User talk:174.64.32.250

CRT is a THEORY, not a "movement"
...um, if you can't even get that right then you shouldn't be writing or editing the CRT wiki page.

So why *are* you writing and editing the CRT Wiki page?

"Cite your sources"

It's self-evident.

Also:

"Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that white supremacy, with its societal or structural racism, exists and maintains power through the law;[6] and second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, is possible.[7]"

That's entirely laughable. White supremacists maintain power through harassment and intimidation, the abuse of the law to such ends is just one form of such intimidation. Also the abuse of the law involves both the police, prosecutors, judges and juries turning a blind eye to crime committed by whites against non-whites as well as engaging in the hyper-persecution, prosecution, finding of guilt and sentencing of non-whites.

Those seeking to protect the status-quo respond in numerous ways including restating the issue, much as was done here on this Wiki page, and here: https://nypost.com/2021/06/13/american-moms-are-standing-up-to-critical-race-theory-devine/

"The sleeping giant of the 'American Mom' has been awakened and is “filled with a terrible resolve,” ...

These mothers’ watershed moment is the hateful cult of “critical race theory” which is being shoved down their children’s throats under the guise of “equity” and “anti-racism.”

It's more that it's taught as part of a chosen educational curriculum.

"In reality, CRT is simply another version of a deadly old ideology that is Marxist and utopian in nature — only this time it seeks to divide people by race, rather than by class. "

There's nothing Marxist or utopian about CRT and it hardly seeks to divide people by race, it merely points-out the historical bias of American society (not to mention the English society that American society is repeatedly said to be based on) which has divided people by race AND by class, part of which involves race, for hundreds of years, even today.

"What the mothers instinctively know, in school board meetings across the country where they stand up courageously to fight for their children, is that a poisonous form of brainwashing has crept into the classroom and it hurts everyone equally, regardless of race. "

False on two fronts, first that it is "instinctively known" and second that it is "poisionous brainwashing" that has "crept into the classroom". Such perjoratives follow the classic pattern of marking a person or issue as a "threat" that is bad for them, including their children...these are subjective evaluations of CRT, not CRT itself. The point is that CRT is entirely on the mark and the response is to elicit "instinctive" responses with such perjoratives that have nothing to do academically to CRT. Like saying that communism is evil because it denies capitalism....CRT is evil because it criticises white people and pro-white bias in society, which is racism on its face.

"They see their children divided into an “oppressor” class and an “oppressed” class based on the color of their skin. "

More of an effect than the cause, which is the oppression of white society against non-whites? It is now a bad thing to call a kettle black, in a country that has a history of calling blacks bad? I think that it's been seen as a bad thing all along, to call whites bad, yes? White people are good because they ware white, if nothing else...despite their social oppression of non-whites because they are non-white! So what is the problem, calling whites bad or the sudden condemnation of the oppression of non-whites? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, maybe it's actually a duck!

But this is where we move from an examination of the facets of CRT to calling it the work of the Devil himself...

"The white kids are the oppressors who are taught to hate themselves"

That is simply and entirely untrue. No one is calling the kids themselves "the oppressors" without specific evidence of oppression by specific kids. and certainly no one is trying to use CRT to teach white kids to hate themselves simply because they are white. This is a complete fallacy.

"...and the nonwhite kids are the oppressed who are taught to hate the white kids."

Same fallacy just routed the other way. I note that the normal policy is for the white kids to teach the nonwhite kids to hate themselves like the white kids do.

" Those Asian, black and Hispanic kids who don’t agree that they are oppressed, who don’t want to be robbed of their agency and looked upon as victims, and don’t want to hate their white friends, are judged also to be suffering from the dreadful scourge of “whiteness.” "

The sad thing about this part is that this is actually true, in that some non-whites do actually look down on their fellow non-whites for being "Uncle Toms". But doesn't mean that white kids don't encourage non-white kids to look up to whites for being white and to look down on non-whites for being non-white. We should not ignore the fact that this is a complex set of relations. But that doesn't mean that teaching CRT, or CRT itself, does what is said here.

Of course that is not going to stop many from believing that it does, and thinking that they are right...because they are white and there would be no other reason to teach CRT or even to have CRT except to do that. The real question is whose opinion actually matters in the end. We will see if CRT suffers the same familiar fate of any idea which is critical of whites in any way, to be fundamentally dismissed as "wrong" and "evil", even to be banned from teaching in classrooms much as evolution is banned from teaching in the classrooms of many states. And if evolution can be dismissed in such a manner, then what sociological or scientific theory can't be dismissed in such a manner.

The real question is can the cure be found in a body rife with disease. How can the US correct inherent pro-white bias if it is run by whites who see pro-white bias as a good thing and any corrective action like Affirmative Action as a bad thing. I wouldn't be surprised to see CRT labeled as a terrorist anti-American philosophy and those who espouse it as anti-American terrorists. But any truly rational person would see the obvious here in that the US legal system would hardly evolve in a way that does not serve the white majority and legally handicap the non-white minority. Raise your hand if you believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Slave or not, blacks were still considered to be legally inferior to whites and when necessary were lynched to make that point clear. Disproportionate criminalization is both the modern-day equivalent of lynching and an important part of the basis for modern-day white supremacy, a major factor int eh belief that whites deserve to be more successful than blacks...not sure how it works for Asians who clearly outperform Whites in most social categories but have also suffered from extreme prejudice throughout American history. And where do we put Latinos in this equation? Label them all as the descendants and willing accomplices of illegal immigration and gang activity? When *was* the last time that blacks in the US were "renditioned" en masse back to Africa? Was it ever actually illegal for Whites and Asians or Whites and Latinos to marry? When was the last time that a White person was charged with a criminal offense for "marrying outside of their race", not to mention engaging in carnal activities or even being seen "associating" with non-whites? I'd say that it may have been a while since they were actually charged with a crime for doing so, but it's still a common basis for white bullying.

The answers to such questions lie in the idea of actually taking a look at historical pro-White bias. CRT is the door to that event. Banning CRT from schools is to blind our children from the reality of American life, but they will still pick it up informally. White kids learn to hate on non-whites just fine without having it taught formally in school and to ban CRT from schools will teach them that there's nothing wrong in such bullying because it isn't actually abuse, just a fact. And telling people the facts of life isn't abuse, right?

Well it certainly seems that way when their parents don't want their children to hear the facts of life in school. So let's all pretend that the US is not and has never been a racist country, if only to make all these good, God-fearing American Moms happy.

I think that it is simply remarkable that the core criticism of CRT is that it might make white kids hate themselves and their "race" when many white kids have been hating on non-whites since they were old enough to hear what their daddy was saying while watching the news and talking to their uncles on the front porch while drinking beer (just as some black kids have hated on other black kids ever since they heard what has been said about black kids). Not that it's factually wrong. It's like the old saw that taxes are bad because they take money away from people who have earned it. Sure, let's just say that any fact is bad if it is detrimental to your self-esteem. Just like we say that we all win just so that you don't have to think of yourself as a loser. CRT is a simple statement of fact, in that saying that no law will be based on race sure as heck does not mean that no decision will be based on race. Do we deny that often in the US decisions are based on race? Logically you must deny that if you deny CRT.It's like saying that you can eat all of the cake that you want and you will never get fat.

The denial and rejection of CRT is a clear-cut example of white privilege. Imagine a black person trying to tell a white person that they can't call blacks the N-word. That would have no credibility whatsoever coming from blacks. Now deny that many whites see nothing wrong with it, in fact do it all the time without any fear of legal repercussions, with our legal system actually protecting their right to call blacks the N-word out of freedom of speech. Is it or is it not a "hate crime" to call a black person the N-word? Is it even harassment? Is it even a crime? When is the last time that you heard of a white person arrested, prosecuted and convicted for calling a black person the N-word?

But if a black person even LOOKS AT not to mention even TALKS to a white person who doesn't want them looking at or talking to them? Instant harassment charge if the white person wants to press charges.

We live in a society where these facts are so pervasive that it is simply laughable to deny CRT. But of course white people do it anyway and are taken seriously for doing so. Of course they are. What else do you expect?

No, it shouldn't happen, especially in an unbiased world. But we don't live in an unbiased world, far from it. And it happens routinely.

Last but not least, an examination of crime statistics should show that once accused of a crime, whites and non-whites have the same rate of conviction, because, ideally, charges are only brought against a suspect when there is clear evidence of guilt and a conviction is almost certain. But my guess is that you'd see clear evidence of bias in conviction rates also. Now, I don't need to research this or cite references on this, CRT itself is based on such research. To say otherwise is to say that CRT, supposedly a theory based on the exhaustive research of crime statistics, isn't actually based on exhaustive research of crime statistics. Or isn't an accurate, unbiased summary of research on crime statistics. I.E. it's not based on clear well-documented historical fact indeed much the same fact that white supremacists routinely use to justify their white-supremacist theories. It's just a different explanation for the same data. I wouldn't be surprised if Richard Spencer and the authors of CRT cite many of the same sources. But how would this pro-white bias extend to conviction-rates? Similarly it's a matter of coming up with a hypothesis that fits the data. The CRT explanation would be two-fold, one that charges brought against white defendants are pro-forma charges, only brought so that the CJS can claim to be unbiased, but in fact they are chosen (by the police when they care to arrest and by prosecutors when they care to actually charge a white suspect) such that white defendants are almost certain to be found not guilty of said charges. Which is likely to happen if prosecutors are likely to drop, judges are likely to throw out and juries are likely to find not guilty on many such charges for white defendants, especially if said charges are brought against white defendants knowing that they aren't supported by evidence and/or the law. But let's be certain: they have to charge at least SOME white defendants for SOMETHING, right? Or are we at the point where the only time that a Criminal Justice System can charge a defendant with a crime is if they are non-white? And if there is endemic racial bias in the CJS, not to mention in the population at large, the outcome is likely to be the opposite for blacks than for whites. Throw any charge whatsoever at black defendants and they are likely to result in convictions and hefty sentences leading most black defendants to plea-bargain likely to ensure a sentence that is less harsh than a white defendant would receive if they ever actually lost at trial for the same charge maybe even for multiple convictions. How many black defendants received say 10 years in jail for one conviction out of say 5 convictions for a white defendant and the white defendant only got 5 years in jail or a suspended sentence or concurrent time? There are many ways for judges to cut corners when sentencing.

I mean, seriously. If you actually look at the data and these patterns are there, you have to come up with a logical rationale for their existence. Simple denial of CRT, or even blatantly irrational denial of CRT is not enough. Logically. Unless you're white. This is what "white privilege" means. And if you think that black LEO don't care about white backlash then you're crazy. Black backlash against white LEO is just icing on the cake for them.

But no, the US is not a racist country, no!!! A black man said so, so it must be true...

numerical accuracy: real vs perceived
I tried to make a small edit on this page, with the Vatican City line, but I couldn't figure out how to do it within a few minutes so I gave up and decide to leave this note instead. There are two issues, one of perception and one of reality. The perceived problem is that the population density for Vatican City has 6 digits in it:

Vatican City * [note 1]	453	0.49	0.19	924.49	2,394.43	[8] 1 Feb 2019

that is because the number is presented as a real number with a 2-digit decimal field (as if it is a monetary value) not as an integer like the 249 other numbers in that column even when the presented result in this:

249 Svalbard and Jan Mayen (Norway)	   2,655	62,422 24,101	// 0	   0	//[34] 1 Sep 2012

250 Greenland *           (Denmark)	56,564	2,166,086 836,326	// 0	   0	// 2018

obviously not a WYSIWIG editor

Also in some parts of the world, the period is used as a thousandths' separator, in the US it's a decimal point. So the mixed-use of a comma and a period is a real accuracy problem.

The entire line contains entries with a similar problem, 0.49 would that be 0 when rounded-off, and how would that look, while it would be fine for 924 and 2,394. But it did take me some time to realize that this is a presentation problem not that VC actually has a population density of 2,394,430 while still coming in as #13 on the list.

Because I'm not used to seeing this kind of nonsense in presented data.

So with all the functions in this editor (actually two editors) and this simple problem can't be fixed easily? Show us how this is easily fixed, Wiki editor guru.

January 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Messerschmitt Me 262, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

My source is wiki itself. It is not my fault that one wiki page says one thing and another wiki page says another thing and as such you have multiple wiki conflicts as sources.

If wiki cannot or will not keep its own pages straight, don't expect people trying to clean up the mess on wiki that is wiki for wiki to do according to wikis' rules. Either all of the content on wikipedia is directly attributable to an external source (and thus subject to random comments as long as there exists an external source that says so)

or wiki has at least some summary material that is a compilation from many source some of which are not just unverified but undocumented on the wiki page.

You can't have it both ways at the same time.

cheers