Why don't you ask the next 5 or 10 black people you run into instead You realize there are also ~80yr olds etc ya who have been around for a long time?

AHAHAHA.

You call me disingenuous and then type the above. FLOL.

NO. You can't change, disingenuously, what I said CLEARLY and meant.

This comment by me,

"...OK. But do you think this would be a topic at all in the News right now if not for the 'Brown Menace' threat narrative it feeds into..."

is in no way a comment on CRT or the "anti-crt rhetoric". That is a complete fabrication by you.

It is solely pointing WHY IT IS BEING ELEVATED AS AN ISSUE, without addressing any of the content or merits arguments. The the GOP and Right Media are using it as 'racial bogeyman' (brown menace) to try and gin up support/votes and raise money.

And I stated that over and over in each post.

You seem to think any such statement such as mine has to address merits or be a point in the debate and it does not. An argument can be meritorious or meritless and yet still be ginned up for political purposed.

These are two very different distinctions.

Lol what?

No, you are dupe as you really have a Grade 1 level of arguments and the information you digest. Truly childlike.

For those not comprehension challenged they understand that an analysis of 'what is driving any discussion' is not a comment on the argument itself. It is NOT race war stuff.

What it is, is an examination of the factors OUTSIDE the debate and who is trying to manipulate and use it for personal, political or other reasons.

You really struggle with that. You seem to be incapable of comprehending that this type of thing is ever done or could be done by disingenuous political actors. Again that is no comment on the merits of the argument but that will be lost on you.

In your tiny world view you just seem to be completely clueless to the idea of 'outside manipulation' by gov't actors being a thing and how that can be COMPELETE SEPERATE from the underlying argument.

It was something I found strange as I would have thought, based on your prior posts, you would have a hyper awareness (paranoia) about it. But this talk shows how perplexed and unable you are to wrap your head around the concept and separate the two. Even now you cannot engage them as separate issues showing you think they MUST be linked. That no outside manipulation divorced of the arguments could be weaponized and used.

That is why you are dupe. You are a CTer who struggles to believe such manipulation occurs. Or i guess, a best case is maybe you think that is the CT, and that any such allusions to such manipulation is a CT itself.

And there you go again proving my point in my last post.

Your inability to see that political actors can look at any XYZ topic that they think can inflame a populace to their ends and without care or concern for the arguments of the topic try to enflame it for their benefit.

Lucky : WTF a politician or right media would never do that. It is always an argument on the merits by them


Only you think that Lucky. Only you do not understand.

Can you quote me saying anything like this and if you can't do you think you should be banned for lying?

Haha, the Youtube algorithm auto started this video after a non political vidoe I was watching ended while i was making my breakfast.

I hold zero confidence you will be able to understand what he is saying with regards to the 'manipulation for political purposes' (which he quotes Steve Bannon admitting) and how he says that is SEPERATE from the core arguments which could be meritorious but I give it to you anyway.

What are you referring to in that statement there? What is the topic there when you say 'this topic'?
I didn't realize that you didn't even mean to be talking about CRT.

You literally lol'd at the idea that this could be driven by a manipulation tactic by the GOP and Right Media to 'gin up the next racial bogeyman (brown menace) for political reasons of polarizing voters and raising money'.

You were not only entirely unaware but you could not accept or believe that to the extent you thought it was laughable to even suggest it.

Can you quote me literally LOLing?

You "don't realize" a lot. That is pretty much the clear conclusion here.

GO back and re-read your few exchanges with ecriture d'adulte and spend some time trying to figure it out as he was basically saying the same thing to you.

There is no possible way for you to be unable to determine what I am "referring to with that statement", unless you are just interested in playing games, or so daft it just beyond you. Either way I am not doing your work for you as I have clarified EXACTLY what i mean by numerous times already.

SO instead I will tell you to re-read (or get someone with better comprehension to read it to you) and then come back once they've explained it to you.

(this is where you pretend you are my boss and start a list of demands of 'no, I will not do anything you ask but I demand you do what I ask, as it is easy. oh lol, you won't do as ordered!', type ******ation )

Just tell me what it's about Cuepee if it isn't about CRT. Why do you have to make discussion so difficult?

I mean I think you should just admit you made a mistake and admit that we are actually talking about CRT in this thread.

So the left created this opening for right wing politicians to blast the military leadership as unpatriotic because a general said it was his duty to study academically various topics?

Is this where you try to pretend you wouldn't have been cheering on the guys with fire hoses back in the day?

You avoid any sort of honest criticism of the left. The general wants to understand white rage, or "the great white menace". That's a preposterous assertion, both philosophically and practically. However, you don't believe it's preposterous assertion, nor does the media, nor does the progressive block of the Democratic party. When choosing which populous argument to listen to, which one do you think people are going to gravitate toward? They're not going to gravitate to the one that says all white people are angry, have white fragility, have privilege, are racist. They are certainly not going to do it when the argument is liberal values is what makes them racist.

I mean, your question implicitly accepts that study in "white rage" is a valid academic topic.

If you still don't believe that critical race theory's entire purpose is to undermine liberal and capitalistic values, you just not paying attention to what critical race theory is actually saying. If the left position is to embrace this type of populism, the right is going to exploit it. The right is reactionary.

Again, if you really thought "white rage" was an issue, you'd be concerned about this:

White supremacist/segregationalist/racist buy into identity based perspective's of the world. Is the Iron Law of Woke Projection. Those who don't subscribe to identity-based perspectives of the world are the racist. No, it's almost certainly the woke were the racist back in the day.

Any general wanting to understand the great white menace should definitely just be looking in the mirror and perhaps pouring over the notes from their most recent meetings.

I'm not so sure. Fascists probably sure. Racists I doubt.

OMG FLOL to the max level.

You are still clueless and incapable.

I have stated over and over and over that the underlying discussion can be accurate true and that IS SEPERATE from the point I made and you lol'd at.

You keep coming back with 'ok but tell me why you think it was not about CRT'.

There is no ability to cut through the depths of your inability to comprehend what is being said.

Again, any topic whether it be meritless or meritorious can be used SEPERATELY by politicians for entirely disconnected ends that care little about the debate other than its usefulness for their politics.

I have not, am not and never did make any comment on the actual underlying debate. My comment was solely about why Politicians and Right media are pushing and using it.


If you cannot comprehend that don't ask me again to repeat it. Ask one of the other posters here to explain it you in smaller words.

Why wouldn't I ask the next 5 or 10 people that I see, regardless of who they are?

Also why does it matter how long people have been around? The question was is society racist today. No doubt society was racist 60 years ago.

Because you might get a candid take on things?

So you don't think people who were alive when literal lynchings were still happening might see things somewhat differently?

A couple years ago I was leaving this little convenience store. There was a ~90yr old black guy with a cane etc right behind me so I held the door for him after I walked out. As he was walking by he said--sorry I'm just walking a little slower than normal I wanted to savor it--that's the first time that has Ever
happened in my entire life

Mostly I just barely even read your posts now fwiw.

I posted the origjnal post to point out that Tucker wasn't attacking the military en todo but just the officers and then posted Trump's speech because it does the same thing, even explicitly making the distinction between enlisted and officers.

It's an interesting quirk of right wing politics.

As far as I care the officers can learn whatever they feel is appropriate and lean critiques of that as well. Just the standard academic freedom that all academics, even military ones, should enjoy. I don't think there's anything contraversial about that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide...oung%20parties.