Yeah, not that far off. But the median wealth issue is the clearest one for race and not skewed by the top .1% having so much.

Seems weird that if CRITICAL RACE THEORY is so self-evidently scary and destructive, you have to lie about it all the time, even in obvious ways where you post something and lie about what you posted.

Please, for everyone, tell us what the "truth" is...

They aren't telling anyone who they are. They are telling people about how society treats them in ways that are unique to white people and also unappreciated by white people because it's the only way they know. Here, here's some more, dangerous, revolutionary CRITICAL RACE THEORY on the same subject.

Oh? Please enlighten us on who the "real racists" are, and how you came to this conclusion.

Critical race theorists disagree (she is one):

Oh, yeah, I don't have a white identity. Now what?

Again, resorting to scare words because of a complete inability to address her actual argument.

I guess you've helped me learn from some interesting people ITT, so it's not a total waste of my time.

Have you ever gone up to a police officer voluntarily to speak to him or her, and if so, were you afraid while doing so?

Yes.

Do I have a white identity?

Quite probably. Your race doesn't say much about your intrinsic characteristics, but it says a lot about how other people perceive and interact with you, and a lot of white people don't realize that their everyday experience isn't shared with PoC.

You are presupposing that other people determine people's identities, at least a part of it. Whether we disagree or agree about whether that's accurate or valid, it doesn't appear I was lying.

Nah, you're just distorting words. Seeing someone as white and treating them as such isn't "giving them an identity," which, as a term, makes it sound like you think other people are changing how a person views him or herself. That's not what anyone is talking about.

Identity pretty is much identity. What's really happening is, CRT is developing a stereotypical white person, then asking people to acknowledge the stereotype as part of their identity. Same thing with white culture, but white culture is American culture, which is liberal culture, and capitalistic culture, but those aren't just white cultural characteristics, they are also black cultural characteristics.

Yeah, when you put it in that unintended, totally-invented-by-you way, it sounds a lot worse!

Yes, you can post more lies per day about what CRT articles say than anyone can possibly hope to read and see that you're blatantly lying. Congrats, I guess, on having your own little corner of the internet to lie about CRT in service of white supremacy.

I can sit there saying Corvettes suck all day--and some people who already agree with me will probably be on board. Or I can show up with a Porsche and prove it and people will be lined up around the block begging for a piece with no prompting. Actually having a better alternative is the best counter imo.

It may sound crazy--but I don't think the dozen or so people here are who you need to convince

The only possible objection you can have about that tweet is the use of the term "manipulation". That piece has specific citation from critical race theory, has citations specifically related to anti-racism.

You, nor critical race theorist, own the word. It's fine you don't think it's manipulation. That's your opinion. Ever notice when something doesn't go according to your opinion, it's a lie?

A psychologist convincing their patients to buy into a sense of self they don't necessarily agree with, can reasonably be considered manipulation.

That author also cited Robin D'Angelo, who advocates gaslighting people.

Yeah, it's an important word. Unless you think talking with a therapist is fundamentally manipulative against one's own will, or if you think that racist attitudes are like being gay and should never be changed even if someone wishes to change, then it is completely inappropriate to call anything described in that article as manipulative. Forgive me if I don't take you at your word that so and so is a gaslighter, but the next time you give an honest assessment of the words of someone in CRT will be the first.

It's unethical to engage in praxis with a patient, it's manipulative to do it under the guise of helping that patient. In other words, the paper is explicitly advocating for anti-racist activism (indoctrination) in the therapy room with patients.

Lololololol, yeah, you are just lying about that manuscript. And about therapy

Whatever, bro. And it explicitly violates the equal protection clause...

What do you know, the WaPo got caught lying about CRT criticism:



It's a pretty big deal because they essentially accused Rufo of lying about the Cerpentio stuff. Washington Post said it never occurred.

Hahahahahhahahahhahha, dude, you're just embarrassing yourself. Like, it's embarrassing enough to claim that engaging in PRAXIS (your latest scare term) is unethical, and for your citation, link to not a scholarly discussion by a psychiatrist, therapist, or better yet official organization thereof writing in a reasoned fashion how engaging in praxis is indeed unethical, but instead to a mother****ing wikipedia article defining praxis and outlining how praxis is a totally not scary thing that no one should consider fundamentally unethical. Now you're following that up with trying to argue that TALKING ABOUT RACE AND RACISM WITH YOUR THERAPIST IS A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION? Tap dancing Jesus, man, like, equal protection is a thing between people and the government, you know, "equal protection UNDER THE LAW," not between people and the therapist they voluntarily agreed to sort out their issues with. Your posts are just madlibs of terms you heard in rightwing media and twitter that you never actually learned about but still will spew like people should take you seriously.