Nice how the guy gaslighting is projecting. Well done Trump.

And i like how you now are trying to pretend you never disagreed with my argument.

I am not sure what "anti" means in "anti-rhetoric" but my point remains that....

'this issue... as used by the GOP and Media CURRENTLY... is being whipped up as the next brown menace (racial boogeyman) by the GOP and Right Media... to make white people afraid and polarize voters to gain votes'.

Nice that in your lies now you admit you are not disagreeing with my position. I take that as your cowardly way to admit i was right. But in your need to lie always, you must pretend you never did. FLOL.

How you know your article is starting out on the wrong foot

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-is-juneteenth

Wait... are you denying the articles I posted spoke to the idea of the racial bogeyman I referred to as a 'brown menace' when you say 'all those articles show is Fox and the Right talking about it more'?

Is that your position?

Posting articles that also don't show what you're trying to argue doesn't actually help you.
Perhaps you're using the term "brown menace" in some sort of novel way.

Except you are lying as always.

Those articles reflect EXACTLY what i said. They use 'racial bogeyman' where I said 'brown menace'. Same thing.

They say The GOP and Right media are "ginning this up for fund raising and to win votes'. My point was the same.

You came out against that and now in a need to spin a lie pretend you were not.

And I love it as it means you KNOW you were wrong and lied and cannot accept it. I enjoy that thoroughly.

Lol Cuepee.
You cited some articles that talk about racial bogeyman.

What does that mean though?
Was it my claim that people can't write articles discussing racial bogeymen?
Because if it was you did a good job otherwise lol.

You did say "science itself". You're never going to trust me. You really shouldn't trust me. I don't care that you don't. When I enter into discussions here, is to discuss whatever issue that I'm interested in, and not necessarily to prove one thing, or the other. The nature of the beast is that people want to dispute things.

In many ways you dispute reality. There's no common ground with you. We can't really can't discuss the virtues of Marxism, for instance, because you don't accept there's any issues with Marxism, and you invalidate any criticism on that basis.

It's not lost on me that we can't find a critical race theorist disagreeing with another critical race theorist. I can't think of any other school of thought where that exists. The only school of thought that I'm aware of is critical theory and all of its critical theories. You won't find people who dispute the basic tenants of critical race theory, within critical race theory. This is kind of odd, considering critical theory disputes almost every aspect of science. It's become so prevalent we don't have sociologists/economist, who are independent of critical theory, disputing it. Or, maybe we do, but they're written off. Jonathan Church, for example.

The dismissal of all criticism is telling. It's not just my criticism, criticism from John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, James Lindsey, Dr. Walker, and a host, but mostly black scholars, of others is dismissed without ever engaging with the criticism.

It's not lost on me that most of these voices are black, to which you go and make the tokenism argument. The truth is, though, they're the most outspoken and the most intelligent voices on the matter.

Lastly, and back to the trust thing, I don't think you can handle the intellectual capacity of the people I cite. I'm not trying to insult you, I just don't think you're that smart. I don't think I'm that smart, either. I fully grasped the concept of critical theory, critical race theory and I listen to their arguments and their arguments make sense. When you say you don't trust me, you're not trusting the sources cite either. That's just foolish, for anyone who has any sort of intellectual capacity. These people are smart.

(Before you gaslight me and say I'm being manipulated and I don't see that they're manipulating me, I trust my ability to tell when I'm being manipulated, I've got years of experience, and I trust my own ability to comprehend and interpret)

The rebuttals to those arguments don't make any sense, They are always outright distortions, lies, and deflections. I trust myself to be able to interpret a coherent position. There are some people here who can offer a coherent rebuttal, even if it's unconvincing. They're simply aren't many people on your side who has that capability. And so far, I haven't found a critical race theorist who even attempts to engage with the criticism.

There's certain truths that are obfuscated or outright denied. One of which is the connection critical race theory has to critical theory, and ultimately Marxism, and if you go real deep Helgian. Not one critical race theorists can distinguish critical race theory from critical theory other than the fact that it focus on race as an axis of oppression within the critical theory framework of all systems are oppressive.

The long story short is, I don't have to prove s*** to you. You either have something to say about the stuff I post, or you don't.

Yes, Just as i talked about 'racial bogeyman' (brown menace) and you said i was wrong despite clearly now admitting you have no clue what it is even to mean.

All you need to know is the articles cited the same thing I did, and you were wrong. You don't need to comprehend it and I don't hold out any hope you could if you tried.

It was your claim that 'racial bogeyman' (brown menace) were not being used by politicians and media but you have reversed yourself now saying it is obvious, so that is ok.

No one expects you to admit a wrong. You don't have that type of quality of character.

Lol Cuepee.
You're the worst lying gaslighter who posts in this forum fwiw.

That's your quality of character.
It was never my claim that racial bogeymen aren't used by politicians-- you liar-- it was in fact specifically my claim that the caravan stuff was a bogeyman.
What I was asking you to show is how anti- CRT stuff is in the same vein-- how it exploits fears of a "brown menace".
You haven't come close to doing that. Instead what you did was post a bunch of others that talk about CRT talk has exploded. Which is great but is not the argument.

Hegel?

Way out over your skis man. Should have just stuck with Marxism as a boogyman. 99.99% of people couldn't even tell you Hegelian is an adjective of Hegel. Much less even tell you who Hegel was or what he said.

Hegel can be summed up with like two words: narratives progress.

That's why I stop at Marx, but you're right.

It's actually pretty common to at least see referenced(in a fairly twisted form anyway lol) on conspiracy forums etc.

Except I am right and you are wrong.

You replied to MY post. MY point.

My point being this issue 'CRT' is being used as a 'racial bogeyman' (brown menace) by GOP politicians and Right Media.

The articles I posted all confirm and say the exact same thing that this issue is being used by the GOP and Right media as a 'racial bogeyman' and being ginned up to divide people to garner votes and raise money.

You made a mistake and disagreed and now are trying to d*cktuck and pretend you did not because you are too cowardly to own it.

But what was said was clear and if you are man enough this time lets bet. Full account bet, one of us never to come back. We start a thread and post the relevant posts and let everyone vote.

But you know you won't because you are a coward. You were a coward the last time you accepted a bet with me and ran and you will duck out now.

WARNING: POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK ALERT!!!

Oh, blatantly lying about my post. I didn't say I didn't trust "science itself." I said I didn't trust your science, or "the" science that you'd post to back up your claims (which you never did and will not).

Marxism is a lot of things, and not only is CRT not synonymous with Marxism, having some commonalities with one aspect doesn't make the whole thing Marxism.

It's because the entire body of CRT you know is curated for you by right wing agitators in out of context quotes. You're not doing an honest assessment of an academic discipline. You're finding scare quotes that reinforce your priors.


Your criticism is just equating it with Marxism over and over and over again. Walker shared what he considered a higher aspirational goal without actually articulating any argument against many of the scary things you consider CRT but that are basically indistinguishable from ideas from many Civil Rights Era thinkers, like Walker. I did address McWhorter's argument. He simply believes that Black people have themselves to blame because they are worse people. It's not a compelling argument when so many structural barriers, like housing inequality, are plain-as-day and have nothing to do with Black personal failings.

lol, they're definitely not the most outspoken critics. Did you see the fox news graph showing how much coverage they're giving it?

The main reason why no one should believe that you have a reasoned and reasonable understanding of CRT or its critics is because of your ongoing inability to explain the arguments of either side in your own terms so as to help other people understand. You know the old saying about not knowing anything until you're able to explain it to your grandmother? Yeah, you're failing at that. No matter how stupid you think I am, the degree to which you understand something is to the degree you can get someone else stupider than you to understand it. Just sort of thinking to yourself "Yeah, I got this" is the ultimate self-delusion.

It's not my science. It's science. You don't have the wherewithal, or the self-awareness to know when you refute my science, you are refuting science. I'm fully aware you don't trust anything that goes against your perspective. It's impossible for you to do so.

Here's the data analysis that says black incarceration rates are dropping almost twice the rate of white incarceration, and this is the third time I'm citing it.

I ignored the rest of your post.

It's whole goal is to undermine liberalism, it's f****** explicit.

Here's your claim:

In your link above, it is neither science nor data analysis. It is data, and the data show that the incarceration rates of Black people are falling faster than that for white people as of c. 2004. This is hardly surprising, given that the rate of incarceration for Black people is much, much higher than for white, so there's much more room for the rate to fall. You have presented nothing of the sort that shows that this predates CRT in public institutions, when, in fact, CRT started in public institutions started in 1989, not some time after 2004, when the incarceration rate started falling. And you have shown nothing to implicate an actual causality. So, it appears that the "before this theory started being incorporated into public institutions" and the implied corollary, that something else caused this, are both things you just straight up imagined. Furthermore, even if CRT in public institutions had literally nothing to do with the falling incarceration rate, that is not, in and of itself, an argument against CRT in public institutions. Incarceration rates are not the only racial inequality that CRT would hope to tackle.

Every time I hear anything about Hegel about mid way through I think to myself "sometimes people are just making **** up as they go along"

Sigh.

But now I've digressed into your obfuscating and equivocating garbage. They're literally is no common ground with you.

Still reading the history of affirmative action and non of the "CRT" stuff is new in any real sense. At least the part of the heightened racial awareness part that gets thrown in with the "CRT is throwing out objectivity and reason" bit.

I couldn't screenshot them because they were just tidbits thrown in here and there but you have LBJ apologizing in speeches about how white people destroyed black families.

You have the EEOC running into the chicken and egg problem that business could hire based on merit but then white men would usually win strictly on the merit because of the poor educational attainment of African Americans so the department tasked with helping African Americans with equal employment couldn't do anything.

You have the EEOC running into the issue that while many companies plainly didn't hire African Americans, they had no explicit law on the books denying employment so how could they tell if businesses had racist hiring policies?

You have the EEOC having a miniscule budget and no real enforcement powers. They could only make memorandums at first

You have many people starting to use a new phrase in 1963......

You have the paradox of affirmative action that to get African American equal employment would take singling out people by their race for preferential treatment because both the racist and the non racist objective scenarios both denied employment to large portions of African Americans.

In the modern parlance they'd have to do a racism to fix a racism.

All of this in the 60s....so like nothing new under the sun.

None of what you said sounds like this:

Maybe I'm missing something? Was Delgado lying about traditional discourse?

What is the name of your book?

The point being is, CRT isn't about identifying the problems. It's demonstrating the liberal systems can't fix the problems because of its inherent flaws, such a standards that lead to disparate outcomes. It doesn't think liberalism can solve that problem.

And Saddam's soldiers were killing all the babies in Kuwaiti hospitals.

Sorry you got triggered snowflake.