Now non-white people can be white

[Ana the Ist]

It's why the media and everyone speaks as if LGBT is this singular collective juggernaut, when in fact (as Dave Chappelle observed comically) that there is plenty individual thought and deviation of social and political ideology among gays versus bi versus transgenders.

Well I don't want to derivate off of race here...since that was what my post was referring to. If we examine the fracturing of intersectionalism....it's pretty clear all these various groups cannot possibly advocate for themselves and others at the same time.

Take the schism between the trans and feminist movement. Allowing prisoners to identify as they choose and switch to a female prison (which has already happened and inevitably resulted in rape since Biden took office) shows that we cannot easily or practically provide for the safety of both groups for multiple reasons.

This is made possible by the basic lack of any axiomatic principles in "Critical Studies" or intersectional theory. It's nothing more than an intellectual attack on the foundational underpinnings of western civilization. The irony is that it deliberately avoids addressing those rather vast and deeply philosophical issues because they form a rather strong and logical argument for western civilization. They use anecdotal evidence to support their position (which is ironic because anecdotal evidence doesn't support a position) and call it "narratives" in the hopes that smart people don't understand that it's just anecdotal evidence.

This allows for emotional appeals and frankly, manipulation, to create their arguments instead of things like logic and rationality (things they hate).

Again I can't stress how dangerous this is. The formation of CRT includes the presupposition that western civilization is inherently immoral because white people are inherently immoral. On a basic level this is clearly racist and factually incorrect.

However, what can we conclude about how successful people who believe this racist garbage will be at solving problems? They only have one answer....to deviate from it is at tacit admission that it is wrong. It's proponents, once in power, have no reason to deviate from it...it has proven successful in acquiring power.

The inevitable result is starting to show up now. They are pursuing legally the oppression of white people through indoctrination and racial discrimination. If there's any doubt about this....we need only look at the policies they produce. Will these policies create a world without social ills? Of course not....and those will be blamed on white people as well....and this will continue until it creates the end state which I've only seen them describe a few times....

It's a rather childish and racist utopian idea of a nation without white people where they live in some idealized version a place that never existed.

At this point, I think we could honestly be only years away from a point where it can easily be argued that they are traitors to the state who sought to destroy it by eroding equality under the law and ultimately creating a racial caste system.

I'm sure you can imagine the sort of behavior that rationally justifies....and it concerns me. I'm certain that most people are just dumb and don't realize what they support but that won't stop them from facing the consequences of their folly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

lol k buddy. Your tortured strawmen are still bogus no matter how hard you try to shoehorn them into an “I know you are but what am I” rebuttal.

The party you support now clearly is racist in every definition of the term I've ever seen....even those I don't think are legitimate.

The Democrats are using power to racially discriminate and oppress. Give me a definition for racist that won't work with that behavior.

Calling you or anyone who supports them a racist is not only justified now....but it's factually correct.

 

[98cwitr]

Well I don't want to derivate off of race here...since that was what my post was referring to. If we examine the fracturing of intersectionalism....it's pretty clear all these various groups cannot possibly advocate for themselves and others at the same time.

Take the schism between the trans and feminist movement. Allowing prisoners to identify as they choose and switch to a female prison (which has already happened and inevitably resulted in rape since Biden took office) shows that we cannot easily or practically provide for the safety of both groups for multiple reasons.

This is made possible by the basic lack of any axiomatic principles in "Critical Studies" or intersectional theory. It's nothing more than an intellectual attack on the foundational underpinnings of western civilization. The irony is that it deliberately avoids addressing those rather vast and deeply philosophical issues because they form a rather strong and logical argument for western civilization. They use anecdotal evidence to support their position (which is ironic because anecdotal evidence doesn't support a position) and call it "narratives" in the hopes that smart people don't understand that it's just anecdotal evidence.

This allows for emotional appeals and frankly, manipulation, to create their arguments instead of things like logic and rationality (things they hate).

Again I can't stress how dangerous this is. The formation of CRT includes the presupposition that western civilization is inherently immoral because white people are inherently immoral. On a basic level this is clearly racist and factually incorrect.

However, what can we conclude about how successful people who believe this racist garbage will be at solving problems? They only have one answer....to deviate from it is at tacit admission that it is wrong. It's proponents, once in power, have no reason to deviate from it...it has proven successful in acquiring power.

The inevitable result is starting to show up now. They are pursuing legally the oppression of white people through indoctrination and racial discrimination. If there's any doubt about this....we need only look at the policies they produce. Will these policies create a world without social ills? Of course not....and those will be blamed on white people as well....and this will continue until it creates the end state which I've only seen them describe a few times....

It's a rather childish and racist utopian idea of a nation without white people where they live in some idealized version a place that never existed.

At this point, I think we could honestly be only years away from a point where it can easily be argued that they are traitors to the state who sought to destroy it by eroding equality under the law and ultimately creating a racial caste system.

I'm sure you can imagine the sort of behavior that rationally justifies....and it concerns me. I'm certain that most people are just dumb and don't realize what they support but that won't stop them from facing the consequences of their folly.

I think it just goes to prove that we are not divided racially, but culturally (ie: ideologically).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think it just goes to prove that we are not divided racially, but culturally (ie: ideologically).

I think it's too generous to call this an ideology. It's a dogma and one born out of a poorly cobbled collection of bad ideas borrowed from various self serving sources. It's been a conundrum for academics because if you're an economist....it looks Marxist, if you're a philosopher....it looks like postmodernism, if you're a statistician....it looks like a misunderstanding of statistics.

If you're a political theorist it just looks like a self serving power grab.

If you're a historian it looks like an impending disaster.

If you're a hard scientist....it looks like madness but you probably aren't inclined to say so for fear of your job.

I'm an atheist so to me....a guy who has been arguing against dogma for most of my life...all the hallmarks of dogma are there. People repeating the mantras without understanding them. People accepting truth claims based on nothing more than faith in their source. Evidence cherry picking....evidence denial....dismissal and attacks on hard science whenever science disagrees. They even attack math.

That's not even considering the nature of the relationship between the truth givers and the pulpit they preach to. It's so openly described as a relationship of subjugation and subservience that you would think they would need more than the label of "allyship" to hide it....but sadly, they don't.

They aren't allies....they are dupes. They are being openly told that their opinions don't matter. They are openly told their problems aren't significant and need not be addressed. They are told their skin color prevents them from perceiving truth. They are told they are inherently flawed and must atone for these flaws.

This is not a relationship between allies. It's far more akin to those referred to as useful innocents in communist Yugoslavia....later called useful idiots. If that's not a reference you understand...look up some pictures of those jews who were helping other jews onto the trains to their own deaths.

It's not odd that this dogma has no apologists. If you look for someone to defend it....you won't find them. They know how easily it can be shown to be wrong. They have no good intellectual defense for it.

That's why if you challenge it...they attack your character. They can't defend it because they either don't understand it or know it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Defending it just exposes that....so they attack the character of any opponent in an attempt to silence them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Anyone who doesn't understand what I mean when I say "they cannot defend their dogma"....go back and read post number 70.

I asked a poster what his objection to the racist discrimination of Jim Crow was. I got no answer. That's not a fluke. He can't answer.

He can't simply say that it's morally and ethically wrong to discriminate against people based upon race.

If he did that... he would have to denounce everything he supports. They fully and explicitly intend to discriminate against people based upon race.

 

[Pommer]

Tip of the iceberg and just a single wheel in the cogged machine of western cultural destruction.

Huzzah! (For a well mixed metaphor!)

 

[98cwitr]

Huzzah! (For a well mixed metaphor!)

See, I don't get why people hate and despise western culture so much. It might not be perfect (what culture is?), but comparatively it's provided so much for so many I cannot wrap my head around the personal purchases, wholesale, of the anti-western propaganda.

 

[Pommer]

See, I don't get why people hate and despise western culture so much. It might not be perfect (what culture is?), but comparatively it's provided so much for so many I cannot wrap my head around the personal purchases, wholesale, of the anti-western propaganda.

Some folks think that our nation, country and society can be a better place for more of its inhabitants if we would make certain changes.
Some folks think it’s fine, right now, the way that it is; and would like the former group to just shut up and go away.

 

[98cwitr]

I think it's too generous to call this an ideology. It's a dogma and one born out of a poorly cobbled collection of bad ideas borrowed from various self serving sources. It's been a conundrum for academics because if you're an economist....it looks Marxist, if you're a philosopher....it looks like postmodernism, if you're a statistician....it looks like a misunderstanding of statistics.

If you're a political theorist it just looks like a self serving power grab.

If you're a historian it looks like an impending disaster.

If you're a hard scientist....it looks like madness but you probably aren't inclined to say so for fear of your job.

I'm an atheist so to me....a guy who has been arguing against dogma for most of my life...all the hallmarks of dogma are there. People repeating the mantras without understanding them. People accepting truth claims based on nothing more than faith in their source. Evidence cherry picking....evidence denial....dismissal and attacks on hard science whenever science disagrees. They even attack math.

That's not even considering the nature of the relationship between the truth givers and the pulpit they preach to. It's so openly described as a relationship of subjugation and subservience that you would think they would need more than the label of "allyship" to hide it....but sadly, they don't.

They aren't allies....they are dupes. They are being openly told that their opinions don't matter. They are openly told their problems aren't significant and need not be addressed. They are told their skin color prevents them from perceiving truth. They are told they are inherently flawed and must atone for these flaws.

This is not a relationship between allies. It's far more akin to those referred to as useful innocents in communist Yugoslavia....later called useful idiots. If that's not a reference you understand...look up some pictures of those jews who were helping other jews onto the trains to their own deaths.

It's not odd that this dogma has no apologists. If you look for someone to defend it....you won't find them. They know how easily it can be shown to be wrong. They have no good intellectual defense for it.

That's why if you challenge it...they attack your character. They can't defend it because they either don't understand it or know it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Defending it just exposes that....so they attack the character of any opponent in an attempt to silence them.

Ad Hominems seem easy enough to discard and brush off though...but I suppose people stop listening to those the media deem as "bad?" IDK, the more the media seems to hate someone, the more I am inclined to discover more about them. I think it's why in 2018 I finally started to see the good Trump was doing, because of the hatred thrown at him.

Groupthink, when applied, is extremely concerning.

 

[98cwitr]

Some folks think that our nation, country and society can be a better place for more of its inhabitants if we would make certain changes.
Some folks think it’s fine, right now, the way that it is; and would like the former group to just shut up and go away.

And others think we lost too many rights (as Americans, and please don't strawman this; I am being specific) back in the 1900s and wish to see the country return to a time prior to the NFA, abortion legalization, and the 16th amendment.

 

[Pommer]

And others think we lost too many rights (as Americans, and please don't strawman this; I am being specific) back in the 1900s and wish to see the country return to a time prior to the NFA, abortion legalization, and the 16th amendment.

Which is why we have our various legislatures:
To wrangle with one another to reach a consensus on how best to move the nation forward through time. Crafting law that will ensure the most benefit to the most people while allowing the elite (in their given fields of endeavor) to thrive.
Trying to accomplish tasks best left to these legislatures in the realm of public opinion is the very essence of political thought.

The ideas and ideals come from without, the policy is crafted from within, and here we (all) are!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which is why we have our various legislatures:
To wrangle with one another to reach a consensus on how best to move the nation forward through time. Crafting law that will ensure the most benefit to the most people while allowing the elite (in their given fields of endeavor) to thrive.
Trying to accomplish tasks best left to these legislatures in the realm of public opinion is the very essence of political thought.

The ideas and ideals come from without, the policy is crafted from within, and here we (all) are!

I can't find any examples of widespread acceptance of racial discrimination and scapegoating leading to a better nation for all.

The axiomatic principle behind "equality under the law" and it's eventual support of anti discrimination against characteristics like race is rather simple and easily understood....

You cannot give a person an opportunity or good of any value because of their race without also simultaneously denying every other individual that opportunity or good because of their race.

That's ultimately why Jim Crow, slavery, and all the other progress we made was eventually deemed illegal.

If however, you wish to contend that we should engage in racial discrimination I'd like to hear why.

 

[Pommer]

I can't find any examples of widespread acceptance of racial discrimination and scapegoating leading to a better nation for all.

The axiomatic principle behind "equality under the law" and it's eventual support of anti discrimination against characteristics like race is rather simple and easily understood....

You cannot give a person an opportunity or good of any value because of their race without also simultaneously denying every other individual that opportunity or good because of their race.

That's ultimately why Jim Crow, slavery, and all the other progress we made was eventually deemed illegal.

If however, you wish to contend that we should engage in racial discrimination I'd like to hear why.

My response to @98cwitr was more to the portion I quoted and not directed at the topic. For that I apologize.

Yes, the language of the law must be race-neutral. The application of law must also be race-neutral.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My response to @98cwitr was more to the portion I quoted and not directed at the topic. For that I apologize.

Yes, the language of the law must be race-neutral. The application of law must also be race-neutral.

Ok....as long as we understand that such cannot reasonably be expected to be done perfectly. We are all human, we all bear the common flaws in humanity, we are not perfect.

We can write a race nuetral law....but we cannot expect it to be applied perfectly. I think we should pursue it's application as neutrally as possible...so long as we realize perfection is not going to be reached.

With that in mind....did you know the current administration disagrees with you?

 

[Pommer]

Ok....as long as we understand that such cannot reasonably be expected to be done perfectly. We are all human, we all bear the common flaws in humanity, we are not perfect.

We can write a race nuetral law....but we cannot expect it to be applied perfectly. I think we should pursue it's application as neutrally as possible...so long as we realize perfection is not going to be reached.

With that in mind....did you know the current administration disagrees with you?

Point me to it.

 

[Estrid]

Weird.

Whiteness isn’t evil. It’s not even a very helpful term. Are Kurdistanis white? Sicilians? Pashtuns? Nuristanis? Folks from the Balkans? Armenians? Ashkenazi Jews? The Irish?

It’s kind of useless.[/Qisn't.

Useless? A hint you will get when you are outnumbeted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Point me to it.

I linked an article on a previous page....but here's another.

Opinion | A Blueprint for Racial Healing in the Biden Era

They sell it hard... but it's not race nuetral...it's the exact opposite.

Advocates have argued that because redlined federal mortgage-insurance programs invested hundreds of billions (in present dollars) in pro-white wealth-building, new investments should be allocated now to Black communities.

Now I can fully agree that redlining was wrong....that's why it's illegal. If someone was discriminated against by redlining when it was legal, there's a difficult but reasonable argument to be made for restitution. It would only apply to those actually discriminated against.

As for any current victim of redlining, they can seek legal redress....that does happen already.

They are proposing investing taxes according to race...it doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with redlining.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Point me to it.

Here's another one in the same article....

Investments in evidence-based alternatives to policing can pay huge social returns. In 2014, researchers at the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the University of Pennsylvania found that a program that gave Black teens in high-violence neighborhoods a summer job and paired them with an adult mentor reduced arrests for violent crime by 43 percent.

Summer jobs.

I'm not sure how this happened exactly so I can only go off how they describe it. The children of one racial group are given a job...all others must compete.

I hope that is an incorrect characterization....but I have no reason to believe so.

Edit- I'm not going to get into the talk of paying criminals to not do crimes. It's interesting how the entire beginning of the article included multiple references to the racial group who is expected to be receiving these benefits from taxes....yet the moment the discussion turns to paying criminals, they avoid talk of race.

Do you think they are still talking black people?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Anyone who doesn't understand what I mean when I say "they cannot defend their dogma"....go back and read post number 70.

I asked a poster what his objection to the racist discrimination of Jim Crow was. I got no answer. That's not a fluke. He can't answer.

He can't simply say that it's morally and ethically wrong to discriminate against people based upon race.

If he did that... he would have to denounce everything he supports. They fully and explicitly intend to discriminate against people based upon race.

Oh for crying out loud.

I'm the one you addressed in post #70. If you're going to call me out, call me out.

Don't confuse a choice to not engage with the inability to engage.

I didn't respond to that comment or subsequent comments because I learned a while ago that I don't have the energy, time, or desire anymore to go back and forth with you on certain subjects, especially those that require chasing down your strawmen (which often happens on subjects related to racism). In this thread, I chose to engage you on specific subjects that I knew I had the energy to engage on (e.g. the Korean War). When you chimed in on comments I addressed to others, I deliberately chose to just overlook the ones I knew were headed towards a rabbit hole I didn't want to go down.

More broadly, I just don't have the energy for most useless protracted arguments here anymore. For the most part, the only useless arguments I have the energy for are drive-by snipings, which is more-or-less what I did with @Erik Nelson and @98cwitr . (possible exception: economic issues that I have an easier time researching and arguing, which I do for my own edification more than anything) You're more reasonable than a lot of folks I disagree with, and while I often don't trust your take on racial issues, they typically warrant more of a response than a 30 second hot take while I'm sitting on the toilet. And these days I typically have better things to do.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Don't confuse a choice to not engage with the inability to engage

Doesn't count as engaging (reality) to stereo-type all Americans, who happened to be ethnically white, into one lump-sum category

Overly simplistic (though convenient if one seeks to "justify" reparations & seizures)