On a similar note, it is becoming increasingly popular to assert that there's no such thing as free will, asserting that this will lead to "compassion" for people convicted of crimes. But it's really about giving up on people, warehousing them, and denying them any chance at all. It is a caste system, just disguised as a compassion system, or a "justice" system, all a nothing system in which people mean nothing.
Has a popular podcaster or news stating been saying this recently? I never heard this excuse until a few days ago and then all of a sudden it’s all over the Internet forums.
A lot of people in the west have not believed in capitol “F” Free Will for a loooong time. A huge swath of the intellectual world stopped around the time of Hume, so it’s been a central idea in the intellectual class since the American revolution. Not sure why now is different.
It's all off topic, but I've thought that what does the question of free will have to do with sentencing? That's just too metaphysical. Punishments surely have a function that's independent of free will.
The author is a lawyer, which is important to note because a lot of what they say about how "we don't have a race-based system now" seems to be considered exclusively through an explicated, legalistic framing. They say as much by chastising that "it isn't 1930 anymore". This perspective excludes any 2nd- and further-order effects as regards correlations between latent/implicit bias and statistical outcomes for people belonging to certain groups, which is the primary focus and concern of critical studies. By definition critical studies starts where legal studies ends.
It's uniquely grimly funny because "how do disparate impact & outcomes emerge across racial lines in systems that are explicitly written without regards to race" is a pretty complex and interesting question that a lot of scholars have added to the understanding of over the years.
The loosely collected framework formed by those approaches was what used to be called critical race theory, before the right wing moral panic got their hands on it and made it mean something else.
And yet she is a black lawyer, despite of all the assumed systemic oppression. Maybe she knows more about the actual challenges of black people than the CRT theoreticians?
While it's important to remember than no group is a monolith, there seem to be a great number more people of color who disagree with this take than who agree with it.
Turns out, the USDA has a pretty wide gap in approving funding for farmers that can be explained by race. Seems like it may still be an on going issue, or that a history of systemic factors have contributed to it. Either way, we ain't there just yet boss.
I agree, it seems so simple. The more we focus on this stuff the more it makes people adopt it as a worldview, imho. I just don't understand why people want to look at the world this way - and it is something you need to be taught.
> Race struggles were a relic of the past 50+ years ago.
Race struggles were a current event 50 years ago. The Civil Rights Act was signed in 1968 -- 55 years ago -- for example, and it hardly represented the end of racial injustice in the US. (Indeed, it's still an ongoing process in some regards.)
It took roughly a century to go from constitutional amendment to legislative enforcement for equal treatment under the law. In 2023, for political points, state and local leaders are banning critical race theory in schools (even though it’s an academic legal theory).
However one feels about “race”, it’s a current theme, not a relic, politically, economically or legally. And that shouldn’t be at odds with the individual choice to treat others equally.
The obvious answer is because some people have different starting points than others. Thus, even if all rules were changed equally, there wouldn't be equal outcomes.
The problem is that some people want to treat people equally and not address any wrongdoing. And another group is fine to not treat people equally -- and since there is no one left to address wrongdoing, they can do so with impunity.
I would be shocked, shocked to learn that school administrators, principals, superintendents etc are somehow not over-represented in the membership of the lobby group involved. They have a conflict of interest where their jobs are made easier and they are awarded more bonuses every time that educational standards are dropped.
Maybe so, but can you please follow the site guidelines when commenting on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are? You broke them badly here, and we've had to ask you this before:
Whoever wrote this article is either disingenuous or lacks critical thinking skills. For example, it says:
"It also tells kids, and I quote, that institutions “chronically favor white people and disadvantage people of color.”"
The quotation doesn't say that. The quotation is defining institutional racism and saying that one case of it is if institutions create outcomes that chronically favor white people... The fact that this author could jump to that interpretation of that sentence is ridiculous.
[+] [-] kerblang|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HEmanZ|2 years ago|reply
A lot of people in the west have not believed in capitol “F” Free Will for a loooong time. A huge swath of the intellectual world stopped around the time of Hume, so it’s been a central idea in the intellectual class since the American revolution. Not sure why now is different.
[+] [-] kzrdude|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MisterBastahrd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uoaei|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giraffe_lady|2 years ago|reply
The loosely collected framework formed by those approaches was what used to be called critical race theory, before the right wing moral panic got their hands on it and made it mean something else.
[+] [-] psychlops|2 years ago|reply
By what definition? AFAIK, critical studies can evaluate anything critically.
[+] [-] transcoderx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etchalon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] charlieyu1|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baldeagle|2 years ago|reply
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/19/1156851675/in-2022-black-farm....
[+] [-] nverno|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duskwuff|2 years ago|reply
Race struggles were a current event 50 years ago. The Civil Rights Act was signed in 1968 -- 55 years ago -- for example, and it hardly represented the end of racial injustice in the US. (Indeed, it's still an ongoing process in some regards.)
[+] [-] thelock85|2 years ago|reply
However one feels about “race”, it’s a current theme, not a relic, politically, economically or legally. And that shouldn’t be at odds with the individual choice to treat others equally.
[+] [-] giraffe_lady|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychlops|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uturingmachine|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neovialogistics|2 years ago|reply
Teachers, not so much.
[+] [-] bilbo0s|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hazbot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrm4|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31171715 (April 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30813358 (March 2022)
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
[+] [-] kenjackson|2 years ago|reply
The quotation doesn't say that. The quotation is defining institutional racism and saying that one case of it is if institutions create outcomes that chronically favor white people... The fact that this author could jump to that interpretation of that sentence is ridiculous.