Does CRT have a leg standing?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 41
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
CRT = Critical Race Theory, for the uninitiated.

Emphasis on the last word: theory. According to the OED:   Theory, n.  a. The conceptual basis of a subject or area of study. Contrasted with practice.  Conceptual: like the napkin-generated idea at lunch of a new product. Like a proposal that the universe is geocentric, which was considered ""practical" until it wasn't. Theory is not empiric, pure and simple. Until it is no longer theory [either proven wrong, like geocentrism, or substantiated by empiric evidence, it remains conceptual. In the case of CRT, the empiric evidence must demonstrate a current law or gov't department policy, as I charged in my debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/2780-thbt-systemic-racism-is-a-significant-problem-in-the-us with Undefeatable, which concluded 2 months ago, and which I won, due to the utter lack of demonstrating such evidence. What the average person may think, and act upon, is not evidence of systemic, or CRT. The average person, or even a collected group, who do not legislate or spew policy, are not systemic, or CRT. Period. Therefore, CRT has no leg standing, or one to stand upon.
#2
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
See- that's kinda why we don't use dictionaries you can't prove you're citing - because I have definitions which can be cited that don't always agree with you. 

Theory - "If something is possible in theory, it should be possible, but often it does not happen in that way: something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation" 

So you beat Undefeatable, cool, you wanna debate me on Systematic Racism?

Topic's author
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Theory: Geocentrism.

It was possible, but ultimately became impossible, and it did not happen in any way, even though a suggested reasonable explanation as fact, in fact, was accepted as fact, even though encompassing only a suggested system of science. Such are the spoils of many theories, simply because as eloquent as they may be expressed, in the end, they fair no better than Mark Twain's conclusion: "It is not what we don't know that gets us into trouble; it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." I give as much credence to theory as a wish balloon.

No, I've said all I intend to say on the matter of "systemic" racism in my debate with Undefeatable, which stands as an indictment on Critical Race Theory [the theory has actually been around since the 70s, and still, not a shred of evidence] because... well, because Mark Twain was correct. It's a volume of wish balloons that have been blown up with hot helium, and they just float away...
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,596
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
So essentially you are saying, why shouldn't Toby be good nig**r  for massa?
#5
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
You mean like the theory of gravity? Because to me you sound a tad like a conspiracy theorist attempting to semantic your way out of that. Furthermore, it seems to me that the judges of the website like semantics, which you happen to be an expert in, but I believe to have found my way around it. You work by taking evidence and attempting to invalidate it using your own, often, faulty interpretation. 
Topic's author
#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
And that, my friend, is exactly why we do not have CRT; we have an individual racism problem. I don't talk like that, don't think like that, and certqainly do not condone talk like that; the talk of a cretin.

Look, my view is this; simple, straight forward in your face: I don't care if you are black, white, green, blue, or completely colorless, because you and I, and every other mother's kid are not any of those colors. Get it?  That is a distinction that is literally skin deep, and it ends there. We all bleed red. Our DNA is racially indiscriminate. Hell, we do not blood type by race. Race, in my book simply does not exist.  I celebrate our diversity of appearance and culture. I bless the day God made us different, just to challenge us to get over our   @#$~@#R%@#  comments like yours. THAT is the problem, even when you're just joking. It ain't funny, man, never was, never will be. Get a !@#%!$%@% clue, yeah???

Why the hell the government wants to establish a racial demographic in the census is beyond me. Does our infrastructure [anymore] cater to race? No. De we educate based on race? We should not. Census-wise, I am a nose. That's it. Count me.
Topic's author
#7
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You mean like the theory of gravity?
Semantics? Isn't saying "the theory of..." just a semantic of its own? Yes, I said "Theory: geocentrism" However, in that case, geocentrism has been permanently relegated to mere theoretical status, with no ongoing effort to prove otherwise. Not so, gravity, yet. There are no viable theories being seriously considered that, by natural means, alone [although, hot-air balloons do a fairly decent job of contradicting gravity], of defeating gravity, and it does explain the primary reason why airplanes can hit the ground [though it is not the root cause]. I perceive theory to be a simple concept: not yet factually true. Something is either true, or it is not. We muddle the the matter simply by accepting some theory as fact. Believing geocentrism was true never made it fact. So much for belief.
#8
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw

Does Critical Race Theory have a legal standing?
The answer to the question is obviously NO for the same reason that geocentrism can't sue Galileo for damages: only people and never ideas have standing before the law.  The question itself demonstrates ignorance regarding the subject and its conditional.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY (CRT) is "an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice"

CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:
  1. First, that white supremacy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law
  2. Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.
In law, STANDING or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In United States law, the Supreme Court has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues."

There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court.

  1. Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract).  The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
  2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
  3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
Here in America we neither put ideas on trial nor recognize the capacity of any idea to suffer concrete injury.

  • Fauxlaw argues that a theory must proven true before it may claim injury before a court but that's quite wrong-headed, ideas may not claim standing.
  • Fauxlaw further argues that "what the average person may think, and act upon, is not evidence of systemic, or CRT," apparently ignorant of the fact that CRT makes no claims regarding the average person and is, by definition, exclusively interested in the law and legal institutions. 
So, for example, in the current "AME Church vs. Kemp" some of the distinguished lawyers and ministers  who number among the plaintiffs may have once studied CRT in college but CRT itself may never be one of the plaintiffs claiming:

Georgia has been unrelenting in its effort to suppress the political
participation of people of color. In fact, of the states previously covered by the
VRA’s federal preclearance requirements, Georgia is the only state that has
enacted voting restrictions across five major categories studied by the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights: voter identification requirements, documentary proof
of citizenship, voter purges, cuts to early voting, and polling place closures or
relocations. These barriers have made it materially more difficult to vote for
historically disenfranchised communities, including people of color as well as
voters with disabilities, elderly, students, and poor voters.
The members of the AME church have standing because they are people injured, deprived of equal access to the voting booth.
#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
In September 2020, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing agencies of the United States Government to cancel funding for programs that mention "white privilege" or "critical race theory", on the basis that it constituted "divisive, un-American propaganda".  He specifically called out the value of meritocracy.  Trump famously complains about censorship when private companies refuse to promote his litany of treasonous falsehoods but blithely cancels any public service that even mentions ideas that Trump alone finds objectionable.  A more grievous example of cancel culture will not be found.  On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order rescinding and canceling Trump's previous executive order and once again permitted agencies to permit such words and ideas.
#10
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
In mid-April, a bill was introduced in the Idaho legislature that would effectively ban any educational entity (including school districts, public charter school, and public institutions of higher education) in the state from teaching or advocating "sectarianism," including critical race theory or other programs involving social justice.

Yesterday, the bill was signed into law by Governor Brad Little

SECTARIANISM is "excessive attachment to a particular sect or party, especially in religion"

The law was designed to target CRT but shied so far from specifying that target that the legislature has effectively criminalized any public conversation of a wide range of subjects.  Under the law as written, a college professor who promotes Christianity as one of the pillars of Western Civilization is engaged in criminal conduct.  I can't think of a more SECTARIAN individual in US History than Donald Trump and I suspect that Idaho will soon want their right to advocate for Trump back.   The State of Idaho is to willing strangle free speech on an epic, anti-Constitutional scale rather than allow Black to people to think racism can be remedied by the law.  If you are wondering why Tucker Carlson (and hence, fauxlaw) are calling CRT a threat this week, Idaho cancel culture is the reason.

Topic's author
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
a theory must proven true before it may claim injury before a court
Show me where I made that claim. I have not strung those words together here, no anywhere else. That is your assumption of what I've said, but you do not put words in my mouth, thanks. Otherwise, thanks for the lesson, but as CRT has been around for 50 years, and me longer, I'm kind of aware of it. As in, I heard it enough in poli-sci from left-wing profs in my junior and senior years, let alone in my history doctoral. I had a lengthy essay combatting it which my lefty prof bled all over, even though he could not, then, refute any of my citations. He just simply did not agree. I gave him a jar of peanut butter to compensate for his loss of blood. 
Topic's author
#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
 treasonous falsehoods
I note, for the record, that your Trump tirade offers no scholastic support for your opinions. I, therefore, take them as such, and ignore. After all, treason is a matter that requires an injury claim in court, by the people, as it were, and you seem to lack any citation for that, as well.  As for EOs, "white privilege" or "critical race theory" are terms that are not policy statements nor current legislation, so, what's the beef? 
Topic's author
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
In mid-April, a bill was introduced in the Idaho legislature that would effectively ban any educational entity (including school districts, public charter school, and public institutions of higher education)
That bill is https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/billbookmark/?yr=2021&bn=H0377. just in case anyone wants to see what it REALLY says. It's short, and DArt members will find that, as characterized by oromagi, the bill does  not quite stoop to the level of the characterization offered by oro. Don't know if oro read the bill, or just messNBC's version of it. By the way, signed into law in late April, not May 4. Mess may not have heard of it until the 4th, but that's on them, or whoever oro's source is.

 If you are wondering why Tucker Carlson (and hence, fauxlaw) are calling CRT a threat this week, Idaho cancel culture is the reason.
 Tucker, who? One seems to think I have a membership card to whatever club that is, Nope; guess again. I do much of my own thinking, anyway. Got the time to do it.
#14
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... no - the fact is that there are different definitions of theory - there's the layman's term - your - and then there the scientific and academic definition. Simple as that.
Topic's author
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, until...and "until" is a huge factor, because: theory is propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world, until better propositions convert phenomena observed, but not yet experimented enough to change the unknown of obs and exp to truth, which is about the only reason that science does not use "truth" in the definition of "theory," and facts can change based on the historical modification of "facts" not observed enough to establish and determine truth. Therefore, kick and moan as you will, theory =/= truth. That has been my point all along.
Topic's author
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
One difference I perceive between us is that I aim for exact definitions of words, knowing that they modify throughout their history, and you're more willing to float with that issue. A perfect language would not need to change as our plethora of languages do. We had the same argument of the meaning of gender. It is the fault of our in -bred curiosity that has not the facility of naming things with an intent of exactness; hence, our disagreement of such a word as theory. I find the same interrupts with "mouse" as a descriptive for the hand manipulation of data on a monitor. "Looks-like" is not a valid reason to adopt words from other uses. It just means that curiosity/creative-wise, we're more adept at invention than description.
Topic's author
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Cont'd: the problem I have is that numbered ciphers are each unique unto themselves; nary one repeat in the entire infinite set of numbers. Not so with words. Each word should have a unique meaning, like numbers. That they don't is language's faux law, if you will. [Never before have I been able to use my moniker as a metaphor!] a mouse should be a rodent. The computer device ought to be an epositor [puts an electrographic object in its place]

I came across this disconnect while in France. I discovered that the French did not have a word for transom, the hinged device over doors to allow ventilation. They have them, but never had a word for them. They appropriate a German word, which languages do all the time - borrow from one another. However, in this case, the word[s] they borrowed were "vas es das." [What is that?] The germans do not [or did not] have transoms in their building architecture. When invading France, they asked what it was. Thee French, not having a word for it, thought the Germans knew what it was, and were pointing to it to tell the French what is was. Or, so goes the story I was told by a French WWII veteran in Cannes.
#18
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Fauxlaw argues that a theory must proven true before it may claim injury before a court but that's quite wrong-headed, ideas may not claim standing.
show me where I made that claim.
"Theory is not empiric, pure and simple. Until it is no longer theory [either proven wrong, like geocentrism, or substantiated by empiric evidence, it remains conceptual. In the case of CRT, the empiric evidence must demonstrate a current law or gov't department policy....Therefore, CRT has no leg[al] standing."

The certainty of Trump's treasonous falsehood is objective and manifest. Trump's admission that he knew Flynn was a secret foreign agent who had lied to the FBI about his dealings with Erdogan and Putin before he swore in Flynn as top US spy by itself qualifies Trump for treasonous falsehood by any objective standard.  The ten obstructions of justice documented by the Mueller Report are all of them well-evidenced treasonous falsehoods.   The big lie of Jan 6th and Trump's public cheering on of the assassins'  progress through the Capitol and furtherance of claims to the Presidency even as the lawyer who originally brought Trumps claims to court  officially argues that "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements [regarding electoral misconduct] were truly statements of fact"  Everything after Nov 10th is manifest treason, classic treason by any country's body of law and utter contempt for his oath of office.  The ghost of George Washington ceremonially lodges  a spectral musketball into the back of Trump's head every morning at dawn.
#19
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
So... in other words - you don't think that there should be one word for two different things? I mean cool - whatever - but that doesn't change the fact that "mouse" does describe both a rodent and a remote controller to your cursor, calling that device a "mouse' is specific. The letters themselves are meaningless its all about the intent behind the words, so yes, I am being exact in my wording whether you like it or not. 

Furthermore, the fact that we find new evidence that convinces us to change our mind does not mean that these things are not facts. Are you seriously so insistent on these things that you don't realize that we learn new things as we explore the natural world? Its fallacy after fallacy with you, the fact that we have learned new evidence and changed our mind accordingly does not mean that these facts are being "modified" in a bad way, it means we're intellectually honest. 
#20
Undefeatable
Undefeatable's avatar
Debates: 64
Posts: 126
1
6
11
Undefeatable's avatar
Undefeatable
1
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
let's be honest here, my argument was weak. Who am I? A computer science major in college. What is Systemic Racism? A complex social construct theory created by different experts and theorists. Now am I really credible to talk about it thoroughly? Surely not. My name may be "Undefeatable", but my research only analyzes sources rather than truly understanding or linking them together. If you were up against Whiteflame or even Weaker Edge, things might be different.

Just as I'm terrible at religious debates, I am similarly bad at proving "concepts". I can prove a scientific idea like Evolution, but this theory crafted by experts is far more vague. I barely managed to convince Whiteflame that Free will was more likely than not.
Topic's author
#21
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is it "intellectually honest" to coin a phrase, "global warming" just because in the last thousand years, we're experiencing an apparent upward temperature trend that is a higher trend than the 900 years before it [my numbers may not be exact, but climate science isn't so exact, itself, being an adolescent science compared to others], when even over those hundred years, our measurement accuracy has allegedly increased ten-fold, at least, and so how accurate were our measurements those hundred years ago? And not just accuracy, but repeatability of those measurements due to calibration errors, let alone altering methods of measurement? By measurement of core samples? From where, specifically, and how consistently, all while assuming that we ever had a stable climate 10K, 100K, 10M years ago, anywhere on Earth? Hell, we even know now we have a problem with calibration of equipment aboard measurement satellites circling the globe. 

And then, in the midst of a "global warming" crisis, more measurements indicates that within our 100-year trend, we're in a mini-cooling trend. Well, we are in the midst of an ice age, and ice ages historically do this, so we change our nomenclature to give us "Climate Change" in stead of global warming. Well, who said we should have a stable climate? Some theorist who really doesn't know squat about what he thinks he knows? Who the hell really knows if we face a catastrophic crisis, or just an ordinary spike we've probably endured more times that rabbits have congress? Because the term used now is actually fairly accurate: Climate changes. So do seasons, so what is the alarm all about? Same thing that alarms all progressives: if they don't have something to wring their hands about, they go cuckoo, which is a little cuckoo regardless, in my book.

This is intellectual honesty? Good joke.
Topic's author
#22
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Undefeatable
Yes, I hear you. I forget your relative youth sometimes [relative to me, that is] because when you get rolling, you can be a fine debater, and your overall stats demonstrate that. And, after thinking better of our last debate on movies, I should have remembered you have schedule issues I just don't encounter anymore. I need to be more considerate in my reaction to requests like you had, because we could have, after all, cancelled and re-started a new debate when your schedule cleared. I apologize for not doing that. I'm afraid my own guilty knowledge of the subject salivated to take the debate in the first place.  I really did literally rub shoulders with movie industry people of several stripes from producers to stage hands, and dabbled myself with school and college drama productions, knowing enough [mostly by a liberal morality I  just could not agree with] that I would be crazy to pursue the career, though its siren song was powerful. I'll tell you for nothing that two of them were Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate, who lived in my neighborhood up the street. I was fascinated by Polanski, and utterly smitten by Sharon [I was 17]. She was a brilliant woman, not just another airhead with a non-stop body. Her death made him cuckoo with the dalliance with underaged girls.
#23
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
If your reason for disliking CRT is because of the word "theory" then you ought to dislike the Theory of Gravity or the Germ Theory of Disease for the same reason.

If your reason for disliking CRT is something else then this focus on the word "theory" is a red herring and it would be more productive to talk about those other reasons.
Topic's author
#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Not just theory, but a theory camped on a theory. This thread was inspired by a debate challenge by Undefeatable,  https://www.debateart.com/debates/3040-systemic-racism-fundamentally-causes-health-care-disparities-in-the-us.  which, when I launched this string, as as yet unchallenged. It is now by Fruit_Inspector. However, in comments #23, I offered the following, with regard to one source Undefeatable offered in Description of the debate.:

Bell [2005] is, by self-admission [with spelling error, to boot: “analyses???”] a theory camped on a theory. “In this theoretical analysis… we demonstrate that racial formation theory…” Yeah, real evidentiary, isn’t it? So, where’s the “evidence” in this citation of an Abstract? I have no access to the article. A failed reference. [POL1] merely takes me back to Bell, with its limitations. [POL.H2] references the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which is neither a federal or state official agency in the construct of legislation or policy beyond the duties of individual mayors limited to their local jurisdictions. Further, the paper cited cites no legislation or policy directly to demonstrate the allegations made, and the references the paper does make uses data that is ¼ century old. I’ve asked for CURRENT evidence.
Topic's author
#25
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
"Social psychologists have long demonstrated that people are stereotyped on the basis of race." This quote is drawn from the debate, https://www.debateart.com/debates/3040-systemic-racism-fundamentally-causes-health-care-disparities-in-the-us , between Undefeatable [Pro] and Fruit_Inspector [Con], from Pro's R1 first source. It is a well known perspective, and perspective is what the cited article is all about. Relative to minorities [not just Blacks], that perspective is discussed as primarily negative. I am well aware of that. Unfortunately, for the article and the argument, it is not descriptive of my perspective, which was rooted in my formative, impressionable childhood and adolescence, which was spent in Brentwood, CA, an unincorporated, totally surrounded village of middle-to-upper class neighborhoods of whites, blacks, latinos, asians, etc. We were virtually all well enough to do that tomorrow's dinner was certainly already in the refrigerator. It was a community of movie industry, professionals, and merchants. I learned later that I was spoiled, but it seemed pretty normal to me. And, more to the point, everyone got along. My backyard met Caesar Romero's [a Latino actor]. Up the street a ways, June Cleaver [Beaver's mother]. Around the corner, our family doctor. He was black, and made house calls. My dad was a hospital chief administrator, and a chemist by education; a doctorate from Yale. Through the block, and a friend, a hospital building contractor, Japanese. Steve McQueen, who liked chocolate chip ice cream [I worked in a neighborhood ice cream shop, where we made the ice cream on site] was several blocks away. So, what do you think was my perspective as described by this article? I come away from that kind of thinking that I don't fit in that paradigm, and maybe I wasn't so spoiled as I thought. My stereotype view was not raised on race. I grew up in humanity privilege. We all got there by the effort each brought to the table and no one thinking they were any better, or any worse, than anyone else. Sure, we all had flaws. Who doesn't? But these were good people I'd go to bat for any day.

It all seems to have changed, but are we any better for all our attempts at social engineering and psycho-babble crap like this article? I'll take my childhood, thanks, as the more honest, and generous engineering, when our neighborhood ignored everything but what really matter: personal integrity and responsibility.
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
People are stereotyped on the basis of perceivable difference.

Data in....Difference perceived.


We also stereotype people on the basis of ideology and status, and a raft of other factors.

Data in....Difference assumed.


In fact we generally stereotype people, as not being us.

Data in....Inherent mistrust.....Survival instinct.
Topic's author
#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
To blame sterotyping on instinct is the first step toward the acceptance of the practice. It can be overcome. 
#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not blaming.

I'm just suggesting that primary controlling influences and internal processes are more basic than we like to think they are.....Hence stereotyping.
#29
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
The answer to the question is obviously NO for the same reason that geocentrism can't sue Galileo for damages: only people and never ideas have standing before the law.  The question itself demonstrates ignorance regarding the subject and its conditional.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY (CRT) is "an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice"

CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:
  1. First, that white supremacy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law
  2. Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.
In law, STANDING or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In United States law, the Supreme Court has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues."

There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court.

  1. Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract).  The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
  2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
  3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
Here in America we neither put ideas on trial nor recognize the capacity of any idea to suffer concrete injury.

  • Fauxlaw argues that a theory must proven true before it may claim injury before a court but that's quite wrong-headed, ideas may not claim standing.
  • Fauxlaw further argues that "what the average person may think, and act upon, is not evidence of systemic, or CRT," apparently ignorant of the fact that CRT makes no claims regarding the average person and is, by definition, exclusively interested in the law and legal institutions. 
serious question, why do you waste time writing posts like this? The OP was quite clearly using the word "standing" in a different context...you just come off as super pedantic lol
#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
Super-pedantic is some peoples style.

I attempt to be super-sensible, with a modicum of satire thrown in for balance.

Interestingly, sensible and satire are lost upon a lot of our younger viewers.

Doesn't bother me though...I just enjoy the mental exercise.