Translation: dressing the neo-KKK in sheep’s clothing didn’t work so let’s try wrapping it in the flag.
The fact that you think this experience is anything comparable to the KKK shows you really do not have a handle on his material at all, sorry. I don’t think you really understand what the KKK were about or what they did if you are making this comparison.
The idea that racist ideas have influenced the structure of American society doesn’t sound all that extremist. The KKK were violent extremists. So some real false equivalence there. You have never faced anything in your life like the KKK did to certain Americans, and you never will.
The fuck does any of this have to do with the NH Bill?
Crackpot Race Theory pretends that calling white-run institutions intrinsically racist isn’t the same as calling white people who run those institutions intrinsically racist. Somehow that bit of sophistry is supposed to differentiate it from the KKK whose core tenet is also that race determines character.
Stop. You win the thread.
Collect yer banana at the door.
lol, CRT isn’t essentially a religion and certainly isn’t racist, just listen to this black pastor tell us the problem is white people. amen brother, amen.
Here’s an excerpt
If that isn’t a ringing endorsement, I don’t know what is.
Replace the word ‘pretends’ with ‘maintains’ and take out the dumb name call and you’ve got it.
Minus cynicism, and the false equivalence with the KKK, you’ve actually got a handle on it. I’ve fixed the rest for you. Well done.
So you would not listen to something from someone because he is black, or a pastor? You just ignored an entire piece because the author is a Christian Pastor, and black. Wow, that really sounds racist and full of prejudice.
“Just listen to this black pastor tell US”: Outright racist. Sounds hypocritical too, Good lord.
Alright there Cathy Newman, calm down. Remember John McWhorter? Because I’m sure other people reading our discussions do…
This has to be against community standards. To go back to the OP, the reason I am quick to argue against the SJW perspectives here (and in peak woke and cancel culture) is that in my experience with published scholars who are also activist-educators this type of ad hominem response is to be expected.
One of those things you keep saying but never follow up on.
edit: i see you changed quite a bit there…
this i know is against community standards, as well as being untrue
You just said this:
In other words, you won’t listen to him because he is black, and because he is a pastor. You make that very clear in your very own words.
If that is not racist and bigoted, what is?
Thank you for proving CRT theorists correct, that we still have a long way to go in undoing the legacy of racism in our institutions.
Good night, ‘buddy’
For the record, I’d like to state that I don’t believe I am particularly racist (I certainly don’t judge entire groups by their skin color), nor do I believe that anything @McNulty has stated here has any value. I considered flagging it, but I think it is better that anyone on the fence about CRT sees how it is typically defended: slander.
I don’t think of any situation I’d be ok with that any authorities enact laws to prohibit discussions on inequalities in society. I’m ok with a law prohibiting the dissemination of divisive concepts on race or sex, though.
So it sounds like you wouldn’t be ok with similar repressions of speech or laws against free expression in your own country, but seem to be lobbying for them in the US, which is curious.
Ok, then tell me which specific concepts are included in that definition then. Since the law itself is vague and open to interpretation. Which are ‘divisive’ which aren’t?
It’s like the new Godwin’s law.
Imagine comparing a fascist leaning political movement banning academic subjects to a fascist movement that burned textbooks. Waaaaaay out there.
you mean, CRT?
You have no credibility whatsoever. You’re just a broken record.
I feel the same about you, except you don’t bother to make arguments. Your idea of what CRT is about is plucked from the NY post. Completely one sided. Sorry, but you haven’t even engaged with any academic source material and you’re presenting a totally disingenuous read on this law derived from RW media sites. So how can a discussion go forward?
It’s like you don’t even care if the things you say match up with reality, at all. It’s a perfect metaphor really.