It's odd how Einstein was able to figure it out from context with no problem and yet you're completely stumped.

You and Einstein appear to be quite similar garbage posters so it doesn't surprise me at all.

You should probably help him out since you've interacted with me so much, and tell him about all the ethnic groups that I hate.

It's probably also fair for me to point out that the part that I addressed also happened to be the exact part that was addressed at me.

Shocking how that works.

I kind of agree but the lines blur viz climate change.

It doesn't blur

It's just that most people dont want extreme climate change/etc. That's a human thing not a science thing. And then what is the right/best thing to do? Cull old people, ban babies, go for technology, constrain energy use? etc etc.

Also, some might say 'good riddance' and the science works just as well for them too.

Introduction to The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History

I thought their thesis concerning the 1619 project was interesting:

The “financialization” of the Times has proceeded alongside another critical determinant of the newspaper’s selection of issues to be publicized and promoted: that is, its central role in the formulation and aggressive marketing of the policies of the Democratic Party. This process has served to obliterate the always tenuous boundary lines between objective reporting and sheer propaganda. The consequences of the Times’ financial and political evolution have found a particularly reactionary expression in the 1619 Project. Led by Ms. Nikole Hannah-Jones and New York Times Magazine editor Jake Silverstein, the 1619 Project was developed for the purpose of providing the Democratic Party with a historical narrative that legitimized its efforts to develop an electoral constituency based on the promotion of racial politics. Assisting the Democratic Party’s decades-long efforts to disassociate itself from its identification with the social welfare liberalism of the New Deal to Great Society era, the 1619 Project, by prioritizing racial conflict, marginalizes, and even eliminates, class conflict as a notable factor in history and politics.

The shift from class struggle to racial conflict did not develop within a vacuum. The New York Times, as we shall explain, is drawing upon and exploiting reactionary intellectual tendencies that have been fermenting within substantial sections of middle-class academia for several decades.

They consider this move towards 'racialization' a reactionary one-- and that I think has a technical use here amongst Marxists/Socialists that denotes pseudo-progressive movements.

He continues further down:

The prevalence and legitimization of racialist theorizing is a manifestation of a deep intellectual, social, and cultural crisis of contemporary capitalist society. As in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, race theory is acquiring an audience among disoriented sections of middle-class intellectuals. While most, if not all, of the academics who promote a racial agenda may sincerely believe that they are combating race-based prejudice, they are, nevertheless, propagating anti-scientific and irrationalist ideas which, whatever their personal intentions, serve reactionary ends.

The interaction of racialist ideology as it has developed over several decades in the academy and the political agenda of the Democratic Party is the motivating force behind the 1619 Project. Particularly under conditions of extreme social polarization, in which there is growing interest in and support for socialism, the Democratic Party—as a political instrument of the capitalist class—is anxious to shift the focus of political discussion away from issues that raise the specter of social inequality and class conflict. This is the function of a reinterpretation of history that places race at the center of its narrative.

The bolded makes sense in terms of why the ruling class is comfortable promoting this. I don't know if it's the whole story. Certainly they would prefer people talked about race and not class.
------
I guess I'll work on pulling posts from the old thread I liked, but World Socialist Website did a lot of work in breaking down the NYT 1619 Project so I'll start here.

Not sure at all why the old thread couldn't be unlocked but here we here.

Link to original CRT thread

On “White Fragility”: A few thoughts on America’s smash-hit #1 guide to egghead racialism
Taibbi has a piece on white fragility.

DiAngelo isn’t the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category.

If your category is “white,” bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy (“Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities… Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness”), which naturally means “a positive white identity is an impossible goal.”.....

Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls itself “antiracism” – I think it deserves that name a lot less than “pro-lifers” deserve theirs and am amazed journalists parrot it without question – is complete in its pessimism about race relations. It sees the human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed groups, allies, and white oppressors

This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and certainly no comedy, is the vision of “progress” institutional America has chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why? Maybe because it fits. It won’t hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades now has been monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch hunts since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars.

For corporate America the calculation is simple. What’s easier, giving up business models based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima? There’s a deal to be made here, greased by the fact that the “antiracism” prophets promoted in books like White Fragility share corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual rights, freedom of speech, etc.

"Dingbat racist cult". While I've been a Taibbi fan for a bit (I used to hate him the mid 00s when he was trashing 9/11 truth for The Nation), I had missed this piece from him.

Tweet from today making the rounds on twitter from all the racists who think teaching 3 year olds to see race is a bad idea.

It's odd that a leftist such as yourself is following and sharing tweets from a conservative talk radio host.

I am sure a low followed wannabe alt-right personality would never create charts to help create an agenda. If he did then that would almost qualify as a psy op, and the alt-right would never do such things.

If nothing else it is a good time for younger up and coming alt-right personalities to try to get a following as a lot of the established ones are croaking from Covid.

Ya, forcing people into an economically disadvantaged position for generations tends to get those kinda results. The little science experiment we ran worked--imagine that. So when you're looking around for people to place the blame on--in any situation where there's a large power disparity--there's a real decent chance the people with the power are your actual targets.

But at least we got to run around virtue signaling to the world about neat ideas like freedom/fairness/competition etc.

What's the science being ignored involving race and crime?

I'll be curious to see how Werner replies but for everyone else be forewarned that he was just recently told by the mod of the BFI covid thread, that he would be banned if he ever posted in that thread again as his posts ladden with CT's and nonsense were deleted.

That is in the BFI Covid thread which is a fly trap for the most virulently racist posts where one poster (who will remain unnamed here) regular suggest coivd is the fault of "dirty" immigrants and inner city liberal voters who Trump had no ability to control due to liberal Mayors and Governors protecting them.

And this guy, Werner, managed to cross a line there. THAT subforum.

Why do you assume that if I see a tweet that it means that I follow that person?

Do you know how twitter works and how things can be retweeted?

It’s super weird that your feed is full of rightwing bullshit! And that you choose to share it with us!

So you think that that guy is just lying and that his grandson's class didn't make that chart?

Is that your position on that?

I think it’s very odd that a leftist such as yourself would post takes from right-wing talk radio dipshits and defend them.

Do you think it's fake or not?

That was my question to you.

Like that should be all that matters, correct?

My position is that it’s odd to see leftists going this hard to promote talk radio slapdicks. Almost as if you’ve not been 100% honest about your political views!

Ok but do you think that tweet was fake?

Can you understand how a person might be more focused on the content of the tweet as opposed to who the author is?

That's why I'm asking you if you think the whole thing was just made up.

You can understand this, right?

I mean if you click on the actual tweet and read some of the comments, there are people of people saying "yeah teaching kids that all skins colors are beautiful is totally fine and good"

Wouldn't it be easier for you to just take that approach instead of doing your whole attack-the-messenger schtick that makes you look like a fool?

Like, you’d think once in a while Lucky would share a tweet from an actual leftist, but no, it’s Boomer Twitter memes all the time.

Perspectives for the coming revolution in America: Race, class and the fight for socialism

I've read a lot on this topic since this thread began but this I think might be one of the more interesting pieces, also from WSWS. I'll quote a few sections
[...]decided to hold a series of meetings on the New York Times’ “1619 Project.” Understanding and combating the conceptions advanced in this “project,” which is being aggressively promoted at schools and campuses throughout the country, is of immense importance for the working class and youth.

What is involved is a form of historical revisionism and contemporary politics that is aimed at elevating race as the central social and political category—indeed, that is aimed at promoting racial conflicts. At the very point that masses of workers and youth all over the world are entering into struggle over issues of class, there is a conscious effort to divide and disorient.

One must state at the outset: there is nothing left-wing about this campaign. It shares more in common with the fascistic reaction of Donald Trump than anything traditionally associated with progressive politics.

On Marxism vs identity politics:

The great advance of Marxism was the materialist conception of history, the understanding that at the foundation of society are definite forms of production, and that to the phases in the development of these forms of production correspond definite social, that is, class relations. In particular, modern capitalist society is characterized by private ownership of the means of production, which are in the hands primarily of the owners of the banks and giant corporations.

The working class as a class is united in its relationship to this process of production. It is that class of people, today the majority of the world’s population, that must sell its labor power on the market for a wage. The fundamental unity of the working class, across nationalities, races, ethnicities, genders or any other category, is defined by this relationship.
The politics of race and identity begins not with the process of production and the objective interests, independent of thought, that are determined by this production process, but by racial divisions. Where does racism itself come from? It is “endemic,” the “original sin,” embodied in the “DNA” of white people, per the Times. History is not the transition from one form of social organization to another—from slavery to feudalism, then capitalism and finally to socialism—but merely different forms in the eternal persistence of racial antagonisms.[...]
The politics of racial, gender and other forms of identity is the politics of the upper-middle class, of all races and genders. It is a mechanism for dividing the working class, subordinating it to the right-wing, pro-war politics of the Democratic Party, and a mechanism for carrying out bitter struggles within the top ten percent for access to positions in academia, corporate boardrooms and the state.

On the right wing character of racialist politics:

The theoretical and political conceptions promoted by this layer have absolutely nothing to do with “left” politics. Indeed, the irrationalist, anti-Enlightenment, anti-Marxist and anti-working-class perspective developed over the past half-century has brought the pseudo-left into increasing alignment with the conceptions and politics of the far-right. The obsession with race, the interpretation of history in terms of the conflict of races, the categorization of society into “white America” and “black America,” “white people” and “black people”—this is not the language of the left, of progressive social reform, let alone socialist revolution.

This was one of the better pieces that I read during the original CRT thread. People should read it.

If I posted some stuff from the World Socialist Website would you read it?

Can you understand why I think your attack-the-messenger stuff means that you have brain worms?

So are we supposed to discuss the sometime silly ideas put forth by CRT advocates or are we supposed to discuss how we can best address the problems systemic racism cause in society ?

CRT is pretty much a can of worms but it didn't appear for no reason.