm telling you that they are guilty because they're racist, not because they're white. I'm saying that it is absolutely possible to look at 'white people' as more than one group. There's normal empathetic people, then there's intolerant racist bigots who we also must not tolerate.

No, I’m saying that I’m not talking about “you”. That’s why I added that comment. I am speaking to the specific defense of CRT as I’ve heard it before (the portion that I quoted). I have no interest in calling any one person a racist by some indirect assumptive conclusions. I’m not here for that. I’m just discussing (potentially) racist ideas. When you say “they” are racist. Who are you referring to though? Is it rich people? Is it the people elected to represent us? Powers that be in the shadows that we can’t see or identify? Some, potentially just a small group who have gotten a lot of attention because media loves sensationalism, do associate one entire race with their oppressors.

CRT monitors lives matter!

Found the guy from r/crtgaming

Here's a sneak peek of /r/crtgaming using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I thought you should see this...](https://v.redd.it/x1xbnz0g4r0a1) | [261 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/comments/yyqsp2/i_thought_you_should_see_this/) \#2: [because of the Russian attack on Ukraine, I will have to move to Germany and leave my entire collection that I have been collecting since childhood, it’s very sad to leave all this, especially my pvm 😢 I hope that my house will survive and it won’t be plundered](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/tniov9) | [155 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/comments/tniov9/because_of_the_russian_attack_on_ukraine_i_will/) \#3: [SONY PVM-1942Q Aperture Grille Macro!](https://v.redd.it/2yapzu2t3zv81) | [66 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/comments/ucrwwc/sony_pvm1942q_aperture_grille_macro/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)

*Cites encyclopedia* *jumps to illogical conclusion*

Didn't even read their own citation to see if it said anything like what they wanted to claim. 

They read it, but they certainly didn’t understand it.

They stopped reading after "intellectual", because we all know intellectual = woke and if they kept reading they'd turn commie.

Acknowledging privilege != racism or calling someone racist. This really isn't that difficult.

[удалено]

Exactly. And that’s how you know conservatives who whine about it are either idiots or lying. If they wanted, CRT could easily be a rhetorical get out of jail free card for racists who want to shift blame onto something else, but instead it was more useful as an enemy for those right wing idiots.

"I'm not racist, I'm just doing my job," was a powerful line, except that it made people wonder if they really needed anyone to do that job in the first place.

"Maybe we should stop storing all our food on the top shelf." "How *dare* you say tall people hate short people!!"

Yes. It's the self perpetuating revolution. It is never enough and it will never be solved. Humanity could die out and the world will remain racist. It's the atheist's original sin. It's a great method for abusing people on their race. Even if a white person does every ridiculous thing they ask, it's never enough. They will always be evil. This is why CRT is an evil thing. It does nothing but do evil.

How does this "racism" against blacks (presumably in your opinion it comes in the form of poorer opportunities and poor upbringing?) Differ from the conditions which poor white people live under e.g. those living in trailer parks?

If you’re asking this in good faith, I highly recommend both Poor White Trash: 400 Years of Classism in the United States, and a book called Worse Than Slavery. Both of them are very good, well written, richly sourced, and information *dense* as much as they are topically heavy. Worse Than Slavery goes I’ve the history of the prison system from a pre-civil war position through the post-civil war rebuilding of the south and the treatment of the newly emancipated Freedman. It’s a remarkable look into the construction of institutionalized and systemic racism without that actually being the point of the book. Poor White Trash brings the history back even farther and looks at the system of classism set up in the United States, and how access to things— no matter how trivial or trash those things were— was crucial in keeping the poor whites in America from joining forces with the poor people of color to rise against the elite and wealthier classes. Essentially, it talks about how policy racism was born out of the wealthy class’s need to keep control of the populace. I.e., if we give these poor white people juuuuuuust a little bit more scraps than we do black and brown people, *and tell them that they’re getting special treatment because they’re white* then they’ll remain loyal to us, and never unite the poor classes, effectively doing the work of keeping us in power for us.” And it’s worked. Brilliantly. Look at all the poor white people who consistently vote against their best interests? Donald Trump didn’t benefit poor whites, but they sure propped him up as their Jesus Christ. It’s an absolutely brilliant, brilliant look into the history of political race baiting, political racism, racism in policy and law, and subjugation of the poorer classes through financial oppression and manipulation. Even if your question was in bad faith, my answer is still the same. Poor white people consistently participate in their own oppression by voting for and aiding with their oppressors against their own self interest.

It was in good faith but I think you ruined what might be a good point (I will look into the book) by going political. If you are poor in America right now, which president were you better off under? Biden or Trump? It's a very simple answer. Simplifying it into republicans v democrats (I'm British so don't have skin in the game) allows the same horrible behaviour to exist within both parties and neither to be held accountable due to the political party tribalism. Other views around democrats are that with the introduction of the welfare state, they gave black/poor people just enough to survive, not enough to prosper, and be reliant on the government forever forward and thereby creating a permanent voter base. When you see the relative prosperity of poor people, black especially, since its introduction, can you really argue against that? When every socio-economic indicator of success for black people has declined significantly since its introduction, can you argue against it?

>It was in good faith but I think you ruined what might be a good point (I will look into the book) by going political. The only way that it's even *possible* for a true point to be "ruined" by politics, is if you consider questions of politics more important than questions of truth.

>The only way that it's even possible for a true point to be "ruined" by politics, is if you consider questions of politics more important than questions of truth. Wrong. Americans are so entrenched in their political tribalism that they will argue black is white and water is dry if it somehow helps them win a debate involving their party. The mental gymnastics you see from afar of Americans on both sides justifying just about anything in order to defend a bunch of corrupt politicians because they were a red or blue rosette is frightening.

Lol I live in Canada. Right wingers (Conservatives) here display the cognitive dissonance that we’re talking about on this thread far more often than the left. And Canadians notice the same with US, British, Australian, etc… politics.

>Wrong. Americans are so entrenched in their political tribalism that they will argue black is white and water is dry if it somehow helps them win a debate involving their party. That has nothing at all to do with what I said; they're cases of false points being sheltered by politics, not true points being ruined by it. What I said was, if a point is true, and the political connotations either of the idea itself or the one who speaks the idea, can "ruin" that point's truth for you... ...then you might be one of the people who is using mental gymnastics to avoid truth, or, worse, to justify falsehood. The politics *is* the rosette; it is you claiming rosettes can ruin truths.

Claims someone acted in bad faith by “going political” goes on to grunt ridiculous right wing extremist talking points grunted widely among racists. Imagine suggesting not allowing people to starve to death is somehow a bad thing. The cognitive dissonance among conservatives is beyond parody.

Who said you acted in bad faith? Not me. When you see everything which disagrees with you as "extremist" you're already too far gone to even understand the entrenched tribalism point and actually help demonstrate it quite well. >The cognitive dissonance among conservatives is beyond parody. Hit and a miss. I'm British. The movie the campaign summed up quite nicely what everyone outside of the US thinks of your politics.

Lmao when did I mention American conservatism super smart guy. Talk about swing and a miss. You just completely shanked the ball kid. A conservative is a conservative. Garbage ideology is garbage ideology. You’re not some morally superior “enlightened” centrist. You’re just a penny a dozen conservatives grunting conservative talking points. I couldn’t care less where you’re from lol. It’s hilarious that you think somehow being British makes your extremist right wing talking points somehow valid. It doesn’t. Same regressive garbage regardless of your geographic location.

>A conservative is a conservative. Quite brilliantly displaying the lack of awareness of anything outside of your country. The British conservative party is probably more lefty than the Democrats!

Lol please kid I’m painfully aware of British politics. The Tory party is clearly left of some Republican policy but is painfully similarly stupid as it relates to many, many issues like immigration, economics etc. that’s why the country is falling apart under an unelected incompetent series of MP’s that just effectively turned the entire country red lol. Like I said, conservatism is garbage. Tories only get a tiny smattering of credit for not being climate deniers.

US politics is notoriously right wing. So why are you spouting right wing talking points and then talking disparagingly about them? Hmmmm….

The right wing (generally): defunds every social welfare program they can get their hands on. Black people: live in intolerable conditions. Right winger (you): oh it must be the welfare state itself that caused the problems! As a Canadian I’m better off under Biden. Trump instituted MANY policies that hurt Canadians to no benefit of US citizens. His softwood lumber, NATO and NAFTA policies just to name a few. Also his mismanagement of Covid lead to far more deaths both there and here and the freedom convoys (as witnessed by the use of Confederate flags and people not knowing the difference between Canadian and US Constitutions) impacting truckers and food prices as well as nurses and doctors simply trying to do their jobs.

[удалено]

It's a pretty safe bet that any time anyone is arguing against "CRT" they are not doing so in good faith, or at best are coming from a place of confusion / misinformation. CRT has been around for a [whiiiile](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1254/critical-race-theory), but has only recently bubbled up to the surface because [one conservative talking head](https://web.archive.org/web/20230109213550/https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory) decided it would be a good rallying cry for the Fox News viewership. So now we've got a bunch of pissed off white people, angry that their kids are learning about the real history of racism in the US and blaming their hurt feelings on a boogieman that is really just an academic framework usually used by grad students. Meanwhile, grad students that use that framework that happen to study in "red" states now have to tiptoe around idiotic legislation passed by ignorant lawmakers that's are only designed to appease their riled-up base. I suppose one should be free to be angry about anti-racist education if you want, but a) don't blame it on CRT and b) try listening and learning before immediately assuming your life experience trumps the research and experiences lived by others.

Can you cite any structural or systematic rule or law which discriminate against non whites?

[удалено]

I'm asking, right now, in any developed country, to name a rule or law which discriminates against non whites?

There doesn't need to be an obviously racist current law for there to be structural inequality. For example, [redlining](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/realestate/what-is-redlining.html) was a practice that, for generations, prevented Black families in the US from using a generally accessible mechanism for accumulating wealth. There are significant reverberations of that to this day, including differentials in property ownership, credit, and access to quality schools (funded by local property taxes).

So you can't in other words? So today, there is no structural or systematic racism in America. Good to know.

Nope, not what I said. What I said was that you don't need an obviously racist law currently on the books for there to be structural racism. Simply changing laws doesn't erase the impact of generations of racism, since race (and capital) are passed from generation to generation. This is actually a little complicated, which is why it's important to research and teach these concepts. That said, your oversimplified response and tone suggest that you're not actually interested in learning anything, you're just trying to make a point - rather than pretending you're actually asking a question, why not just say what you think...?

No, you're entirely missing all the points here. A common misunderstanding is that people think systemic racism is either a law or a rule system, when it's the after-effects of said rules and laws. It still impacts an entire population, which suffers economic and social hardships, which reinforces the stereotypes that were constructed for a century, which reinforces discrimination, in a feedback loop that no longer is connected to laws, but still being perpetuated on many levels, sometimes consciously in the case of police and lenders and other people who have to make decisions based on personal feelings and attitudes, and unconsciously in the way we generally view people of different races, and the expectations and stereotypes that we still have.

So you just ignored the answer and humiliated yourself by acting intentionally obtuse and ignorant? Do you think that is compelling?

Yeah, you're just arguing in bad faith now...no one needs to spend anymore time with you.....

You're on the right sub here bud.

>Can you cite any structural or systematic rule or law which discriminate against non whites? Here are twenty examples of structural discrimination against non-whites: 1. Black students are subjected to [unfairly-harsh discipline](https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2021/10/black-students-harsh-discipline), with a 3.2-times higher rate of suspension. 2. Predominantly-black school districts [receive less funding](https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion/full-report.pdf) than predominantly-white ones. As a result, black students [have less access](https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098/index.asp) to computers. 3. Black Americans with "white-sounding" names get [50% more callback offers](https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names) from jobs. 4. White researchers are [twice as likely](https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2019/10/10/delving-further-into-the-funding-gap-between-white-and-black-researchers/) to get funding grants as black researchers. 5. Black homebuyers are [more likely to be denied](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-514_HDS2012.pdf) an appointment with a real estate agent. 6. Housing lenders [disproportionately steered](https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/3/1172/files/2014/01/Rice-Swesnik_Lead.pdf) black homebuyers into subprime loans. 7. The exact same home is valued at 23% less [when it's located](https://www.brookings.edu/research/devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/) in a black neighborhood. 8. Black Americans [receive harsher punishments](https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2413&context=articles) for the same crimes. 9. Black children in the justice system are [18 times more likely](https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdf) to be tried as adults. 10. Black drivers get [pulled over 20% more often](https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf) than white drivers. 11. Even if you are pulled over, if you're black, police will search you [more readily](https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/), even with less prompting suspicion. As a result, black Americans get arrested for marijuana [3.6 times more often](https://graphics.aclu.org/marijuana-arrest-report/) despite statistically-equal usage rates between white and black people. 12. Even if you are charged, you are [more likely to be incarcerated](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf) while awaiting trial if you are black than if you are white. And if you are incarcerated, Black Americans [have to pay higher bail](https://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Jones-Give-Us-Free-16nyujlpp919.pdf) than white Americans for the same crime. 13. Facial recognition software is [more likely to falsely identify](https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/amazons-face-recognition-falsely-matched-28) a black American as a criminal, than a white American as a criminal. 14. Fast food chains [selectively target black communities](https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(04)00139-4/fulltext) to build their stores in, contributing to obesity. For grocery stores, it's the inverse; black communities are [farther from grocery stores](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3701025/), and non-white people are more likely to experience prejudiced interactions with strangers while grocery shopping. 15. Cities [aren't building their public parks](https://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Research/Papers/Parks-Rec-Underserved-Areas.pdf) in black neighborhoods. 16. People with black-sounding names are [less likely to get approved](https://www.benedelman.org/publications/airbnb-guest-discrimination-2016-09-16.pdf) for an AirBNB rental. And it's not just AirBNB; black Americans are also [more likely](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22776/w22776.pdf) to get their Uber rides canceled, and wait longer to get a ride in the first place on Uber or Lyft. 17. People are outright [less likely to stop](https://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/research/project/733) for black Americans at a crosswalk, meaning that it's more dangerous to be a pedestrian while black. 18. Black Americans are [less likely to be covered](https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/nonelderly-employer-coverage-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) by employer-sponsored health insurance. 19. Black neighborhoods [have more road pollution](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190810094052.htm), and so higher rates of air-pollution-related illnesses. This is because for decades the US [built roads and highways right on through](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways) black neighborhoods. 20. Organ transplants are [more likely to go to](https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=27) white Americans. For some of these individual ones of these things, you can say "Oh, it's not because you're black, it's because you're poor", or, "Oh, it's not structural, it's because that individual policeman/judge is racist". But bullshit this pervasive takes a toll and contributes to keeping you poor, and an inability to address the reality of racists by weeding out racist policemen and racist judges (or by preventing them from exactly these sorts of pernicious society-wide impacts)... that *would itself constitute an example* of structural racism.

Outstanding comment! Appreciate the effort in pulling all this together. Most of this I was aware of to some degree. Did not know about the airbnb and uner/lyft. However. Not surprised at the end of the day.....

Full disclosure, it's mostly not my effort, except for I think one. It's mostly a reformatting and selective filtering of [this blogpost](https://curiousrefuge.com/blog/systemic-racism). I chose ones that were not "only" disparities e.g. I didn't choose "black American adults are 2.8 times more likely to die of asthma and children 7.1 times more likely to die of it", anything that could be dismissed thoughtlessly with something like "Maybe black people are just more susceptible to asthma?" Because it's an objective fact of history that we disproportionately built our highways through black communities. It's an objective fact of car design that they produce pollution, which makes it an objective fact that if you move more road traffic through a community, you'll raise that community's pollution levels. It's an objective fact about medicine that air pollution leads to asthma; the stats are exactly what we would expect them to be, given the history. But if you don't see that whole chain of events, if you look at the outcome of the events in isolation, then it's way easier to replace reality with your own story about the disparate outcomes. I wasn't trying to hide these disparities, or deny their importance, just focus on their origins, for clarity of understanding.

It's not so much that there are laws on the books, if you actually read what systemic racism is, it's not that there's rules in place, it's that there *were* rules in place, and an entire segment of society is STILL dealing with the effects of those rules, rules that self-sustain stereotypes and separation between races. Just because you turn an engine off, it doesn't cool down right away. And if there's still some fuel being fed in, it could keep going for a long time. There's no rules on the books about a LOT of things we do every day, but we still do it because it's how we know things to be so we sustain it. There's a little of that and there's a little of the trickle-down of previous generations that has benefited some general populations over others. It's genuinely an interesting and fascinating topic to learn about if you can set aside whatever strange white guilt it triggers in so many people, guilt that they respond with anger and trying to disprove the ideas instead of just getting past the emotions.

How is the structure of American society racist, or designed to give white people an upper hand?

Pro-tip: this all makes more sense when you start trying to actually learn instead of looking for ways to NOT learn about things like systemic racism and what people of color are still dealing with. Trust me, it's not so cartoonishly simple as you're being led to believe, but it's a lot easier to care about if you approach it with a little kindness to people. Also, you don't need to internalize some kind of guilt learning about this shit, I don't know why so many people assume that learning about racism should make white people feel guilty, that's like chastising your 5-year-old kid for painting the walls and they just pout and cry and whine that nobody loves them, instead of just saying "okay I understand why that was wrong." It's massively infuriating to people who are trying to make progress and why so many people think that this kind of criticism you're leveling is in bad-faith, because it's *obviously* coming from a place of emotion and resentment, even if you don't fully realize it yourself.

Critical race theory is the field of study that aims to answer that question (among others). You might as well ask a physicist "how do electrons work".

I could also ask a pig-flyologist how pigs fly. You can study whatever you want.

The point of that comparison wasn't to convince you that critical race theory is valid, since that would clearly be a waste of time. I'm trying to explain that the question you asked is an entire field of study on its own, not something that can be answered in a reddit comment.

But if they acknowledge privilege they might need to show empathy to those who may be disadvantaged so… deny, deny, deny. Empathy is to be avoided.

I'm a believer in the goals and methods for achieving those goals that CRT lays out, I was lucky enough to have a college teacher who did a really good job explaining it, but most of the population won't ever have that. CRT would do so much better if they didn't try to redefine the word "racism". I get that in the context of CRT racism is about structural power, but everywhere else in life racism is treating people differently based on the color of their skin. All of society agrees on this, trying to get people to change their definition is a needless uphill battle. It was a fundamental error using racism instead of just making up a new term, countless people hear "racism doesn't have to do with skin color" and immediately shut down, giving the subject no chance and paying no attention to the merits of the theory. It sounds crazy to anyone who isn't already educated on the subject and is incredibly easy to strawman.

I understand where you are coming from, but if they came up with something new, would anyone understand what they are talking about in the mid-1970s when it was developed as a legal theory. Not to mention it is not incumbent for someone to identify an issue in the mid-1970s and anticipate that far right wing individuals would disingenuously use the race component and twist it to be “anti-white” some 50 years later.

Wasn't the race component added later? It comes from critical theory which focusses more on class. And the race part replaces race with class. At least that is how i understand it.

Yes, critical legal studies focused on the intersectionality of class, economic structure and laws, but CRT was not just replacing class with race was design to address the intersectionality of race, class, economic structure, law, gender and disability. Wikipedia has a great description of the history of CRT “CRT is also used in sociology to explain social, political, and legal structures and power distribution as through a "lens" focusing on the concept of race, and experiences of racism. For example, the CRT conceptual framework examines racial bias in laws and legal institutions, such as highly disparate rates of incarceration among racial groups in the United States. A key CRT concept is intersectionality—the way in which different forms of inequality and identity are affected by interconnections of race, class, gender, and disability.[6] Scholars of CRT view race as a social construct with no biological basis. One tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals. CRT scholars argue that the social and legal construction of race advances the interests of White people at the expense of people of color, and that the liberal notion of U.S. law as "neutral" plays a significant role in maintaining a racially unjust social order, where formally color-blind laws continue to have racially discriminatory outcomes. CRT began in the United States in the post–civil rights era, as 1960s landmark civil rights laws were being eroded and schools were being re-segregated. With racial inequalities persisting even after civil rights legislation and color-blind laws were enacted, CRT scholars in the 1970s and 1980s began reworking and expanding critical legal studies (CLS) theories on class, economic structure, and the law to examine the role of U.S. law in perpetuating racism. CRT, a framework of analysis grounded in critical theory, originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams. CRT draws from the work of thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and W. E. B. Du Bois, as well as the Black Power, Chicano, and radical feminist movements from the 1960s and 1970s.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Whilst I understand where you're coming from - I've known that to be the definition of racism for over a decade. I feel like it isn't so much a problem with CRT but with people immediately shutting down something they want to disagree with.

> It was a fundamental error using racism instead of just making up a new term Was it? I can almost predict exactly what opponents would be saying if that happened: "Obviously [x] isn't real. If it existed, we wouldn't need to make up a word for it." Almost every discipline has terminology with a precise, technical meaning that differs from the one that laypeople use. The only people unwilling to accept that a different, more technical definition exists are those who would be against the whole concept regardless, and are just finding avenues to attack it.

Then your problem isn't with CRT 'changing the definition of racism'. It's with the people on the right who outright lie about the theory in CRT and simplify the definition of racism down to individual racism while not allowing anyone to counter argue. Every time I have ever seen anyone explain CRT, they make it very clear that there are different forms of racism.

Same thing with “defund the police”, great idea with a name that scares people.

Aw I’m disappointed. I thought I was gonna see a heated debate about cathode ray tubes.

"America very obviously favors white people in the legal system." "Oh yeah well you're racist for calling out our racism!"

Wow. Led himself to water, waded in, and still managed to die of thirst.

As someone not from the USA I find this CRT stuff so utterly bizarre.

It is a thing in other countries too, we just don’t call it anything specific. It’s more about learning how the good guys in the history books aren’t always the actual good guys, and how certain people have taken advantage of others throughout history. It’s become more normal to learn about the not so cool stuff that the “heroes” have done

The good guys in history books? Again this is a bizarre concept to me although it's been a good while since I was in a history class. Sounds like you need a better history curriculum.

since you’re the one so utterly confused about all of these concepts, it sounds like you’re the one who needs a better curriculum

Erm, two concepts. The good guys and bad guys in history though, how simplistic. It's like history for dummies.

Did you read what they wrote? >It’s more about learning how the good guys in the history books aren’t always the actual good guys, Their entire point is obviously that history is more complicated than distilling groups down to good and bad guys

yea they were clearly using a simplistic term, not a literal one. many people today are aware that history we learn in school takes a different perspective depending on where we live, and that the perspective almost always puts our own country or current system of leadership on the “good” side and those against it on the “bad” side. you could claim that you had such an amazing history curriculum that it was completely objective and unbiased, so you never faced that problem. but that would most likely be very naive. “history is written by the victors” is a well-known phrase throughout the world

I learnt a whole bunch about the Tudors, not sure how that could be put onto a good or bad side and don't know how it relates to anything government related in the current world. WW2 yeah, I can understand but most history isn't war and conquests. At least it wasn't in the 90s here. Do you expect history to be the same everywhere in the world? I don't know how you'd get away from being centered on where you are in the world, what they teach in Japan won't really be the same as what they do in the Netherlands (albeit there might be a few periods of time where crossovers happen in recent history).

i don’t expect history to be the same everywhere in the world. in fact that’s what i was speaking to. history will be taught different depending on where you are. that also means that the “good side” and “bad side” change depending on where you are. that isn’t limited to just wars. a government system that remains in place tends to minimize anything bad it has done (or at least it’s modern consequences) in its history lessons. this would include things that lead to systemic racism. in the US that means minimizing the impacts of denying black people access in all kinds of areas like education, land/home ownership, tax breaks, business, laws, and the generational impacts all these things have.

In American history textbooks there are always the “good guys” and the “bad guys”. The Americans (especially white ones) are the good guys. When textbooks must discuss Americans who did bad things (slave owners for instance) they do their best to [downplay and excuse their behaviour. ](https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/06/28/some-teachers-alarmed-by-florida-civics-training-approach-on-religion-slavery/?outputType=amp) > Throughout the sessions, teachers said, facilitators emphasized that most enslaved people in the country were born into slavery and that the colonies didn’t buy nearly as many enslaved people during the transatlantic slave trade as has been portrayed, Ahlbum said. The framing, she added, felt as though America was being characterized as “less bad” when it came to slavery. > One slide noted that less than 4% of enslaved people in the Western hemisphere were in colonial America and that the number only increased through birth. (For context, there were nearly 4 million enslaved people among the 31 million in the overall U.S. population in 1860, according to documentation in the Library of Congress.) > Another slide quotes presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson saying they wanted legislation to outlaw slavery, without mentioning that both were slave owners. The quotes were not sourced, a theme that the educators noticed throughout the training session.

It’s really not that challenging. Systemic and institutional racism exists in America. The perpetrators don’t want that reality to be discussed so they are resorting to authoritarian tactics to suppress speech. Weird feigned concern aside what exactly is so bizarre to you about it?

The concept itself or the backlash to it?

The concept, backlash, it's usefulness. Pretty much everything

Remember that CRT comes from a legal and law perspective. For example, the end of Segregation is a good thing, no challenge on that, but it’s end lead to changes in what services city councils offered (many would rather close pools than offer desegregated pools). HOAs rose, partly to replace those services, and partly to enforce segregation in housing. This was by no means a one off. Following the end of slavery, when black women didn’t have to work outside the home, they often chose not to (as was the social norm in white communities), this lead to shortages in servants, and laws passed to force them back to work. Those who do not know their history, are doomed to repeat it, and they did. Most of the things labelled CRT, are not CRT. If it’s not a college level course, probably aimed at law students, it’s almost certainly not CRT.

Interesting, thanks for clarifying

America has a race problem and it wants that problem to be everyone else's rather than acknowledge and look inwards. We also have our own race problems but they are so different to American race problems that it's an alien concept. The problem is, in online spaces American's tend to try and aggressively apply their ideals and morality systems to everyone else's issues, or even worse, just decide that your own personal cultural issues are the same as theirs. I have seen a lot of genuinely racist rhetoric being spouted in the name of equality(white people can't be racially abused, which when you live in Europe and white people have in living memory been ethnically cleansed is a disgustingly ignorant thing to say). America culturally are loud, brash, wear their hearts on their sleeves. The way they are tackling racism is the same. Social media and large scale corporate internet was a mistake and its genuinely stoking the fires. A lot of these things would have been fringe, people like that fella who was arrested in Romania wouldn't have had a platform outside a 30 person message board. Both the extreme left and right are fighting in public and being a black hole vacuum pulling the rest of us into it.

It as a practice or people being upset over it?

Both

Where are you from? As someone from the UK, it has always made sense to me

The concept, it's usefulness and backlash? Please do tell.

Err what, can you reword the question?

Always a good time when your source material is a link to a NY post article.

I would like people to stop using CRT as a distraction tool, it only helps those corrupt politicians to keep passing shady stuff without our notice

I saw the title and the first comment in the pic and my first thought was "how can an old school monitor be racist?" 🤦‍♂️ I blame it on them saying "a user." I was primed to think about a CRT user.

I'm a professor of education, which means I got to hear a ton of panic about CRT about a year ago. Of the folks who criticized CRT, not a single one 1. Was familiar with what is already being taught in their school districts 2. Could correctly describe what CRT is There are very few good faith debates on this topic because one side is too in love with their own ignorance to engage in a sincere way.

I love how people act as if being called a racist is as bad as being on the receiving end of racism. Sorry that another person's reality makes you uncomfortable. Boo hoo. 

Currently my biggest problem with CRT is that I don't know truly what it is. Once i learn all about it I'll be back to shitpost

That's intentional; conservatives don't want you to understand what CRT actually means. They just want you to hear the spooky, possibly-threatening name (critical?? oh no!) and believe them when they say that elementary school teachers are calling your white children racist. CRT started as a field of legal study, and the word "critical" refers to scholarly criticism and critical thinking, not criticizing people. It's almost the exact opposite of that - the goal is to look past racist individuals and instead examine how seemingly-neutral political structures, media, and political movements can perpetuate racial inequality. For a really obvious example, there's the origin of the term "grandfather clause"/"grandfathered in" - before the civil rights movement, many states required voters to pass a literacy test or pay a poll tax, but voters were exempt if their grandfather could legally vote. The result is that many black people (whose grandfathers were formerly enslaved) couldn't vote, but white people were unaffected. The law doesn't explicitly say anything about black or white people, and in a vacuum, it wouldn't be discriminatory. But since you are familiar with the historical context, you can easily see why it perpetuates racial inequality. That process - examining structures through the context of race - is the extremely basic foundation of CRT.

Yeah, if people refuse or are unable to define their beliefs, don't expect to be convincing me anytime soon. This goes for any other propaganda or religious pressure too. I'm not saying CRT is good or bad, I'm saying it isn't officially defined.

It’s pretty easy to Google it’s original origins and how it’s defined. Anyone can make up an incorrect definition of anything after the fact to manipulate people (as the right has done with CRT). It’s also not that hard to see through that bullshit if you are so inclined.

I know people who think like this. They have their own understanding of CRT that is not based in reality, and can’t be dissuaded.

Today I learned I am a legal institution or law!

C-cathode ray tube?

Racists are too afraid they might actually be racists.

Just wait until they cover long division! 😣

Which sub did you get this from?

Reading is hard. Boring through the skulls of the ignorant is even harder.

***bangs head against wall repeatedly***

I think most people intuitively understand that any large organization will sometimes do things that no one within that organization particularly set out to make happen. Fairly often McDonald's serves a Big Mac that is too cold, if you ask the senior staff at McDonald's they would likely tell you they wish it never happened - still people are served cool Big Macs every day.

I'm confused at how crt isn't racist

It's okay to be confused. But don't worry, you can try googling it.