Promoting racism, division and hate...Critical Race Theory.

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
1624506161538.png
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
And it didn’t create a Marxist nation.
Just about everyone is fundamentally Marxist in sociological worldview now. The victory is complete.

Your fundamental lens is to view history and current politics as primarily a power struggle, to see all arguments or perspectives as really the means of expressing power, and all law or institutions as the codification of power. It is raw Marxism, unfiltered, and merely applied to sociology and metaphysics.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
It isn’t fake. It’s just a theory studied in a way to understand history.

It isn’t what conservatives say it is though.

So CRT is just some sort of benign theoretical academic exercise that doesn't actually have any negative real-world implications? Seems to me that it probably does when its tenets are applied to areas such as law/policy making, governmental budgeting/taxation and institutional beliefs/rules/practices.

Critical race theory - Wikipedia

"Critical race theory sees racism as systemic and institutional, rather than just a collection of individual prejudices.[6][7] It also views race as a socially constructed identity[6] which serves to oppress non-white people.[8] The theory emphasizes how racism and disparate racial outcomes can be the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices by individuals.[6] In the field of legal studies, critical race theory emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways.[9] Intersectionality – which emphasizes that race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage – is a key concept in critical race theory.[10]

Academic critics of critical race theory argue that it relies on social constructionism, elevates storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism.[11][12][13]"
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
So CRT is just some sort of benign theoretical academic exercise that doesn't actually have any negative real-world implications? Seems to me that it probably does when its tenets are applied to areas such as law/policy making, governmental budgeting/taxation and institutional beliefs/rules/practices.

Critical race theory - Wikipedia

"Critical race theory sees racism as systemic and institutional, rather than just a collection of individual prejudices.[6][7] It also views race as a socially constructed identity[6] which serves to oppress non-white people.[8] The theory emphasizes how racism and disparate racial outcomes can be the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices by individuals.[6] In the field of legal studies, critical race theory emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways.[9] Intersectionality – which emphasizes that race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage – is a key concept in critical race theory.[10]

Academic critics of critical race theory argue that it relies on social constructionism, elevates storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism.[11][12][13]"
Perhaps if it were the only or predominant socioeconomic theory in play it would be problematic. You don’t really believe that’s the case do you?

And remember, this theory didn’t just pop up in the last 18 months. It’s been around for decades and until Trump and his crew decided to attempt to dismantle it, few knew it existed.

It’s not as if every proposal and bill and law is bent and shaped by this theory. But there’s nothing wrong with questioning where we are and have been in race relations when considering how to craft and apply laws. Shouldn’t we be critical when we look at a law that penalizes crack possession far harder than cocaine possession? That’s an extreme example of course, and yes I’m sure some take it to an extreme. But denying its validity or attempting to convince ourselves that race problems were solved in the 60’s is crazy talk.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Just about everyone is fundamentally Marxist in sociological worldview now. The victory is complete.

Your fundamental lens is to view history and current politics as primarily a power struggle, to see all arguments or perspectives as really the means of expressing power, and all law or institutions as the codification of power. It is raw Marxism, unfiltered, and merely applied to sociology and metaphysics.
What I understand about Karl Marx is that his view was that communism would become the naturally predominant economic system because of economic forces. That his theory relies upon the failure of capitalism to bring about the “uprising of the proletariat”. Has that happened? Is it happening? If it has or is happening, it’s not because Marx envisioned it or anyone woke up one day and said, “Let’s have a Marxist government!”

Incidentally, Marx did have in mind the United States for most of his theory. And it’s hard to objectively say he was completely wrong. Capitalism, pure capitalism is a pretty vicious system. Probably the only reason Marx was wrong about the US is because we’ve been able to build a hybrid of sorts. Even though folks decry Obamacare and Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as communism, it’s all part of a compromise that serves to strengthen capitalism.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Just about everyone is fundamentally Marxist in sociological worldview now. The victory is complete.

Your fundamental lens is to view history and current politics as primarily a power struggle, to see all arguments or perspectives as really the means of expressing power, and all law or institutions as the codification of power. It is raw Marxism, unfiltered, and merely applied to sociology and metaphysics.

I’m not sure if this sounds more Trumpian or commie democrats!

But it sure sounds like Marx had a fairly decent idea of how people act and react.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
Perhaps if it were the only or predominant socioeconomic theory in play it would be problematic. You don’t really believe that’s the case do you?

And remember, this theory didn’t just pop up in the last 18 months. It’s been around for decades and until Trump and his crew decided to attempt to dismantle it, few knew it existed.

It’s not as if every proposal and bill and law is bent and shaped by this theory. But there’s nothing wrong with questioning where we are and have been in race relations when considering how to craft and apply laws. Shouldn’t we be critical when we look at a law that penalizes crack possession far harder than cocaine possession? That’s an extreme example of course, and yes I’m sure some take it to an extreme. But denying its validity or attempting to convince ourselves that race problems were solved in the 60’s is crazy talk.
It IS the only or predominant socioeconomic theory. All other meaningful theories are derived from it.

The rest of your posts are just defending it as a good thing, not denying that this is a fact.

Crack should be penalized far worse than cocaine. You'll say it's because the harsher penalties were targeted on a racial basis.

The facts are that black drug crime more often brought bodies, violence, and other major social problems than white drug use. So, some drugs were penalized harder because those were the drugs that were destroying the communities due to the behavior around them.

There weren't too many shootouts over cocaine territory in American streets. Crack brought more violence, so it got treated more harshly.
 

quad decade guy

Well-Known Member
Just about everyone is fundamentally Marxist in sociological worldview now. The victory is complete.

Your fundamental lens is to view history and current politics as primarily a power struggle, to see all arguments or perspectives as really the means of expressing power, and all law or institutions as the codification of power. It is raw Marxism, unfiltered, and merely applied to sociology and metaphysics.
K. Prove that.

Now, what you really are saying......is that perhaps there are probably much less people amenable to Communism and a certain viewpoint and scenario is carefully crafted by a Communist press?

And yes....a conspiracy? You bet!
 

quad decade guy

Well-Known Member
Yep.

That's as raw as it gets.......

Truth and reality can be a bitter, bitter pill.

Now about that proof.....

You have a chance right here.....to change humanity for all time.....the greatest proof ever revealed. You! Think of it!

I mean, anyone with such confidence and declarative statements.....YOU DO KNOW!
 
Top