Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AlvinLee

Jimyma Crow Laws

Recommended Posts

Guest #1Stunner

I want to apologize publicly to @Mano for making an ethnicity based attack at one time on here (it was dumb to do, and I apologize for it).   

I won't repeat what I said, and don't plan to do it again.  I've been a beneficiary of good food from that culture, and I admire it.

That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

Some more on a white group that has experienced wide spread racism in America:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment#"Polish_jokes"

 

Some claim it is impossible for a white person to experience racism in America, but I think people could experience racism based on something as simple as their last name.  I knew a white family with the last name of "Butts" (no joke).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 12:14 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s just a coincidence it ends up that way every time, got it. Who knew utilizing the state’s monopoly of violence to restructure society into the utopic vision ideologues obsessed with power and oppression had dreamed of would turn into a brutal tyranny? Nothing inherently consequential there.

The postmodernists have taken the framework at the center of Marxist doctrine, that we exist in a system where the powerful cruelly exploit the oppressed, and have mapped the history of racial injustice over it instead of class difference. They’ve invented their own gobbledygook, as postmodernists do, so they can claim they have no affinity to the Marxist metanarrarive, but they use the same methodology to divide the world into those servicing a corrupt system and those righteously working to bring about it’s destruction. All who object to the theory are dismissed as working to perpetuate the system, the ideologues cannot be questioned. That’s how simply donating to charity or any other mundane actions can labeled racist by the true believers, opportunity costs alone will always mean the wrong people are working to perpetuate white supremacy no matter what they do.

Woodwinds or brass, the method of delivery is artificially different but the song remains the same.

Oh, it's not a coincidence. It's just more than ideology alone that gets you to mass murder, period. And that's with any modern political ideology save some particularly racialist strands of fascism, which are almost consequentially genocidal. To get from ideology to action you need a whole score of other conditions and steps. People who claim that there's some kind of direct link kind of amuse me at their lack of complex understanding of the world generally. 

 

You're simplifying and exaggerating here. Keep in mind a couple of things. 

1. The existence of white supremacy is empirically backed with historical evidence. Marxists were always shitty at empiricism, and history. 

2. No one seriously divides the world into a black and white (no pun intended, haha) dichotomy of oppressors/revolutionaries. Mostly that's done to mobilize people (which probably is unwise) or as a thought exercise to help the unwashed masses understand how they can even unknowingly contribute to existing systems. The spectrum of participation in oppression is pretty variant and no thinking individual would put it in straightforward Marxist terms a la proletariat/bourgeoisie. 

3. If you "object" to the theory... well, you're probably not being honest with yourself, or the facts. Most thinking people understand that unwarranted inequality exists. It's not a stretch to also say that not acknowledging it is perpetuating it in some sense. Do you "object"? If so, I'd love to hear why. Most people who do can't really explain their position very satisfactorily in my experience. 

4. Donating to charity isn't racist, I just put that up to illustrate that all actions have effects, intentional or not, on embedded social systems. Anyone who would take things like that and assign some kind of direct blame are a little extreme.

 

I feel like to fully flesh this out I'd have to explain Marxism, then explain race theory, and then show you the differences. Which is a terribly time consuming and quite frankly boring thing to do. Suffice it to say, Marxist thought has influenced thinkers on race, but has largely been rejected by them as an explanatory paradigm because of its insistence on economic materialism and failure to accurately appreciate the complexity of social relations. 

 

Ultimately I feel like my time is wasted explaining all of this though. I feel like the comparison is being made to imply that somehow replacing the existing system with a system of justice will result in Stalinesque purges or some shit. Kind of like the liberals and Nazis, slap on ol' Karl's name onto it and you got sum evil!

 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

tenor.gif

How's Friday for an IQ comparison? You said "any day of the week" works, right? That's when I'm free. 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
5 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Oh, it's not a coincidence. It's just more than ideology alone that gets you to mass murder, period. And that's with any modern political ideology save some particularly racialist strands of fascism, which are almost consequentially genocidal. To get from ideology to action you need a whole score of other conditions and steps. People who claim that there's some kind of direct link kind of amuse me at their lack of complex understanding of the world generally. 

 

You're simplifying and exaggerating here. Keep in mind a couple of things. 

1. The existence of white supremacy is empirically backed with historical evidence. Marxists were always shitty at empiricism, and history. 

2. No one seriously divides the world into a black and white (no pun intended, haha) dichotomy of oppressors/revolutionaries. Mostly that's done to mobilize people (which probably is unwise) or as a thought exercise to help the unwashed masses understand how they can even unknowingly contribute to existing systems. The spectrum of participation in oppression is pretty variant and no thinking individual would put it in straightforward Marxist terms a la proletariat/bourgeoisie. 

3. If you "object" to the theory... well, you're probably not being honest with yourself, or the facts. Most thinking people understand that unwarranted inequality exists. It's not a stretch to also say that not acknowledging it is perpetuating it in some sense. Do you "object"? If so, I'd love to hear why. Most people who do can't really explain their position very satisfactorily in my experience. 

4. Donating to charity isn't racist, I just put that up to illustrate that all actions have effects, intentional or not, on embedded social systems. Anyone who would take things like that and assign some kind of direct blame are a little extreme.

I feel like to fully flesh this out I'd have to explain Marxism, then explain race theory, and then show you the differences. Which is a terribly time consuming and quite frankly boring thing to do. Suffice it to say, Marxist thought has influenced thinkers on race, but has largely been rejected by them as an explanatory paradigm because of its insistence on economic materialism and failure to accurately appreciate the complexity of social relations. 

 

Ultimately I feel like my time is wasted explaining all of this though. I feel like the comparison is being made to imply that somehow replacing the existing system with a system of justice will result in Stalinesque purges or some shit. Kind of like the liberals and Nazis, slap on ol' Karl's name onto it and you got sum evil!

 

 

This framework is like what that Canuck guy was taking about.... (the guy who had the famous interview) 

He said, "Marxist" theory uses an "oppressor / oppressed" starting point, and analyzes everything thorough that spectrum.  He said, it always needs an "oppressed" side to the equation for its analysis.

He said it was a bogus theory, that didn't apply.   Are they still teaching this as a viable theory?  I thought this died out with Communism and the fall of the Soviet Union.   Maybe just to understand the history of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

What about people that are half white, or something?

Are they qualified to make judgments on racism?

Are we strictly talking skin pigment here, or what?   I've seen darker people dismiss lighter skinned people of the same ethnic group...told them that they don't know real racism, cause they are light skinned.

 

What about white people that experience Racism?   Weren't Polish people the brunt of "Polak jokes" for years?   Or Italians called "greasy wops"?   Are they still?   

What about a Russian that is stereotyped as being "Russian Mafia", and denied jobs over his / her accent or appearance?

It's hard to keep track of what racism counts, and what doesn't. 

That's actually a good question, and it's complex. "Whiteness" as a social category has never had immutable parameters. Various groups were (or were not) incorporated into it based on a variety of factors. For an example, read this classic https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/305686.How_the_Irish_Became_White.

In addition, long before race as a concept really became biologically solidified,  and probably since there were people groups on the planet, there has been ethnic bigotry. It hasn't gone away: only assimilation into the dominant culture, AND into "whiteness" (at least in the US) can let you avoid it.

 

As far as mixed race people go, most of the time, they have been categorized as "black" in both law and society. So many of them have experienced the effects of racism as a result. 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
2 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

That's actually a good question, and it's complex. "Whiteness" as a social category has never had immutable parameters. Various groups were (or were not) incorporated into it based on a variety of factors. For an example, read this classic https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/305686.How_the_Irish_Became_White.

In addition, before race as a concept really became biologically solidified, since there were probably people groups on the planet there has been ethnic bigotry. It hasn't gone away: only assimilation into the dominant culture, and into "whiteness" (at least in the US) can let you avoid it.

 

As far as mixed race people go, most of the time, they have been categorized as "black" in both law and society. So many of them have experienced the effects of racism as a result. 

There was a guy I grew up with that always made jokes that he was being subjected to racism....joked he was 1/4 Mexican.   

He was whiter than I am.  It was funny....he played it up a lot.

But I see your point.   Hard to know what the line is with race.  Even most blacks in America are 1/4 white (cause of douchebags like Thomas Jefferson, I guess).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

 

This framework is like what that Canuck guy was taking about.... (the guy who had the famous interview) 

He said, "Marxist" theory uses an "oppressor / oppressed" starting point, and analyzes everything thorough that spectrum.  He said, it always needs an "oppressed" side to the equation for its analysis.

He said it was a bogus theory, that didn't apply.   Are they still teaching this as a viable theory?  I thought this died out with Communism and the fall of the Soviet Union.   Maybe just to understand the history of it?

Since 1991ish Marxism in the academy is mostly dead. 

 

There's still a few old creaking holdouts I suppose. 

 

However, the McCarthyites who see a Marxist on every corner and Marxism in every non-conservative theory like some people we know are sure that most professors have a Manifesto underneath their pillow.

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Oh, it's not a coincidence. It's just more than ideology alone that gets you to mass murder, period. And that's with any modern political ideology save some particularly racialist strands of fascism, which are almost consequentially genocidal. To get from ideology to action you need a whole score of other conditions and steps. People who claim that there's some kind of direct link kind of amuse me at their lack of complex understanding of the world generally. 

 

You're simplifying and exaggerating here. Keep in mind a couple of things. 

1. The existence of white supremacy is empirically backed with historical evidence. Marxists were always shitty at empiricism, and history. 

2. No one seriously divides the world into a black and white (no pun intended, haha) dichotomy of oppressors/revolutionaries. Mostly that's done to mobilize people (which probably is unwise) or as a thought exercise to help the unwashed masses understand how they can even unknowingly contribute to existing systems. The spectrum of participation in oppression is pretty variant and no thinking individual would put it in straightforward Marxist terms a la proletariat/bourgeoisie. 

3. If you "object" to the theory... well, you're probably not being honest with yourself, or the facts. Most thinking people understand that unwarranted inequality exists. It's not a stretch to also say that not acknowledging it is perpetuating it in some sense. Do you "object"? If so, I'd love to hear why. Most people who do can't really explain their position very satisfactorily in my experience. 

4. Donating to charity isn't racist, I just put that up to illustrate that all actions have effects, intentional or not, on embedded social systems. Anyone who would take things like that and assign some kind of direct blame are a little extreme.

 

I feel like to fully flesh this out I'd have to explain Marxism, then explain race theory, and then show you the differences. Which is a terribly time consuming and quite frankly boring thing to do. Suffice it to say, Marxist thought has influenced thinkers on race, but has largely been rejected by them as an explanatory paradigm because of its insistence on economic materialism and failure to accurately appreciate the complexity of social relations. 

 

Ultimately I feel like my time is wasted explaining all of this though. I feel like the comparison is being made to imply that somehow replacing the existing system with a system of justice will result in Stalinesque purges or some shit. Kind of like the liberals and Nazis, slap on ol' Karl's name onto it and you got sum evil!

 

It is like you ignore all of history with ridiculous claims. 

You really should read a book someday.  They have them on history believe it or not and they are very informative, you wouldn't look so stupid all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Some more on a white group that has experienced wide spread racism in America:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment#"Polish_jokes"

 

Some claim it is impossible for a white person to experience racism in America, but I think people could experience racism based on something as simple as their last name.  I knew a white family with the last name of "Butts" (no joke).

 

Back in the 60's and 70's the Buick dealer in Santa Barbara was Butts Buick.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Oh, it's not a coincidence. It's just more than ideology alone that gets you to mass murder, period. And that's with any modern political ideology save some particularly racialist strands of fascism, which are almost consequentially genocidal. To get from ideology to action you need a whole score of other conditions and steps. People who claim that there's some kind of direct link kind of amuse me at their lack of complex understanding of the world generally. 

Perhaps you missed the part where I said utilizing the State’s monopoly of violence to restructure society. It was a long three sentences, I know, but I’m certain that was in their somewhere. It was my hope people with a complex understanding of the world generally would be able to do the math and see the conditions and steps are taken into account in order to be able to wield that authority. It is a goal of the theory to sieze and wield that authority

Quote

You're simplifying and exaggerating here. Keep in mind a couple of things. 

1. The existence of white supremacy is empirically backed with historical evidence. Marxists were always shitty at empiricism, and history. 

Which begs the question, why if empiricism is on their side the necessary reliance on narrative and storytelling? Which is to say nothing of the problem of the postmodernist roots of the theory, which dictate that there are unlimited ways to view anything and therefore no grand narrative should be privilaged above all others.

Quote

2. No one seriously divides the world into a black and white (no pun intended, haha) dichotomy of oppressors/revolutionaries. Mostly that's done to mobilize people (which probably is unwise) or as a thought exercise to help the unwashed masses understand how they can even unknowingly contribute to existing systems. The spectrum of participation in oppression is pretty variant and no thinking individual would put it in straightforward Marxist terms a la proletariat/bourgeoisie. 

Unwise yes, but mobilizing people is the point. The theory doesn’t exist so that tweed clad intellectuals can huff each other’s farts and measure each other’s prestige. The unwashed masses are supposed to sieze upon what they understand and act upon it. So if thinking individuals truly have concerns about what that dichotomy means they’d better start recognizing the difference between indoctrinating and teaching to think critically. It is not the same thing.

Quote

3. If you "object" to the theory... well, you're probably not being honest with yourself, or the facts. Most thinking people understand that unwarranted inequality exists. It's not a stretch to also say that not acknowledging it is perpetuating it in some sense. Do you "object"? If so, I'd love to hear why. Most people who do can't really explain their position very satisfactorily in my experience. 

I would never dream of objecting, it wouldn’t be my place. I shudder even now to think of all the harm I’m doing with my privilege typing this post instead of doing all the things opportunity costs say I could be doing to bring down white supremacy. Instead I could be donating my time and efforts to reign in free speech as it may be hurtful for others who are less privilaged to hear things that distress them. Surely, there is some political campaign I could take part in that would help enshrine someone in power adherent to the theory. I look around in my kitchen and see all of these devices to make toast and warm baby bottles that if I would just give away would reduce, by some small measure, injustice. Perhaps there is even someone on the Internet I could be shaming and calling racist, that would help. I’m even legitimately ashamed to admit I’m not watching my guy Michael B earn himself a long deserved Oscar nod on opening weekend.

Unless of course some saintly figure from an oppressed group can come along and tell me opportunity costs aren’t really true, then I won’t have to worry so much.

 

Quote

4. Donating to charity isn't racist, I just put that up to illustrate that all actions have effects, intentional or not, on embedded social systems. Anyone who would take things like that and assign some kind of direct blame are a little extreme.

Well that’s good. I’m sure the middle-aged liberal the comment was directed towards, what with all his life experiences of hard work, success, failure, pain, tragedy, joy, triumph, accomplishment, self doubt, self determination, etc...; will be happy to know the mid-twenties grad student wasn’t really trying to tell him how his actions are inherently racist, only that he effects the world around him. Perhaps he can soon start washing himself just a bit and start to bathe in the light of the academy.

Quote

I feel like to fully flesh this out I'd have to explain Marxism, then explain race theory, and then show you the differences. Which is a terribly time consuming and quite frankly boring thing to do. Suffice it to say, Marxist thought has influenced thinkers on race, but has largely been rejected by them as an explanatory paradigm because of its insistence on economic materialism and failure to accurately appreciate the complexity of social relations. 

 

Ultimately I feel like my time is wasted explaining all of this though. I feel like the comparison is being made to imply that somehow replacing the existing system with a system of justice will result in Stalinesque purges or some shit. Kind of like the liberals and Nazis, slap on ol' Karl's name onto it and you got sum evil!

 

Hey man, appreciate your time. I’m sure it’s all so hard to comprehend that it would be just too much for the unwashed masses to grapple with. Maybe someday you’ll find the time to explain it all. Until then we’ll all just going on with our lives, that obviously lack the intellectual curiosity to inform ourselves on anything so difficult to comprehend as Marxism or Critical Race Theory.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Perhaps you missed the part where I said utilizing the State’s monopoly of violence to restructure society. It was a long three sentences, I know, but I’m certain that was in their somewhere. It was my hope people with a complex understanding of the world generally would be able to do the math and see the conditions and steps are taken into account in order to be able to wield that authority. It is a goal of the theory to sieze and wield that authority

Marxism isn't unique in its desire to use the state's "monopoly of violence to restructure society". Nearly every political reform wishes to do that in one way or another. It is unique in its insistence on extreme economic reordering (and even that drastic change is subject to degrees of intensity depending on theoretical strain and practical viability), but that doesn't consequentially lead to mass murder unless there are other contextual factors. Bruh... the chemical reaction your brain is having to processing the buzzword "Marxism" seems to be clouding your ability to analyze with any nuance. 

Quote

Which begs the question, why if empiricism is on their side the necessary reliance on narrative and storytelling? Which is to say nothing of the problem of the postmodernist roots of the theory, which dictate that there are unlimited ways to view anything and therefore no grand narrative should be privilaged above all others.

 

Narrative and storytelling is a user-friendly way of relaying something. Its also the favorite of historians, although there are many other social scientists who can, and do, exhibit things in different ways. Also, narrative and storytelling isn't necessarily unempirical. Not sure why you're assuming it is. 

No one is 100% committed to the full implications of postmodernism in any field (except maybe philosophers, fck those guys). Its insights on discourse construction merely help to inform historical and social scientific work. Like anything, postmodernist theory provides insights and has shifted the focus of scholarship but isn't to be swallowed whole. I have an article about that somewhere actually 

Quote

Unwise yes, but mobilizing people is the point. The theory doesn’t exist so that tweed clad intellectuals can huff each other’s farts and measure each other’s prestige.

 

You'd be surprised. Or maybe unsurprised 

Quote

The unwashed masses are supposed to sieze upon what they understand and act upon it. So if thinking individuals truly have concerns about what that dichotomy means they’d better start recognizing the difference between indoctrinating and teaching to think critically. It is not the same thing.

Who is "indoctrinating"? Are you speaking hypothetically or do you have some kind of evidence for this? Most people who actually teach stuff like this are pretty responsible about it. This sounds like you believe something nefarious is happening, I'd love some further explanation. 

Quote

I would never dream of objecting, it wouldn’t be my place. I shudder even now to think of all the harm I’m doing with my privilege typing this post instead of doing all the things opportunity costs say I could be doing to bring down white supremacy. Instead I could be donating my time and efforts to reign in free speech as it may be hurtful for others who are less privilaged to hear things that distress them. Surely, there is some political campaign I could take part in that would help enshrine someone in power adherent to the theory. I look around in my kitchen and see all of these devices to make toast and warm baby bottles that if I would just give away would reduce, by some small measure, injustice. Perhaps there is even someone on the Internet I could be shaming and calling racist, that would help. I’m even legitimately ashamed to admit I’m not watching my guy Michael B earn himself a long deserved Oscar nod on opening weekend.

Unless of course some saintly figure from an oppressed group can come along and tell me opportunity costs aren’t really true, then I won’t have to worry so much.

I see you're not interested in seriously addressing the issue. If you put half the effort you put into this overlong snarky non-answer (which I can tell, definitely wasn't much) into critical thinking, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sad! 

Quote

 

Well that’s good. I’m sure the middle-aged liberal the comment was directed towards, what with all his life experiences of hard work, success, failure, pain, tragedy, joy, triumph, accomplishment, self doubt, self determination, etc...; will be happy to know the mid-twenties grad student wasn’t really trying to tell him how his actions are inherently racist, only that he effects the world around him. Perhaps he can soon start washing himself just a bit and start to bathe in the light of the academy.

The comment really wasn't directed at him specifically. But since you can't be deigned upon to engage without implied ad hominem attacks, I'm really glad you could speak for the Real World 'Muricans here. They definitely need some kind of (pseudo)intellectual leadership, although I think Ben Shapiro et al. may have beat you there unfortunately.

 

 

Wait... doesn't he have a DEGREE (read: Traitor's Mark)  too????? 

 

You may have an opening here my friend! Everyone knows Reno degrees don't count as actual ones!

Quote

Hey man, appreciate your time. I’m sure it’s all so hard to comprehend that it would be just too much for the unwashed masses to grapple with. Maybe someday you’ll find the time to explain it all. Until then we’ll all just going on with our lives, that obviously lack the intellectual curiosity to inform ourselves on anything so difficult to comprehend as Marxism or Critical Race Theory.

I understand that this was supposed to be biting (lulz), but upon reading it, the unintentional irony really strikes me. If you honestly believe you have a grasp on both, but yet think they're "the same", you're actually worse than uninformed: you're misinformed. Comically so.

 

I've explained it the best I can in this limited format. So unfortunately, it appears that you will continue going through life thinking that Stalin is hanging around the corner whenever someone demands equal opportunity or justice. Kind of a convenient connection there, actually. Cointelpro would be proud!

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an expert on critical race theory but i do work with data, theories, and math on a daily basis. Storytelling and anecdotal evidence is by it's very definition is unempirical.

Empirical definition:

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:14 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s just a coincidence it ends up that way every time, got it. Who knew utilizing the state’s monopoly of violence to restructure society into the utopic vision ideologues obsessed with power and oppression had dreamed of would turn into a brutal tyranny? Nothing inherently consequential there.

The postmodernists have taken the framework at the center of Marxist doctrine, that we exist in a system where the powerful cruelly exploit the oppressed, and have mapped the history of racial injustice over it instead of class difference. They’ve invented their own gobbledygook, as postmodernists do, so they can claim they have no affinity to the Marxist metanarrarive, but they use the same methodology to divide the world into those servicing a corrupt system and those righteously working to bring about it’s destruction. All who object to the theory are dismissed as working to perpetuate the system, the ideologues cannot be questioned. That’s how simply donating to charity or any other mundane actions can labeled racist by the true believers, opportunity costs alone will always mean the wrong people are working to perpetuate white supremacy no matter what they do.

Woodwinds or brass, the method of delivery is artificially different but the song remains the same.

great post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HR_Poke said:

I am not an expert on critical race theory but i do work with data, theories, and math on a daily basis. Storytelling and anecdotal evidence is by it's very definition is unempirical.

Empirical definition:

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

Math is racist.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HR_Poke said:

I am not an expert on critical race theory but i do work with data, theories, and math on a daily basis. Storytelling and anecdotal evidence is by it's very definition is unempirical.

Empirical definition:

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

Historical narratives are constructed from observation ( of existing source material) and their main thrusts (if applicable) also can be verifiable/provable from observation. 

 

Historical narratives are not “storytelling” in the conventional sense of the word. That’s not how the practice of history works. 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...