Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[Satchel 6982]

Would Texas high school teachers be prohibited from citing the SMU research when attempting to show what racial disparity looks like?

[F250 29201]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is one of the better examples, especially when you investigate how drugs like cannabis and cocaine became illegal.  They did not outlaw these drugs because there was some legitimate threat to public health. 
 

They even changed the name to marijuana in the law because they wanted it to sound more Mexican, as if this drug represented some kind of evil foreign invasion. 

I agree but whenever I hear someone say this I think of this.

 

 

[F250 29201]

9 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s not really what’s going on here. When you go to law school you do lots of shit like parsing words that are actually said- in an attempt to distill the argument being made. People, especially in a message board context, aren’t always super precise with their words (god knows I’m guilty of that all the time on here). If someone wants to have a conversation or discussion a good starting point is- what is that person I’m responding to actually saying. That’s what I was asking. 

Seemed more like messages board shenanigans.

[Wulaw Horn 19595]

26 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The Texas GOP bill currently being pushed that would decrease the number of polling places in areas with a far higher share of nonwhite eligible voters while increasing the number of polling locations in areas with a higher share of white eligible voters.  Those requirements in the bill would only affect urban counties.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling-restrictions/

Thanks. This is what I was looking for. 

[Wulaw Horn 19595]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

Seemed more like messages board shenanigans.

Nope. Not my intention anyway. 
pit another way- today I got my ticket dismissed for lack of having insurance. Convinced said I wasn’t guilty and that was my sense as well (started another thread) and one of the thoughts I had was, if I was a black lawyer representing myself would the DA have dismissed my case. I have no idea yes or no, and the DA was Hispanic not white, but I’m pretty sure I had a ticket dismissed in my past that a poor person of color might not have gotten a walk on in Montgomery county (not that my situation was undeserving but maybe someone that looked different than me might have gotten less consideration for. 
I would suspect that kind of research has been done. 
Now, I seemingly in the total minority being white with almost everyone at the setting being Hispanic. It seemed like 1/2 the cases were dismissed today (Harris county inside the beltway) but that wasn’t my sense of how cases were handled in Montgomery county. 
I never have practiced law beyond summer internships 20 years ago other than those two times representing myself so I have no idea how it actually works in practice. 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

 

I didn’t say you carved out law as the only inequality. You said law and policy. I get the policy argument I was asking about law. 
In other words, When talking about laws on the books thats de jure discrimination which is how I read someone making an argument against “laws”. That’s not to say there isn’t de facto discrimination- I recognize and acknowledge that thus why I would not ask that question. I would say that fits under “policy” which was why I didn’t ask about that. 

I think you are correct that explicit discimination in law has been eliminated, by repeal, amendment, and legal challenge.

The de facto things are more difficult, obviously.  If CRT has an objective value, it is ferreting out laws and policies that have a disparate impact.

It is grotesque that there are facially neutral laws passed in the 21st century with the very clear, but not quite explicit, intent to discriminate on the basis of race.

[Continental Op 3934]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Nope. Not my intention anyway. 
pit another way- today I got my ticket dismissed for lack of having insurance. Convinced said I wasn’t guilty and that was my sense as well (started another thread) and one of the thoughts I had was, if I was a black lawyer representing myself would the DA have dismissed my case. I have no idea yes or no, and the DA was Hispanic not white, but I’m pretty sure I had a ticket dismissed in my past that a poor person of color might not have gotten a walk on in Montgomery county (not that my situation was undeserving but maybe someone that looked different than me might have gotten less consideration for. 
I would suspect that kind of research has been done. 
Now, I seemingly in the total minority being white with almost everyone at the setting being Hispanic. It seemed like 1/2 the cases were dismissed today (Harris county inside the beltway) but that wasn’t my sense of how cases were handled in Montgomery county. 
I never have practiced law beyond summer internships 20 years ago other than those two times representing myself so I have no idea how it actually works in practice. 

Everyone stop for a second and appreciate the fact that the person who wrote this graduated from law school at some point. 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Continental Op

[Satchel 6982]

Proponents of CRT clearly understand the power dynamic in the following example. They just aren’t satisfied with allowing the kind of injustice that emanates from it to stand:

 

In Harris County — home to Houston, the state's biggest city — the formula would mean fewer polling places in 13 of the 24 districts contained in the county, all currently represented by Democrats. Every district held by a Republican would either see a gain in polling places or see no change.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling-restrictions/

 

[Wulaw Horn 19595]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think you are correct that explicit discimination in law has been eliminated, by repeal, amendment, and legal challenge.

The de facto things are more difficult, obviously.  If CRT has an objective value, it is ferreting out laws and policies that have a disparate impact.

It is grotesque that there are facially neutral laws passed in the 21st century with the very clear, but not quite explicit, intent to discriminate on the basis of race.

Yeah- I was trying to figure out if there was an example of the first kind that existed that hasn’t been written out of the books. 
the court has the ability to attack the second kind, obviously, but they also give deference to legislative intent so... don’t know how effective a shield that is. 
perhaps we should have lots of research on disparate effects thats quotes and argued before courts in a pretty scientific way and stuff that doesn’t work numbers wise in effect should be kicked for disparate effects regardless of legislative intent. 
I’d like to see some real numbers on minimum sentencing as I’d guess the effect is less lee way equals the book being thrown at people that otherwise might get preferential treatment but maybe that’s not the real world happening. I’d want to see numbers on a reasonable study with compelling scholarship behind it and something like that would make me instantly change my mind. 

[Wulaw Horn 19595]

13 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

Everyone stop for a second and appreciate the fact that the person who wrote this had a license to practice law at some point. 

Law school, like most any higher education, doesn’t teach you how to practically do the job lawyers do. 
Nobody takes a class on “this is how traffic court works. It’s something you are taught if you go and practice traffic court law. As I’ve never practiced traffic court law it’s not something I know. It’s why, when someone asks a question of a lawyer the most common response is “not my area of practice”. 
now if you asked me a question about real estate law as it applies to title I’d be able to answer you really well and walk you through all the ins and outs of the law. I have friends that are lawyers that call me with those questions. That’s what I know because that’s what I’ve practiced. 
Same deal with 98% of attorneys. 
I’d pretty much guarantee that any transactional lawyer would respond the same way to any question that way. I’m pretty sure @Brisketexan wouldn’t know dick about title unless he litigated a case regarding it, and if he caught a case like that the first thing he would do is call someone like me to get a sense on how it works. 
I guess I know enough to talk to an expert (judge 2x’s and DA once) to frame my situation in such a way that I got the outcome I wanted- but I’d have never gone into representing someone else without getting to the bottom of what was going on. It was low stakes enough for me that I was good with telling my story and letting the chips fall where they may as opposed to putting in the work that would make me a subject matter expert on what I was doing. 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[TwiceHorn 32079]

11 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah- I was trying to figure out if there was an example of the first kind that existed that hasn’t been written out of the books. 
the court has the ability to attack the second kind, obviously, but they also give deference to legislative intent so... don’t know how effective a shield that is. 
perhaps we should have lots of research on disparate effects thats quotes and argued before courts in a pretty scientific way and stuff that doesn’t work numbers wise in effect should be kicked for disparate effects regardless of legislative intent. 
I’d like to see some real numbers on minimum sentencing as I’d guess the effect is less lee way equals the book being thrown at people that otherwise might get preferential treatment but maybe that’s not the real world happening. I’d want to see numbers on a reasonable study with compelling scholarship behind it and something like that would make me instantly change my mind. 

If you're interested in inequities in the CJ system, this place is a good place to look.  You can search for race, gender, whatever. https://sentencing.typepad.com/ 

The criminal justice system is a great example of how small biases built into a facially neutral system build upon each other to create a pretty substantial imbalance.

And there are the problems that get people into the CJ system in the first place.

[wildcat09 29579]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think you are correct that explicit discimination in law has been eliminated, by repeal, amendment, and legal challenge.

The de facto things are more difficult, obviously.  If CRT has an objective value, it is ferreting out laws and policies that have a disparate impact.

It is grotesque that there are facially neutral laws passed in the 21st century with the very clear, but not quite explicit, intent to discriminate on the basis of race.

It's not eliminated though. Damage calculations in civil cases still frequently consider race and/or gender when determining damage awards. California recently passed a law banning that, but to my knowledge it's the only state to have done so and the feds definitely haven't. 

The real cool part is that the tables they use typically separate out Black and Latino people, but lump Asians in with white people. So if you're a black doctor who doesn't smoke or drink and you're hit by a drunk driver, you'll still get treated to some extent like an uneducated janitor who is going to die at 55, while a white victim who is a janitor living in a trailer park with a pack a day habit gets treated to an extent like an Asian doctor.  The doubly cool part is when you're a black victim of police misconduct and your damages get reduced in part because cops disproportionately imprison and kill black people. That's a real fun incentive there for cities to actually oppress black people even more. 

[Pancho 46311]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

That is textbook gas lighting.  The democrat party has shifted so much further from the center of 30 years ago than the GOP has.  
 

This “stat” is outdated. 
 

Your Republican Party—which you are a member of—is radical right wing that approves of and doesn’t deny white supremacy.

You and the other radical right wing republicans on this website who still support this party today need to own that shit.

 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not eliminated though. Damage calculations in civil cases still frequently consider race and/or gender when determining damage awards. California recently passed a law banning that, but to my knowledge it's the only state to have done so and the feds definitely haven't. 

The real cool part is that the tables they use typically separate out Black and Latino people, but lump Asians in with white people. So if you're a black doctor who doesn't smoke or drink and you're hit by a drunk driver, you'll still get treated to some extent like an uneducated janitor who is going to die at 55, while a white victim who is a janitor living in a trailer park with a pack a day habit gets treated to an extent like an Asian doctor.  The doubly cool part is when you're a black victim of police misconduct and your damages get reduced in part because cops disproportionately imprison and kill black people. That's a real fun incentive there for cities to actually oppress black people even more. 

Well, I meant written into law law.  

Like I said in the following post, there are all kinds of little biases everywhere.

And, honestly, that sounds more like an advocacy problem.  If the actuarial tables have improper biases built into them, plaintiff's counsel should be ready to take that on.

[F250 29201]

33 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Nope. Not my intention anyway. 
pit another way- today I got my ticket dismissed for lack of having insurance. Convinced said I wasn’t guilty and that was my sense as well (started another thread) and one of the thoughts I had was, if I was a black lawyer representing myself would the DA have dismissed my case. I have no idea yes or no, and the DA was Hispanic not white, but I’m pretty sure I had a ticket dismissed in my past that a poor person of color might not have gotten a walk on in Montgomery county (not that my situation was undeserving but maybe someone that looked different than me might have gotten less consideration for. 
I would suspect that kind of research has been done. 
Now, I seemingly in the total minority being white with almost everyone at the setting being Hispanic. It seemed like 1/2 the cases were dismissed today (Harris county inside the beltway) but that wasn’t my sense of how cases were handled in Montgomery county. 
I never have practiced law beyond summer internships 20 years ago other than those two times representing myself so I have no idea how it actually works in practice. 

 

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think you are correct that explicit discimination in law has been eliminated, by repeal, amendment, and legal challenge.

The de facto things are more difficult, obviously.  If CRT has an objective value, it is ferreting out laws and policies that have a disparate impact.

It is grotesque that there are facially neutral laws passed in the 21st century with the very clear, but not quite explicit, intent to discriminate on the basis of race.

See. This is a "No Fucking Shit Captain Obvious" kind of statement.

The topic in this thread is about dealing with institutional racism and we all know there are no explicitly discriminatory laws on the books but institutional racism exists which is pretty much the point of this thread.

Wulaw this is why I said it appeared you were engaging in shenanigans.  

 

[Wulaw Horn 19595]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not eliminated though. Damage calculations in civil cases still frequently consider race and/or gender when determining damage awards. California recently passed a law banning that, but to my knowledge it's the only state to have done so and the feds definitely haven't. 

The real cool part is that the tables they use typically separate out Black and Latino people, but lump Asians in with white people. So if you're a black doctor who doesn't smoke or drink and you're hit by a drunk driver, you'll still get treated to some extent like an uneducated janitor who is going to die at 55, while a white victim who is a janitor living in a trailer park with a pack a day habit gets treated to an extent like an Asian doctor.  The doubly cool part is when you're a black victim of police misconduct and your damages get reduced in part because cops disproportionately imprison and kill black people. That's a real fun incentive there for cities to actually oppress black people even more. 

Thanks. That was the follow up I was  asking about when responding to your post. That CA law sounds right and proper and should be applied throughout the land. A doctor should be compared to a doctor regardless of race pretty clearly when calculating economic damages. 

[F250 29201]

22 minutes ago, Pancho said:

This “stat” is outdated. 
 

Your Republican Party—which you are a member of—is radical right wing that approves of and doesn’t deny white supremacy.

You and the other radical right wing republicans on this website who still support this party today need to own that shit.

 

It's not like the GOP fully embraced Nationalism or anything.

[Wulaw Horn 19595]

13 minutes ago, F250 said:

 

See. This is a "No Fucking Shit Captain Obvious" kind of statement.

The topic in this thread is about dealing with institutional racism and we all know there are no explicitly discriminatory laws on the books but institutional racism exists which is pretty much the point of this thread.

Wulaw this is why I said it appeared you were engaging in shenanigans.  

 

That’s not my nature. I don’t come here to win arguments. I come here bc this board, collectively, has a depth of knowledge about things that I know nothing about, and I have zero interest in consuming any news source, am not on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, and know almost nothing about happenings in the world I don’t see here. 
when doing the Gallup strength finder my #3 strength is learner- which is typified as someone that asks questions to find out what’s going on when they are interested in something. I have a kid diagnosed on the spectrum (high functioning- once upon a time it was called Aspergers) and I’m pretty close based upon a couple tests I took and reading what that looks like when he was diagnosed (I guess the tip off should have been that when I got the diagnosis for him I went and bought 8 books on the subject and immediately read them all). 
How I deal with the lack of naturally occurring empathy is through individualizations (my number one trait in the strength finder) which essentially means you put yourself in the other persons shoes by imagining what they must be thinking about at any time in place. This isn’t empathy per se but accomplishes the same type of thing. How do you figure out what someone else is thinking so you know the proper way to treat them as they ought to be treated? By asking questions. 
I read Jimmy’s response as saying that there was de jure racism in our laws and asked what those might be, not asking about policy as I understand the concept behind de facto segregation. 
Factor in Socratic dialogue being the best form of learning, in my opinion and you get questions 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[David Dennison 19542]

If you want a perfect example of how racism gets institutionalized, look no further than the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Seems like anything challenging the white patriarchy gets pejoratively labeled as Marxist, perhaps because it’s often advocating for a more egalitarian society.
 

Today’s “conservatives” must see these movements as a threat to their (American) culture which is almost intuitively centered around the preservation of male dominated whiteness. 

[wildcat09 29579]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, I meant written into law law.  

Like I said in the following post, there are all kinds of little biases everywhere.

And, honestly, that sounds more like an advocacy problem.  If the actuarial tables have improper biases built into them, plaintiff's counsel should be ready to take that on.

I think we’ve got to consider court orders part of the law.

[Neonmoon 38130]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seems like anything challenging the white patriarchy gets pejoratively labeled as Marxist, perhaps because it’s often advocating for a more egalitarian society.
 

Today’s “conservatives” must see these movements as a threat to their (American) culture which is almost intuitively centered around the preservation of male dominated whiteness. 

True, but when you think about conservatism at its core, it makes sense. 
 

Definition:

commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation

 

They oppose change. Their whole existence is to keep the status quo. Why? Because the status quo is awesome for them. They have the money, the power, and the womens. They shoot guns because its fun. They have the dominant race. They’re not getting their loan rejected. Their God is a white man who says women should be subservient to men. They don’t have a policy, other than cultural wars because they don’t want anything, they already have it. 
 

They have convinced the dumb poor whites that taxing the rich is bad. Paying for expensive private healthcare is good. As long as they’re told they’re better than the blacks, the dumb poor whites don’t give a shit if aunt Susan dies of cancer because she can’t afford the premiums. At least her daughter didn’t marry an immigrant. 
 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Neonmoon

[Born to Run 6601]

This “stat” is outdated. 
 
Your Republican Party—which you are a member of—is radical right wing that approves of and doesn’t deny white supremacy.
You and the other radical right wing republicans on this website who still support this party today need to own that shit.
 

I ignore Sack but that's a perfect "stat" as you put it. Dumb, devoid of data and dated.
Like that party hasn't had major shifts in the last four years...

[FOXHOUND 1182]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seems like anything challenging the white patriarchy gets pejoratively labeled as Marxist, perhaps because it’s often advocating for a more egalitarian society.
 

Today’s “conservatives” must see these movements as a threat to their (American) culture which is almost intuitively centered around the preservation of male dominated whiteness. 

Leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were called Marxist, it's an old play. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Ironically, conservatives outlawing CRT taught in public schools is a decent example of CRT in practice.  
 

Order is preserved by the silencing of challenges to the established order. 

[Satchel 6982]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Ironically, conservatives outlawing CRT taught in public schools is a decent example of CRT in practice.  
 

Order is preserved by the silencing of challenges to the established order. 

True. Conservatives codified the established order in regards to voting methods and procedures in Texas and Florida. They’re now changing what no longer works to their benefit. They’re not above innovating when their power is imperiled.

[Pancho 46311]

Well and the other problem is CRT isn’t being. taught in public schools.

So radical Republicans *checks notes* cancelled something that isn’t even happening.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

37 minutes ago, Pancho said:

*checks notes* cancelled something that isn’t even happening.

“What further drove cocaine from the public’s eye was the myth of the “Negro cocaine fiend.” The phrase, used in a New York Times headline in 1914, was used by the esteemed physician Edward Huntington Williams to describe the effects of cocaine on African Americans. The effects were outlined as auditory hallucinations, paranoia, murderous and violent rages, and making African Americans impervious to the effects of bullets. The Nation posits that such cases of hysteria are examples of how black Americans were scapegoated for shocking and appalling crimes. With the public turning on cocaine, associating the effects of the drug with sensationalized reports and descriptions of African Americans was a common practice for the turn of the century.

For example, Williams wrote in 1914 that cocaine would change a “timid negro” into a “cocaine-doper” who would become a “constant menace” to local communities.”

https://riveroakstreatment.com/cocaine-treatment/illegal-history-in-america/

 

“When it became illegal in 1914, classified as a hard narcotic, there was a very racist side to the prohibition. Dr. Christopher Koch from Pennsylvania warned, "Most of the attacks upon white women of the South are the direct result of the cocaine-crazed Negro brain." The fear of a crazy, super-strong Black man on cocaine existed long before cocaine became illegal, but the fear had intensified during the period of enforced segregation; challenges to voting laws; the push for Negro political, social, and civil rights; and increased lynchings in the South.

During the last decade of the 1800s, crimes attributed to Negroes were often assumed to be linked to drug use. Police departments in the South began requesting larger caliber guns that could stop the so-called cocaine-crazed Negro. In Kentucky in July 1907, the State Board of Pharmacy began a crusade against druggist who sold cocaine to Negroes in an effort to stem the crime of supposed violence committed by Negroes in Kentucky and other Southern states. Warrants had been issued against druggists A. F. Solbrig and H. F. Cohn, Jr., both from Louisville, KY.”

https://nkaa.uky.edu/nkaa/items/show/2331

Edited May 26, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TornACL 7792]

It's funny that some people see acknowledgement of, and a push to, fix structural problems in our society as "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!!! NOES!"

It's almost as if they're confirming the theory itself while screaming to silence it. 

No, not almost. That's precisely what they're doing. 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I think we’ve got to consider court orders part of the law.

You're speaking of juries considering damages evidence, right?   That happens to include statistical information that is skewed because of bad data grouping?

And California's prescribed remedy is what exactly?  A jury instruction?  Exclusion of an expert report or testimony that relies on such statistical information?

Otherwise, that's not ordinarily the subject of any "court order," either way.

Normally, if there are faulty or biased statistics used to try and (dis)prove damages, that is attacked at the Daubert level for exclusion, or in testimony to get the expert to admit that he's relying on biased data that may not apply fully or at all to the plaintiff. 

And, I think a litigator might consider it a risky proposition to adduce evidence that "the damages should be smaller because he's a black male and statistically won't live as long as a white male."  That runs a huge risk of alienating a jury and you'd better have rock-fucking-solid stats to back that up.

I can conceive that there might actually be valid life expectancy or other statistics based on race that maybe should be considered by a jury.  Some might even be favorable to a plaintiff.

Seems to me to be a matter of proof and advocacy, and that a blanket rule of some sort may not be a great idea.

Taking it out of the race context, I think women live longer than men and thus would receive a higher damages award based on life expectancy.  But that is discriminatory.  So we're going to ban consideration of such differences altogether because it isn't gender-neutral?

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[52-80 19377]

8 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

@52-80 Keeps harkening back to 400 years in nearly every post he's made on this thread as though nothing else has happened since then

Noone will argue that you dont have an overactive imagination

[Willfully Horn 8264]

This thread has some ‘fake it until you make it’ folks. 
 

The more people who entertain the thought that they might be mistaken, the faster we will get to where I believe we all wish to be. One thing’s for certain: I could be wrong.

Hope y’all had a great (no nuke) Super Flower Blood Moon lunar eclipse.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

7 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

“What further drove cocaine from the public’s eye was the myth of the “Negro cocaine fiend.”

Funny you mention cocaine; I read of the discussion to which you refer some time back maybe three four years ago--it was related to Trump & Giuliani and the Central Park 5 and the media and reporting of that time period (80s?).

Anyway, you know what the GQP isn't talking about is methamphetamine and who uses it and abuses it.

It's a pretty crazy statistic and they've done studies on it. With around (CDC/95% CI) 59.7 per 1000 annual average rate of use (adults age 18+), the meth vote is partially a partisan vote and they know it. While cocaine is abused at a greater rate than meth by white citizens as well as black citizens, overall rates (broken down demographically) shows a higher rate for whites for both--perhaps as substance abuse/addiction is often considered an "urban" problem and it is actually an "everywhere" problem.

Table 1 in this study breaks it down: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912a1.htm#T1_down

This article from 2016 discusses the phenomena: https://kurzman.unc.edu/the-meth-vote/

 

[VRHorn 732]

10 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Thanks. This is what I was looking for. 

"Whitening" a resume increases interviews - https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews

[F250 29201]

18 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

"Whitening" a resume increases interviews - https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews

I've never done this and never would but I always wondered if my Spanish name was ever an issue on a resume.

[Captainant 28539]

10 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Thanks. This is what I was looking for. 

For another example, a black woman was able to double her home's appraised value by having a white man stand in. Home went from $125k to $260k just based on who the lender thought was trying to sell.

[Bateshorn 9991]

There's a great philosophic thread about the nature of conservatism (warning: I've not done a deeper dive on this site).  The tl;dr is basically that there is no other philopshy than conservatism, which posits:

Quote

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect...

CRT, along with a lot of other thought patterns, is an attempt to push back against that traditional power dynamic by instead creating a system whereby:

 

Quote

the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone....

 

[jimmyjazz 47203]

25 minutes ago, F250 said:

I've never done this and never would but I always wondered if my Spanish name was ever an issue on a resume.

My age is.  I've scrubbed my graduation dates from my resume, because getting interviews as a mid-50s engineer is not exactly easy.  (That's ~ 55 years old, not mid-1950s, assholes.)

[wildcat09 29579]

13 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

There's a great philosophic thread about the nature of conservatism (warning: I've not done a deeper dive on this site).  The tl;dr is basically that there is no other philopshy than conservatism, which posits:

CRT, along with a lot of other thought patterns, is an attempt to push back against that traditional power dynamic by instead creating a system whereby:

 

 

Man, first bozo and now you? Stop stealing my bit, damnit!

Just kidding, it's not mine and steal it all you want. In fact, circulate to every fucking Dem rep and senator on the hill if you can. Too many of them still have no fucking idea what they're dealing with. 

[Bateshorn 9991]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, first bozo and now you? Stop stealing my bit, damnit!

Just kidding, it's not mine and steal it all you want. In fact, circulate to every fucking Dem rep and senator on the hill if you can. Too many of them still have no fucking idea what they're dealing with. 

I even liked your OG post!!!  That must have been where I fell down the rabbit hole.

[jimmyjazz 47203]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Just kidding, it's not mine and steal it all you want. 

I just did.  Wish I had seen it earlier.  I'm not entirely sure it's completely defensible, but at first blush, I get it and like it.

[F250 29201]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

My age is.  I've scrubbed my graduation dates from my resume, because getting interviews as a mid-50s engineer is not exactly easy.  (That's ~ 55 years old, not mid-1950s, assholes.)

I assume you limit your work history as well. I've come across some resumes where an old timer had work history from the 80's on his resume. This one guy retired from IBM so the old start date made sense but I remember thinking "damn this was back when I was in middle school and I am no spring chicken."

 

[jimmyjazz 47203]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

I assume you limit your work history as well. I've come across some resumes where an old timer had work history from the 80's on his resume. This one guy retired from IBM so the old start date made sense but I remember thinking "damn this was back when I was in middle school and I am no spring chicken."

I spent a fair amount of time in grad school and post-grad doing research, which was technically an engineering position.  I gloss over the latter, so it appears that my employment started in 1993, which at least helps limit the damage.  I can't really roll forward from there, because I was at that company from 1993-2016.  It at least shaves some 6 years from my apparent age.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

For another example, a black woman was able to double her home's appraised value by having a white man stand in. Home went from $125k to $260k just based on who the lender thought was trying to sell.

This kind of racism is as American as apple pie. It is just one of a long list of reasons why Black folks have had difficulty building generational wealth through home ownership.

[Neonmoon 38130]

Also there is the implicit kind that is incalculable, meaning the Johnny Sacks of the world that won’t sell their house to a black buyer even though the offer might have been better 

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

My age is.  I've scrubbed my graduation dates from my resume, because getting interviews as a mid-50s engineer is not exactly easy.  (That's ~ 55 years old, not mid-1950s, assholes.)

 

56 minutes ago, F250 said:

I assume you limit your work history as well. I've come across some resumes where an old timer had work history from the 80's on his resume. This one guy retired from IBM so the old start date made sense but I remember thinking "damn this was back when I was in middle school and I am no spring chicken."

 

Yep, I'm 55 and have done both of these w/ my resume.

[TornACL 7792]

11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Also there is the implicit kind that is incalculable, meaning the Johnny Sacks of the world that won’t sell their house to a black buyer even though the offer might have been better 

Friends of mine are selling their house, and their neighbor happened to come by and urge them to make sure they sell their house to a "nice white conservative family". 

I can't imagine being such a piece of shit human that you even care what the political leanings of your neighbors are, much less the race thing. 

I have no fucking idea who my neighbors vote for, nor to I care, nor is it any of my business. 

But anyway, that stuff makes me wonder is systemic racism is built by the system, or if it's slowly accumulated by the bricks of individual racists. 

[wildcat09 29579]

1 minute ago, TornACL said:

Friends of mine are selling their house, and their neighbor happened to come by and urge them to make sure they sell their house to a "nice white conservative family". 

I can't imagine being such a piece of shit human that you even care what the political leanings of your neighbors are, much less the race thing. 

I have no fucking idea who my neighbors vote for, nor to I care, nor is it any of my business. 

But anyway, that stuff makes me wonder is systemic racism is built by the system, or if it's slowly accumulated by the bricks of individual racists. 

It's both. For a good explanation of how it's worked in the housing context, read The Color of Law.

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

3 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Friends of mine are selling their house, and their neighbor happened to come by and urge them to make sure they sell their house to a "nice white conservative family". 

I can't imagine being such a piece of shit human that you even care what the political leanings of your neighbors are, much less the race thing. 

I have no fucking idea who my neighbors vote for, nor to I care, nor is it any of my business. 

But anyway, that stuff makes me wonder is systemic racism is built by the system, or if it's slowly accumulated by the bricks of individual racists. 

[F250 29201]

14 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Friends of mine are selling their house, and their neighbor happened to come by and urge them to make sure they sell their house to a "nice white conservative family". 

I can't imagine being such a piece of shit human that you even care what the political leanings of your neighbors are, much less the race thing. 

I have no fucking idea who my neighbors vote for, nor to I care, nor is it any of my business. 

But anyway, that stuff makes me wonder is systemic racism is built by the system, or if it's slowly accumulated by the bricks of individual racists. 

LOL

I had something similar happen when I sold our first house a long time ago. I sold it to a big Guatemalan family. A buddy told me our old neighbors were pissed.