Doc Holliday said:

---

I hate that CRT looks at racial disparities and automatically determines that it's because the system is racist.

It NEVER says "this race/group engages in this behavior more than this race, which is why this disparity exists".

Made up example: Black women aren't getting hired as much as other races.

...what if black women aren't applying to jobs as much? That's not on the system. That's a cultural issue. What if you threw money at funding at it and it didn't change? What if you changed the laws and system and it still doesn't change the racial disparities?

---

This is where statistics come in. Bill Dorsaneo wrote about this ages ago: "The courts reason that a significant unexplained disparity between the percentage of persons in a particular minority group employed or placed in a selected employment category by the employer and the percentage of that minority group in the available population is unlikely to have resulted from a neutral process of selection."

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I hate that CRT looks at racial disparities and automatically determines that it's because the system is racist.

It NEVER says "this race/group engages in this behavior more than this race, which is why this disparity exists".

Made up example: Black women aren't getting hired as much as other races.

...what if black women aren't applying to jobs as much? That's not on the system. That's a cultural issue. What if you threw money at funding at it and it didn't change? What if you changed the laws and system and it still doesn't change the racial disparities?

---

This is where statistics come in. Bill Dorsaneo wrote about this ages ago: "The courts reason that a significant unexplained disparity between the percentage of persons in a particular minority group employed or placed in a selected employment category by the employer and the percentage of that minority group in the available population is unlikely to have resulted from a neutral process of selection."

---

Unlikely based on what?

The percentage itself?

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I hate that CRT looks at racial disparities and automatically determines that it's because the system is racist.

It NEVER says "this race/group engages in this behavior more than this race, which is why this disparity exists".

Made up example: Black women aren't getting hired as much as other races.

...what if black women aren't applying to jobs as much? That's not on the system. That's a cultural issue. What if you threw money at funding at it and it didn't change? What if you changed the laws and system and it still doesn't change the racial disparities?

---

This is where statistics come in. Bill Dorsaneo wrote about this ages ago: "The courts reason that a significant unexplained disparity between the percentage of persons in a particular minority group employed or placed in a selected employment category by the employer and the percentage of that minority group in the available population is unlikely to have resulted from a neutral process of selection."

---

Unlikely based on what?

The percentage itself?

---

It's like a Batson strike. You have to be able to present a race neutral basis when the stats get the plaintiff over the prima facie hump.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have some thoughts after reading through the thread, but want to demonstrate the same courtesy and respect that so many here have done up to now.

Like others, I have heard a lot about CRT, but cannot say I understand it completely. My first problem with CRT is that it seems to be used mostly to attack existing social systems, which bothers me for two reasons:

1. Not every extant system should be attacked just for being there, especially since a number of systems no in use - while imperfect - are the result of significant improvement and concession by multiple parties. Trying to tear those down and replace them with incomplete, perhaps even presumptuous new systems risks making things worse, not better.

2. People are often open to new ideas if they are presented with civility and solid support. Most people react badly to being attacked, especially if what is attacked includes their heritage and personal history.


I also have gone back to think about the early Christians, who were remarkably disinterested in race. I recall Paul's words about there being 'no Greek or Jew' in Christ, which wisdom was displayed in the practice of Christians for many years. It seems that focusing on the person is what Jesus wanted - and wants - us to do.

Finally, it seems CRT is a political tool as much, perhaps more, as a mean to seek Justice. I find Social Justice a contemptible concept, since it too often involves depriving certain people of actual Justice in order to achieve the political goals. We do not need that, and should not promote such behavior.

I turn the discussion back to my more educated colleagues here.

Thanks.

---

Spot on with your initial observation: the purpose of Critical Theory is to attack systems, majoritarian systems. Marxists called it "cultural hegemony," everything from law all the way down thru the Rotary Club to the church pew, the cultural values that determined what was acceptable and not....capitalists devising and maintaining an entire culture to protect their interests. Now, that's all called "systemic oppression"....whites devising and maintaining an entire culture to protect their interests (white supremacy.)

Social Justice is the antithesis of the "actual" justice you mention. The "actual" justice system, you see, is merely a construct of white (capitalist) supremacy erected and maintained to oppress minorities and alphabet people. Police are merely the tip of the spear of that oppression.

The solution is unequal justice. like letting Jussie Smollett go without charges while indicting the McCloskey's for defending their property.

"The classical demand is that the state ought to treat all people equally in spite of the fact that they are very unequal. You can't deduce from this that because people are unequal you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal. And that's what social justice amounts to. It's a demand that the state should treat people differently in order to place them in the same position. . . .To make people equal a goal of governmental policy would force government to treat people very unequally indeed."
--F. A. Hayek

The demand Hayek mentioned is, of course, classical liberalism. CRT, like all critical theories, is a categorical rejection of classical liberalism, like the crow that plucks out the eye of the wounded man, one eyelash at a time.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I hate that CRT looks at racial disparities and automatically determines that it's because the system is racist.

It NEVER says "this race/group engages in this behavior more than this race, which is why this disparity exists".

Made up example: Black women aren't getting hired as much as other races.

...what if black women aren't applying to jobs as much? That's not on the system. That's a cultural issue. What if you threw money at funding at it and it didn't change? What if you changed the laws and system and it still doesn't change the racial disparities?

---

This is where statistics come in. Bill Dorsaneo wrote about this ages ago: "The courts reason that a significant unexplained disparity between the percentage of persons in a particular minority group employed or placed in a selected employment category by the employer and the percentage of that minority group in the available population is unlikely to have resulted from a neutral process of selection."

---

Unlikely based on what?

The percentage itself?

---

It's like a Batson strike. You have to be able to present a race neutral basis when the stats get the plaintiff over the prima facie hump.

---

What I'm getting at is that behavior changes from culture to culture and some races have a larger percentage of their population engaged in certain cultures which explains the racial disparities.

Ex. Asian Americans having the highest household median income. This is because they come from cultures that are great at achieving those goals.

To deny this is to deny reality. I'm not playing this politically correct game where I assume everyone can be equalized when there's not equal behavior.

Quote:

---

I grew up in churches that passionately proclaimed the gospel each Sunday, while at the same time didn't allow Black people to join. To me, that's proof that gospel proclamation in itself doesn't automatically cure racism.

---

I meant to quote GT,

The above statement was true of all of us from the 1950's and probably 1960's. State law in Texas prohibited racial integration during that era. Would that apply to Churches or wouldn't they have been exempt from State Law?

Of course those laws were written by our steadfast Church members

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

You do, and so do many who wish to co-opt the word 'Justice' to obtain unjust outcomes which serve their personal desires.

Honest men do not.

Thanks to David Brooks' column last week on his recommendations for best articles of 2020, I stumbled across a piece from what Brooks describes as a conservative-leaning publication called The Public Discourse. The piece is called Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System Is No Myth. It's very long, and I've only made my way through a part of it so far. But the author is setting out to debunk academic studies that purport to show that systemic racism in the criminal justice system doesn't really exist.

Here's a quick summary at the beginning of the article:
Many on both the left and the right tend to speak of systemic racism simply as a 0/1 state: either the system is fundamentally and inextricably racist or it is not racist at all. But recognizing distinct mechanisms at play in a racialized system should help us see systemic racial bias as a matter of degreesas something that can improve or worsen over time. Indeed, research suggests that racial disparities have been declining over time, though there is no guarantee of inevitable progress, and our present situation makes it clear that we still have a long way to go.

And there's this from the first page:
It's easy to refute the assertion that there is no systemic racial bias at all. Considerable evidence points to some degree of racial bias across nearly every aspect of the criminal justice system. Consider just a few examples: compared to whites, blacks are significantly more likely to be searched after traffic stops but less likely to turn up contraband or weapons; not to be told why they were pulled over; to be ticketed for jaywalking; to be treated with less respect by officers; to be arrested for low-level offenses; to be wrongfully convicted of murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes; to be offered plea bargains that include jail time; to serve life without parole for nonviolent offenses; to receive longer sentences for the same crime; to be incarcerated while awaiting trial; to have probation revoked; to be assigned higher bail amounts for the same crimes; and so on. Consider, in addition, that blacks are significantly underrepresented among prosecutors (95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white); more than a third of states have never seated a black state supreme court justice; and black judges have a higher likelihood of being overruled than their white counterparts. This is just a fraction of the research on the topic (see more than 300 research studies that are listed hereand here, for example).

Given the history of racism in America, these shouldn't be seen as mere disparities. Disparity by itself doesn't imply bias, but these differences aren't the outgrowth of a system that originated on some level playing field. Rather, our criminal justice system from the beginning has produced and sustained disadvantages for African Americans. This bias is systemic in the sense that it is perpetuated primarily by structures such as policies, codes, norms, laws, and organizations across the criminal justice system. Systemic racism means you can have "racism without racists."

In the intro, the author also discusses why he doesn't like the term "systemic racism" because, he says, it is used as a broad umbrella to cover what he outlines as three distinctly different mechanisms that are simultaneously at work. (I won't try to describe them here, but they're in the first part of the article that you can read in under 5 minutes). "For these reasons," he says, "it might help to use a more analytical (rather than pejorative) concept, such as a "racialized system" to refer to a complex of institutions that produces systemic racial biases and disadvantages. Doing so can avoid defensiveness and confusion around the term "racism," while preserving the core reality of enduring patterns of racial disadvantage as the systemic outcome. Recognizing the range of mechanisms at work might also help us avoid the pernicious problem of confirmation biascherry-picking only those pieces of evidence that reinforce our ideological priors.


Here is the link to the entire article:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65585/

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

I wish I would have caught this before I responded but, better late than never.

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

Quote:

---

"95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white"

---

What if that's because black people aren't as interested in becoming lawyers like whites are? That might be the absolute truth. It also would mean it's not systemic racism.

What would we do about that?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

"95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white"

---

What if that's because black people aren't as interested in becoming lawyers like whites are? That might be the absolute truth. It also would mean it's not systemic racism.

What would do we do about that?

---

Do the results of the Scripp's Spelling Bee point to racial advantages or cultural differences? Is the same true for pursuit of law degrees?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

"95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white"

---

What if that's because black people aren't as interested in becoming lawyers like whites are? That might be the absolute truth. It also would mean it's not systemic racism.

What would do we do about that?

---

Do the results of the Scripp's Spelling Bee point to racial advantages or cultural differences? Is the same true for pursuit of law degrees?

---

Quote:

---

Op-Ed: How Indian Americans came to dominate the National Spelling Bee

Such deep involvement in a language arts activity may seem unusual for an immigrant community known for its prowess in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). But I learned there is community prestige in placing competitively in spelling bees and great familial pride for having participated in something so challenging at a young age.

LINK

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

"95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white"

---

What if that's because black people aren't as interested in becoming lawyers like whites are? That might be the absolute truth. It also would mean it's not systemic racism.

What would do we do about that?

---

Do the results of the Scripp's Spelling Bee point to racial advantages or cultural differences? Is the same true for pursuit of law degrees?

---

Quote:

---

Op-Ed: How Indian Americans came to dominate the National Spelling Bee

Such deep involvement in a language arts activity may seem unusual for an immigrant community known for its prowess in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). But I learned there is community prestige in placing competitively in spelling bees and great familial pride for having participated in something so challenging at a young age.

LINK

---

---

familial pride : Indian-American culture as
keeping it real : African-American culture

While I would never expect to see the above association on an SAT exam, is it true? If it's true, is it racist? If it's not true, is it racist?

Is culture self-imposed or inflicted by others?

None of this is black and white but 50,000 shades of gray.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

"95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white"

---

What if that's because black people aren't as interested in becoming lawyers like whites are? That might be the absolute truth. It also would mean it's not systemic racism.

What would we do about that?

---

Are you suggesting that the disparity is primarily due to lack of interest by black people in becoming lawyers?

I just read the article. I acknowledge that there are racist cops and other in the justice system. But, this article is poorly written and sourced. Many of the citations do not support the stated conclusion in the article. Others do, but the %s reveal very little. For example, there are references to 12% of whites compared to 15% of blacks. That does not show racism. It shows minor statistical variation that could be due to any number of factors, including poor methodology. Still others are based on surveys of individuals - e.g., those pulled over without getting a reason. But the main problem with this article (and others like it) is that it does not take into account crime rates (far higher for blacks), responses to law enforcement interactions (far more defiant for blacks), and the areas were people live (far higher % of blacks live in high-crime urban areas). The article also fails to explain how there can be racism when the vast majority of local politicians, bureaucrats, and judges in the high-crime areas are liberal and/or African American, and even more and more prosecutors fit that bill.

whiterock said:

---

TLR version - CRT is just Marxist philosophy with the word "class" replaced with "race," and the word "capitalism" replaced by "white supremacy."

No society which has embraced concepts of systemic oppression and collective guilt has ever emerged the better for it.

The idea that Marxist philosophy can be an aid for a better walk with the Lord is completely illogical except for those who wish to use said ideas to divide Christianity into a squabbling rabble.

Fight wokeness at all cost. It is flawed worldview built on ideas from the ash heap of history and there is no virtue in it at all, much less divinity.

---

. God bless you !!

[Today's left-wing totalitarianism once again appeals to an internal spiritual hunger, specifically the hunger for a just society, one that vindicates and liberates the historical victims of oppression. It masquerades as kindness, demonizing dissenters and disfavored demographic groups to protect the feelings of "victims" to bring about "social justice."

The contemporary cult of social justice identifies members of certain social groups as victimizers, as scapegoats, and calls for their suppression as a matter of righteousness. In this way, the so-called social justice warriors, who started out as liberals animated by an urgent compassion, end by abandoning authentic classical liberalism and embracing an aggressive and punitive politics that resembles Bolshevism, as the Soviet style of communism was first called.]

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

"95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white"

---

What if that's because black people aren't as interested in becoming lawyers like whites are? That might be the absolute truth. It also would mean it's not systemic racism.

What would we do about that?

---

Are you suggesting that the disparity is primarily due to lack of interest by black people in becoming lawyers?

---

Possibly. I'm suggesting we find out the root cause instead of assuming disparities are all rooted in racism.

bubbadog said:

---

Thanks to David Brooks' column last week on his recommendations for best articles of 2020, I stumbled across a piece from what Brooks describes as a conservative-leaning publication called The Public Discourse. The piece is called Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System Is No Myth. It's very long, and I've only made my way through a part of it so far. But the author is setting out to debunk academic studies that purport to show that systemic racism in the criminal justice system doesn't really exist.

Here's a quick summary at the beginning of the article:
Many on both the left and the right tend to speak of systemic racism simply as a 0/1 state: either the system is fundamentally and inextricably racist or it is not racist at all. But recognizing distinct mechanisms at play in a racialized system should help us see systemic racial bias as a matter of degreesas something that can improve or worsen over time. Indeed, research suggests that racial disparities have been declining over time, though there is no guarantee of inevitable progress, and our present situation makes it clear that we still have a long way to go.

And there's this from the first page:
It's easy to refute the assertion that there is no systemic racial bias at all. Considerable evidence points to some degree of racial bias across nearly every aspect of the criminal justice system. Consider just a few examples: compared to whites, blacks are significantly more likely to be searched after traffic stops but less likely to turn up contraband or weapons; not to be told why they were pulled over; to be ticketed for jaywalking; to be treated with less respect by officers; to be arrested for low-level offenses; to be wrongfully convicted of murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes; to be offered plea bargains that include jail time; to serve life without parole for nonviolent offenses; to receive longer sentences for the same crime; to be incarcerated while awaiting trial; to have probation revoked; to be assigned higher bail amounts for the same crimes; and so on. Consider, in addition, that blacks are significantly underrepresented among prosecutors (95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white); more than a third of states have never seated a black state supreme court justice; and black judges have a higher likelihood of being overruled than their white counterparts. This is just a fraction of the research on the topic (see more than 300 research studies that are listed hereand here, for example).

Given the history of racism in America, these shouldn't be seen as mere disparities. Disparity by itself doesn't imply bias, but these differences aren't the outgrowth of a system that originated on some level playing field. Rather, our criminal justice system from the beginning has produced and sustained disadvantages for African Americans. This bias is systemic in the sense that it is perpetuated primarily by structures such as policies, codes, norms, laws, and organizations across the criminal justice system. Systemic racism means you can have "racism without racists."

In the intro, the author also discusses why he doesn't like the term "systemic racism" because, he says, it is used as a broad umbrella to cover what he outlines as three distinctly different mechanisms that are simultaneously at work. (I won't try to describe them here, but they're in the first part of the article that you can read in under 5 minutes). "For these reasons," he says, "it might help to use a more analytical (rather than pejorative) concept, such as a "racialized system" to refer to a complex of institutions that produces systemic racial biases and disadvantages. Doing so can avoid defensiveness and confusion around the term "racism," while preserving the core reality of enduring patterns of racial disadvantage as the systemic outcome. Recognizing the range of mechanisms at work might also help us avoid the pernicious problem of confirmation biascherry-picking only those pieces of evidence that reinforce our ideological priors.


Here is the link to the entire article:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65585/

---

Not liking the games played with statistics to generate a perception. One of the critical errors American society has made is to parse information by race without context, origin, or clarity. A simple example is the statement about blacks being ticketed for jay walking more than whites. Jay walking is a decidedly urban crime, and when evaluated under the context of urban populations being heavily represented by blacks, that "problem" doesn't actually materialize as suspected. Also, the socioeconomic issue of vehicle ownership also plays into that. That's just one of the many I could tear apart, but the real issue is how we shape narratives from data (and both sides do it) that isn't representative of the macro integration of other information and realities.

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Thanks to David Brooks' column last week on his recommendations for best articles of 2020, I stumbled across a piece from what Brooks describes as a conservative-leaning publication called The Public Discourse. The piece is called Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System Is No Myth. It's very long, and I've only made my way through a part of it so far. But the author is setting out to debunk academic studies that purport to show that systemic racism in the criminal justice system doesn't really exist.

Here's a quick summary at the beginning of the article:
Many on both the left and the right tend to speak of systemic racism simply as a 0/1 state: either the system is fundamentally and inextricably racist or it is not racist at all. But recognizing distinct mechanisms at play in a racialized system should help us see systemic racial bias as a matter of degreesas something that can improve or worsen over time. Indeed, research suggests that racial disparities have been declining over time, though there is no guarantee of inevitable progress, and our present situation makes it clear that we still have a long way to go.

And there's this from the first page:
It's easy to refute the assertion that there is no systemic racial bias at all. Considerable evidence points to some degree of racial bias across nearly every aspect of the criminal justice system. Consider just a few examples: compared to whites, blacks are significantly more likely to be searched after traffic stops but less likely to turn up contraband or weapons; not to be told why they were pulled over; to be ticketed for jaywalking; to be treated with less respect by officers; to be arrested for low-level offenses; to be wrongfully convicted of murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes; to be offered plea bargains that include jail time; to serve life without parole for nonviolent offenses; to receive longer sentences for the same crime; to be incarcerated while awaiting trial; to have probation revoked; to be assigned higher bail amounts for the same crimes; and so on. Consider, in addition, that blacks are significantly underrepresented among prosecutors (95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white); more than a third of states have never seated a black state supreme court justice; and black judges have a higher likelihood of being overruled than their white counterparts. This is just a fraction of the research on the topic (see more than 300 research studies that are listed hereand here, for example).

Given the history of racism in America, these shouldn't be seen as mere disparities. Disparity by itself doesn't imply bias, but these differences aren't the outgrowth of a system that originated on some level playing field. Rather, our criminal justice system from the beginning has produced and sustained disadvantages for African Americans. This bias is systemic in the sense that it is perpetuated primarily by structures such as policies, codes, norms, laws, and organizations across the criminal justice system. Systemic racism means you can have "racism without racists."

In the intro, the author also discusses why he doesn't like the term "systemic racism" because, he says, it is used as a broad umbrella to cover what he outlines as three distinctly different mechanisms that are simultaneously at work. (I won't try to describe them here, but they're in the first part of the article that you can read in under 5 minutes). "For these reasons," he says, "it might help to use a more analytical (rather than pejorative) concept, such as a "racialized system" to refer to a complex of institutions that produces systemic racial biases and disadvantages. Doing so can avoid defensiveness and confusion around the term "racism," while preserving the core reality of enduring patterns of racial disadvantage as the systemic outcome. Recognizing the range of mechanisms at work might also help us avoid the pernicious problem of confirmation biascherry-picking only those pieces of evidence that reinforce our ideological priors.


Here is the link to the entire article:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65585/

---

Not liking the games played with statistics to generate a perception. One of the critical errors American society has made is to parse information by race without context, origin, or clarity. A simple example is the statement about blacks being ticketed for jay walking more than whites. Jay walking is a decidedly urban crime, and when evaluated under the context of urban populations being heavily represented by blacks, that "problem" doesn't actually materialize as suspected. Also, the socioeconomic issue of vehicle ownership also plays into that. That's just one of the many I could tear apart, but the real issue is how we shape narratives from data (and both sides do it) that isn't representative of the macro integration of other information and realities.

---

I haven't yet read the whole article, but I've read enough to know that the author addresses the question you raise - that is, the inadequacy of mere statistics. I would urge you to read the article if you have not done so.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

"95 percent of elected prosecutors and 85 percent of lawyers are white"

---

What if that's because black people aren't as interested in becoming lawyers like whites are? That might be the absolute truth. It also would mean it's not systemic racism.

What would we do about that?

---

Are you suggesting that the disparity is primarily due to lack of interest by black people in becoming lawyers?

---

Possibly. I'm suggesting we find out the root cause instead of assuming disparities are all rooted in racism.

---

One reason I thought the article might be interesting to people here is that the author clearly does NOT assume disparities are rooted in racism, and he addresses the question. I'll let you read it and gauge for yourself.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

---

I'll take a stab at this. For me, the answer to your question comes from the Bible.

In our society that emphasizes individualism, we tend to think of justice as a term that applies to individuals -- bringing lawbreakers to justice, getting "justice" for crime victims, etc. And so to our ears the term "social justice" may sound more political than societal.

But the OT prophets thought of this in precisely the opposite way. Every thing they talked about involved the effects of behavior on the entire society, not just individuals. When Amos rails against those who would sell the poor for a pair of sandals (a complaint that sounds an awful lot like payday lending, which clearly goes against Torah). When Isaiah talks about the treatment of widows and orphans, or inveighs against "those who join house to house, until there is no more room left in the land," he is talking about much more than individual conduct. The prophets connect widespread bad behavior by individuals to a sickness that infects the entire society, causing the society to fall away from a state of shalom; that is, a state of peace that comes over an entire society when the norm is that people uphold the dignity of their neighbors as children of God, as God wishes (justice) so that they then can be in right relationship with God (righteousness). When the prophets speak of justice, which to them is inseparable from righteousness (the words tend to occur together in their writings), they are talking about the entire society. We might call that social justice. Perhaps a better term would be societal justice. Either way, it's about much more than individuals.

The argument often gets made that ancient Israel, unlike America, was a theocracy; therefore, the words of the prophets don't equally apply. But that's flawed. Israel stopped being a theocracy after the time of the Judges (and even then, theocracy was more a theoretical concept than a real one). The prophets wrote during the time of the monarchy, and the Bible tells us that the kings mostly did what was evil in God's sight. The prophets had no more power to dictate behavior by kings than a respected religious figure in our own day might be able to dictate what the president does. Their authority was moral, not political, and they used their moral authority to remind rulers and people in the society of what God wanted and expected. That is not much different than the work of modern-day prophets who call our society to account for behavior that goes against what God wants and expects.

It is sometimes puzzling to me that so many Christians treat the term "social justice" as anathema to our religion, when that is pretty much what the prophets in our Bible (whom Jesus liberally quoted) were really talking about.

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

---

Maybe later. My problem is that you start with what I consider a false definition of 'social justice' which is inherently political but you deny that.

That creates a chasm too wide to be covered for useful discussion.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I hate that CRT looks at racial disparities and automatically determines that it's because the system is racist.

It NEVER says "this race/group engages in this behavior more than this race, which is why this disparity exists".

Made up example: Black women aren't getting hired as much as other races.

...what if black women aren't applying to jobs as much? That's not on the system. That's a cultural issue. What if you threw money at funding at it and it didn't change? What if you changed the laws and system and it still doesn't change the racial disparities?

---

This is where statistics come in. Bill Dorsaneo wrote about this ages ago: "The courts reason that a significant unexplained disparity between the percentage of persons in a particular minority group employed or placed in a selected employment category by the employer and the percentage of that minority group in the available population is unlikely to have resulted from a neutral process of selection."

---

Unlikely based on what?

The percentage itself?

---

It's like a Batson strike. You have to be able to present a race neutral basis when the stats get the plaintiff over the prima facie hump.

---

What I'm getting at is that behavior changes from culture to culture and some races have a larger percentage of their population engaged in certain cultures which explains the racial disparities.

Ex. Asian Americans having the highest household median income. This is because they come from cultures that are great at achieving those goals.

To deny this is to deny reality. I'm not playing this politically correct game where I assume everyone can be equalized when there's not equal behavior.

---

Unfortunately the only way to equalize all outcomes is to put us all into some type of concentration camp equivalent, take away all of our individual rights, and give us each exactly the same things, no matter how well or how poorly we perform at our given tasks. That is the only way for there to be equivalent outcomes. Even communism has winners and losers. For us all to have equal outcomes, at some point, we all become losers in said society, otherwise someone will always rise to the top.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

---

Maybe later. My problem is that you start with what I consider a false definition of 'social justice' which is inherently political but you deny that.

That creates a chasm too wide to be covered for useful discussion.

---

I would not say that societal justice is inherently political, although it does potentially have political ramifications.

The Law and the Prophets (and Jesus, by extension, since his teaching got to the heart of the Law and the Prophets) were unambiguous that it was the responsibility of society to live into God's justice as a community.

That's the responsibility part.

The political part may involve HOW the society goes about living into its responsibility.

Acknowledging responsibility, from a biblical point of view, does not imply loyalty to one political party. And from this point of view, working for pro-life policies is just as much a societal justice effort -- that is, bringing society into what its proponents believe is right relationship with God -- as a liberal "social justice warrior" advocating for policies to help the poor. If someone is working through the US political system to limit abortions because they believe that reflects God's desired order -- another way of talking about justice -- that person is just as much a SJW as the liberal Christian warriors that many conservatives denounce as anti-Christian.

Bearitto said:

---

Christianity and Christ's golden rule are antithetical to the overt and unabashed racism that is CRT. Those 'pastors' are not any more Christian than Stalin was and they are just as political. God save us all if evil men like that get real political power.

---

According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs:[9]

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.

Waco1947 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Christianity and Christ's golden rule are antithetical to the overt and unabashed racism that is CRT. Those 'pastors' are not any more Christian than Stalin was and they are just as political. God save us all if evil men like that get real political power.

---

According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs:[9]

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture.

---

Lol get the hell out of here.

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

---

Maybe later. My problem is that you start with what I consider a false definition of 'social justice' which is inherently political but you deny that.

That creates a chasm too wide to be covered for useful discussion.

---

I would not say that societal is inherently political, although it does potentially have political ramifications.

The Law and the Prophets (and Jesus, by extension, since his teaching got to the heart of the Law and the Prophets) were unambiguous that it was the responsibility of society to live into God's justice as a community.

That's the responsibility part.

The political part may involve HOW the society goes about living into its responsibility.

Acknowledging responsibility, from a biblical point of view, does not imply loyalty to one political party. And from this point of view, working for pro-life policies is just as much a societal justice effort -- that is, bringing society into what its proponents believe is right relationship with God -- as a liberal "social justice warrior" advocating for policies to help the poor.

---

The Bible focuses on Justice, no appended details.

And I never said diddly about political parties. Consider, for example, that not one elected official, Democrat or Republican or whatever, gave up even one paycheck or cut their staff by even one person to show they understood the suffering of regular people who lost pay, business, even their career to the shutdowns.

The notion that politicians care about regular people beyond using them to build their own campaign is a child's fairy tale.

It's very dishonest, IMIO, to try to claim kinship between Judaic law and tradition with the pretense of blatantly political movements. 'Social Justice' has always been deeply rooted in political goals, and I reject the efforts to try to play a rhetorical shell game and pretend Jesus was a moral founder of such groups.

'God's Justice' is simple and direct - obey the Commandments, including the ones about putting God first, honoring father and mother, respecting the Sabbath, respecting God and Caesar according to their own domains, and such. True Justice includes fighting in wars when they are right, standing up for every one, including widows and orphans, in the courts and in civil decisions. It means learning the Law and contemplating it according to Scripture, not the fashion of the day or the expediency of a Herod or a Caiaphas.

Remember that Judas was the one who complained when Mary poured oil on Christ, using 'the poor' as his excuse, The modern political whiners have a lot more in common with Judas Iscariot than Jesus who is Christ.

Waco1947 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Christianity and Christ's golden rule are antithetical to the overt and unabashed racism that is CRT. Those 'pastors' are not any more Christian than Stalin was and they are just as political. God save us all if evil men like that get real political power.

---

According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs:[9]

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.

---

Do you realize the 'T' in CRT is 'theory'?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

---

To distinguish various approaches. Same as the way we modify any noun. This is not hard...