Comments by "Nina Daly" (@ninadaly7639) on "NowThis Impact"
channel.
-
30
-
@adriennebatchelor3722 Ok. You say “CRT is the examining of laws, policies, and structures, which may OR MAY NOT contain racial disparities. This has nothing to do with the examining of people, but rather the legalities of our systems.” Really? So then, CRT has nothing to do with “racism.” It has to do with the legalities of our systems. Then shouldn’t anyone who espouses CRT have a law degree? I mean legality can be a confusing issue to non-attorneys and their opinions, those who aren’t attorneys, should be given no weight because their opinions are ill-informed, right? And isn’t it also true then that those who disagree with the conclusions drawn by CRT proponents should NEVER be called “racists” for disagreeing because CRT is about the “legality” of systems (many of which have been in place for quite a while) and NOT individuals? Thus, you have no problem conceding that “racial disparity” often has nothing to do with contemporary “racism”? The disparity is driven by any number of contributing factors, right? of which racism is not necessarily one? You see the problem is that “critical thinking” goes part and parcel with the “scientific method”, right? Which necessitates healthy skepticism toward any hypothesis, agreed? And if “facts” support more than one perception or explanation, it calls the hypothesis itself into question. True? My problem with CRT is that it starts with the conclusion that the disparity is definitively caused by “racism”. There is really no skepticism at all. It’s a product of a racist country, that perpetuates systems that are racist and everyone in the racist country who lives under “the systems” are necessarily racists. Right? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds from an intellectual standpoint?
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1