Regarding the knee, political gestures of any kind are explicitly banned by FIFA. Athletes and coaches have been repeatedly fined/banned previously, for example Guardiola £20k for this:



I don't agree with booing the knee. However, there is a double standard here that arguably does not stand up to scrutiny.

Well we have to give them some credit really.

As the right in America talks openly about implementing their plans to subvert POC voters and the dark money funding all of it and writing the legislation they are hand delivering in a pursuit of fascism as the last bulwark against losing power. As Steve Bannon takes that model world wide...

They have many on the right instead focused on the true great threat, CRT.

Some like IHIV, adopt it willing as it feeds his belief system anyway with regards to who the 'true victims' and 'true oppressors' are. Others like Lucky, I think, are more just duped as it fits into his other ideas and paranoias about power and the elite and manipulation.

Majority of the people who buy into this stuff are buying into the virtue of what it's offering, they don't actually challenge the premises it's built upon, for to do that would they have to accept the virtue isn't all that appealing given it's logical conclusion.

What are the premises of CRT?

So leftists are wrong because they've moved into the realm of psychology instead of thinking of help in terms of material situations....

But also you got to be aware of the danger of materially helping someone else they become codependent, so best not to help them?

The followers of the England team have a bit of a history when it comes to nationalism/racism that Farage conveniently ignores.

Ironically about three or four years ago these were the exact same people who were up in arms that FIFA initially rejected a request for us to have the poppy (a symbol of Remembrance Day) on the England shirt during a World Cup qualifier. And of course they all rejoiced when the players wore the poppy anyway (I think FIFA backed down on it, can't remember exactly).

But kneeling? That's something they'd never stand for. Can't have politics on display in a football game...

Imagine helping a woman because they are a woman.

Imagine the consternation of being a business man and given a tax deduction because you're a "job creator" but deep inside you don't feel like a job creator. The mental anguish must be unbearable....... said no businessman ever as they laugh while cashing the check.

The point of focusing on material conditions is that you don't have to focus on psychological "right think" as much.

Doesn't change the fact, you are helping the woman (black person), because you think the woman (black person) is inadequate compared to a man (white person). The woman you're helping, it isn't because of anything to do with her in particular, other than the fact she's a woman, and the generalizations you formed based on critical social theory, and intersectional interpretations of women as a group being disenfranchised.

You're buying into the virtue of helping a woman, but the logical conclusion is, you're doing it because you're a sexist.

This is why -isms have to be redefined as disparities rather than they're more conventional understandings, i.e. inferiority/superiority.

Still not seeing how you're not self contradicting. Sexism gets defined in materialistic ways aka sexism is the economic disparity between men and women.

But that's bad, because it's a "redefinition"? So the definition should stay psychological, aka sexism is saying mean things or doing mean things to women.

Ok, so the solution here is psychological? Have classes to teach people how to properly think about women. Recondition men not to grab women's asses at work.

Cool? Nope, that's that's useless illiberal patronization. What liberals really should be focusing on is the material conditions of women, minorities, etc.

Ok? So we should be focusing on getting women, minorities, and the poor the resources they need to overcome those obstacles?

No, because if you're giving them resources because you think they have obstacles you're really being the one who's racist.

I've commented on this sentiment previously. Seems the mainstream media is focused on the broad assertions, i.e. teaching critical race theory, systemic racism bad.. but they never really delve into the specifics of what these parents are questioning, many of which I've demonstrated with citations from the school districts themselves...

This is the trick they pull, and it's circular. We both agree the result of -isms can be disparities. What causes disparities? Sexism. Define sexism... You provided an ad hoc one here based upon critical social theory and completes the circle...disparity.

The conventional definition of sexism is


No, it's bad because it normalizes sexism, in the conventional sense. And I write condones, but it embraces it. Because helping a woman (black person), just because she's a woman (black person), and because you have a preconceived notion built upon critical social theory about women (black people) in society... is prejudging that woman (black person) you are helping.

You tell people to treat people with dignity and respect and admonish when they don't...

You don't teach people how to treat women. Women aren't some special species that requires education to deal with.

The solution is you teach people to treat individuals with dignity and respect. Identity doesn't determine how you treat someone.

https://www.al.com/news/2021/06/whit...hat-it-is.html

And this is the guy who wrote the bill

Okay, Republicans are stupid, and are responding to their constituents, who probably are pretty dumb too. There's no denying there's a dumb side to the criticism of critical race theory. They are as brain dead as the virtual signalers they rail against, and probably as much of an identarian as them. These outlets don't interview the top critics that's driving the backlash against critical race theory.

Back when I used to watch Fox News they used to do these segments when they go interview random people whatever hot topic issues that are going on... You'd only see the people who came up with stupid answers.

They don't want the real criticism, and instead rely upon these oversimplified characterizations.

Is CRT saying to help black people because they're black ?

I thought the whole premise was to come to some sort of equilibrium because they've been systematically held back for a couple of centuries.

You're now saying it's racist to acknowledge the well known historical reality of sub groups inside the larger social structure.

Can you explain the rationality behind your views ?

You're reading way too much into that European orientation point.
You might do well to meditate on your own education and ask yourself if there was any specific cultural orientation that it was presented from and imagine that you came from a different culture.

I mean, that's not something conservatives do but it would help you see what the text is actually saying.

Again, the end game is to subvert liberalism and capitalism and substitute it with (something, something, something) and the final step is profit. I know.

But I'm asking you how 13% of the population flip and then hold the balance of power using the method you're describing. Because I'm really stuck on the technical details surrounding that part of the plan.

Define european orientation without including liberalism. It's impossible. It's likely the primary descriptor our culture, with capitalism being right there with it.



Well, as even a well-versed MLH indicated, this stuff's based on Marxism, or more apt neo-marxism, or a reimagined Marxism utilizing race, and away from "crude Marxism".

The stuff is designed for a white audience. That professor was explicit... she wanted to leverage marginalized people to disrupt the American education system.

Yep, you see POC's as perpetual kids that needs stools to be equal to whites. You must have missed it when the blatant racism of that cartoon was explained. Height is an intrinsic quality of a person, and that comic explicitly says one group is inherently challenged with shortness. Considering this is a discussion about critical race theory, you must mean the short kid is a POC.

@Hue

QP's post is a great illustration of what I was saying. It's also a comic that's rather prevalent in pop culture. That's the type of idiocy (rationalization) this types of stuff leads to, i.e. stereotype, prejudices, and ultimately racial discrimination.

The cartoons built on a faulty premise (and racist!) in order to sell a virtue.

The anti-racist would want that cartoon stricken from the bowels of the internet. The liberal has no problem with that cartoon, because when they want to explain racism, and show examples of racism, they can show that cartoon and explain why it's racist, and let rationality rule the day. A liberal isn't afraid of bad ideas being spoken out loud, because they have rationality on their side, and consequently are able to expose and destroy rationalizations.

And this isn't a comic from some random idiot on Twitter, either.

Why do Black people with college educations have less wealth on average than white people without, and what should be done about this discrepancy?