I responded to that question at least 20 times. Your idea what systemic racism is, isn't what systemic racism actually is. I do believe it's possible for it to exist, and has existed.

And critical race theory isn't just arguing systemic racism exist. This is you, again, baiting and switching. If you want to defend critical race theory defend it instead of trying to shooting all these red herrings to deflect from that criticism.

I'm not an expert either and neither a proponent or opponent.
If the allegations re anti Semitism and anti Asian racism are correct re CRT, then it has no place in schools or anywhere, really.
If the allegations are bs then I have no real opinion on CRT. I'm sure if taught in schools, students will make up their own mind on it.

Not the person--the outfit that was printing it.


But he does make some other incorrect mis-characterizations though so ya A lone voice/handful of outliers are usually just that. Where does he sit among his peers as a whole?

So what do you think mlk would be up to these days? Sitting around talking about how systemic racism got all cleared up ~50yrs ago LOL. Just googling various versions of crt/mlk bring up some first pages that look pretty similar--as far as who is all worked up about it So, were what are largely the same opponents wrong this time or the first time around?

What does he get incorrect? OP's sociologist Twitter guy failed to answer this question as well. I guess it's when you can label every single voice that has a criticism as a conservative or a "lone voice", it's pretty easy to dismiss, but that's not really an accurate interpretation of reality. Especially when you consistently failed to engage with any of the criticism, but instead try to paint the people levying the criticism as the same people who oppose the Civil Rights Movement.

With that said, I love you all saying how these people all incorrect but you know nothing about critical race theory. Do you not understand how fake that makes you look?

Seriously, do you have any other rebuttal other than the people who oppose it are somehow mythically associated with racist?

Why do I want to defend CRT ? The academics who are pushing it are doing that and I read that there's quite a bit of push back. It seems like there will be a public debate on how it's applied to children in school. This is how things play out in a democracy. The parents complain to the school board and yada, yada, yada.

I'm much more curious as to why a person would deny the very existence of systemic racism in the US. That's probably a bigger clue into what the eventual solution of said systemic racism might be. (ie. the old racists have to die off first)

This seems doubtful.

He says crt is marxist as if mlk's views are somehow coming from a massively different place altogether. I assume you also agree with his ideas about wealth redistribution? Because it would absolutely be attacked as such without a doubt today. There's no guarantee that what was used as a calculated strategy based on the scenario/circumstances of the time wouldn't have changed/evolved as the situation changed over time.

So I answered your question--now be a peach and tell us were the detractors wrong the first time around this time or both?

So yeah this one looks pretty racist. Gonna go with super racist actually.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread”

-Le Lys Rouge [The Red Lily] (1894)

People have been pointing out that mere equality in the law means little without equity for a long time.

In 1965 the writer Alex Haley interviewed King for an interview that ran in Playboy Magazine. Haley asks him about an employment program to help "20,000,000 Negroes." After expressing his approval for it, King estimates that such a program would cost $50 billion.

Haley then asks: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?"

King: "I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages--potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races."

Haley asks him about possible resentment from white people, and he says that the poor white man ought to be "made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro....Together, they could form a grand alliance."


Just some more mlk stuff so we have a clear picture of vegas' pro-mlk positions

MLK would be a Sanders supporter probably. Or at least that's the closest to his philosophies we have. He wasn't a Marxist.

I didn't say he was now did I?

iirc it was something like--off in that same general direction. Though he would absolutely be attacked as such regardless--so it's kinda beside the point. Or something like that.

Whether or not the original Walker take is correct is up for debate on use of that word as well fwiw

old black guy--hey we weren't commies!

white people/opponents--uhh yea ya were

I didn't say you said that you did not.
I can see how the "he wasn't a Marxist" makes it ambiguous. I just threw that in extra.
MLK can be properly called a leftist because he was against the power structure. But he wasn't willing to do away with capitalism, or at least not to advocate for that openly.
Sanders comes closest within present day politics although I think Sanders is a fraud.

It's doubtful that the fact that a large segment of the population deny systemic racism exists is a factor to consider in addressing systemic racism ?

Or doubtful that the racists will die off ?

If B. Then yeah. I see your point.

Left to right.

Israeli Jew, Asian journalist, Palestinian kid in wheel chair.

So I win ?

What makes you say this?

Some conspiracy reasons like how when he was first elected as mayor of Burlington Vermont back in 1980-- as a socialist and in the heart of the cold war-- they had him on the Today Show.
https://youtu.be/OraxqbUjpHw
And stuff about his relationship with the Democratic party-- the stuff that came out in wikileaks about the "agreement" that the Clinton campaign had with him. And just general views I have about what it takes to become a US Senator.
I consider Sanders to be basically a left-gatekeeper who defines the limits of mainstream left thought-- basically that the overton window stops with him. But his actual politics are basically in-line with a lot of mainstream European politicians, and he seems to give more lipservice to speaking truth to power than actually doing it.

Ya I think it's pretty fair to say he was coming at it(at least as far as strategy goes--strategy/belief aren't nec. interchangeable though--what you feel is the the most effective strat may not nec match up with what you truly believe) from a place that still believed in the law/ultimately system etc. in a number of ways. Essentially working to change the system from within though when you get right down to it--which kinda puts it into the same realm as why you don't like the the crt stuff fwiw So instead of being ct'd up as a commie plot it seems like you could easily give it the good old elite divide/conquer story too. Guilting christians/white people into taking a good hard look at themselves kinda sounds similar to the whole acknowledging white privilege etc thing no? Particularly when you take into account how big picture politics shifted after the big laws cra/voting were passed.

The circumstances of the time(segregation/2nd class citizen etc obv put a big spin on things) made it a good strat but there's no real reason to believe it wouldn't have evolved as conditions changed. And that's kinda why I think saying how things evolved with the crt/conservative split it's not really a fair read to describe crt as some radical wholesale departure/new development from the civil rights era. Both of those sides of things still basically shake out into the same 2 basic groups(crt>liberals/sympathetic to civil rights vs the black conservatives>reg old conservatives) who have been going round and round since the very beginning way back in the day.

Maybe not directly advocating for but....

From the little I've read on CRT, I wouldn't say they're so much anti-King as anti racial history of black people as told by old white men. The idea is that in the history of white people King gets projected as a redeemer of sorts for whites, helping them to see not just the error of their ways but also appealing to the human goodness in their hearts to change. Basically they're saying the orthodox presentation of the Civil Rights Movement is like: White People: A Hero's Journey - starring Tom Cruise as White People. And then MLK gets cast and magnified into the redeemer of whites essentially sucking up all the oxygen in the room. So ultimately King gets portrayed more for what he did for whites than for blacks. In contrast black activists like Malcom X get portayed as a villian of sorts. Not for what they did or didn't do for blacks or really even the calls or hints at violence but instead for what they said about whites, namely, that the only way to get racial equality and justice from whites is when they're staring down a barrel of a gun. That doesn't quite fit the story.

Yeah, the conflict has been going on for a while:

I lend credence to this notion, but what exactly would he have to do to get you to not have the sentiment that he "gives more lip service to speaking truth to power than actually doing it?"

Even in his interview from your link he acknowledges the limits to his own power. Now, as a senator, what could he actually have done? Throughout his career?

Separately, what "agreement" are you talking about wrt the Clinton campaign?

https://www.instagram.com/tv/COLlUj-..._web_copy_link

Does this man not have a point?

If no one wants to click that link, you can just go to IG and search for Jolly Good Ginger

In the last 6 years or so he's had a massive platform. How has he leveraged his new found popularity to advance progressive policies?

You’re only saying civil rights was noble now because it’s socially unacceptable to say otherwise. Being up in arms over CRT is still fine so you do that just like it was fine for Reagan and William Buckley to be against civil rights.

No, he doesn't.