Fair enough. Is it rpf psych-op.?Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty
Congratulations! You have established that you had never heard about Critical Race Theory "before" (key word!!) you had ever heard about it.
As amazed as I am by such a prodigious feat, though, I must confess that I fail to see how it in any way supports your claim that "that's not what critical race theory says" in relation to my assertion that "[a]ccording to Critical Race Theory [...] there are no issues which are not fundamentally (i.e. 'systemically') racial."
And as for the asininity of suggesting that a thing must be of no significance because you personally have not heard of it "before" (key word!!), @A Son of Liberty's rejoinder was more than sufficiently adequate.
That's a pretty impressive parade of squirrels you've marched out, there! Sadly, though, they all fail to divert attention away from the fact that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and that you are simply and absolutely wrong to claim that the assertion I made is "not what critical race theory says".Do you have an argument or do you just reject that without thought?
I would say that statism is also woven through all the structures of our nation. Would you agree with that claim?
The highlighted box doesn't say what the tweeter say it does. Where does it say that the teachers are racist? It says that they have to make an effort if they want to be anti racist.
I don't like soccer. But I'm not anti soccer. Those are two different things. That seems obvious.
With respect to your first squirrel: whether I accept, reject or am utterly indifferent to the claim that "racism is systemic - woven through all the structures of our nation" is completely irrelevant to the question of whether CRT says what I asserted it says.
With respect to your second squirrel: whether I accept, reject or am utterly indifferent to the claim that "statism is also woven through all the structures of our nation" is completely irrelevant to the question of whether CRT says what I asserted it says.
With respect to your third squirrel: whether "[t]he highlighted box [says] what the tweeter say[s] it does" is completely irrelevant to the question of whether CRT says what I asserted it says. [1]
With respect to your fourth squirrel: whether you like soccer, or are anti-soccer, or whether those are two different things are all completely irrelevant to the question of whether CRT says what I asserted it says.
CRT manifestly and demonstrably does say it. You would know this if you had made more than a token attempt to "look it up" (assuming you even really made any attempt at all). Your claim that it does not say it demonstrates your profound ignorance of even just the basics of the subject (of which the assertion I made is one of the most, well ... basic).
One of the core tenets of Critical Race Theory - the core tenet, even - is that all issues are to be framed and critiqued through the lens of race and racialism. That is precisely why its progenitors chose to call it Critical Race Theory. According to CRT, in the analysis of any social issue or institution, the question to be asked is not "Does racism manifest here?", but rather "How does racism manifest here?" - in other words, "there are no issues which are not fundamentally (i.e. 'systemically') racial". That CRT says this is not a matter of opinion, nor is it in any way debatable or reasonably disputable. One might as sensibly try to deny the fact that Flat Earth Theory says that the Earth is flat. And it's not like the advocates and supporters of CRT are trying to disguise or keep secret the fact that it says exactly what I claimed it says - quite the opposite: they loudly and proudly proclaim it (see the quote from the random, easily-found tweet I provided for just one of myriad examples of this). And if you deliberately refuse to hear them saying it just for the sake of sneering at "right pundit memes", then that's your choice - but you do not then get to hold others to account for your own willfully chosen obtuseness.
[1] And BTW, I actually agree with your criticism of the tweeter's remarks on the highlighted box. It's pretty lame stuff. Unfortunately for your attempt to move the goalposts, however, I was not making reference to the highlighted box, or to the tweeter's remarks about it. I was quoting the box above the highlighted box (a quote for which the YouTube link in the subtweet provided the source). You see, that's what those "quote mark" thingies around the line preceding the tweet mean.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-31-2021 at 01:50 AM.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.
While "looking into it", I'm sure TheCount found that CRT is actually a subsidiary of Critical Theory, which has been in circulation in academia since the mid 20th Century, and that CRT itself has been in circulation since the 80's, I believe, but has gained traction into society at large principally via the success of leftist (actually closeted Marxists, because that is what Critical Theory is about) infestation of nearly every institution in society.
But! TheCount hasn't seen nor heard of it, so, ya know... NBD bro.
Last edited by A Son of Liberty; 08-31-2021 at 04:03 AM.
Saying that racism exists in societal structures is not the same as saying that every issue is fundamentally racial.
Phew, that takes care of the rest of your post. That was easy.
I thought you were actually making a second point rather than just repeating your first point but in different words.
Indeed. And Critical Race Theory explicitly asserts that every issue is fundamentally racial.
Obstinate fatuity always is.
That's okay. I was actually providing evidence in support of my claim, rather than spouting random goalpost-moving tangents, so I understand why you were confused.
And thank you so much for so clearly admitting that the quote I cited from the CRT-based DIE (Diversity, Inclusion and Equity) material in the tweet I posted does indeed "just [repeat my] point but in different words". Your acknowledgment of that fact is greatly appreciated.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-31-2021 at 08:37 AM.
Does it? That's not the impression that I have.
Again, I do not think that saying that racism is systemic in social structures is the same as saying every issue is racial. So you're repeating your point, yes, but continuing to not do so convincingly.
//
I apologize to @phill4paul for participating in the derailment of his thread (and for continuing to do so), but ...
According to Critical Race Theory - which has thoroughly dominated the academy and is now, as a result, acquiring increasing influence in corporate and government institutions (including the military) - there are no issues which are not fundamentally (i.e. "systemically") racial.
Strangely, though, you never whinge about any of that.
Bold emphasis added:
No issues.
Nothing.
Not trees.
Not air conditioning.
Not the names of fishes.
Not opposition to mask mandates.
And certainly not objections to or rejections of Critical Race Theory itself.
Nothing.
Well, at least AF isn't being paid to do it, unlike all these ivory tower progs.I apologize to @phill4paul for participating in the derailment of his thread (and for continuing to do so
Bold emphasis added:
No issues.
Nothing.
Not trees.
Not air conditioning.
Not the names of fishes.
Not opposition to mask mandates.
And certainly not objections to or rejections of Critical Race Theory itself.
Nothing.
$#@!, why not? The unmitigated disaster and loss of lives... it's last weeks news. Except to family members of the dead, the left behind.. that's probably still REAL $#@!IN' CLOSE.I apologize to @phill4paul for participating in the derailment of his thread (and for continuing to do so
AF merely echoed the verbiage favored by those ivory tower progs, and he did it with the venomous contempt it deserves. If more people had done so a few decades ago - while ivory towers were still the only venues in which illiberal "Critical Theory"progressivesregressives could find purchase and traction - prospects might look rather different today. But that didn't happen, and the fruits of the seeds sown in those ivory towers are now running amok in the streets, the schools, corporate boardrooms, and government offices.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 09-04-2021 at 07:16 AM.
Sadly so.
Speak of the devil ...
This article was just published today by The Economist:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...48375792869383
Yes it has. Pervasively, universally, like a conspiracy. But as they noted themselves, only some four percent of the population has bought in.The espousal of new vocabulary is one sign of a social mobilisation that is affecting ever more areas of American life. It has penetrated politics and the press.
So why are they acting like this thing, which they themselves admit is a product of the ivory towers, is some kind of grassroots, bottom up movement taking over the media by popular demand? And if they repeat this lie as often as they repeat so many others, will it become true?
I'll keep this rag behind the paywall, thank you. Otherwise I'd just have to trade my boots in on hip waders. Two paragraphs of $#@! is deep enough for me.
Last edited by acptulsa; 09-04-2021 at 08:22 AM.
Try as I might, I am unable to find in either of those paragraphs anything even remotely resembling a claim that a "grassroots, bottom-up movement" is "taking over the media by popular demand." Quite the opposite; their thesis appears to be that a top-down program engendered by your aforementioned "ivory tower progs" is increasingly spreading throughout and poisoning the wider culture and its organs (government, media, schools, etc.) - which is indeed exactly what is happening.
But in any case, four percent is more than sufficient when they are the ones shaping narratives, indoctrinating students, acquiring power, making policy, and enforcing rules. Just ask the Bolsheviks. And ninety-six percent is woefully inadequate when they indulge indifference or, even worse, actively sneer at the idea that the other four percent could possibly be of any consequence. Just ask Solzhenitsyn.
Lenin and his gang were really just "ivory tower progs", too, after all.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 09-04-2021 at 09:39 AM.
You're right. They don't say that. But somehow I do find this...
...somewhat misleading in that regard. "Social mobilisation [sic (of the Brits)]". "Spilling out into the streets." Subtle, yes, but it smells misleading to me. It certainly doesn't have the flavor you'd expect from it, considering it's a social engineer bragging about how well their ratfucking is going.The espousal of new vocabulary is one sign of a social mobilisation that is affecting ever more areas of American life. It has penetrated politics and the press. Sometimes it spills out into the streets, in demonstrations calling for the abolition of police departments.
Maybe I'm trying too hard to read between the lines.
Last edited by acptulsa; 09-04-2021 at 09:59 AM.
The "social mobilisation ... spill[ing] out into the streets, in demonstrations calling for the abolition of police departments" is clearly a reference to all the Antifa/BLM brouhaha of late - brouhaha which absolutely and undeniably has been (and continues to be) fostered in the environs of the ivory tower.
The Economist, however, is just as undeniably a thoroughly establishment rag (which is precisely why I said earlier that "I don't know what their angle may be or how cogent it is" with respect to the unseen portion of the article). But the establishment is neither monolithic nor omnipotent. If I may continue with the development of my Soviet analogy, most Russian socialists were not Bolsheviks, and many of them despised and feared Lenin and his lot - for good reason, as it turned out. Yet despite their name, the Bolsheviks were a minority (hardcore Russian communists) within a minority (Russian socialists in general). Given that dynamic as an exemplar, is it really all that surprising if our illiberal establishment (as typified by The Economist and its ilk) should regard the even more radically illiberal Woke with a gimlet eye?
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 09-04-2021 at 10:35 AM.
No, though I am surprised to see them risking getting caught doing it. Though it's not much of a risk. If I wanted to keep something secret from the Illiberal Woke, I can't imagine a better way than to hide it in something called The Economist.
I just get sick of the mainstream propamedia posing as innocent bystanders even as they publish descriptions of their very own actions.
This one's cute.
Not so much when the looting starts...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us