CRT: Whiteness is Inherently Evil

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hadn't noticed that the Irish were 'persons of colour'. The English reserved a special kind of hatred and evil for them. The Scots and Welsh are pretty pale and the English treated them hideously. What 'colour' were the English when the Vikings and Romans invaded? I don't think the Mongols were all that gentle either. The Maori annihilated the gentle and pacifist Moriori. Tongans ate Samoans.
Humans are just shitheads to each other. Face it.
When you talk about the 'nasty white people', what you are actually referring to is the British empire. The English have been total arseholes to everyone so their present day wokeness doesn't really wash. Not all white people are English arseholes.

[Sculptor]

critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour.
Enc Brit

IN other words
CRT: Whiteness is not "inherently" ANYTHING

You are an ignorant fool and stupid in not understanding what you are posting.

Meaning of "inherent" [google]
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

Yes, 'race' and 'whiteness' in this case is a social construct, so it cannot be inherent in something physical.

But note, your quote,
"CRT [..] .. race is ...
a socially constructed (culturally invented) category
that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour."

The fact is "oppressing and exploiting people of colour" is EVIL [not good].
Therefore,
CRT: "Whiteness" used in "oppressing and exploiting people of colour" is inherently EVIL.

So "CRT: Whiteness is Inherently Evil" as claimed by the CRTists.
If you fall within the CRTists' definition of 'whiteness' you are by default and deemed to be an inherently evil person within all whites.

You are an ignorant fool and stupid in not understanding what you are posting.

Your logic is flawed like your brain.
Oppression of black does not imply inherent evilness of white, unless you yourself are a racist.
We all know that you are in fact a racist, so why try to hide it.
Your logical flaw is the same as bananas are fruit; apples are fruit therefore apples are bananas.

CRT specifically rejects racial characteristics as "inherent", that is not to say that others think that racial characteristics are inherent.
In fact racists think that racial characteristics are inherent. That would be YOU.

This is not hard for people with ordinary intelligence.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And the English are still at it, slaughtering people around the world and then idolising them for it, so they can shove their wokeness up their arses including that horrible little ginger warmongering wokie grandson of the Queen (who has become all stooped over from the weight of wearing all those offensive red poppies).

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are assuming I don't apply any critical thinking at all?

Well...

Note what Rufo claimed are evidence-based.
Show me one case of Rufo's claim is wrong he made in this video;
6:15 - Critical Race Theory as Public Policy

or those in his site;
https://christopherrufo.com/

Lemme get this straight: when someone tells you they intend to manipulate the way you think, your great idea to prove that the way you think has not been manipulated is to cite material produced by the person who expressed their intention to manipulate the way you think. I dunno Veritas Aequitas, it looks to me as though Rufo has you in his pocket.

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand what is critical thinking and taking the matter into context.

The bottom line is whatever is claimed must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Note the recent declaration by the largest teachers the NEA backing Critical Race Theory to be taught in Schools.

Teachers’ Unions Vow to Defend Members in Critical Race Theory Fight
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learnin ... ht/2021/07

It is all over the News.

Rufo had not reported the above yet in his website.
But if he had reported this fact and I agree, then you will insist I am brainwashed?
That is very stupid and you have lost your mind on it.

I have read the pledge by the NEA to fight for CRT, but,

the latest;

• The nation’s largest teachers’ union erased its pledge to commit to teaching critical race theory (CRT) in public schools from its website.
  https://www.nationalreview.com/news/lar ... m-website/

Point is there are many overzealous CRTists who will push elements of CRT in whatever ways they can either explicitly or indirectly.
This is what Rufo is trying to do, i.e. expose a 'spade' as a 'spade' and its associated evil.

[Veritas Aequitas]

critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour.
Enc Brit

IN other words
CRT: Whiteness is not "inherently" ANYTHING

You are an ignorant fool and stupid in not understanding what you are posting.

Meaning of "inherent" [google]
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

Yes, 'race' and 'whiteness' in this case is a social construct, so it cannot be inherent in something physical.

But note, your quote,
"CRT [..] .. race is ...
a socially constructed (culturally invented) category
that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour."

The fact is "oppressing and exploiting people of colour" is EVIL [not good].
Therefore,
CRT: "Whiteness" used in "oppressing and exploiting people of colour" is inherently EVIL.

So "CRT: Whiteness is Inherently Evil" as claimed by the CRTists.
If you fall within the CRTists' definition of 'whiteness' you are by default and deemed to be an inherently evil person within all whites.

You are an ignorant fool and stupid in not understanding what you are posting.

Your logic is flawed like your brain.
Oppression of black does not imply inherent evilness of white, unless you yourself are a racist.
We all know that you are in fact a racist, so why try to hide it.
Your logical flaw is the same as bananas are fruit; apples are fruit therefore apples are bananas.

CRT specifically rejects racial characteristics as "inherent", that is not to say that others think that racial characteristics are inherent.
In fact racists think that racial characteristics are inherent. That would be YOU.

This is not hard for people with ordinary intelligence.

I know what you are saying. But despite the fact that race is not a valid biological category, the fact remains that a culture that primarily sees itself in terms of a "white race" has in fact a long history of oppression of "people of colour" and that is problematic for society.
What CRT is saying is that the categories are wrong, and that "white" society continues to marginalise others.

You are very ignorant of CRT and its elements due to your inherent tendency of never doing in depth research into such topics.

The CRTists understand race is not something that is biologically inherent.

However 'race' and therefrom 'whiteness' as a social construct 'thing' which has real existence.
To the CRTist this social constructed 'whiteness' is inherently evil [not good].
It is this inherent socially constructed "whiteness" that the CRTists insist is existing as real and is inherently evil, otherwise they don't have any "bogeyman" to blame and attack.

The majority of people at present [other than the extremists] are striving to wean off any feelings of 'whiteness' and superiority for the good of humanity.
However the CRTists insist the socially constructed 'whiteness' is permanent and cannot be erased nor weaned off.

The CRTists insist the socially constructed 'whiteness' is real and it is inherently evil, as a ground for the constitution of their evil ideology and an excuse to carry out their evil and toxic acts of racism, divisiveness, etc.

Thus the CRTists has a vested interest to ensure the idea of 'whiteness' is alive and within the current narrative.
To the CRTists, if you are 'white' in their eyes, you are by default and deemed to be evil [not good].

Read up more on CRT, you ignoramus!!

[uwot]

Note the recent declaration by the largest teachers the NEA backing Critical Race Theory to be taught in Schools.

Teachers’ Unions Vow to Defend Members in Critical Race Theory Fight
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learnin ... ht/2021/07

No you bonehead! As it says in the article, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers "has already taken steps to distance her union from the divisive rhetoric, telling her members Tuesday that critical race theory isn’t taught in K-12 schools, but that "culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism, or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic.""
Which is exactly what Rufo said he is trying to achieve. Do these words look familiar:

The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 96352?s=20

In order for you to exercise your much vaunted critical thinking skills, first you have to succeed at a little bit of basic comprehension. Nobody is "backing Critical Race Theory to be taught in Schools." What they are backing is teachers teaching American history, which includes slavery, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan and the fact that blacks are more likely to be stopped, arrested and killed by the police. You know, the truth. Rufo wants historical facts to be associated with an easily remembered sound bite so that every such time issues are mentioned, the immediate response of fuckwits like you is to squawk 'Critical Race Theory!' rendering any meaningful conversation nearly impossible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the recent declaration by the largest teachers the NEA backing Critical Race Theory to be taught in Schools.

Teachers’ Unions Vow to Defend Members in Critical Race Theory Fight
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learnin ... ht/2021/07

No you bonehead! As it says in the article, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers "has already taken steps to distance her union from the divisive rhetoric, telling her members Tuesday that critical race theory isn’t taught in K-12 schools, but that "culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism, or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic.""
Which is exactly what Rufo said he is trying to achieve. Do these words look familiar:

The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 96352?s=20

In order for you to exercise your much vaunted critical thinking skills, first you have to succeed at a little bit of basic comprehension. Nobody is "backing Critical Race Theory to be taught in Schools." What they are backing is teachers teaching American history, which includes slavery, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan and the fact that blacks are more likely to be stopped, arrested and killed by the police. You know, the truth. Rufo wants historical facts to be associated with an easily remembered sound bite so that every such time issues are mentioned, the immediate response of fuckwits like you is to squawk 'Critical Race Theory!' rendering any meaningful conversation nearly impossible.

You are an ignorant stupid dumbfool!

Show me empirical evidences where did Rufo "wanted [actual] historical facts [warts and all] to be associated with an easily remembered sound bite so that every such time issues are mentioned" to be associated with Critical Race Theory.
Else you are a desperate liar.

The complain with CRTists is their adopting of CRT elements and turning them into the following ideological doctrines of CRTism that they imposed on their so-called "whites";
[Did you not read the OP??]

• As a result, we hear the language of Critical Race Theory from activists in all walks of life ascribing profound failures of morals and character to white people (as consequences of being white in a white-dominant society).
  
  We [the whites] are told that racism is embedded in culture and that we cannot escape it.
  
  We hear that white people are inherently racist.
  
  We are told that racism is “prejudice plus power,” therefore, only white people can be racist.
  
  We are informed that only people of color can talk about racism, that white people need to just listen, and that they don’t have the “racial stamina” to engage it.
  
  We hear that not seeing people in terms of their race (being color-blind) is, in fact, racist and an attempt to ignore the pervasive racism that dominates society and perpetuates white privilege.

There are much more toxic doctrines that the CRTists are imposing on their so-called 'whites'.

Point is you are arguing as an ignorant bastard who never bother to read up on the full extent of CRT and its ideological equivalents, yet arrogantly argued as if you are an expert.

In other word you are an "ultracrepidarian"

• An ultracrepidarian is someone who is in the habit of giving advice on matters he himself knows nothing about — like a politician! This Latin word literally means 'beyond the shoe'. ... Apellis put an end to it by saying, “Sutor, ne ultra crepidam”, meaning “shoemaker, not above the sandal”

[uwot]

You are an ignorant stupid dumbfool!

Show me empirical evidences where did Rufo "wanted [actual] historical facts [warts and all] to be associated with an easily remembered sound bite so that every such time issues are mentioned" to be associated with Critical Race Theory.
Else you are a desperate liar.

Can't believe I'm having to do this:

The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 96352?s=20

Point is you are arguing as an ignorant bastard who never bother to read up on the full extent of CRT and its ideological equivalents, yet arrogantly argued as if you are an expert.

And you sir, didn't make it over the first hurdle.

In other word you are an "ultracrepidarian"

I'm guessing you know that word because you have been called it.

[mickthinks]

Veritas Aequitas,

Show me empirical evidences ...

In a court of law there is a world of difference between on the one hand, proving beyond doubt that which the other side has denied, and an the other, pointing out that which they have not disputed. In this case, there is no need to prove that Rufo is striving to decodify CRT and to recode it to invoke every cultural idea that is unpopular with Americans, because he doesn't dispute it. He accepts it. It is his very own version of events. It is, as far as the issue of whether Rufo's descriptions and critique of CRT is concerned, agreed fact.

To demand that uwot produce independent evidence of what Rufo says is like demanding the prosecution produce evidence against a defendent who has already pleaded "guilty".

I grant that uwot and I probably have not read as much as you have on CRT by its enemies and demonisers, but by the same token, you seem not to have read as much as uwot and I of actual CRT. That puts you in the position of someone offering a critique of a country and a people they haven't actually visited, and who is arguing that they know better than someone who has been and seen for himself because he hasn't read all the negative newspaper reports that they have read.

[Sculptor]

You are an ignorant fool and stupid in not understanding what you are posting.

Meaning of "inherent" [google]
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

Yes, 'race' and 'whiteness' in this case is a social construct, so it cannot be inherent in something physical.

But note, your quote,
"CRT [..] .. race is ...
a socially constructed (culturally invented) category
that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour."

The fact is "oppressing and exploiting people of colour" is EVIL [not good].
Therefore,
CRT: "Whiteness" used in "oppressing and exploiting people of colour" is inherently EVIL.

So "CRT: Whiteness is Inherently Evil" as claimed by the CRTists.
If you fall within the CRTists' definition of 'whiteness' you are by default and deemed to be an inherently evil person within all whites.

You are an ignorant fool and stupid in not understanding what you are posting.

Your logic is flawed like your brain.
Oppression of black does not imply inherent evilness of white, unless you yourself are a racist.
We all know that you are in fact a racist, so why try to hide it.
Your logical flaw is the same as bananas are fruit; apples are fruit therefore apples are bananas.

CRT specifically rejects racial characteristics as "inherent", that is not to say that others think that racial characteristics are inherent.
In fact racists think that racial characteristics are inherent. That would be YOU.

This is not hard for people with ordinary intelligence.

I know what you are saying. But despite the fact that race is not a valid biological category, the fact remains that a culture that primarily sees itself in terms of a "white race" has in fact a long history of oppression of "people of colour" and that is problematic for society.
What CRT is saying is that the categories are wrong, and that "white" society continues to marginalise others.

You are very ignorant of CRT and its elements due to your inherent tendency of never doing in depth research into such topics.

You are a Fox News junkie.

[Walker]

The gangs are the evil killers in Chicago.

In the racist ordering of society, are they "White?"

A: No.


The getaround is to say, somewhere along the line, European settlers are at fault for the gangs of Chicago now, so we'll stop the analysis there.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Note the recent declaration by the largest teachers the NEA backing Critical Race Theory to be taught in Schools.

Teachers’ Unions Vow to Defend Members in Critical Race Theory Fight
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learnin ... ht/2021/07

No you bonehead! As it says in the article, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers "has already taken steps to distance her union from the divisive rhetoric, telling her members Tuesday that critical race theory isn’t taught in K-12 schools, but that "culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism, or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic.""
Which is exactly what Rufo said he is trying to achieve. Do these words look familiar:

The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 96352?s=20

In order for you to exercise your much vaunted critical thinking skills, first you have to succeed at a little bit of basic comprehension. Nobody is "backing Critical Race Theory to be taught in Schools." What they are backing is teachers teaching American history, which includes slavery, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan and the fact that blacks are more likely to be stopped, arrested and killed by the police. You know, the truth. Rufo wants historical facts to be associated with an easily remembered sound bite so that every such time issues are mentioned, the immediate response of fuckwits like you is to squawk 'Critical Race Theory!' rendering any meaningful conversation nearly impossible.

Then call it American history you moron, not some pretentious and mischief-making pseudo-scientific term that actually means nothing.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Wasn't it the English who were one of the biggest slave traders to the US? Why are Americans constantly being told to flay themselves over it?

Btw, pommie bastards, how about you give me back the land you STOLE from my ancestors before starving them out of their own country, and then creating the abomination that is 'Northern Ireland' which STILL exists today'?

Could it be that there is the teensiest chance that Americans who are black are getting shot more than others by the police because they are doing more of the kind of crimes that increase your chance of being shot by the police? Just a thought...

''While African Americans are highly overrepresented in murders and gun assaults, the disparity in arrests is small for the most common form of assault not involving any weapon or serious injury (non-aggravated assault). Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites are arrested for non-aggravated assault in a similar ratio to their share of the US population. Of the 9,468 murder arrests in the US in 2017, 53.5% were black and 20.8% Hispanic. Of the 822,671 arrests for non-aggravated assault, 31.4% were black and 18.4% Hispanic.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2008, black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offence categories except DUI, liquor laws, and drunkenness. Racial disparities in arrest have consistently been far less among older population groups.''

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Notice how the wokies only respond to the right wing religious crazies (except to show themselves up as the nasty hypocritical arseholes that they really are). That's because they are two sides of the same coin. They can't cope with anything else-- especially not facts, logic and reason

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas,

Show me empirical evidences ...

In a court of law there is a world of difference between on the one hand, proving beyond doubt that which the other side has denied, and an the other, pointing out that which they have not disputed. In this case, there is no need to prove that Rufo is striving to decodify CRT and to recode it to invoke every cultural idea that is unpopular with Americans, because he doesn't dispute it. He accepts it. It is his very own version of events. It is, as far as the issue of whether Rufo's descriptions and critique of CRT is concerned, agreed fact.

Rufo can claimed what he likes [he want to convince whatever to him is CRT] in general, I don't give a damn.
What is critical for me is whether he provided empirical evidences to support his specific points [not general claims].
Where I agreed with Rufo, it is based on the empirical evidences he provided and I can verify that they align with CRT elements.

To demand that uwot produce independent evidence of what Rufo says is like demanding the prosecution produce evidence against a defendent who has already pleaded "guilty".

No judge will accept a case or whatever is stated by a defendant unless there are empirical evidences in the first place to charge anyone in court, else it would be a false prosecution and will be rejected.
So whatever Rufo stated, it must be supported by empirical evidences as required by any normal critical person.
The exceptions are the followers of a cult leader who will accept blindly whatever the leader says, which is not the case in Rufo situation.

I grant that uwot and I probably have not read as much as you have on CRT by its enemies and demonisers, but by the same token, you seem not to have read as much as uwot and I of actual CRT.
That puts you in the position of someone offering a critique of a country and a people they haven't actually visited, and who is arguing that they know better than someone who has been and seen for himself because he hasn't read all the negative newspaper reports that they have read.

You and uwot has read more on actual CRT??
Show me what books you have read on actual CRT?

I have stated many times that I have done in depth research into CRT, its source from Critical Theory and tracing the term 'critical' to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason via Marx.