Reply With Quote
Yeah I had a choice to accept Jesus or not. "Coloreds" didn't have a choice which fountain drink to drink from.
What is wrong with your comprehension skills? This isn't tough.
cui bono?
Yeah I had a choice to accept Jesus or not. "Coloreds" didn't have a choice which fountain drink to drink from.
What is wrong with your comprehension skills? This isn't tough.
Sucks you have to make a decent book yourself.
Entirely different argument. Has nothing to do with whether or not race is a real thing. Color of skin is real, class distinction because of it is a social construct.
I am not saying race isn't real. I'm saying CRT says race is merely a social construct. You keep disagreeing with them.
solipsist bull
sol·ip·sism
/ˈsäləpˌsizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
You're saying the name for biological differences is a social construct. What you're saying is the social construct exists, but you're not saying the biological differences don't exist. CRT is saying they do not exist, that race isn't a biological or physical reality, that it's merely a social construct.
i dont subscribe to solipsism. its a braindead school of thought if you could even call it that
saying that all categories are social constructs is not solipsism.
of course race is a social construct. our definitions of who qualifies at what race has always evolved. eastern europeans were not considered white for a time. now they are. i dont think CRT advocates claim that melanin does not exist, or that skin color is not a biological feature. rather, the classification of people into "races" is not rooted in any hard biology.
Moving the goalpost from biological realities to the names of biological realities is akin to solipsism.
What is hard biology? Another social construct?
"the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category "
yup sounds good to me
looks just like what i said
is part of their premise that skin colors do not exist or that melanin does not affect skin colors?
"i dont think CRT advocates claim that melanin does not exist, or that skin color is not a biological feature. rather, the classification of people into "races" is not rooted in any hard biology." -SR21yup sounds good to me
looks just like what i said
is part of their premise that skin colors do not exist or that melanin does not affect skin colors?
"the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category "-CRT
So the components of racial identification exist, but race itself is a word to describe the collection of those components therefore the word itself exists.. but somehow the components that word describes, they don't?
classifying people by skin colors is just as arbitrary as classifying them by earlobe length. theres no good reason to do either. thats their entire point"i dont think CRT advocates claim that melanin does not exist, or that skin color is not a biological feature. rather, the classification of people into "races" is not rooted in any hard biology." -SR21
"the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category "-CRT
So the components of racial identification exist, but race itself is a word to describe the collection of those components therefore the word itself exists.. but somehow the components that word describes, they don't?
particularly evident when over the course of time we've changed what people count as white, etc
When an unidentified body arrives in the laboratory of Allysha Winburn, a forensic anthropologist at the University of West Florida, it’s her job to study the bones to help figure out who the person was when they were alive—to give the biological remains a social iden y. “We have this vast population of possible missing persons the [remains] could match, and we need to narrow down that universe,” she says.
She measures the length of the limb bones to estimate height and examines the bones’ development to estimate age at death. She studies the shape of the pelvis for clues to the person’s likely sex. And, until recently, Winburn measured features of the skull, such as its overall length and the width of the nasal opening, to do what forensic anthropologists call ancestry estimation. By statistically comparing the measurements with those from skulls with known iden ies, she could predict the continental ancestry—and the commonly used racial categories that may correspond to it—that a person likely identified as when alive. In other words, she could predict whether they identified as Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American.
https://www.science.org/content/arti...ll-should-they
Someone needs to tell forensic scientists that race is a social construct, their measurements have no basis in hard biology.
It doesn't matter what you count as either race. The race itself is determined by biological factors. Otherwise Justin Bieber would be black.
You're full a , too.
Philo is saying a tree isn't a tree other than in name. There's no biological differences between plants, so no such thing as a tree biologically, only the name "tree" to divide subtle, non-hard biological aspects of subgroups.
amazing straw man
and straw is also a plant
Straw is an agricultural construct. It's not really straw, that's just a name for a cluster of cells. Even cell is a name for a membrane containing protoplasm. Even those things... solipsism solipsism etc.. Nothing is real but me. Nothing.
even the category of sex is a social construct. deciding to categorize people as male or female. that one actually has some utility, though, unlike categorizing people by ear lobe size.
of course, dmc will strawman this and say "philo is literally saying that penises and vaginas are the same thing and that there is no difference between males and females"
the difference is we can actually have fairly objective criterion for deciding which group a person belongs in when it comes to sex. now sex does lie on something of a spectrum though it tends to be bimodal (there are people with kleinfelter, turner syndromes, for example), but we typically can place people in one sex or the other. race gets ambiguous. what exact melanin content do you need to be called black/white? what if you are 5/16th black? is it the single drop rule? is there any actual meaningful utility out of categorizing people as black, white, or something else?
the strawman of this is "philo says melanin and skin color doesnt actually exist"
more straw
is there some natural law or proclamation that mandated that we categorize some living things as plants? no, not really. but it serves utility, so we have generally called living eukaryotes capable of photosynthesis as plants. seems to service its purpose quite well, and straw comes from things that we call plants.
the strawman version of this is that plants do not exist
literally nobody contends that different people have varying levels of melanin or that those levels are hereditary. but we dont actually go about calling people one race or another after some diligent screening of melanin levels. and the argument is that there is inherently very little, if any, utility, at using "race" as a category within which to divide humans.
Lol the DMC rodeo
Who cares if it's a social construct or not? Only you.
Here's the second tenet from the source that YOU posted:
"....
critical race theory
Basic tenets of critical race theory
According to the legal scholars Richard Delgado (one of the founders of CRT) and Jean Stefancic there are several general propositions regarding race and racism that many critical race theorists would accept, despite the considerable variation of belief among members of the movement. These propositions cons ute a set of “basic tenets” of CRT.
...........
Second, racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the ordinary experience of most people of colour. Although extreme racist at udes and beliefs are less common among whites than they were before the mid-20th century, and explicitly racist laws and legal practices—epitomized by the Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation and denied basic civil rights to African Americans in the South—have been largely eliminated, most people of colour continue to be routinely discriminated against or otherwise unfairly treated in both public and private spheres, as demonstrated by numerous social indicators. African Americans and Hispanic Americans (Latinxs), for example, are on average more likely than similarly qualified white persons to be denied loans or jobs; they tend to pay more than whites for a broad range of products and services (e.g., automobiles); they are more likely than whites to be unjustly suspected of criminal behaviour by police or private (white) citizens; and they are more likely than whites to be victims of police brutality, including the unjustified use of lethal force. If convicted of a crime, people of colour, particularly African Americans, are generally imprisoned more often and for longer periods than whites who are found guilty of the same offenses....."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/cri...al-race-theory
I agree that it's a real social construct. Now what.
Afghanistan.
Vietnam.
Your armed forces lost there.
Example of textbook passages have been released/provided.
Pretty obvious to any reasonable critic or advocate of an agenda.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
