Critical Race Theory

I won't support banning it, but I think it is just plain wrong in most perspectives.

Women have privileges in a court and increasingly black people too if the race card is played. Judges should take care of circumstances and the environment, but you still need to punish crime.

How would you even come to the conclusion that white people or men are privileged in court? Or by the system in general? Reality cannot confirm this at all.

> Neil Gotanda, Kimberle Crenshaw ,Gary Peller, and Alan Freeman demonstrated the failure of struggles for race-blindness to dislodge white supremacy.

I think this is nothing more than a myth to be honest and since this dogmatism isn't up for critique, I can dismiss CRT as a whole.

Unpopular opinion: There are fundamental, semi-intractable problems based in human nature: actual unconscious bias and actual overt hate against any one of numerous attributes. The problems with the prescriptions of retreating into the myths of "education solves human nature" and forced diversity (what are the goals, means, effects, and nature of what's meant by "diversity" in the contexts of hiring and admissions?) are that they shuffle problems around and create disadvantages including lower performance, false confidence, entitlement, and resentment by more qualified applicants.

If you want people to understand what discrimination feels like, mandate the eye color classroom discrimination lesson. Actual biases can often be recognized and prevented in selection processes, and actual hate can be punished.

Shifting society around to favor one group over another never ends well. Merit must be the decider for everyone, with achievement help to whoever needs it. It's common sense.

> Critical race theorists reject the idea that "race" has a natural referent.

Who knew that heritability and geographic separation don't affect humans. Then these genetic distance maps [1], and certainly this one [2], are just complete nonsense? They must be, since we already know race has no basis in nature, so any evidence showing otherwise is by definition flawed. I believe dismissing it as "subjective" is the usual approach (whereas evidence that emphasizes similarities is, of course, fully objective).

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Principal_compon...

[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Individual-level_hum...