CRT: Whiteness is Inherently Evil

[mickthinks]

Oh? So now you accuse MLK of being a racist? Nice.

That is a particularly stupid thing to say, and because we know you aren’t in fact that stupid, Manny, in your case it’s a flagrantly dishonest attempt to weaponise the stupidity of others.

[Scott Mayers]

...

I just noticed this thread and so am behind. But as a note, CNN this morning (Dec 17, 2021 ~6am CST) I see that this conpiracy of a conspiracy is also being lobbied by women claiming this CRT is being pushed into the school systems everywhere and when challenged by the interviewer of how these women seem to be advocating with the futher claim that they are NOT aligned to a political lobby with what should require a lot of money from some source. They denied it but the interviewer mentioned how unlikely it seems that they could be having such a powerful lobby as merely concerned parents without strong financial backing.

Media requires trying to verify the claims but found it unusual to have this effectively widespread campaign occurring as it is lacking the normal voluntary appeals through prior social media links. It thus has a footprint of suspicion given these apparently 'neutral' non-political advocators were also cleary extreme Right-wing in their behavior and responses.

I'm presently seeking a repeat of this interview later today and will link it here if I find one.

I did some serious research into Critical Race Theory [CRT].
CRT is a serious intellectual and academic subject which has its roots back to Marx and to Kant [he wrote three books on 'critical' i.e. Critiques of Pure Reason, Practical Reason, Judgment].

Obviously CRT as the academic subject is not taught in those schools, rather the exploiters from the left wing had exploited the various elements raised in CRT and implement them in the schools and elsewhere via ideological brainwashing to serve their twisted ideological purposes, e.g. subliminally pushing the ideology that "white is evil."

The roots and essence of Critical Race Theory is being critical, i.e. think critically especially on whatever is inferred from criticisms of any subject.

But these extreme left wingers are not being critical nor practice criticism rationally, they merely exploited whatever from CRT to push their ideological agenda just like the religious and political are exploiting the knowledge of science with pseudo-science.

Yes, but I question the presumption of CRT as merely "Leftist" extremism because it INCLUDES any critism by anyone and was literally only a collection of distinct professionals trying to determine WHAT the problems of race and sex based issues are due to. The Rightwing extremism is inappropriately IMPOSING ANY applications of social adjustments regarding Leftwing involvement as though CRT is its cause. That is a Strawman Fallacy meant to intentionally malign ANY political intervention in politics meant to address the issues, like the recent means to reverse abortion rights and re-establish religious lawmaking in politics.

The term "critical" relates to logic, and means any set of points of interest that cause change, not the 'critique' against any specific view in political bias. The Rightwing attempt is to utilize those of us from even the more Leftwing who criticize ANY extreme.

In math, for example, a 'critical' point in graphing refers to significant points of change in which one can use such points to SKETCH a graph based upon a given forumula. The "Critical" in CRT are intended to seek ANY points that affect social conflict in politics or other areas. It is NOT the feminist or racialized affirmative actions involved. It is frustrating in that I initially also used this term in regards to pointing out bad policies appropriately but now cannot because it is now tainted as the very Rightwing fucks intended to do!

The tactic: take general terms of something that includes a side you don't like in some proper subset of the whole, then malign the whole as belonging or "owned" ONLY be the negative side; then innoculate the society from its normal use so that no term remains to REFERENCE the issue at all!

The con is a Straw Man combined more specifically with the Relevance Fallacy,

"Assigning Irrelevant Functions or Goals":

Critizing a policy or program because it does not or would not achieve certain goals it was not designed for.

Example:
Lynn: "Do you think philosophy will ever solve all of our problems?"

Owen: "No, probably not.

Lynn: "Then why are you wasting your time studying it."

[mickthinks]

The only way you can believe in "White Supremacy" is by being a racist.

Yep, you are correct, and I did not mean to assert the supremacy of whites, my bad. I have amended my post.

White Supremacy is a widely shared political ideology. That is the fact I meant to refer. You can't be anti-racist and make this claim:-

The whole "white" thing is a colossal, prejudicial, racist fraud.

I hope that helps.

[Immanuel Can]

White Supremacy is a widely shared political ideology. That is the fact I meant to refer.

If it's a "fact," and a "widely shared" one, then how come you can't give evidence of this "wide-sharedness"?

You can't be anti-racist and make this claim:-

The whole "white" thing is a colossal, prejudicial, racist fraud.

I hope that helps.

Well, the first thing that needs to be pointed out is that the term "anti-racist" is one of those Leftist terms they've endowed with a special meaning that ordinary people would never recognize. Here is an excellent exposition of that, using Leftism's own sources: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-antiracism/

So in the way the Left has set it up, to say "I'm anti-racist" does not merely mean, "I'm against racism": it means, "I buy into the whole package of nonsense about "White Guilt," "White Privilege," "White Supremacy" and "Systemic racism" -- all of which are ridiculous, propagandistic ideas. But the Left tries to tease people into saying, "Yes, I'm an anti-racist" so that then they can say, "Well, then, you have to go along with our whole program."

It's like Antifa -- that group that calls itself "anti-fascist," but actually parades in the street at night in dark clothing, attempting to terrorize political opponents and innocent citizens alike, destroying and burning businesses and trying to intimidate the weak into fearful complicity and silence -- in other words, behaving exactly as Hitler's "brown shirts" did. Antifa is thus the real Fascist organization today, if anybody is. They just call themselves "anti-fascist," but it's a load of manure. They're bending words again, the Left's favourite strategy.

So in the woke sense, no, I'm not an "Anti-racist." (It should be capitalized, since it's an ideology). I'm just against racism. I neither care nor am impressed by anybody's skin colour. And no, I do not believe that the human species is made up of "races." I follow MLK's dictum that it's character and actions that decide what a person is, not their skin. And quite frankly anybody who doesn't like that can take a flying leap. I don't answer to them.

But wokism (and a lot of people don't realize this) actually despises MLK and, in fact, the Civil Rights Movement. And why? Because they pushed for equality and colour-blindness, and the racists among the so-called "Anti-racist" factions hate that. They want reparations and extreme racial privilege for minorities, instead.

So who is preserving the false construct "race"? Not me. It's the Wokies who are insisting that "race" is the axis on which all issued must now be addressed -- that "race" is a real thing, and that "white race" is a real thing. And in that, they think exactly the same as the few remaining toothless KKK yokels from the backwoods...the whole lot of them are the real racists today.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh? So now you accuse MLK of being a racist? Nice.
...it’s a flagrantly dishonest attempt to weaponise the stupidity of others.

Hey, you said quoting MLK was "racist." Your words, not mine. So if there was stupidity in it, it wasn't mine either. Or were you trying to argue that MLK didnt' actually believe that a person's skin shouldn't be the basis of judgment? In which case, I point you to his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

You can disbelieve him if you want. You can't say he didn't say it.

[mickthinks]

Oh? So now you accuse MLK of being a racist? Nice.
...it’s a flagrantly dishonest attempt to weaponise the stupidity of others.

Hey, you said quoting MLK was "racist." Your words, not mine. So if there was stupidity in it, it wasn't mine either. Or were you trying to argue that MLK didnt' actually believe that a person's skin shouldn't be the basis of judgment? In which case, I point you to his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

You can disbelieve him if you want. You can't say he didn't say it.

Stupid doubles down on stupid. Or dishonesty doubles down on dishonesty.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh? So now you accuse MLK of being a racist? Nice.
...it’s a flagrantly dishonest attempt to weaponise the stupidity of others.

Hey, you said quoting MLK was "racist." Your words, not mine. So if there was stupidity in it, it wasn't mine either. Or were you trying to argue that MLK didnt' actually believe that a person's skin shouldn't be the basis of judgment? In which case, I point you to his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

You can disbelieve him if you want. You can't say he didn't say it.

Stupid doubles down on stupid. Or dishonesty doubles down on dishonesty.

Read what you wrote. Explain yourself. Or dry up.

While you're at it, here's a video you might enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlxIw4Klcl8

[Veritas Aequitas]

I just noticed this thread and so am behind. But as a note, CNN this morning (Dec 17, 2021 ~6am CST) I see that this conpiracy of a conspiracy is also being lobbied by women claiming this CRT is being pushed into the school systems everywhere and when challenged by the interviewer of how these women seem to be advocating with the futher claim that they are NOT aligned to a political lobby with what should require a lot of money from some source. They denied it but the interviewer mentioned how unlikely it seems that they could be having such a powerful lobby as merely concerned parents without strong financial backing.

Media requires trying to verify the claims but found it unusual to have this effectively widespread campaign occurring as it is lacking the normal voluntary appeals through prior social media links. It thus has a footprint of suspicion given these apparently 'neutral' non-political advocators were also cleary extreme Right-wing in their behavior and responses.

I'm presently seeking a repeat of this interview later today and will link it here if I find one.

I did some serious research into Critical Race Theory [CRT].
CRT is a serious intellectual and academic subject which has its roots back to Marx and to Kant [he wrote three books on 'critical' i.e. Critiques of Pure Reason, Practical Reason, Judgment].

Obviously CRT as the academic subject is not taught in those schools, rather the exploiters from the left wing had exploited the various elements raised in CRT and implement them in the schools and elsewhere via ideological brainwashing to serve their twisted ideological purposes, e.g. subliminally pushing the ideology that "white is evil."

The roots and essence of Critical Race Theory is being critical, i.e. think critically especially on whatever is inferred from criticisms of any subject.

But these extreme left wingers are not being critical nor practice criticism rationally, they merely exploited whatever from CRT to push their ideological agenda just like the religious and political are exploiting the knowledge of science with pseudo-science.

Yes, but I question the presumption of CRT as merely "Leftist" extremism because it INCLUDES any critism by anyone and was literally only a collection of distinct professionals trying to determine WHAT the problems of race and sex based issues are due to. The Rightwing extremism is inappropriately IMPOSING ANY applications of social adjustments regarding Leftwing involvement as though CRT is its cause. That is a Strawman Fallacy meant to intentionally malign ANY political intervention in politics meant to address the issues, like the recent means to reverse abortion rights and re-establish religious lawmaking in politics.

The term "critical" relates to logic, and means any set of points of interest that cause change, not the 'critique' against any specific view in political bias. The Rightwing attempt is to utilize those of us from even the more Leftwing who criticize ANY extreme.

In math, for example, a 'critical' point in graphing refers to significant points of change in which one can use such points to SKETCH a graph based upon a given forumula. The "Critical" in CRT are intended to seek ANY points that affect social conflict in politics or other areas. It is NOT the feminist or racialized affirmative actions involved. It is frustrating in that I initially also used this term in regards to pointing out bad policies appropriately but now cannot because it is now tainted as the very Rightwing fucks intended to do!

The tactic: take general terms of something that includes a side you don't like in some proper subset of the whole, then malign the whole as belonging or "owned" ONLY be the negative side; then innoculate the society from its normal use so that no term remains to REFERENCE the issue at all!

The con is a Straw Man combined more specifically with the Relevance Fallacy,

"Assigning Irrelevant Functions or Goals":

Critizing a policy or program because it does not or would not achieve certain goals it was not designed for.

Example:
Lynn: "Do you think philosophy will ever solve all of our problems?"

Owen: "No, probably not.

Lynn: "Then why are you wasting your time studying it."

Note the inherent tribal "us vs them" impulse within the human species.
Therefore we have the right-wing vs the left-wing.
In this, each tribe will find all sorts of faults [even invent them] to condemn the other.

Initially some traces of CRT [by extreme left wingers] were raised by the average [not extreme] right wingers. Example they brainwashed kids that 'white is evil' and others.
As usual the normal strategy is to find a meme that can be viral and effective for them.
So they came up with the "CRT" meme, thus any inkling related to the issue will be termed "CRT."

When they claimed children are taught "CRT" is not meant to be CRT-proper but rather bits and pieces that are used to brainwash them to be anti-white, anti-GOP, anti-authorities to favor blacks [especially] and other minorities.

However the so-called "anti-CRT" did provide loads of evidences to support their claim that their children are being brainwashed with a certain kind of negative ideology related to CRT.

Those evidences so far had triggered the awareness of parents both from the right and the left.
So now this so called anti-CRT is a 'parents vs the extreme-left-wings' issue with parents trying to prevent the children from being brainwashed to be racists.
This is why the recent Virginia Governor race was won over by a GOP candidate with support from parents from the moderate Democrats.

...........
As I had stated the roots of 'critical' in Critical Race Theory is traceable to Marx who borrow it from Kant.
So 'critical' is not solely about logic as you claimed.
This 'critical' has to be taken from Kant's perspective which is critical thinking with a holistic perspective related the survival human species.

The current attitude of the so called 'CRTists' with their battle-cry call 'white is evil' is obviously divisive in itself; it is an evil idea which is very selfish to merely one group seeking some sort of justice. Such an attitude is not holistic but rather a short-sighted 'band aid' strategy. It is not the sort of critique any Kantian will accept.

[commonsense]

I have reviewed much of this thread and I find that there may be more than one kind of racism.

For example, anyone who draws attention to race, even if only for purposes of intellectual discussion, is a racist, and on the other hand anyone who hates a person because of that person’s race, is a racist.

So a Lefty may be deemed a racist in the first sense while a White Supremacist may be called a racist in both cases.

I note that postings may be understood in completely antithetical ways depending upon the usage of the term.

[promethean75]

Lemme show ya how a nihilist does it. ExistentialIy, I favor no race because everyone is equally meaningless. But, I'd choose intelligent company over morons, which, in my experience, excludes nearly all black people I've ever known (I'm using the negrolopithecus in this exercise). And, I do not find black women attractive unless they are black white women... you know, the light skinned ones who emulate white women and so do the whole hair straightener thing and try to talk like em by injecting 'like' and 'so' in nearly every statement. The catch is, this is all purely a subjective judgement bound by prejudice which I am perfectly entitled to have. The former condition is anecdotal obviously and in no way establishes that black people are inherently moronic. Maybe I just need to get out of the south-east U.S. and into another demographic. Or maybe I need a revolution and a new kind of society in which environments that produce such morons, no longer exist.

In any case, the only true solution to racism is to hate everyone equally. Which I do, and quite well. It comes with being an atheist/nihilist/sociopath.

[commonsense]

Lemme show ya how a nihilist does it. ExistentialIy, I favor no race because everyone is equally meaningless. But, I'd choose intelligent company over morons, which, in my experience, excludes nearly all black people I've ever known (I'm using the negrolopithecus in this exercise). And, I do not find black women attractive unless they are black white women... you know, the light skinned ones who emulate white women and so do the whole hair straightener thing and try to talk like em by injecting 'like' and 'so' in nearly every statement. The catch is, this is all purely a subjective judgement bound by prejudice which I am perfectly entitled to have. The former condition is anecdotal obviously and in no way establishes that black people are inherently moronic. Maybe I just need to get out of the south-east U.S. and into another demographic. Or maybe I need a revolution and a new kind of society in which environments that produce such morons, no longer exist.

In any case, the only true solution to racism is to hate everyone equally. Which I do, and quite well. It comes with being an atheist/nihilist/sociopath.

My area has a lot of dumb people, and very few blacks. If you continue to hate everyone, you won’t need to move from where you are.

[Immanuel Can]

I have reviewed much of this thread and I find that there may be more than one kind of racism.

For example, anyone who draws attention to race, even if only for purposes of intellectual discussion, is a racist,

I don't think anyone's using that definition, actually. But if we were to reword it and say, "Anybody who states that people of one skin colour are a 'race' is a racist," I'd agree.

...and on the other hand anyone who hates a person because of that person’s race, is a racist.

Do they have to "hate" them? Why can't a person be racist by way of preferring some "races" over others?

The thing that both definitions have in common, as you point out, though, is the belief that some people (whites, blacks, aboriginals, orientals, etc.) constitute a "race" distinct from the human race, for better or worse.

And that's what the Lefties and the alleged "White Supremacists" have in common: the stupid, biologically-absurd belief that "race" is a thing. So long as we're all of the same basic species and are interfertile, then definitionally, it's not.

[mickthinks]

I'm not an "Anti-racist." ... I'm just against racism.

Okay.

White Supremacy is a widely shared political ideology. You can't be "against racism" and make this claim:-

The whole "white" thing is a colossal, prejudicial, racist fraud.

[Immanuel Can]

White Supremacy is a widely shared political ideology.

Apparently not.

Apparently, no matter how often I ask and how often you assert it, you can't find any evidence of so-called "wide-spreadedness." Apparently it's a minority belief, held only by toothless yokels, for their own reasons, and by indoctrinatory Lefitsts, for the purpose of ginning up hatred against an imaginary "threat" and increasing their own sense of importance.

But Leftism and their "Anti-racism" label are foolish, trivial and dishonest. Smart people just ignore their empty postures and rhetoric. Instead, they look at the evidence available.

There IS no such thing as "whiteness," except as a descriptor of pigment. And that's just trivial.

My advice: get over it.

[mickthinks]

There IS no such thing as "whiteness," except as a descriptor of pigment.

The Earth is round. It always has been. And yes, that is trivial. But there are many people who assert that the Earth is flat. Flat-Earthers are real. To the question "Are there Flat-Earthers?", the reply "The Earth is round—Get over it" is not an honest answer.

So it is with White Supremacists and their doctrine of whiteness.

Manny, it's time to man up and answer this:

Manny, are you saying you don't know the answer to the question? You don't know whether there are White Supremacists in the US?

You're pleading ignorance?

Really?