Critical Race Theory

How the Critical Race Theory Debate Misses the Mark

Plus, what's going down in the Libertarian Party?

|

Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie tackle a suddenly-pervasive topic: critical race theory. Plus, tune in for the fine details of a debate brewing within the Libertarian Party (L.P.). All that and more on this Monday's Reason Roundtable.

Discussed in the show:

1:54: Some condolences are in order.

7:46: Breakdown and assessment of why critical race theory dominates headlines.

35:31: Weekly Listener Question: What are your thoughts on the ongoing civil war within the L.P. between pragmatists and the Mises Caucus, following the crackup at the New Hampshire L.P. and the resulting fallout? Do you think a Mises Caucus–led L.P. would bring new voters into the party or just alienate everyone who isn't an edgelord?

50:21: Media recommendations for the week.

This week's links:

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

  • If you feel something interfering with your happiness or holding you back from your goals, BetterHelp is an accessible and affordable source for professional counseling. BetterHelp assesses your needs and matches you with a licensed therapist you can start talking to in under 24 hours, all online.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Regan Taylor
Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve


NEXT: Justin Amash: The Libertarian Party Needs To Stop 'Edge-Lording' and Get Serious About Elections

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 7:46: Breakdown and assessment of why critical race theory dominates headlines.

    People got wise to what was being smuggled into our institutions. It’s a wholly racist set of ideas that gives birth to all sorts of awfulness. People caught on.

    There is a reasonable argument to suggest that we don’t need “bans” on this line of education and HR training. For instance, I don’t know of any exclusive “ban” (in the US) barring instruction for Nazism or Eugenics. The reason is because as a culture, we know what to do with these things.

    But when a training comes up that says “All White People contribute to [fill in social ill here]”, no one seems to know what to do with that. And not only do people not know how to oppose it, but a disturbing portion of the population is supportive of the idea.

    Imagine going to an HR training for your company where they literally said “Black people contribute to [major social ill] whether they’re aware of it or not”.

    No one would engage in throat clearing and but-fors and dithering defenses of the training, everyone would fucking know it was racist.

    1. When the Washington Post (when retracting a huge portion of its story on CRT training) tries to weasel a “clarification”, suggesting “The training didn’t say all white people were racist, it only said all white people contribute to racism” is supposed to make us sit down, relieved that there’s nothing to see here.

      For instance, I never said “all black people are criminals” I merely said “all black people contribute to crime and violence by culturally supporting violent and misogynistic music”.

      1. That’s the reality of it, if you take away white as a pejorative and replace it with (black,hispanic,asian, etc) the whole CRT thing comes crashing down.

        1. Not to its proponents it doesn’t. They really do hate white people and to them, the intellectual inconsistency and question-begging of CRT isn’t relevant. What matters is hurting whitey–or, at least the ones who don’t abase themselves or guilt others into do so, such as “fellow white people” types like Tim Wise and Robin DiAngelo.

          1. You make the most concerning point.

            1. USA Making money online more than 15000$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular FRECF office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. Dodged the banana there.

    2. Yeah, I don’t know why it is so goddamn hard here to call this shit out for what it is. Instead we argue about what really constituted CRT or whatever you want to call it. Between the over racism towards white people and the condescending paternalistic shit aimed at minorities, it’s pretty clear what we are dealing with, whatever the fuck the right name for it is.

      1. Instead we argue about what really constituted CRT or whatever you want to call it.

        “We” don’t. Left wingers who support anti-white racism argue this as a distraction. It doesn’t matter what it is called, the substance is as objectionable as is all racism.

        1. Takes two to argue and I will admit that I do get sucked into that nonsense sometimes.
          But, yes, that was my point.

        2. Exactly.

          And, from a practical standpoint, is not something I could ever use to change my decision making.

          For example, before I knew what CRT was other than something academia talked about, I had a debate with some nice, rich, white people in the pub in town. They explained to me the thing teachers were telling kids where the kids were going to run a race, but if you were white you got to take 10 steps forward, if you were black you had to take 10 steps back, etc. The whole “you’re guilty of having a head start” analogy.

          It made me think. And my response was (and is) “If I believe this metaphor, so what?”

          Does this mean I don’t try my hardest to achieve goals I want to achieve? Do I not try to make money, buy the house I want to live in, get training to do the type of job I want to do, etc? Of course I do. These people, boomers, rich, homeowners, one a business owner, never thought that far along after the feel good part.

          Now I know it’s marxist and I get it. I’m supposed to try that hard, and then give the results of my efforts for the greater good, of course.

          1. if you were white you got to take 10 steps forward,

            The problem here is the left’s racism. It’s true that some people have advantages and that those advantages are not proportionate by race. But the truth is that for all but a tiny number of people the advantages are miniscule compared to the average, in the neighborhood of a ten step advantage in a marathon. Most people go to mixed schools and live in mixed neighborhoods.

            But instead of dealing with the cases where this is not true – largely in the worst areas of our cities and some rural districts – left wingers want to create universal rules which establish and enforce the racial hierarchy they use within their institutions.
            Once established their political and bureaucratic control ensures every future change will be to expand race preferences without limit.

            This is so obviously the wrong path it’s impossible not to conclude they chose it because the best path – fixing the failing schools and other institutions they are in complete control of – is politically impossible. This is because (1) they are utterly incompetent and (2) the political nature of their institutions is more important to them than those institutions’ stated mission.

            1. If some people were given a ten step lead in competitive marathons the others would be *furious.*

              1. If some people were told by a race official that another had been given a ten-step lead in a competitive marathon, but that hadn’t actually been the case, it would undermine the integrity of the race official’s argument.

              2. ,If some people were given a ten step lead in competitive marathons the others would be *furious.*

                In fact it happens all the time. In the big street races you’ll see runners backed up 50 yards or more.

                Moreover this isn’t the difference between winning and losing. Even if that ten steps made a difference you’d finish 162,489,273 instead of 162,489,272.

                1. In competitive sports there will often be ten minute replay reviews over whether a ball went 1 yard or 1/3 of a yard. It’s obviously *critical* there.

                  1. Yes, so that’s relevant to the top .00000001% of the population.

                    But in our case it will take half the country three days to complete a marathon. What difference does the ten steps make? Nobody who finished around you started anywhere near you, and the difference in finishing 162,489,273 vs 162,489,272 is literally nothing.

                    It’s also revealing the people who claim such concern over this ten step advantage have literally no concern their “remedy” is more distorting than the ten steps because it advantages many people who are already advantaged and denies advantage to many who are not.

                    1. It’s relevant *at the top.* You know, the area where many minorities feel shut out?

                      And you know what, it’s not just relevant at the top. It effects the general average too.

                    2. It’s relevant *at the top.* You know, the area where many minorities feel shut out?

                      If your concern is just the top why does your remedy include everyone?

                      99% of whites are shut out of the top as well. Why should we pay so other people can enjoy what we cannot?

                      How does advantaging already advantaged people advance fairness?

                      The illogic you’re displaying shows you’re searching for a justification for what you’re already decided to support for reasons you won’t admit.

                    3. “If your concern is just the top why does your remedy include everyone? ”

                      I’ve proposed no remedy.

                    4. I’ve proposed no remedy.

                      People pushing CRT have. Buy supporting them you’re supporting that remedy.

                      But it’s interesting to watch activist tactics in action. Each person takes ownership of as small a piece as possible. In this way they pretend to not be responsible for the entire program.

                    5. “Buy supporting them you’re supporting that remedy.”

                      Even if true, that’s an obvious fallacy.

                    6. It’s relevant at the top where almost none of us, “BIPOC” or white, are. It’s not relevant to anyone else. I live in an area where most people are black, Hispanic, or Middle Eastern. White people are the minority by some distance. I can tell you with authority that this CRT shit does nothing for anyone where I live. Most people don’t know what it is or think it’s some crazy white people shit. What white progressives don’t realize, because most of them live in majority white, affluent areas and have their heads firmly rammed all the way up their asses, is that “white privilege” doesn’t mean anything in places that are majority “BIPOC.” In these places, yelling about white privilege gets you nowhere because you’re likely a person of color speaking to another person of color. The absurd performance of “BIPOC” progressives pretending that they have to be constantly wary around white progressives (who are always bending over backwards to kiss their asses) lest they awake the “sleeping dragon” of white racism, doesn’t happen here. Most people I encounter every day are people of color, and most don’t pay me any more mind than most white people do, although many are friendly. When they’re friendly, it’s open and genuine, not a tithe they grudgingly and fearfully have to pay to avoid the violence and suspicions of white people. CRT and all the related bullshit is racist against EVERYONE. It assumes all white people are evil racists, sure. But it also assumes that everyone else is an evil-minded liar like Hannah-Jones, Kendi, and Coates, and they’re all acting in the same phony minstrel show (performing their role in the establishment song and dance to give white progressives regular fixes of sanctity-through-masochism and to extract a few scraps and handouts from the system).

              3. “If some people were given a ten step lead in competitive marathons the others would be *furious.*”

                Mr. Bolt has a ‘way greater advantage over me than that, and I’ll just have to live with it.
                The world ain’t fair.

                1. If Bolt took ten steps before the starting gun fired he’d be disqualified no questions asked.

                  1. WOOOSH!
                    Are you that stupid or dishonest?

                    1. In both instances the answer is yes.

                  2. You’re a moron

                    1. Tribalism makes people very angry.

                    2. Extreme ignorance makes me laugh at people. Thanks for the chuckle.

                    3. “Tribalism makes people very angry.”

                      As does stupidity and dishonesty such as yours.
                      Fuck off and die, slaver. And get buried where your dog knows to shit.

              4. Life is not a race. This anaology is dumb because it breeds the idea that there is some objective starting place in life and that we all just need to get to the same objective. That whosoever achieves those goals the most rapidly or easily is the winner. This is not how life works. People do not have the same set of goals or even know where in fact they want to be in the future. We are not here to achieve some predetermined outcome judged by some objective standard. I remember many times in my life where I was sitting on the sidelines having a beer watching a bunch of sweaty bastards running around a field thinking, who’s really winning in this scenario.

          2. I’ll add that the claim of a head start is fundamentally collectivist in nature. It assumes that the individual is to be judged, not as such, but as a proxy for their racial collective. In the CRT world, Jim-Bob, the unemployed coal miner from Appalachia is the same as Hunter Biden and Sasha and Malia Obama are the same as Shaquanda from the South Bronx. So, Jim-Bob is privileged versus Sasha and Malia Obama.

            1. No it’s not. A general statement is just ‘there are many more individuals in group X that have condition Y than there are in group Z.’

              1. I welcome your pointing me to a discussion of “some-white privilege”.

                  1. Pretty sure Obo was also for a balanced budget, peace in our time, and “you can keep your doctor”.
                    Try finding something not quite so redolent of bullshit.

                  2. In addition to Sevo’s point, I’ll add that we’re not talking about Barack Obama’s opinions, but the propositions of Critical Race Theory.

                    1. Lol, well why did you use him as your example?

                      “I’ll add that the claim of a head start is fundamentally collectivist in nature. It assumes that the individual is to be judged, not as such, but as a proxy for their racial collective. In the CRT world, Jim-Bob, the unemployed coal miner from Appalachia is the same as Hunter Biden and Sasha and Malia Obama are the same as Shaquanda from the South Bronx. So, Jim-Bob is privileged versus Sasha and Malia Obama.”

                    2. “Lol, well why did you use him as your example…”

                      Because, you steaming pile of lefty shit, he was adding to the showing that you are full of it.
                      Oh, and please stuff the adolescent LOL up your ass; your head needs company.

                    3. Lol, well why did you use him as your example?

                      Are you really so dimwitted that you can’t tell the difference between citing someone as definitely not disadvantaged and attribution to them? Or are you just drunkA?

              2. Motte, meet bailey.

          3. They explained to me the thing teachers were telling kids where the kids were going to run a race, but if you were white you got to take 10 steps forward, if you were black you had to take 10 steps back, etc.

            Bad analogy. Unless the black guy was old and fat odds are he would have won the race.

          4. I’m just going to reply to myself to compliment the 50 centers and trolls for suckering so many into the debate and muddying the waters.

            For anyone downstream, feeding the trolls, think a second. My post was decidedly NOT about running a race. Trolls just want to argue that so there’s too much noise in the forum for people to actually address the real question of “so what?”

            Actually, I don’t know why I bother to say that. Point something interesting out to a cat and they’ll probably stare at your finger, not where you’re pointing.

        3. People can sort out differences. Not always smoothly, but yeah. Where this crap really poisons the well is in the incredibly lousy THINKING it encourages. Starting with an unargued assertion that individuals are subject to “group”, ill-defined and arbitrary as that categorization might be. Poison underfoot. Poison under the stone.

      2. Because the “pragmatists” (lol snort) on the libertarian movents are the Woketarians who embrace Marxism, censorship, and anything else opposed by those icky Conservatarians

    3. People got wise to what was being smuggled into our institutions. It’s a wholly racist set of ideas that gives birth to all sorts of awfulness. People caught on.

      It’s important to keep in mind that this stuff wasn’t mainstreamed until roughly the last 6 years or so, which is when Gen-Xers and Millennials indoctrinated with the evils of “whiteness” in the years prior to that finally started assuming control of the nation’s socio-cultural institutions, particularly the news media and Big Tech. Prior to that, CRT was an esoteric foundational theory in the social sciences and especially the fashion-obsessed liberal arts. The advent of smartphones helped to bring it out of its Tumblr containment zone on the internet and make it the go-to strategy in anti-white propaganda.

      The reason the left is doing so much deflection and gaslighting on this now is precisely because it became “conventional wisdom” and they don’t want to give up their monopoly on influencing the popular culture or their stranglehold on government bureaucracies. If CRT “wasn’t what the right claims it is,” then they wouldn’t be acting so scared.

      1. This discussion goes way before that. Arizona had a 2010 law very much like the generalist CRT laws going up now against Mexican American Studies, which is a form of CRT that’s been here for decades at this point.

    4. Ah but you see only the privileged oppressors can be racist. So it isn’t racist to say all whites contribute to racism because whites are privileged, which we know because we say so. Absolutely nothing circular about this logic!

  2. > How the Critical Race Theory Debate Misses the Mark

    Arguing over this kind of philosophical nitpicking, is a perfect example of how both sides want to keep you distracted from the real issues of the day.

    I mean jeepers, like like the political youngsters feel left out that they didn’t get to debate creationism in schools, and so had to go invent something they could feel smug about being on the right side of.

    I mean, the idea that ANY kind of critical theory would be taught in government elementary schools stretches the brain, but this tiny corner of the critical theory map is even more obscure. The only reason people have even heard of it is because so many conservatarians are shitting their pants over it.

    It’s a shibboleth for the kulturwarriors.

    1. The fact that you think a conscious switch from objectivity to subjectivity as the primary function of both teach and government is not nitpicking no matter how much you wish to ignore it. Likewise CRT is being pushed everywhere from schools to corporations to force this adoption of subjective lies in order to foment discontent and conflict.

      You’re okay with it because you lean so far left that it is agreeable to you.

      The only reason people have even heard of it is because so many conservatarians are shitting their pants over it.

      And you claim this because you yourself are completely ignorant. The theory has been around since the 60s. In places like Arizona it has been fought in schools under the guise of Mexican-American studies for decades at this point. Just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean something didn’t exist prior.

    2. CRT is simply one more illustration of why government is evil. If government did not have schools, CRT never would have gotten past a few woke schools which would have gone bankrupt, of course replaced by new work schools, but that’s fine.

      Government simply sucks.

      1. That isn’t true. It got into corporate HR boards over the last decade. You may argue HR boards are only needed due to government regulation, but that is a different discussion.

        1. Yes, but it got there by way of the Universities.

          1. Agreed. They got that way through indoctrination at Universities as people who didn’t belong at university sought out majors that seemed simple, easy and subjective instead of objective. University of Arizona is sadly one of the front runners on Critical Race Theory, so I’m very familiar with it. Sadly corporations started to seek out those with these degrees for HR reporting about a decade back or so on a consistent basis. The last 10 years it has ramped up significantly. I even saw the equity not equality slides this year during an all hands.

            1. In what classes at UA did you get CRT?

              1. Dumbfuck.

                https://mas.arizona.edu

                It was one of the initial widely dispersed colleges preaching CRT bile.

                And yes, it is part of the undergrad traditions courses required for all students.

                1. So, one class? Average college student takes, what, 40 classes to graduate, so that’s 1/40th?

                  1. Happy with 1/40th getting taught creationism?

                    1. Anyone who has gone to college has had at least 1/40th of their education given to bs. This is not grounds for a moral panic.

                    2. This is not grounds for a moral panic.

                      It is when that indoctrination is mainstreamed. Especially when people like you are gaslighting that there’s nothing to see there.

                  2. You got owned. Shut the fuck up bitch.

                    1. Run along now, little girl.

                    2. “Run along now, little girl.”
                      Fuck off and die, slaver

                  3. First, it is an entire department you illiterate fuck. Secondly I took engineering so was excused from being indoctrinated. It still was a waste if time.

                    You asked if people were forced to take it. They were through gen ed requirements. You then retreat into more idiocy after being shown you were wrong. This was 2 decades ago.

                    You really hate pesky things that break your ignorance bubble.

                    1. So, one class? Average college student takes, what, 40 classes to graduate, so that’s 1/40th

                    2. So colleges should force students to take BS classes? How many os too many? At least we can agree that CRT is BS.

                    3. If it’s just bs, why are you so invested in defending it?

            2. ^ THIS. Very much.
              A few years ago, during a spate of protests, disinvitations, shout-down actions and similar bullshit on campuses, I noticed an anomaly. Whatever the protest, the cause, the rationale; every single list of demands included “more positions and higher salaries for professorships in race/gender/ethnic studies fields”.

              I went and consulted a list that documented “The Demands” (I think that was the name of the site) and went through the first 34 sets of demands, and there were no exceptions. It was weird, and I wondered why.

              Why was the affirmative action around “greater inclusion in college admissions” taken, not to increase acceptance rates and useful educational results, but to admit less-prepared students into more rigorous (high-prestige) universities?

              Wouldn’t we then need to create positions for the poor (but graduated) victims of this social experiment?

              AND, when you put such poor scholars into positions of “publish or perish” competition, what kind of (gently-and-inclusively) peer-reviewed “scholarship” should we expect?? Would we see an avalanche of bullshit screeds and hyperbolic delusion?

              Very yes, and that is exactly what we have seen and are dealing with.

              I think both the motivation and the mechanism for the rise of this pedagogical chicanery are obvious.

              And I can’t deny that the bravest and most worthy-of-respect black students in this country have been victimized, in this case, not by “systemic racism” or “white supremacy”, but by stupid and poorly-implemented SJW virtue signaling. Fuck those white people.

        2. You may argue HR boards are only needed due to government regulation, but that is a different discussion.

          Is it though? If the government is effectively mandating HR boards, knowing full well the HR boards are bringing this with them as part of the package, government mandating HR boards has to take some of the blame for it.

    3. The only reason people have even heard of it is because so many conservatarians are shitting their pants over it.

      I’m always amused when left wingers pretend the problem with racist education programs is the fact that people notice it. They earn bonus laughter when they subsequently claim to oppose the racism they’ve just excused.

      1. Thats the trouble with Republicans: Always Pouncing

        1. Had you lived in the 19th century would have said “The problem with racism is those pesky Republicans keep pouncing on it!”

          Yeah… at some point someone SHOULD pounce on a shit idea… and on a timeline there will always be a first. And before then… that shit idea went un-objected to. That doesn’t serve as proof of its soundness… that no one had yet objected. That is a stupid argument.

    4. …”is a perfect example of how both sides want to keep you distracted from the real issues of the day.”

      BrandyBuck nails it AGAIN!

      A relevant Ralph Waldo Emerson quote:
      “All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.”

      “Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.” — PJ O’Rourke

      All the wind-bag self-righteous power pigs imagine themselves passing the perfect laws in THEIR Holy Images, and all would be perfect! Meanwhile, no one (hardly anyone at least sometimes) is “helping Mom with the dishes”… In this case, working peacefully with, and making friends with, people of other races (religions, political parties, etc.), and teaching all children (whenever they get a chance, and usually by example) to love all of their fellow humans, the trees, the bunny rabbits, and the Earth, and the human future, yada-yada…

      Let’s get off our asses, stop being arrogant know-it-all windbags, and go do some dishes!

      1. What a nutball.

  3. The more you gas light about CRT, the less convincing it is.

  4. Another thread where Jeff will claim to not be a marxist defending critical race theory, which is not critical theory, which is not marxism…. while when getting caught in a contradiction claim he never supported CRT.

    Oh, and he will claim Teachers are paid professionals who should have absolute authority in what they teach.

  5. I’m waiting for Critical Religion Theory.

    1. I really can’t recommend Helen Pluckrose’s Cynical Theories enough. It may be a little dry for many people– it’s not the ‘fun, zippy’ culture warrior stuff most would prefer to read, but it is a serious, academic deep dive into all of the “critical theories” which includes anti-colonial theories, race theory, queer theory, gender theory.

      But if you want to know where this stuff started, and how it’s slipped into our every day public conversation, this is a good book to start with.

      1. Thanks for the recommendation DRP

        1. You can also check out newdiscourses.com where her co-author, James Lindsey (a self-described liberal), goes deep into some of this stuff. Some of his podcasts are readings of full or large portions of key texts from the critical theory line of thinking. Shit is scary.

          1. “a self-described liberal”

            Who voted for Trump.

            1. Feel free to point out where his analysis is wrong.

              1. I’m just saying I have to question the ‘self described liberal’ line for a person who voted Trump. I mean, if you had a ‘self described conservative’ that said he voted for AOC what would you think?

                1. So you’re saying a libertarian that voted.fot Biden isn’t actually a libertarian?

                  1. No, no, I asked first. Do you think a self described conservative that voted for AOC is undermined?

                    1. No, no, you have to show consistency. Do you think a self-described libertarian that voted for Biden is undermined?

                    2. “No, no, I asked first. Do you think a self described conservative that voted for AOC is undermined?”

                      No, no, you outed yourself as a TDS-addled asshole; nothing else matters.
                      Fuck off and die, slaver.

            2. “…Who voted for Trump…

              Are we to assume you’re a TDS-addled asshole?

              1. Seems clear to be.

      2. It started with us thinking sociology was a real science and not a bunch of bullshitters looking for work.

      3. It’s good on the historical structuralist, post-structuralist, postmodern, deconstructivist (etc., ad infinitum) philosophical roots of the phenomena, but a warning: It is very much like reciting everything the dog ate over the last day, when you are looking at a pile of dog puke. More exact and detailed than the utility of the knowledge really warrants.

        Anyone who wants to argue about the correct labelling and definition of this mess is really engaging in deliberate obfuscation-through-specificity. Which is kind of clever, in a way. And SOME of the precursor thinking (Foucault, maybe? Saussure?) had some value. But if someone gets you debating about the design aesthetics of a pile of shit, they’ve deflected you from your main objections to it.

    2. “I’m waiting for Critical Religion Theory.”

      The One and Only TRUE Religion worships Government Almighty!

      Let us worship together now!

      Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

      Government loves me, This I know,
      For the Government tells me so,
      Little ones to GAWD belong,
      We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
      Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
      Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
      And gives me all that I might need!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      DEA, CIA, KGB,
      Our protectors, they will be,
      FBI, TSA, and FDA,
      With us, astride us, in every way!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      1. What a nutbag.

  6. 35:31: Weekly Listener Question: What are your thoughts on the ongoing civil war within the L.P. between pragmatists and the Mises Caucus, following the crackup at the New Hampshire L.P. and the resulting fallout? Do you think a Mises Caucus–led L.P. would bring new voters into the party or just alienate everyone who isn’t an edgelord?

    LOL. God damn, such a joke of a rag. Amash on staff now?

    Yes, let’s keep with the ineffectual demurring to the left in the hopes they won’t sweep you up in their march through the institutions. What has the LP party actually accomplished by being so ineffectual? Nothing. Being nice to those that want to destroy liberty is not a pathway to success. Ahhh, but you don’t always demure! Sometimes you attack the right for not being perfect even when they do things like reduce regulations, reduce taxes, and start no new wars. Oddly enough the attacks against the right are more important than stopping the left from reducing liberty in a general way.

    1. Does anyone else get the impression that Justin Amash is the Zoe Quinn of politics?

      1. Had to search her to ensure I was thinking of the same wreck. But yes, but Amash is a bit less masculine.

  7. Look just send the left libertarians to the democrats (who they vote for anyway like in 2020) and the right libertarians over to the GOP and end the charade. You’re not getting elected, and you’re not beating Johnson’s 5% ever, so stop wasting time.

  8. I’m just enjoying the left’s darting around and panicking now that everyone noticed how racist they are.

    Dance, fuckers, dance.

    1. Nuh uh.

      — Lying Jeffy

      1. “Critical Race Theory rehabilitates racialized thinking”.

        Indeed, indeed.

        1. This is what I really resent about this bullshit.

          I grew up being taught that “color blind” was the roght way to be regarding race. See people as people, and judge their character, not their color. Most of my life, I’ve been in very racially diverse environments, and I barely noticed. I liked some people and disliked other people, and never considered anything about race to be important.

          Now, all this CRT nonsense has made me conscious of the race of the people around me. I actually notice if a person is black FIRST, before I notice anything else. It’s a momentary reaction, before my conscious mind fights against the programming. I resent it for taking away my ability to interact with people freely, without negative associations.

          And I’m an adult who grew up in a different time, so I am able to fully recognize and consciously reject what’s happening to me. Can you imagine the psychological impact this racial environment on children who don’t remember anything different? Their entire worldview is being shaped and poisoned by it, and every interaction will be tainted by negative associations. It taints their interactions with their peers. My daughter’s best friend in kindergarten through third grade was a black boy. They were very tight, and did everything together until he moved away. Could she even have that kind of free, happy relationship now, without it being clouded by the knowledge that he’s capital B black? All she knew back then was he had brown skin and she had pink skin, and his mom made awesome cookies and he had good Pokemon cards.

          CRT is fucking poison.

          1. Enough with the pouncing!

              1. Are we clinging yet? Since I muted the Rev, I’m losing track of how much, and to what, we are bitterly clinging.

  9. “What is really disturbing from a libertarian point of view is when you start to say we’re not going to allow you to teach about, you know, one race being better or worse than the other as a way of discussing the ending of history which is, you know, pretty disgusting in a lot of parts of American history, we have got a bigger problem, so…”

    Can someone translate what in the world Gillespie is trying to say there?

    1. He supports CRT and wants libertarians to do the same because not teaching something is unlibertarian.

      1. I think he thinks barring someone from teaching something is unlibertarian.

        1. Barring people from teaching “everything that went wrong in your life is the fault of white people” is very libertarian.

          1. If libertarianism means anything I should think it has to include ‘allowing people to do things I think are dumb,’ right?

            1. Not of it is government funded. Then the agreed to parameters are laid out by local and state boards. Teachers are not given carte Blanche. They are employees.

              1. “Not if it is government funded”

                Notice how Queen Amalthea (chemjeff) tries to pretend that the main crux of the opposition isn’t to government funding of what is essentially Nazi racial theories in a prog skinsuit.

            2. “If libertarianism means anything I should think it has to include ‘allowing people to do things I think are dumb,’ right?”

              You’re fine with gov’t schools teaching creationism, right?
              So long as you don’t use my tax dollars to ‘teach’ that pile of propaganda to my kids.

            3. Hey, I’m perfectly fine with teaching kids that white liberals are evil and should have their heads crushed into the ground. But that argument is ideological, not racial.

        2. Okay. So you support religion being taught in K-12. Creationism? Racism?

          1. Wait a minute, your (and the others in this ) argument is ‘the government pays so they should have to teach what they say.’ That’s *exactly* what the creationists said.

            1. And that is exactly what the evolutionists said when arguing against Intelligent Design.

              1. No, the evolutionists said ‘state legislatures shouldn’t be able to prohibit teaching of evolution because it’s unpopular.’

                  1. You really have so many stellar arguments tonight!

                    1. You have uninformed positions. Like usual.

                    2. Another stellar argument!

                    3. Except he’s right, and you are lying when you say that the argument was about prohibiting evolution, Jeff.
                      It was all about banning the teaching of intelligent design, and you fucking know that.

                      You’re always so consistently dishonest.

                    4. “Another stellar argument!”

                      Another bullshit claim.
                      Do you really hope there are sufficient ignoramuses like to to buy that crap?
                      Hint: You lose, lefty shit.
                      Fuck off and die, slaver.

                1. Calling bullshit bullshit is the appropriate response.

              2. No, the evolutionists did not appeal to popularity.

                The evolutionists appealed to the scientific legitimacy of their claims.
                The creationists appealed to the mob – there’s a lot of people who believe this stuff, therefore the schools should teach it.

                Schools should not teach topics simply because they are popular, or simply because a majority believes it to be true.

                1. There is no scientific legitimacy to evolution; it’s not a theory, let alone a decent hypothesis. Neither evolution or creation can be proven scientifically. Show me were either is testable and reproducible. Ultimately they are both beliefs and your point is not only dishonest but stupid.

                2. “The Consensus” regarding climate change would like to have a word with you, denier.

        3. And, of course, barring means “not using government money to promulgate an idea to children forced to be there under penalty of their parents’ liberty.”

        4. He’s playing convenient libertarian. He wants government schools to take a portion of my earnings (unlibertarian) to teach something he supports under the auspice of censorship/not discussing a topic is unlibertarian.

  10. Every single “libertarian” I have even spoken to has just a few things they care about….drastically downsizing the federal govt, getting rid of central banking and the crony financial sector, and ending foreign wars..that is about it…I never have had a libertarian lead with open borders or abortion…but then you go to Reason and that is about the only think the cosmo woke writers care about. Just stick to the basics..find some high visibility issues to frame the basics and win some damn races…Ron Paul brought more folks to the libertarian party than this guy Bishop-Henchman who just seemed out there in views for a libertarian anyway.

      1. Specific instances with limited co-factors make the best libertarian recruitment stories. Kids’ lemonade stands, clearly racist or competition-limiting occupational certification requirements, use of “safety” to justify government intrusion into individual rights…that kind of thing always gets the normies to say “Oh, well I’m THAT kind of libertarian, I guess.”

        And they are.

    1. A libertarian might say that force is justified in reaction to force and injustice. So criminal laws that actually have victims need to exist and be enforced, contracts should be enforced, property rights should be enforced, a means of reacting to invasion should exist, and other than that government should leave us the fuck alone. If libertarian minded people actually voted, as in the silent majority that just wants to live their lives, something might change. Then again someone might show up to a meeting of Pessimists Anonymous.

      1. But that’s why weasels on the left put adjectives in front of “justice” or “injustice.”

        Whenever they do, they are negating the meaning of the word.

      2. “and injustice”

        That word does a lot of different work for a lot of different people…

        1. So you’re proving Sarcasmic’s point. Thanks.

            1. Yes.
              Thanks.
              Fuck off and die, slaver.

  11. Critical race Theory is the dominant ideology behind the Black Lives Matter social movement, informs the network of Black Lives Matter organizations, and is infused into the otherwise innocuous phrase, “black lives matter,” in the lowercase. Critical race Theory fits into this role first because it arises from critical legal studies with the explicit aim of finding ways that American law disguises racism in new forms rather than overcoming it (see also, institutional racism, new racism, code, mask, dog whistle, interest convergence, progress, and progressive). It begins from the assumption that (systemic) racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society, not an aberration from them, and explicitly diverges, to paraphrase directly from the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (p. 3), from traditional approaches to civil rights by calling into question the liberal order, equality theory, Enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principles of constitutional law (see also, science and objectivity). The Theory explicitly contends that because the system was not set up with complete black equality from the beginning, it is permanently corrupted by systemic racism that can only be removed by a complete reordering of society on critical race Theory’s terms (see also, revolution, disrupt, and dismantle).

    What is the CRT you keep harping on? Don’t worry, you’re soaking in it.

    1. You notice the insistence on distancing the fight over pedagogy from the legal origins of CRT and a general unwillingness to criticize the legal theory origins of this set of ideas.

    2. “that can only be removed by a complete reordering of society on critical race Theory’s terms “”

      Doesn’t sound very democratic.

  12. I didn’t say that all Jews were userers, I merely said they are all complicit in usery because so many go into finance and banking.

    1. What’s the difference between usury and charging rent on something borrowed, with the something happening to be money?

      Not being a dick. It’s an honest question.

      1. Usury is illegal? I’m being somewhat flippant, but I think that’s kind of it.

        1. Maybe because money is a promise with no actual value? Just spitballing.

          1. Money has value. If it didn’t, no one would take it in trade.

            From what I understand usury was seen as interests at a profiting level, rather than simply to cover the cost of doing the loan. Think “pay day lenders” (which aren’t evil… people should read more Thomas Sowell).

            I could be wrong on the historical understanding of usury though.

            I don’t get why people have a problem with it. Interest is the cost of money… paid in money. Not a hard concept.

            1. “”I don’t get why people have a problem with it. Interest is the cost of money… paid in money. Not a hard concept.””

              Some not so hard concepts are apparently hard.
              Like the expectation of paying off your student loan.

            2. My understanding is it isn’t just profiting but ruinous interest and collateral. Think borrowing $100 and losing your house because of it levels of interest. Basically the kind of thing only the mob and government can get away with.

      2. Indoctrinating children is not debating. In a debate, both sides present their case, both side get also get a rebuttal and you get to decide which side wins. That is very different than the government making a “theory” law and shoving it down everyone’s throat. Odd Reason can’t see that?

        1. Even if not set up as “debate”, and honest teaching of CRT would allow people to question it and in the end to conclude some aspects were true, some part true and some complete gaslighting griftomancy.

          CRT is definitely NOT the kind of thing to which anyone could assign “100% truth”. There are completely unexamined assumptions underlying the theory, going as far back as Foucault’s assertion that all human interactions must be analyzed as power contests. This is asserted but unproven and seems to me deniable through mere observation.

      3. Indoctrinating children is not debating.
        In a debate, both sides present their case, both side also get a rebuttal and YOU get to decide which side wins and what to believe.
        That is very different than the government making a “theory” law and shoving it down everyone’s throat. Odd libertarian Reason can’t see that?

      4. In medieval times, there may have been distinctions between interest and a flat fee, but making money off money has been usury.

        1. What’s the difference between “making money off money” and “charging rent on borrowed money”?

          1. I think there was a difference, but ai am not sure what the reasoning was or how widespread. I do know that charging interest, especially compounding interest, was the sin of usury.

            1. What’s the difference between interest and rent?

              1. I am not defending the distinction, nor can I really explain it. I just remember there being one.

            2. That is the distinction between “usury” and “banking”. One is a regulated financial activity, one is a SIN.

              Sarcasmic doesn’t give a shit about either one.

          2. Historically the difference was what today would be the difference between an equity stake and a debt stake.

            1. Wave them arms, asshole!

      5. My understanding is usery is where you charge ‘crushing’ rates of interest. Now my understanding is that some cultures consider ANY form of interest to be usery: Muslims, for instance.

        But I have heard the term “charging interest at userious rates’ suggesting that there is a rate which would be considered ‘fair’ or not be considered usery.

        1. So it’s like price gouging. When prices reflect an elevated risk and reward, people cry “unfair!”

          1. More like libertarians seeing forfeiting your house over a tax bill being $10 short and crying foul.

            In loan situations it is more a matter of being rates that cannot be paid back. More mob loan than paying minimums on your Chase card.

          2. Exactly.

            It’s like when your local legislator starts smarming away about “predatory payday loan outfits”. He doesn’t care about the people “victimized” by these businesses offering them choices they freely accept, he cares about the banks, who contribute to his campaign and who don’t offer ANY services to the poor people who use payday loan outfits.

        2. Well in order determine what is “fair” we’d have to know the market value of money which of course we will never know. Because only the Fed knows the mysterious incantations required to make that determination.

        3. Methinks fair would be the rate that the two parties agree to where both parties are capable of making the decision and without coercion.

      6. Wouldn’t usury be exorbitant rent/interest? Like well above market rate/risk involved in the loan?

        1. That’s how the word is now used. The original distinction is that it was a SINFUL activity, nothing to do with economic theory, or even law in a lot of places. So it became the provenance of the Jews, who also recognize the possibility of excessive interest rates.

          It was a nice setup. The Jews could do the sinful activity and then governments could periodically steal all the money they made from it.

  13. So KMW goes to bat for increasing school choice and government run schools. As far as it goes, OK. Except that the people wanting to impose the CRT inspired pedagogy are also the people who will fight tooth and nail against any kids escaping the public school system. This is not about a free exchange of ideas, this is the narrative that they want the generations in school to believe in.

    1. The problem with school choice as a solution is that the Education schools have wholeheartedly embraced CRT such that there are few teachers and very few administrators who object to it. How could there ever be enough schools free of CRT for everyone to have that option? This is why the left spends so much energy controlling academia and the government bureaucracy.

      Denying alternatives is a core tactic of of the left. Blue states want federal laws so the red states can’t offer alternatives. The US pressures other countries to raise their tax rates so alternatives don’t exist. The Soviets always understood their revolution wasn’t safe until they overthrew all other governments, hence the COMINTERN. All of this is to prevent reality from proving the left’s programs to be failures. If everybody does it together then their disappointing results can be waved away by the Paul Krugman’s of the world by claiming it would have been worse. Unions oppose school choice precisely because they know it will improve our systems.

    2. As a supporter of school choice and a free market in education, I can’t help but find the argument that CRT is a distraction from the true issue of school choice a bit of a dishonest dodge. Not because I don’t believe school choice wouldn’t be an appropriate resolution to the matter. But because school choice is nowhere near on the table as an option. It’s basically saying “Oh, don’t worry about the collectivist indoctrination of your kids. They’ll be able to take their business to a different school. In 20 or 30 years or so. Maybe.” CRT is being pushed on kids now. Saying that the way to deal with it is through a hypothetical proposal in the remote future is effectively an endorsement of its continuation.

      1. Well stated.

      2. “Oh, don’t worry about the collectivist indoctrination of your kids. They’ll be able to take their business to a different school. In 20 or 30 years or so. Maybe.”

        To the extent that school curricula are controlled by publicly elected school boards, “collectivist indoctrination of your kids” has been going on for a very long time now. It didn’t just start with CRT you know. Some of the “collectivist indoctrination” is doubtless things that you approve of. So some of us can recognize that this war over supposed CRT in the classroom is just one more in a long line of wars over the public school curriculum waged by tribal political interests. The way to combat this is not to give in to the tribal warriors and say “oh, well THIS time, it’s totally okay to start banning things left and right”. The way to combat this is instead to lean into what has been the correct solution from the very beginning, we should not have government-run schools in the first place.

        1. “But those other guys do it tooooooo!!!!1!!!elevnty!!”

          LOL. Like I said, “effectively an endorsement of its continuation”.

          1. Your position is a copout and an apologia for Team Red. “Well, we could do what we know is the right thing to do, and that is advocate for a robust regime of school choice. But that is so hard, so I guess we just *have* to line up behind Team Red yet again….”

            Who do you think you are fooling?

            1. Only someone concern trolling would suggest it’s impossible to both advocate for free market education and believe that collectivist indoctrination should not be funded.

            2. You know, you might actually understand someone’s point if you didn’t view everyone as a threat to your delicate ego. Your constant concern with “team red” has made it the boogeyman you see everywhere even when it’s not. And it exposes you for the partisan shit-for-brains you are.

              I think we’ve identified the issue, youre schizophrenic and your imagining Republicans around every corner the way people see faces everywhere on DMT. It makes sense now.

        2. I well remember fighting (literally) against the blindly patriotic, propagandistic “Civics Class” version from the 60s (and lingering from the 50s, powered by the (necessary?) superpatriotism of the WWII years).

          It was no more valid or well-examined than CRT is now. At least back then a lot of us saw the right thing to do was to resist, to deny, to ridicule…I’m not seeing as much of that as I would like from “these kids nowadays”.

          Also, re: My lawn
          Off it.

  14. African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at more than five times the rate of whites, and at least ten times the rate in five states.

    https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

    Why is that? What is the reason, or reasons, behind this result?

    CRT attempts to answer this question by postulating that the entire criminal justice system is racist to the core. It’s all purposefully set up for Blacks to fail.

    The old-school racist might argue that it’s because “well, they are just born that way to be criminals”.

    If we reject both of these attempted explanations – and we should – then what should we replace them with?

    That is the real discussion IMO that ought to be occurring here.

    Of course one reason is because there are just too many laws in the first place. Repeal a lot of the bullshit laws and fewer people of all colors will be incarcerated, and that’s a good thing.

    Another reason is that there are too many roadblocks in the way for pursuing actual justice in the criminal justice system. Punitive bail rules that imprison people who are only accused of crimes because they can’t afford bail, public defenders that are crappy all too often, overuse of plea bargains which strongly encourage even innocent defendants to take plea deals in order to avoid the hassle of trials, the very slow wheels of justice in many areas, etc.

    Any other thoughts?

    1. Even so, these attempted explanations don’t really get to the heart of why there is such a high racial disparity in incarceration.

      1. Try to corelating the data with income. I’d postulate that the disparity is largely economical, with poor whites facing similar treatment by the system. Projects are full of poor black people, and just like Chicago’s murder rate skewing the national average, if you control for income I’d bet a joint that it’s mostly economical. As in cops prey on poor people.

        1. He was given the answer yesterday. He ignored it.

          He has also been told exactly what you have posited here, that crime rates more closely correlate with poverty than they do with race. And notably also with single parent vs dual parent households. He doesn’t care. He is seeking to justify critical theory.

        2. See the link that I posted below, to Diane.

          Also, here is another study:

          https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/wealthraceincarcerationrates.pdf

          Abstract Using the 1979 cohort of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth to explore the interwoven links
          between race, wealth and incarceration, this study examines the data on race and wealth status before and after
          incarceration. Data indicate that although higher levels of
          wealth were associated with lower rates of incarceration,
          the likelihood of future incarceration still was higher for
          blacks at every level of wealth compared to the white
          likelihood, as well as the Hispanic likelihood, which fell
          below the white likelihood for some levels of wealth.
          Further, we find that racial wealth gaps existed among
          those who would be incarcerated in the future and also
          among the previously incarcerated.

          Sure, the richer one is, the less likely one is to go to prison. But that only partly explains the result.

          1. Try comparing American blacks with people from somewhere other than here with the same skin tone.

            Culture matters.

            1. I agree, but I don’t think this undercuts claims about racism’s current effects, because racism likely started and reinforced cultural trends that are difficult to reverse. For example, if you’re a slave would you teach your kid the value of ‘hard work?’ No, because there’s nothing in it for you.

              1. Crime in black communities increased post the 1960z when the family structured dropped from high percentages of 2 family households to low percentages.

                But keep blaming people based on skin color.

                1. Crime went up everywhere in the Western world in the 1960s.

                  1. At the same rates? Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

                    1. Why wouldn’t you show your work here?

                    2. “Why wouldn’t you show your work here?”

                      Why wouldn’t you, lefty shit?
                      Fuck off, slaver.

                2. It wasn’t just the family structure that changed. Political radicals directly and intentionally promoted the idea that law is illegitimate. For obvious reasons this was far more successful in the black community which has never recovered.

                  1. Do you really think that black person in 1960 America needed ‘political radicals’ to undermine their allegiance to US law?

                    1. I suspect the overwhelming majority of blacks pre-1960s were perfectly capable of understanding that laws against theft (for example) were legitimate even though Jim Crow laws were not. Political radicals have been successful in undermining even legitimate law to the great detriment of everyone but especially the black community.

                      But those radicals mostly went home to their middle class jobs in the education system so at least they never personally paid a price for their ideas.

                    2. Do you really think that’s any sort of argument?
                      Fuck off and die, slaver.

                  2. Sure. Millions of Black folks are actually Black Power radicals from the 60’s who meditate to Malcolm X every night before going to bed, and that explains disparities in incarceration rates. How stupid is this?

                    1. How stupid is this?

                      Everything you write is equally stupid. That’s the benefit of achieving maximum stupidity.

                    2. That you responded to Marshal’s post with this says a lot about your perspective on this whole subject, and betrays quite a few of your own intellectual shortcomings.

              2. Yet, strangely, those European serfs managed to pass on the value of work.
                You’re swinging and missing pretty regularly.

                1. Well, for one thing, serfs weren’t slaves. There’s a reason why we have two different words for the groups. For another, Eastern Europeans are generally more poor than Western Europeans, right?

                  1. Perhaps, but the rewards were the same; distinction with out a difference.
                    And WIH does the relative income of eastern and western Europeans have to do with anything?

                    1. It’s a potentially huge difference, that’s why we don’t call them the same thing.

                      “And WIH does the relative income of eastern and western Europeans have to do with anything?”

                      Well, if serfdom is like slavery then the fact that those that endured the former are generally ‘behind’ those that didn’t helps the argument that those who endured the latter are generally ‘behind’ those that didn’t.

                    2. “It’s a potentially huge difference, that’s why we don’t call them the same thing.”
                      It’s also potentially no difference, and there are a class of words we call “synonyms”; you can look it up.

                      “Well, if serfdom is like slavery then the fact that those that endured the former are generally ‘behind’ those that didn’t helps the argument that those who endured the latter are generally ‘behind’ those that didn’t.”
                      So you’re claiming all of eastern Europe suffers from the slavery of some of them?
                      Looking like your ‘argument’ is based on whatever bullshit you hope will stick when you throw it against the wall.

                    3. Do you not know what the word ‘generally’ means?

                    4. “Do you not know what the word ‘generally’ means?”

                      I certainly do, and I also know when lying lefty shits are attempting misdirection, lying lefty shit.
                      Fuck off, slaver.

                  2. Endentured servants would argue they were essentially slaves. But whats reality.

                    1. And why do we have different words for those two categories? Might they be….different?

                    2. “And why do we have different words for those two categories? Might they be….different?”

                      I see, as a lying lefty shit, you have not yet looked up “synonym”
                      Fuck off, slaver.

            2. I agree, but we must also ask the question, do the results of similar cultural choices among different groups have similar outcomes?

              See this reference:

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300078/

              (see Figure 1 in particular)

              This study discusses the risk of poverty for households headed by single mothers. It is lowest for Whites and Asians but higher for every other race/group.

              1. Or we can all just admit, as Jesse does above, that urban neighborhoods became blacker and more crime riddled in the mid to late 60s for two reasons. One, the mills were closing because our labor unions outpriced our labor from competitiveness. This forced many to move out of cities back to farms and brought economic hardship to many uneducated workers across all races, increasing poverty and crime. And two, what little was left of many city neighborhoods after the mills began to close was quickly hollowed out after the race riots of 68′ after MLK was assassinated. The original white flight. They happened in almost every major city just like blm.

                No one wants to speak that sad truth. Much like blm riots have hollowed out entire neighborhoods of their businesses and economic foundations in our cities, the MLK riots did the same in the late 60s. And many of those burnt out and gutted neighborhoods still haven’t recovered to this day.

                That’s the real story. And it hasn’t improved because in these same areas the democrats have enslaved the local minority populations with their promises of political pay back and free stuff, combined with piss poor education, to keep minorities in our cities dumb, poor, and dependent on promises by democrats for hope, instead of depending on themselves.

                1. Yes yes. Black people have no agency and are “enslaved”. That’s the answer for sure.

                  1. And Jeff lies about what was said yet again after his initial point was easily refuted.

                  2. How else do you explain decades of failed Democrat leadership in the overwhelming majority of our major cities (here in Pittsburgh were at nearly 100 years of continuous Democrat mayor’s, were at nearly 50 years of continuous city and county council control by democrats, nearly 60 years of democrat control of both the city school board and state teachers union, etc etc)

                    Democrats have controlled this city for 5 plus decades and in that time every single measurable metric has gotten worse for blacks and minorities in Pittsburgh. And yet the blacks and minorities continue to vote for the same failing democrats over and over and over.

                    What else could explain that except they’re brainwashed to stay stupid and thus poor in the democrat run city schools and brainwashed to stay a victim and thus dependant by thir so called community or political leaders?

                    The democrats literally use the same tactics communists do to enslave and manipulate the lower classes.

                    1. How else do I explain it? Oh I don’t know, maybe starting with an explanation that isn’t explicitly racist even by your own standards of the term?

                      “They’re dumb and brainwashed and enslaved, they don’t know any better!”

                      Maybe, both Black people and White people are intelligent individuals making choices that they believe are in their best interests. And if you don’t understand why certain people make the choices that they do, you could start by asking them, instead of condescendingly infantilizing them.

                      Start here:

                      https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/why-are-blacks-democrats

                      In the book we argue that in an effort to leverage their political strength as a minority group in a majority based political system, black Americans have come to prioritize group solidarity in party politics. This partisan loyalty is maintained through a strategic social process that we call racialized social constraint, where by support for the Democratic Party has come to be defined as a norm of group behavior. In other words, supporting the Democratic Party has come to be understood as just something you do as a black person, an expectation of behavior meant to empower the racial group.

                      So they see voting for Democrats as a part of their group identity. Much like, say, Christian evangelicals or gun owners might see voting for Republicans as a part of their separate group identities.

                    2. And you talk about “piss-poor education” in many cities. Yes, that is true. Why do educational outcomes differ so strongly in different areas? Is the educational system as a whole completely fair and unbiased, and the reason why many Black people in inner-city districts don’t do so well is because they are just dumb? Or perhaps there are *structural reasons* why educational outcomes vary so widely? Can we talk about that?

          2. WHAT IF? question here.

            WHAT IF, after teasing out contributory factors, cross-effects, income-weighted counter-indicators, blahdeblahdeblah…we come up with 10% unexplained-except-by-pure-racism overincarceration?

            Burn it all down? Restructure on an enlightened Marxist utopian ideal? Compensatory free money an’ shit? Allow every black person a free shot to the head on a white (or Asian) person of their choice??

            What the fuck then? And MY answer (using the oppressive dog code whistles of logic and facts) is, give it up. Help us get rid of any “outstanding nail” manifestation of racism and move along. Live life. Maybe try to move to a country fair and decent enough that people are constantly trying to immigrate to it. Good luck.

            But none of that comes into play with the toxic, virulently hate-filled, neurosis-inducing version of CRT we see today. So fuck off. If it’s war, it’s war, and it is NOT being fomented by “systemic racism” or “white supremacy”.

      2. According to BOP statistics whites make up 57.8% and blacks make up 38.3%

        https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

        Males make up 93.1% females make up 6.9%

        If income inequality was an issue would there be more women?

        1. This was a reply to the racial disparity claim.

          1. Geez, even if we can’t incarcerate women (I have my sorting criteria ready) to better reflect demographic reality, can we at least get more “women in prison” movies??

            I’m envisioning a novel use of deepfake technology so that the movies could star actual real-world miscreants you could “cast” when ordering the show. Seriously, Kamala and Hillary run opposing gangs in Jacob Blake Memorial Non-Correctional Facility. They vie for the recruitment of new prisoners like Scarlett Johanssen, Zhang Zhiyi, Jessica Biel, etc.

            At some point, there might be a brutal (dial-in value from Snyder to Tarantino to Eli Roth) meat tenderizer-and-nail-file battle between Anita Sarkeesian and Brie Larson.

            Add a customizable “clothed/unclothed” slider and set fazers to “print money!”

            Off topic? Whatchootalkin’bout, Willis?

        2. Well, first, that is for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which only has a small minority of the total number of prisoners. The vast majority are in state prisons.

          Income inequality plays a role but I don’t think it’s the whole story.

          1. Yeah, the feds isn’t the best place to look.

            What plays a bigger role is one’s inability to follow the law.
            It’s not ok to steal.
            It’s not ok to shoot people.

            Being poor may make things tempting, like theft. But there are plenty of poor people who won’t steal because they know it’s wrong.

            1. I guess point being that one’s concept of what is moral plays a big role.

            2. One’s inability to follow the law is what lands one in the criminal justice system in the first place. But once a person is in the criminal justice system, that individual is subject to a system over which the individual has very little direct control. Such as, the judge, the jury, the public defender, the district attorney, the police, and the rules and procedures that each follows. What happens to a person within that system really can’t be blamed too much on a person’s individual choices.

              1. None of which you’ve even supported with proof of disparate treatment. Odd.

    2. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

      Why is that? What is the reason, or reasons, behind this result?

      The destruction of the black family by the New Urbanists and the welfare state dragged them deeper into poverty (just as the black family unit was escaping poverty at an unprecedented rate) and thus regressed them into a cycle of poverty and… crime which often follows poverty.

      1. Okay, I think that is definitely part of the story. But it can’t be the entire story.

        If you read more in that link I provided, the authors reference a study which showed that if you compare the population of individuals arrested, and the population of individuals ultimately incarcerated, that it is still disproportionate racially. This result can’t really be explained by the nuclear family or lack thereof. That is a result of what happens when a person is in the criminal justice system itself. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that this is only part of the picture.

        1. Is this the first study you’ve ever read that coincided with your preconceptions? Because this has been studied for decades and you ignore every argument you disagree with. You aren’t asking for honest argumentation. You’re arguing to keep CRT alive with lying claims of what CRT does.

          CRT does not bad discussion or looking into postulates why groups of people commit crimes or are incarcerated at different rates. In fact you can find studies going back decades now that show correlations to both wealth and the nuclear family. But you have to ignore those or your defense of CRT blows up.

          You’re being dishonest.

      2. Diane, I’d be interested in your feedback on this study.

        http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_summary.pdf

        1. Lol. Diane, please respond to his think group pushing CRT. They are totally unbiased.

    3. Thomas Sowell on this subject.

      Totally ignored was the fact that a black policeman in Alabama fatally shot an unarmed white teenager, and was cleared of any charges, at about the same time that a white policeman was cleared of charges in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

      In a world where the truth means so little, and headstrong preconceptions seem to be all that matter, what hope is there for rational words or rational behavior, much less mutual understanding across racial lines?

      When the recorded fatal shooting of a fleeing man in South Carolina brought instant condemnation by whites and blacks alike, and by the most conservative as well as the most liberal commentators, that moment of mutual understanding was very fleeting, as if mutual understanding were something to be avoided, as a threat to a vision of “us against them” that was more popular.

      […]

      Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

      You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.

      We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

      Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, DOWN — during the much lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before.

      1. Jeff will continue to ignore studies such as:

        https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745731839/new-study-says-white-police-officers-are-not-more-likely-to-shoot-minority-suspe

        In his defense of critical theory.

        This is the guy who argued for a few weeks that 2+2=5 even though it never equals 5 no matter what base system you use. His only take away here is to rationalize keeping CRT and justifying post modernist/critical theory.

      2. Most industrialized nations extended their welfare states in the 1960’s and their murder rates didn’t shoot up.

        1. Up thread you said the exact opposite you unscrupulous fucking shill.

          1. No, I didn’t. Cite or STFU.

              1. Oopsies.

                If Almathea isn’t a shrike sock, they’re doing a bang up job of being as pig ignorant.

            1. Yes, you did,
              Fuck off and die, slaver.

        2. You literally just said crime went up everywhere in the 60s a few posts above this lmao.

          “Crime went up everywhere in the Western world in the 1960s.”

          1. Crime =/= murder rates. Murder is a very rare crime, relatively.

            1. Oh, so youre adding speeding to your statistics so as not to caught being inconsistent?

                1. “Lol!”

                  The major component of out newest lefty shits “arguments”.
                  Fuck off, slaver

                2. Wait, is this pod?

                  1. Pod’s never quite put together the faux ‘arguments’ posted by this pile of lefty shit.
                    The sophistry (and dishonesty) is such that I’d guess Tony with Lol’s tossed in.

                    1. Yes it’s clearly Tony. And he chose a more female name thinking we’d go easier on him.

                      Also, an aside…

                      to you shit eating trolls with socks… It’s easy to tell your socks because once we’ve muted a bunch of them, the posting patterns become quite obvious when you see the Grey muted comment squares lining up the same way in each thread.

                      It’s odd how the people I have muted all seem to reply to each other and their comments end up clustered together in little groups in the threads…

    4. You had your question answered yesterday. you ignored it then, you will ignore it again now. So why are you reposting the same ignorant sophistry as yesterday?

    5. Here is another study. (Or, an article about a study.)

      https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/mass-incarceration-class-predictor-race/

      They find that class is a stronger predictor of incarceration than race, but that race is still a factor.

      1. So you admit to being wrong but double down on your wrongness being somewhat right. Lol.

      2. That article doesn’t say what you think it does lol.

    6. An individual is incarcerated because they committed a crime and they were convicted.

  15. Slavery is wrong because it violates the most fundamental property right: the right to self-ownership.

    People who renounce property rights are working to bring back slavery.

    If you want society to devolve into a civil war again, go ahead and give it a try.

    1. Agreed, Brian, good job!

      Sometimes what gets “lost in the sauce” is that lots of people who believe in “positive rights” (I deserve, I am entitled to, I have the right to, health care, housing, food, etc.) at the points of Government Almighty’s guns, while I do little or nothing for others… That this is enslavement of the others! Doctors, nurses, construction workers, farmers, grocers, they will all be my slaves, while I give them essentially nothing in return! (I give them not even my gratitude, because, after all, I’m just getting what I am thoroughly entitled to).

      Sounds like slavery (of the producers) to me!

  16. It’s doesn’t, according to its followers. They seriously dislike white americans, and CRT’s cognitive inaccuracy and question-begging are insignificant to them. What matters is that whiteys are hurting–at least those who don’t abase themselves or guilt others into doing so, such as “fellow white people” Tim Wise and Robin DiAngelo.
    author: Essay Writing Services

    1. Making someone feel guilty for something they are not responsible for is a controlling technique used by domestic abusers.

      1. To me guilt inducing is an important tell. Talking about disadvantage to elicit sympathy is one thing, talking about privilege to elicit guilt is another.

        1. So you are rejecting the concept of “white privilege?”

          1. This idiot is all over the place from post to post.

            1. This piece of lefty shit is nothing if not stupid and hypocritical as required.
              Pretty sure it’s a sock of one of the regular lefty shits, but not sure which.

            2. They are fun to Voight-Kampf test.

  17. Try to relate the information to your income. I believe the imbalance is purely financial, with poor whites receiving similar treatment from the system. Projects are teeming with poor black people, and just as Boston’s murder rate skews the median wage, I’d bet a weld that this is mostly profitable. As in, cops venomous insects on the poor.
    best regards: guest posting websites

  18. “35:31: Weekly Listener Question: What are your thoughts on the ongoing civil war within the L.P. between pragmatists and the Mises Caucus . . .”

    Are we sure the correct word for that bunch is “pragmatists”?

    Are we talking about some especially woke libertarians–who don’t support the liberty of people they don’t like? Because I wouldn’t call that pragmatic.

  19. HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

    “WASHINGTON—A federal judge on Monday dismissed antitrust lawsuits the federal government and most states filed against Facebook Inc., a major win for the company before the cases even got off the ground.

    U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington granted the social-media giant’s requests to dismiss lawsuits filed by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general in December. The dismissals, which came in a pair of rulings, came before any pretrial proceedings had progressed.

    Judge Boasberg said the FTC’s lawsuit was “legally insufficient” because it didn’t plead enough allegations to support monopolization claims against Facebook. The judge, however, said the commission can try again and gave it 30 days to attempt to file an amended lawsuit.

    —-WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-dismisses-government-antitrust-lawsuits-against-facebook-11624907747?

    I doubt they’ll find anything in another 30 days that they haven’t found already.

  20. All the people who lying about CRT and coming out against it are just trying to distract from the basic fact that we do have systemic racism in the US and it is not getting much better.

    1. Systems can’t be racist.

      1. You don’t think Jim Crow was a racist system?

        1. I think southerners who loved Jim Crow laws were racist.

          But systems can’t be racist, because they’re not people.

          1. Systems, in the sense the term is being used here, don’t exist apart from people.

            It’s like saying ‘customs can’t be sexist because customs aren’t people.’

              1. Corporations can be racist, if that’s what you’re asking.

                1. Coca Cola proved that already.

                2. But, can they have rights?

        2. Absent any people… Jim Crow laws did nothing. People can be racist. That can write down their racist intent. But the words on paper do not compel any sort of racist action without there being an actor.

          If you leave every law we currently have on the books in place (which CRT says is the system of racism) yet change every actor (judges, police, lawyers, etc.) to people who are absolutely not racist and committed to fair, just, and equal outcomes you would get fairer, more just, and more equal outcomes. The failings would simply be the result of human error (not malfeasance… we are assuming the best people here). But if the “system” is what is racist, then it is impossible for a judge with a pure heart to treat a black man fair. It is impossible for a lawyer to fairly represent a black woman. It is impossible for a police officer to refrain from violating the rights of a black suspect. The system must operate independant of the people within it and do its nefarious work without a reliance on actors for it to be racist.

          But without actors the “system” is just an empty building… sitting there doing nothing. It is not until the actors act in racist ways that racism is manifest.

          That is why the concept of systemic racism is patently stupid.

          1. Like I said elsewhere, that’s like saying that customs or traditions can’t be racist because only people acting on them can make them work in a racist fashion. But people in the real world live impacted by customs, traditions and…systems.

            1. So you repeat an irrelevant statement.

              1. No, it was directly relevant.

                  1. I don’t know how I can reply to such a stellar argument!

                    1. Well, you can certainly try another bullshit assertion and get called on it again.

                    2. You gots nothing, right?

                    3. “You gots nothing, right?”

                      You make bullshit assertion, are too stupid to realize that, get called on it, and ask those who recognize it to rebut it?
                      Fine:
                      Bullshit.
                      Oh, and fuck off, slaver.

          2. But if the “system” is what is racist, then it is impossible for a judge with a pure heart to treat a black man fair.

            No, that’s not entirely true. Here is a simple example.

            Suppose there was a law that said that everyone guilty of jaywalking had to face a ‘punishment’ of solving 10 calculus problems correctly. This law is ‘fair’ in the sense that it applies to everyone equally. But it is also biased in that it benefits those who are already good at math, for whom the ‘punishment’ is basically a slap on the wrist. For everyone else, the punishment is much more onerous.

            That is an example of how one can have a system that is both simultaneously ‘fair’ and biased.

        3. Jim crow required politicians to pass a law to enforce business discrimination.

          Maybe learn what it is.

          1. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t ‘systemic,’ quite the opposite. Laws have been used to indicate ‘systems’ or social facts since Durkheim.

            1. It literally shows it wasn’t systemic as it had to be forced through government power for it to work.

              How dumb are you?

              1. So, you are ignorant? I mean, laws were enacted through…majority vote there.

                1. “…majority vote there.”

                  Lemme guess: You favor MOB RULE!
                  Fuck off, slaver.

    2. “All the people who lying about CRT and coming out against it are…”

      Just trying to score points with their fellow right-wing authoritarians! Which comprise about 1/4th of the USA!

      (For the record, racism is real, and hypers-up-of, or trouble-makers exaggerating, racism, is-are real also, IMHO).

      https://www.businessinsider.com/26-percent-of-americans-are-right-wing-authoritarian-new-poll-2021-6

      1/4 of Americans qualify as highly ‘right-wing authoritarian,’ new poll finds

    3. Give an example of systemic racism?

      I use to say the crime bill that make the 100:1 sentencing rule. Then I found out it was supported by the black community as a way combat crack cocaine that was destroying black communities. Charles Rangel voted for it.

      When legislation is specifically targeting black neighborhoods it will catch more blacks than whites. Just saying.

      We know that blacks are more hesitant to get the Covid vax than whites. Therefore we can foresee that anything that would require proof of vaccination will disproportionally affects blacks.
      Are vaccine passports a product of systemic racism?

      1. Would studies that show that when equivalent resumes are submitted for jobs that those with a ‘black sounding’ name are less likely to be called in for an interview an example of systemic racism?

        To me ‘systemic racism’ means this: the government was used to limit black people’s opportunities for a long time (most of our history), this fostered stereotypes that still negatively impact black persons and inequalities that still negatively impact black persons (for example, black persons are less likely than whites to inherit a house, the chief source of wealth in the US). Thus, generally, black persons are disadvantaged (and conversely I guess white persons are generally privileged).

        1. (for example, black persons are less likely than whites to inherit a house, the chief source of wealth in the US)

          This highlights the problem with group analysis. This doesn’t show that poor blacks are worse off than poor whites. It shows a larger percentage of blacks are poor which is hardly surprising. But the proposed remedy is to advantage rich blacks but not poor whites. This is proposed precisely because the black academics and media figures pushing for it are most interested in advantaging themselves against other elites, and since they’re sticking the bill on people they hate they’re not particularly concerned about the cost.

          1. “But the proposed remedy is to advantage rich blacks but not poor whites.”

            Is there ‘a’ proposed remedy?

            And, this doesn’t undercut the idea of general disadvantage/privilege, as any remedy for that is a separate issue.

            1. this doesn’t undercut the idea of general disadvantage/privilege,

              It shows they are not race based and thus a race based solution is inappropriate.

              Is there ‘a’ proposed remedy?

              White privilege & systemic racism were specifically designed to protect and promote race preferences.

              1. “It shows they are not race based and thus a race based solution is inappropriate.”

                Not necessarily, as the disadvantage is general.

                “White privilege & systemic racism were specifically designed to protect and promote race preferences.”

                Were they? The few people who might be ‘CRT’ theorists I’ve read usually mock affirmative action programs in the same way that Marx mocked incremental worker protections. Either way, the two ideas (black disadvantage/systemic racism and race preferences) are not necessarily linked.

                1. the disadvantage is general.

                  How does a general disadvantage call for a racial remedy? Judging from its advocates it’s clear they are racists.

                  Either way, the two ideas (black disadvantage/systemic racism and race preferences) are not necessarily linked.

                  This is true in the same way the Civil War and slavery are not necessarily linked. We can think up a hypothetical situation where this is true but in our reality it is clearly false.

                  1. “How does a general disadvantage call for a racial remedy? ”

                    How does a general disadvantage call for a…general remedy?

                    “This is true in the same way the Civil War and slavery are not necessarily linked”

                    As I said, I don’t think you can provide an empirical support here. Most ‘CRT’ folks I know of disparage affirmative action programs as bandaids.

                    1. “How does a general disadvantage call for a racial remedy? ”
                      “How does a general disadvantage call for a…general remedy?”

                      So you think you get to change the meanings of words and thereby think people here are stupid enough to buy such sophistry?
                      Tired of it.
                      Fuck off, slaver.

                    2. Tribalism makes people angry, I get that.

                    3. How does a general disadvantage call for a…general remedy?

                      Tailoring solutions to the problems we’re trying to solve is one of the basic steps in effective management. That left wingers are unaware of these steps in competent problem solving is unsurprising as their long and unbroken string of failures strongly suggest that likelihood.

                      Most ‘CRT’ folks I know of disparage affirmative action programs as bandaids.

                      Affirmative action programs aren’t the problem, we have race preferences. Affirmative action includes steps like advertising in black media and ensuring schools with minority enrollment are familiar with entrance requirements. Race preferences mean giving blacks as many points for the color of their skin as the difference between a 0.0 and a 4.0 on their entire high school grades.

                      All these people are saying is that they want vastly more preference in their race preferences, particularly in the form of make-work jobs for people like themselves.

                  2. “Tribalism makes people angry, I get that.”

                    You left out “dishonesty” and “stupidity”, lefty shit.
                    Fuck off, slaver.

                    1. No, I didn’t leave them out, you’ve made no answerable argument about them. You’re just like ‘white guy mad!!!’

                    2. “No, I didn’t leave them out, you’ve made no answerable argument about them. You’re just like ‘white guy mad!!!’”

                      So you’re too stupid to recognize you left them out!
                      You’re just a steaming pile of lefty shit. Fuck off.

        2. Those studies offer more insight into a bias towards citizens than immigrants than anything. If a black person and a white person are both named Fred, there is no bias. There is a reason those studies tend to use fairly obvious names, usually singular generational names.

          The oddity here is that many cultures who came to the US and integrated would name their kids with more American sounding names. It is weird how integrating into the society you move to helps.

          1. So you think it’s fine that people with ‘funny names’ get less opportunity? See, some people would call that ‘systemic’ discrimination, because a person’s name shouldn’t matter (an old British white guy plawright made point a while back).

            1. “…because a person’s name shouldn’t matter (an old British white guy plawright made point a while back).”

              Assertion =/= evidence or argument

              1. Do you have an argument as to why the name should matter in hiring? Let’s hear it.

                1. You be I do!
                  Any agreement or lack there of between an employer and a possible employee is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

                  1. “If there is discrimination it’s none of your business!”

                    Thanks.

                    1. Let me correct that:
                      NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, asshole.
                      Lefty shits assume they get to control all private matters; here’s a hint: We don’t live in a socialist hell-hole. Yet.

                    2. You’re angry, we can see that. Good at thinking? Not so much.

                    3. You’re dishonest lefty sophist; we can see that. Intelligence enough to warm a room? Not so much.
                      Fuck off, slaver.

                    4. You’ve no argument, just angry invective.

                    5. “You’ve no argument, just angry invective.

                      You’re too stupid to realized you’ve been called on bullshit from one end of your ‘argument’ to the other.
                      It’s likely you often find people ‘angry’: Dealing with lying, stupid lefty shits like you is not conducive to happiness.
                      Fuck off, slaver.

                    6. So very angry.

                    7. So very stupid.

                    8. “The dominant race’s subjective assumptions are in place everywhere, get used to it.
                      And this guy thinks he’s *refuting* CRT! Lol!”

                      The admission that world-wide preference by and for the dominant culture seems to make this slaver think that’s an argument FOR CRT!
                      Fuck off, slaver.

                2. Of you named your son a first generation African name they would be rejected just the same. It isnt a racial issue you retarded fuck. It is a bias towards the familiar.

                  1. What’s familiar for the dominant race? Thanks for playing.

                    1. Yes, everywhere. Get used to it.
                      Thanks for making an ass of yourself, slaver. Oh, and fuck off.

                    2. The dominant race’s subjective assumptions are in place everywhere, get used to it.

                      And this guy thinks he’s *refuting* CRT! Lol!

                    3. “Lol, empirically almost no one changes their name via court. It *proves* the ‘systemic’ claim, not refutes it. You’re just so angry-dumb you can’t see it. But, thanks!”

                      It’s easy to see that the major driver of your ‘arguments’ built on assertions and attempts at redefining words hinges on “Lol”.
                      Stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life, but you’re stuck with it.
                      Fuck off, slaver.

            2. I ain’t hiring anyone named apple or moon beam either.

              1. You do know that people don’t choose their own names?

                1. Not many people reject wholesale the values and preferences that influence the assignment of a name.

                  Elon Musk’s kid has a stupid fucking name because both her parents are bonkers. She’ll end up well-credentialed because of their money, but I wouldn’t want anything to do with her beyond a no-strings-attached investment.

            3. Yes. It’s not that it’s a funny name, it’s that it’s hard to pronounce and spell, which hinders communication. Most of us have European ancestors who literally changed the spelling of their last names upon arriving in the states just so it was easier to say or write in school or at work and avoid any ethnic stigmas.

              1. One thing a person certainly has little control over is the name their parents give them. You’re defending a ‘system’ where people with certain names, despite their merits, will be discriminated against in opportunity. That you think this is an argument *against* CRT is…interesting.

                1. Oh shit. You just pissed trannies off. Go cleanse yourself.

                2. “One thing a person certainly has little control over is the name their parents give them…”
                  Are you trying to prove how stupid or dishonest a steaming pile of lefty shit can be?
                  Pretty sure any court in the world would allow Moon Unit to change her name to Jane.

                  “You’re defending a ‘system’ where people with certain names, despite their merits, will be discriminated against in opportunity. That you think this is an argument *against* CRT is…interesting.”
                  You’re inventing a whole new way to define what individuals do in the hopes of promoting racism. Not interesting.
                  Fuck off, slaver.

                  1. Lol, ‘they can just go change their name in court, so that proves there is no systemic racism!’

                    1. Push them goal posts much, lefty shit?

                      “One thing a person certainly has little control over is the name their parents give them.”

                      Fuck off, slaver

                    2. Lol, empirically almost no one changes their name via court. It *proves* the ‘systemic’ claim, not refutes it. You’re just so angry-dumb you can’t see it. But, thanks!

                    3. You don’t have to change your name in court to tell people what name to call you.

                      We’re you born yesterday?

                  2. “Lol, empirically almost no one changes their name via court.”

                    So you don’t even have to do that, you just identify as Jane, and yet:
                    “One thing a person certainly has little control over is the name their parents give them…”

                    You’re just so stupid and dishonest, you can’t see it.
                    But, fuck off, slaver.

                  3. “Lol, empirically almost no one changes their name via court. It *proves* the ‘systemic’ claim, not refutes it. You’re just so angry-dumb you can’t see it. But, thanks!”

                    Outside of your lame “Lol”, you didn’t seem to include any evidence to support your equally lame claim of “proof”.
                    Ken posited this condition a couple of months ago: The ‘Tony, turd (and jeff) Syndrome’; simply lacking the mental ability to accept there is an objective reality separate from their internal fantasies, and repeating what the world sees as lies as if they had not been shown to be such.
                    Having had reality jammed in your face for the last several hours and still making the same claims, you are certainly qualified for inclusion in the “T, t S” bucket of lefty shits.
                    Further, we get racist lefty shits here on a regular basis, all claiming that *their* racism is pure; you’re no different.
                    But thanks for making a public ass of yourself, as if we needed more proof of that.
                    Fuck off and die, slaver.

                3. It has nothing to do with crt lol. I was simply pointing out how stupid it is for you to act like having a mainstreamed name instead of a culturally derived one is a form of oppression.

                  Most of our families chose to do it because they knew it would help them be more successful and make things easier. Apparently now people are more worried about the letters in their name than being successful.

                  Another example of our ancestors being smarter than us.

              2. ethnic stigmas

                Would you consider this to be a type of bigotry?

                And why should individuals have to change their name in order to be successful in society?

                1. Thankfully, Sally Winfrey had changed her name that was originally Oprah. Otherwise she wouldn’t have been successful.

              3. And what people here seem to be arguing for, is for a soft oppression via social conformity.

                It isn’t racist per se to reject applicants with funny sounding names, but evidently it’s their own fault for having names that don’t ‘fit in’ with the cultural majority, and the onus should be upon those with the funny names to do a better job of ‘fitting in’, rather than placing the onus on hiring managers to overlook superficial details like a person’s funny sounding name.

                For the people around here who enjoy criticizing Big Tech for stifling ideas that are ‘not mainstream’, that sure is a bizarre take.

                1. I don’t get how one can sell the inevitability of rational market outcomes when there are such petty irrationalities at this basic interaction level.

                  1. Don’t worry: once all these petty irrational people start voting, they form a super-rational hive mind.

        3. Actually, that study has long been discredited. It was shown

          1. The “black” sounding names largely correspond to “poor black” sounding names.
          2. Affluent blacks largely tend to have names roughly comparable to affluent whites.
          3. Resumes from people with “poor white” sounding names had roughly the same discrepancy.

          So, yeah, Shaquanda or DeAndre don’t get hired. But, neither do Dakota or Cody. The Jims and Patricias of both races tend to get the nod.

          1. 2 and 3 certainly sound wrong to me. Cite?

            1. It was an entire chapter in Freakonomics.

                1. Not really. Going through that poorly formatted piece, I could find little that actually contradicted Levitt’s original observations. Just a lot of hypothesizing.

        4. “the government was used to limit black people’s opportunities for a long time (most of our history), this fostered stereotypes that still negatively impact black persons and inequalities that still negatively impact black persons”

          So what you’re saying is, racism and white privilege are the government’s fault.

          1. They are people’s fault. People are governments. People are also corporations and shop owners and teachers and TV pundits. It’s all just people.

            Whatever you blame it on, it’s something you enjoy if you’re white and don’t enjoy if you’re black. What are you going to do about that? If it’s government’s fault, it’s government’s responsibility to fix it, right?

            1. I’m sorry, but the most fact-based, objective people in the United States told me that corporations aren’t people because they’re corporations, not people.

              That means you’re being an ignorant dupe right now.

    4. it is not getting much better.

      Stupidly wrong. Within the lifetimes of people alive today we’ve made so much progress if they were able to tell their child-selves how much they wouldn’t be believed. This is a good example of how useless left wing thought is. They assert whatever they think helps their argument with exactly zero concern about whether it is true. Reality isn’t a relevant concern.

      1. No kidding. I was born in the 60s. It’s waaaaaaayyy different today than it was when I was growing up.

    5. All the people who lying about CRT and coming out against it are just trying to distract from the basic fact that we do have systemic racism in the US and it is not getting much better.

      All the people lying that systemic racism is inherent in the US are just trying to distract from the basic fact that they hate white people and want them to die.

    6. Is this a parody account?

      1. If you mean LG, it seems to be a run-of-the-mill lefty ignoramus.

    7. Like college admissions that discriminate against Asians or NFL coaching jobs that require a team to interview a person of a non-white race?

    8. All the people who lying about CRT and coming out against it are just trying to distract from the basic fact that we do have systemic racism in the US and it is not getting much better.

      Let me guess…we just need the RIGHT PEOPLE in the system and we need to give them LOTS OF POWER.

  21. Libertarian party? Since when do libertarians have the skills to organize anything as socially complex as a party? And even then, how could they without knowing what Ayn Rand thought about seven minutes in heaven?

    1. Why do lefty shits show up and make public asses of themselves?

  22. Leftists: “UGH our mass enslavement of an entire ethnic group from 200 years ago will continue to infect everything in this blighted country unless you racist sinners repent and follow our perfect saintly wisdom”

    Also Leftists: “OOOH the new iPhone!! Who made it? Who cares!!!!”

  23. To quote Jinx the cat in the old Hanna-Barbera Pixie & Dixie cartoons, “I hate Mises to pieces!”

  24. What are your thoughts on the ongoing civil war within the L.P. between pragmatists and the Mises Caucus, following the crackup at the New Hampshire L.P. and the resulting fallout? Do you think a Mises Caucus–led L.P. would bring new voters into the party or just alienate everyone who isn’t an edgelord?

  25. So to summarize:

    CRT is racist garbage that should be thrown out.

    Also, if non-Whites and foreigners just conformed to the cultural expectations of the White majority, things would be a lot better in this country.

    1. What cultural expectations would those be? Just come out and say what we know you’re thinking.

    2. Yes. Now you are on to something

      1. Congratulations for confirming the concept of White supremacy.

        1. They didn’t do that. They asked you to name the cultural expectations you mean. You are obviously reluctant to do so. This is probably because, if these expectations are the same ones routinely indicated by CRT, they include such things as “work hard,” “be honest,” “delay gratification to reach long-term goals,” “achieve measurable results,” and “value logic and objectivity.” And yeah, most people who aren’t leftists recognize these expectations as generally beneficial values for society. Also, by implication CRT is claiming it’s an onerous imposition for people of color to work hard, be honest, etc. So, are these the expectations you mean? If so, you, like other CRT proponents, are racist to the core, which is obvious anyway from your thinking that the “White majority,” who lately haven’t been able to agree on the most basic facts, all have the same expectations, and that all people of color regard these expectations as “white.”

  26. Tony is systemically biased.

  27. I’m not surprised that the group is ignorant of CRT and the lefts transposing the 1619 Project upon it. What a waste of my time listening to these idiots converse superficially on things they haven’t looked seriously at.

  28. “CRT debate misses the mark”

    A better headline has never been written at reason. This debate at the reason roundtable completely missed the mark. And it isn’t through ignorance, as one might suppose.

    KMW gives up the game about a half hour in. She has consistently argued that there is nothing to be worried about with the push to incorporate “anti-racism” in every facet of American life, the concern is people who object and take those objections to their government. But she is completely and fundamentally dishonest in this take.

    She is very happy and proud that she found a private school for her kids, one that won’t teach this anti-racist nonsense to her own children.

    Everything she writes and everything she promotes as editor is a lie. Her personal perspective is that this is an evil to be avoided… She just doesn’t want other people to publicly avoid it. It is an excreble elitist argument that says poor kids should be kept dumb and poor and racist so that her kids can excel.

    Reason is horrific. The Jacket and Robby are the only two that get this at all…. In their writing and punditry, at least. But the others get it too….. They are just cynically lying, proclaiming the backlash to be the danger. To what end? Who knows. But they don’t believe it for a second.

  29. Reality 101: it is likely that on an ongoing basis, schools public and private, K-12 through Doctorate, religious or secular, academic, arts, career training as well as distance/online will have aspects of the as-taught experience determined to be controversial to any number of parties, directly or otherwise affected by the presentation. This may be the ideal opportunity to re-establish some common sense policy to set in stone. Namely:

    The overall objectives of the school as a whole must be stated in detail in a charter; similarly each course offered must have a detailed curriculum that details the course materials, discussion topics, and intended activities beyond some specific amount of time inside/outside of the classroom are outside the scope of the outline.

    Any course intended to extend outside the school charter must by definition be elective.

    EVERY course K-terminal degree must provide a specific expectation : upon completion of the course, what do you expect the students to be able to know; what do you expect them to be able to do? These statements must be available online well in advance of course /school selection.

    We have a level of expectations for what students are physically exposed to; ironically we have little to verify what they are mentally exposed to. The school must have a 24/7 security video system in any indoor area students are permitted in; students should be encouraged to use the photo /video camera function anytime (detailed advance notice of any proprietary component).

    I am aware of recent examples of individual schools and districts that refuse to inform parents of what particular mandatory courses are actually instructing as course materials. Not only should this practice be illegal, I think we as consumers consider criminal law to prevent such future ‘confidence games’.

    Other than that it’s perfect…

Please to post comments