Laughing at your pathetic grasps at debate is hilarious!

Get good, son!

funny that user commenting on propaganda when it still thinks ‘russia’ went and “hacked the election” because the same swamp demons and media who sold us “wmd in iraq” said so

It's not that concepts can't overlap, it's that this (i.e. CRT) is a poorly constructed, and fundamentally incomplete explanation for what is going on. It decides from the outset that race is to be the thesis, and in the course of that it tries to trace every social ill, many of which are shared by cultures that have little in common with us, to the particularly American phenomenon of chattel slavery.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/20/reed-d20.html

Here's an interesting interview with an actual Marxist. I'm not a Marxist, so I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but he sets the problem out nicely and has a nuanced take on what is going on. That's a genuinely interesting conversation to have. CRT, on the other hand, is actual nonsense championed by vapid HR bureaucrats and third-rate academics, whose primary means of advancing the theory has been to castigate everyone opposed to it as a racist in lieu of actual debate.

So right now you're doing what the evolution-deniers did. You take a theory and say "it's incomplete because evolution doesn't explain the big bang". Yeah, no shit, it doesn't try to. Critical RACE Theory only wants to look at racial interactions. It does not and never claimed to be the full picture. Fundamentally, you're making this assumption because you started from Fox News tier talking points instead of starting from a neutral position. I mean, nobody can start from a true neutral, but you bought the propaganda hook like and sinker, and now you're trying to work backwards and retroactively soften your stance as you're coming into contact with the content and aren't able to reconcile it with your initial take.

The article you linked isn't something I find interesting in the context of critical race theory. The discussion on CRT is limited to it's application to the 1619 project and is over within two paragraphs, and doesn't really say anything overtly critical. I imagine you're reading a lot of the article into what you want to be true about CRT and that's why you think this was worth linking.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 29 2021 01:33pm

Listen, I could say that you get most of your information from left-wing Youtube videos, and I'd have a basis for saying that, because you've posted enough of them on this forum. On the other hand, I don't watch Fox News, I don't post Fox links, and I've spent far more time than you studying these concepts in a formal university environment. So if you're unable to conduct a discussion without launching into a juvenile personal attack, that's ok. Go argue with TiStuff or someone who is on your level.

The application of CRT is in the "New Jim Crow", the "1619 project", "How to be an Anti-Racist", and "White Fragility". These are the works that have had the largest representation in schools, HR departments, universities, and media. The New Jim Crow asserts that the criminal justice system was designed as a form of neo-apartheid, ignoring that enhanced violent crime laws were put into place with majority black support, representing real black and white concerns over a sharp rise in violent crime. The 1619 project doesn't just assert that race plays a major role in the American story, it asserts that its the fundamental story, and that the American revolution itself was a product of slavery. It was written by a journalist with no real qualification in history, and disputed by actual historians. It's ironic that you brought up religion as an example, because Robin DiAngelo's work is fundamentally religious. Either you accept her argument, and you are a racist, or you dispute it, in which case you are also a racist. It's a Kafka trap in action, or a modern day witch trial.

The flaw is in the totality with which race is pushed as an explanation for disparities, to the exclusion of other factors. When you're writing an academic paper, it's necessary to address competing factors and weigh them accordingly. You don't get to make grandiose claims and then fall back on "Well, I was only considering race"; you must moderate your argument in relation to the effect race actually had on the events in question. Racism certainly exists, and race is a factor, but CRT explicitly seeks to interpret all disparities with respect to racial differences. Suffice to say that that's simply incorrect frame through which to interpret the world.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jun 29 2021 07:01pm

pale pasty privileged lefty low-key racists like thor watch far more faux news than most of his “enemies” on this forum. he even admits it watches it all the time. it really is a knee-slapper and a laugh

oh i use that term “enemy” because most of us (even the newer inflammatory users) just laugh him off when he goes on these insipid rants, but he pm’s strangers looking for validation on his life. it really is a sickness what when a sun-allergic wonderbread loaf of lifelong drain on the taxpayer like that user is demanding minorities be taught (on the taxpayer dime!) ridiculous ideas: that segregationists are good, hating people because of traits they cannot control is good, and that “separate but equal”was a good idea. oh and the biggest doozy: some boogeyman group of white people is the “devil” who limits everyone else’s self-determination and agency, when the (D) president, (D) leadership, and that user himself are about as pale white privileged people as you can get

While you may not watch fox news every post I've seen you make on the subject has been a copy and paste of a conservative talking point.

Its abundantly obvious the kinds of places you are getting your information because your "points" have all been able to be debunked as bad faith criticism in less than 5 minutes.

If this wasnt something you do all the fucking time I might give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've been unable to do anything but parrot fox news tier talking points for over 5 years now so im not inclined to give you a break on your blatant dishonesty. I've genuinely never seen a social conservative propaganda piece you weren't willing to parrot. You did it with gay marriage, you do it with trans issues, and now you're doing it with Critical Race Theory. You do this every... fucking... time. A new boogeyman comes up, and you make it your mission to eat and regurgitate the propaganda.

I can even have good conversations with Black because when I call him out for being dishonest he generally drops it and we have a good conversation. You plow forward with 5 paragraph Cam-level defenses that amount to "NU UH ACTUALLY YOU".

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 29 2021 08:21pm

If you are unable to argue coherently against "conservative talking points", i.e. things you don't like, then you probably need to take a step back and take the time to research the subject.

I have responded to your previous post, take your time, understand what I'm saying, and try to construct a response. You have not studied these topics at greater than a high-school level, and it shows, so no one is buying the unwarranted arrogance. You have gotten into personal squabbles with half of the forum because you lack the requisite emotional intelligence to actually conduct a conversation.

Can you tell me a single person you've had a "good conversation" with in the past year over a subject on which you've disagreed?

I've had like a dozen in the last month. I haven't seen you have it in like, three years a least. The best you could get was the Flynn threads where your constant lieing about the state of affairs was constantly called out and you kept digging your heels in.

btw, I decided not to respond because you've made it clear you're not interested in doing anything but parroting propaganda. There's no point in continuing the conversation when one party isn't approaching the subject honestly. (hint, that's you).



Also, I've never claimed to have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. But I know enough to recognize propaganda and bad-faith arguments. You don't even know the difference between methods and theories. (i.e. Structuralism vs CRT). If you really studied this at the graduate level you need to get your money back.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 29 2021 09:20pm

bogie why you no join discord