Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[workswithseed 2109]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

If you're going to generalize everything, then I think it is fair to say Marxism is also really Jesusism. So, really, y'all demonize Jesus and teachings. 

He also said to get rid off all religions, but okay.

[Dahobbs 17627]

1 minute ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this connection between Marxism and CRT? When trying to find something to understand the correlation, all I get are articles on how to fight back against CRT from opinion blogs. 

Well, CRT provides a framework for understanding the plight of other people and so does Marxism I guess. QED: they are the same thing.

But that Jesus, he said: "Love thy neighbor, but do absolutely nothing to help them and instead insist they lift themselves up by their own bootstraps." I think this was around the same time he was telling all the rich people in the temple that they were doing everything right and to totally ignore those loser  lepers, poors, and prostitutes.  

[Dahobbs 17627]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

He also said to get rid off all religions, but okay.

Oh, so you're saying that maybe CRT and Marxism aren't really the same thing? Or is getting rid of all religion a critical element of CRT that I've missed somewhere?

[BabaYaga 15303]

7 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this connection between Marxism and CRT? When trying to find something to understand the correlation, all I get are articles on how to fight back against CRT from opinion blogs. 

Critical race theory is built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.  Critical Theory.  Neo-Marxism.  It has many cousins, such as Critical Race Feminism.  Or Critical Legal Studies.  As stated earlier, all are rooted in the framework of a worldview that interprets everything through the lens of social and political power dynamics.

It grew from the original Marxist tenets of class conflict and imbalances.  By the 60's, you saw "race" replacing "class", and at the time a new academic niche field was born and took root in the 90's.  Leading to the desired outcome of a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories rather than class.  

[Guest Lobo]

What, you think our Critical Theory's so innocent?  

[wildcat09 29361]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I hate that America is nothing but victimhood now. 

I hate that the least victimized in America think they're the most victimized.

[wildcat09 29361]

30 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Critical race theory is built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.  Critical Theory.  Neo-Marxism.  It has many cousins, such as Critical Race Feminism.  Or Critical Legal Studies.  As stated earlier, all are rooted in the framework of a worldview that interprets everything through the lens of social and political power dynamics.

It grew from the original Marxist tenets of class conflict and imbalances.  By the 60's, you saw "race" replacing "class", and at the time a new academic niche field was born and took root in the 90's.  Leading to the desired outcome of a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories rather than class.  

Look, I'm no @bad_teammate and I've never actually read Marx, but I don't think identity-based Marxism is a thing.

[Wulaw Horn 19145]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I hate that the least victimized in America think they're the most victimized.

Yeah but why do we have black history month and not white history month Mr smart guy?  Huh?!?!  

Edited May 24, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[workswithseed 2109]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Look, I'm no @bad_teammate and I've never actually read Marx, but I don't think identity-based Marxism is a thing.

Poor vs rich.

[BabaYaga 15303]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Look, I'm no @bad_teammate and I've never actually read Marx, but I don't think identity-based Marxism is a thing.

CRT is based upon the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxist tenets.  "Equity" being the new buzzword.  For example, 

 In the name of "equity", UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along......take a wild guess......racial lines.

"Identity" is the means.  

The entire theory is a giant mousetrap.  Again, disagreement with the program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias” or “internalized white supremacy.”

Class was simply replaced with race, and the steps are the same.  

[Dahobbs 17627]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

CRT is based upon the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxist tenets.  "Equity" being the new buzzword.  For example, 

 In the name of "equity", UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along......take a wild guess......racial lines.

"Identity" is the means.  

The entire theory is a giant mousetrap.  Again, disagreement with the program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias” or “internalized white supremacy.”

Class was simply replaced with race, and the steps are the same.  

Yeah guys, it is really black people that have the power in America and are trying to consolidate for a full take over. It should be obvious. 

[BabaYaga 15303]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Yeah guys, it is really black people that have the power in America and are trying to consolidate for a full take over. It should be obvious. 

You are weapons grade retarded....

[Captainant 27710]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 In the name of "equity", UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along......take a wild guess......racial lines.

This is a wild fucking mis-attribution of what I'm assuming you mean to be this Harvard Law journal (because you and yours so graciously never link to the texags/facebook page you pull this shit from). Funnily enough when googling "cheryl harris redistribute property" I did find a republican facebook page making your EXACT argument against her, point for point which was sourced from this same christopher rufo fox wannabe.

Care to actually source your outrageous and inflammatory claim here? Or just want to move on to the pearl-clutching outrage circlejerk with WWS and johhny silver spoon?

[TwiceHorn 31516]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

CRT is based upon the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxist tenets.  "Equity" being the new buzzword.  For example, 

 In the name of "equity", UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along......take a wild guess......racial lines.

"Identity" is the means.  

The entire theory is a giant mousetrap.  Again, disagreement with the program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias” or “internalized white supremacy.”

Class was simply replaced with race, and the steps are the same.  

As I have said repeatedly, CRT at its extremes is, well, extreme.

I see zero evidence that that type of CRT is to be taught in lower schools.  Zero.  None.

Now, there may be a couple of radicals in various schools in various places, like that Buffalo administrator, that would like to see that happen.  Or a crazed, dope smoking art teacher that occasionally drops some CRT nuggets.

But there is no evidence that CRT of that ilk is proposed to be systematically taught anywhere.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Texas "CRT Bill," HB 3979 doesn't use the term critical race theory at all.  https://hro.house.texas.gov/pdf/ba87r/hb3979.pdf

Frankly, a skim doesn't reveal too much objectionable about it at all.  There is one bit that a teacher can't require or assign a political advocacy task for any purpose.  That seems extreme.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This is a wild fucking mis-attribution of what I'm assuming you mean to be this Harvard Law journal (because you and yours so graciously never link to the texags/facebook page you pull this shit from). Funnily enough when googling "cheryl harris redistribute property" I did find a republican facebook page making your EXACT argument against her, point for point which was sourced from this same christopher rufo fox wannabe.

Care to actually source your outrageous and inflammatory claim here? Or just want to move on to the pearl-clutching outrage circlejerk with WWS and johhny silver spoon?

He's definitely completely taken in by rightwing bullshit.

Yes, CNN has a slant, but it doesn't spew utter bullshit.

And it goes to show that this CRT scare isn't really about CRT at all.  It's about making up bullshit that libruls are trying to pull that Trump would save them from.  Or some other worthless shitfuck like Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton.

It's about fear.  That most reliable of electoral motivators.  It's about a made up boogeyman called CRT.  Might as well be called El Cucko.

Edited May 24, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 17627]

27 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

You are weapons grade retarded....

What other point could your nonsense post have? I mean, that is what you meant, right? Who is the group using CRT to take power? 

[BabaYaga 15303]

Oh cool.  So Cheryl never said any of these things?  Good to know?

“‘rights,’ ‘equality,’ ‘property,’ ‘neutrality,’ and ‘power’”—are mere illusions used to maintain a white-dominated racial hierarchy.

“rights mean shields from interference; equality means formal equality; property means the settled expectations that are to be protected; neutrality means the existing distribution, which is natural; and, power is the mechanism for guarding all of this."

The solution for Harris is to replace the system of property rights and equal protection—which she calls “mere nondiscrimination”—with a system of positive discrimination tasked with “redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.” To achieve this goal, she advocates a large-scale wealth and property redistribution based on the African decolonial model...sourced with her very own publication:  "Whiteness as Property"

“Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.”

Anything else?

[BabaYaga 15303]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

CNN has a slant, but it doesn't spew utter bullshit.

[bad_teammate 13221]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Critical race theory is built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.  Critical Theory.  Neo-Marxism.  It has many cousins, such as Critical Race Feminism.  Or Critical Legal Studies.  As stated earlier, all are rooted in the framework of a worldview that interprets everything through the lens of social and political power dynamics.

The highlighted section isn't what Marxism does. Marxism isn't about social or political power, it is very explicitly about economic power.

I would say you don't know what you're talking about, but these are  not your original ideas, but instead are thoughts you're parroting from people who are selling easy-to-swallow right-wing pills to people like you. Put two scary words together.

Quote

It grew from the original Marxist tenets of class conflict and imbalances.  By the 60's, you saw "race" replacing "class", and at the time a new academic niche field was born and took root in the 90's.  Leading to the desired outcome of a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories rather than class.  

No, you didn't. You saw nothing. This is made up. You're a sucker for the sales jobs of people who might actually be dumber than you.

[BabaYaga 15303]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The highlighted section isn't what Marxism does. Marxism isn't about social or political power, it is very explicitly about economic power.

I would say you don't know what you're talking about, but these are  not your original ideas, but instead are thoughts you're parroting from people who are selling easy-to-swallow right-wing pills to people like you. Put two scary words together.

No, you didn't. You saw nothing. This is made up. You're a sucker for the sales jobs of people who might actually be dumber than you.

Uh oh, the avowed Marxist and admitted Ivory Tower Communist is on the case to set us all straight on what "real Communism and Marxism" is.  At least tell us who DM'd you to join the party?  My guess is Sandy Vag, ie. Captainant.  Come on.  You can at least share that much

Edited May 24, 2021 by BabaYaga

[workswithseed 2109]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The highlighted section isn't what Marxism does. Marxism isn't about social or political power, it is very explicitly about economic power.

I would say you don't know what you're talking about, but these are  not your original ideas, but instead are thoughts you're parroting from people who are selling easy-to-swallow right-wing pills to people like you. Put two scary words together.

No, you didn't. You saw nothing. This is made up. You're a sucker for the sales jobs of people who might actually be dumber than you.

Gets rid of family, religion, property through a violent overthrow of the social structure to put in a temporary government to one day get rid of the state. 

[bad_teammate 13221]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Uh oh, the avowed Marxist and admitted Ivory Tower Communist is on the case to set us all straight on what "real Communism and Marxism" is.  

Melodramatic characterization of me aside, that seems like it would actually make sense if your goal was to know what "Marxism" is. You'd ask a Marxist. (See: any other -ist or -ism)

But that's not your goal. Your goal is to regurgitate dumb shit you read elsewhere and pretend it is original thought.

Question: Have you read the document you are copy/pasting an analysis of? It's a yes/no.

[bad_teammate 13221]

I'll provide simply the concluding paragraph and, while its reading level might exceed Baba's capabilities, I'll invite the literate among you to ask yourselves if this is actually advocating Marxist economic policy.

-----------------------------
Whiteness as property has carried and produced a heavy legacy. It is a ghost that has haunted the political and legal domains in which claims for justice have been inadequately addressed for far too long. Only rarely declaring its presence, it has warped efforts to remediate racial exploitation. It has blinded society to the systems of domination that work against so many by retaining an unvarying focus on vestiges of systemic racialized privilege that subordinates those perceived as a particularized few - the "others." It has thwarted not only conceptions of racial justice but also conceptions of property that embrace more equitable possibilities. In protecting the property interest in whiteness, property is assumed to be no more than the right to prohibit infringement on settled expectations, ignoring countervailing equitable claims that are predicated on a right to inclusion. It is long past time to put the property interest in whiteness to rest. Affirmative action can assist in that task. Affirmative action, if properly conceived and implemented, is not only consistent with norms of equality, but is essential to shedding the legacy of oppression.
-----------------------------

It does not.

Edited May 24, 2021 by bad_teammate

[FOXHOUND 1034]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure. Because it was college and they were more or less fully formed.  But what if you’d have hammered them that from K-4th grade when they are impressionable. Maybe you could have stamped out the desire to Succeed then   

The first time I got called the n-word was when I was in the 2nd grade back in '92. Kids are impressionable alright, especially when they model their parents. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by FOXHOUND

[TwiceHorn 31516]

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Oh cool.  So Cheryl never said any of these things?  Good to know?

“‘rights,’ ‘equality,’ ‘property,’ ‘neutrality,’ and ‘power’”—are mere illusions used to maintain a white-dominated racial hierarchy.

“rights mean shields from interference; equality means formal equality; property means the settled expectations that are to be protected; neutrality means the existing distribution, which is natural; and, power is the mechanism for guarding all of this."

The solution for Harris is to replace the system of property rights and equal protection—which she calls “mere nondiscrimination”—with a system of positive discrimination tasked with “redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.” To achieve this goal, she advocates a large-scale wealth and property redistribution based on the African decolonial model...sourced with her very own publication:  "Whiteness as Property"

“Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.”

Anything else?

Now show us where any of that is actually, or seriously or credibly proposed, to be taught in a public lower school.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'll provide simply the concluding paragraph and, while its reading level might exceed Baba's capabilities, I'll invite the literate among you to ask yourselves if this is actually advocating Marxist economic policy.

-----------------------------
Whiteness as property has carried and produced a heavy legacy. It is a ghost that has haunted the political and legal domains in which claims for justice have been inadequately addressed for far too long. Only rarely declaring its presence, it has warped efforts to remediate racial exploitation. It has blinded society to the systems of domination that work against so many by retaining an unvarying focus on vestiges of systemic racialized privilege that subordinates those perceived as a particularized few - the "others." It has thwarted not only conceptions of racial justice but also conceptions of property that embrace more equitable possibilities. In protecting the property interest in whiteness, property is assumed to be no more than the right to prohibit infringement on settled expectations, ignoring countervailing equitable claims that are predicated on a right to inclusion. It is long past time to put the property interest in whiteness to rest. Affirmative action can assist in that task. Affirmative action, if properly conceived and implemented, is not only consistent with norms of equality, but is essential to shedding the legacy of oppression.
-----------------------------

It does not.

I might suggest that while Marx' theories don't align well with CRT, the arguments and polemics that he and fellow travelers used to stir its adoption or acceptance are similar, except replace the proletariat or economically downtrodden with the racially downtrodden.

Edited May 24, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13221]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Gets rid of family, religion, property through a violent overthrow of the social structure to put in a temporary government to one day get rid of the state. 

Oh hell yeah here we go we're getting the true brain trust engaged.

[bad_teammate 13221]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I might suggest that while Marx' theories don't align well with CRT, the arguments and polemics that he used to stir its adoption or acceptance are similar.

Similar in what sense? That they say, "powerful people oppress weaker people" and "rich people have more power than poorer people" and "people with money/power work to make sure they keep it"?

Yeah, that's a commonality because it's very true and very obvious.

[workswithseed 2109]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Oh hell yeah here we go we're getting the true brain trust engaged.

Don't like my very simple way of how Marx wanted to make a new society? He very much states it so in his book. 

[Dahobbs 17627]

21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Oh cool.  So Cheryl never said any of these things?  Good to know?

“‘rights,’ ‘equality,’ ‘property,’ ‘neutrality,’ and ‘power’”—are mere illusions used to maintain a white-dominated racial hierarchy.

“rights mean shields from interference; equality means formal equality; property means the settled expectations that are to be protected; neutrality means the existing distribution, which is natural; and, power is the mechanism for guarding all of this."

The solution for Harris is to replace the system of property rights and equal protection—which she calls “mere nondiscrimination”—with a system of positive discrimination tasked with “redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.” To achieve this goal, she advocates a large-scale wealth and property redistribution based on the African decolonial model...sourced with her very own publication:  "Whiteness as Property"

“Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.”

Anything else?

You believe there is a liberal, Marxist cabal plotting to gain power and remove all property rights in America, correct? I'm not exaggerating, right, this is literally what you believe? I know this because your spouting the exact same nonsense, verbatim, that I hear from my father in law. 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Melodramatic characterization of me aside, that seems like it would actually make sense if your goal was to know what "Marxism" is. You'd ask a Marxist. (See: any other -ist or -ism)

But that's not your goal. Your goal is to regurgitate dumb shit you read elsewhere and pretend it is original thought.

Question: Have you read the document you are copy/pasting an analysis of? It's a yes/no.

I guess to place this in context, no one takes law review articles seriously.  Not even lawyers.  Maybe 1 in 1000 ever gains any kind of traction or influence.  Probably more like 10,000 given how many gotdamn law schools there are.

They're right up there with doctoral dissertations as academic masturbation.

 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Similar in what sense? That they say, "powerful people oppress weaker people" and "rich people have more power than poorer people" and "people with money/power work to make sure they keep it"?

Yeah, that's a commonality because it's very true and very obvious.

Yeah pretty much.  Telling people they are oppressed.  Whether they actually are or not, or whether the reason is what the proponenr says it is.

In that limited sense, Baba Yaga's pastes are accurate.

Of course, it's virtually indistinguishable from any other political rhetoric these days.  Q are oppressed by paedophiles, etc.

Edited May 24, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13221]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Don't like my very simple way of how Marx wanted to make a new society? He very much states it so in his book. 

Tell me which book he discusses "getting rid of" the family. Or even religion.

[bad_teammate 13221]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah pretty much.  Telling people they are oppressed.  Whether they actually are or not.

So what's your position?

- Oppression is real, but is unexplainable so don't try to figure out why/how it happens.
- Oppression isn't real.

??

[52-80 19213]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I hate that America is nothing but victimhood now. 

[Captainant 27710]

49 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Oh cool.  So Cheryl never said any of these things?  Good to know?

“‘rights,’ ‘equality,’ ‘property,’ ‘neutrality,’ and ‘power’”—are mere illusions used to maintain a white-dominated racial hierarchy.

“rights mean shields from interference; equality means formal equality; property means the settled expectations that are to be protected; neutrality means the existing distribution, which is natural; and, power is the mechanism for guarding all of this."

The solution for Harris is to replace the system of property rights and equal protection—which she calls “mere nondiscrimination”—with a system of positive discrimination tasked with “redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.” To achieve this goal, she advocates a large-scale wealth and property redistribution based on the African decolonial model...sourced with her very own publication:  "Whiteness as Property"

“Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.”

Anything else?

Again, you're not actually citing anything at all. You're leaning on empty rhetoric and inference. For example: can you specifically indicate from her 50+ page thesis where she says we should take property away from whites and give it to blacks? (Hint) it's not in there. 

Your snowflake is getting melted by saying property rights aren't absolute - no shit they aren't, ever heard of imminent domain? Stop grasping at straws and defend your position with actual information and detail and not just the fucking headline of an academic paper. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Captainant

[CDAK 216]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

ever heard of imminent domain? 

It happens before you can blink, unlike other interminable legal processes.

[wildcat09 29361]

45 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Uh oh, the avowed Marxist and admitted Ivory Tower Communist is on the case to set us all straight on what "real Communism and Marxism" is.  At least tell us who DM'd you to join the party?  My guess is Sandy Vag, ie. Captainant.  Come on.  You can at least share that much

I publicly tagged him. You should try reading sometime, you might learn something.

[Pancho 44901]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I have said repeatedly, CRT at its extremes is, well, extreme.

I see zero evidence that that type of CRT is to be taught in lower schools.  Zero.  None.

Now, there may be a couple of radicals in various schools in various places, like that Buffalo administrator, that would like to see that happen.  Or a crazed, dope smoking art teacher that occasionally drops some CRT nuggets.

But there is no evidence that CRT of that ilk is proposed to be systematically taught anywhere.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Texas "CRT Bill," HB 3979 doesn't use the term critical race theory at all.  https://hro.house.texas.gov/pdf/ba87r/hb3979.pdf

Frankly, a skim doesn't reveal too much objectionable about it at all.  There is one bit that a teacher can't require or assign a political advocacy task for any purpose.  That seems extreme.

Why would an educator at the k-12 level who mentions CRT (or believes in the theory) be deemed as “radical, crazed, or dope smoking?”

 

[workswithseed 2109]

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Tell me which book he discusses "getting rid of" the family. Or even religion.

He starts talking about the abolition of the family at 47:00

And he talks about abolishing all religions at 54:00

[TwiceHorn 31516]

16 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Why would an educator at the k-12 level who mentions CRT (or believes in the theory) be deemed as “radical, crazed, or dope smoking?”

 

It was intended to be a caricature of the teacher that seemingly everyone had that would occasionally expound on some "radical" topic.

The idea being to inoculate the post against someone digging up some hysterical piece about some AP English teacher talking about stuff outside the curriculum.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

So what's your position?

- Oppression is real, but is unexplainable so don't try to figure out why/how it happens.
- Oppression isn't real.

??

Neither.

The only point was that CRT at times engages in similar polemic or rhetorical tactics to Marxism, except based on race or identity rather than economic status.

And, as I edited, the rubric of oppression is damned near universal, now.  Works great for the GOP.  CRT is a grand example.

[washparkhorn 9939]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have a pet theory that psychological/psychiatric issues have a heretofore unknown role in "generational poverty."

Greed, which may be genetic:

Selfish dictators may owe their behavior partly to their genes, according to a study that claims to have found a genetic link to ruthlessness. The study might help to explain the money-grabbing tendencies of those with a Machiavellian streak — from national dictators down to 'little Hitlers' found in workplaces the world over.

Researchers at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem found a link between a gene called AVPR1a and ruthless behavior in an economic exercise called the 'Dictator Game'. The exercise allows players to behave selflessly, or like money-grabbing dictators such as former Zaire President Mobutu, who plundered the mineral wealth of his country to become one of the world's richest men while its citizens suffered in poverty.

The researchers don't know the mechanism by which the gene influences behavior. It may mean that for some, the old adage that "it is better to give than to receive" simply isn't true, says team leader Richard Ebstein. The reward centers in those brains may derive less pleasure from altruistic acts, he suggests, perhaps causing them to behave more selfishly.

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080404/full/news.2008.738.html

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

In the name of "equity", UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along......take a wild guess......racial lines.

Hahahhaahahahahha.  I assume this is attention horse shit right? 

[Wulaw Horn 19145]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Again, you're not actually citing anything at all. You're leaning on empty rhetoric and inference. For example: can you specifically indicate from her 50+ page thesis where she says we should take property away from whites and give it to blacks? (Hint) it's not in there. 

Your snowflake is getting melted by saying property rights aren't absolute - no shit they aren't, ever heard of imminent domain? Stop grasping at straws and defend your position with actual information and detail and not just the fucking headline of an academic paper. 

Dude- if she’s advocating affirmative action and African decolonization model she’s advocating taking property away from whites and giving it to blacks. I assume if he said it that it’s in there bc I’m not going to go read 50 pages of nonsense but that’s pretty self evident- unless he’s lying. Which would surprise me.  

Edited May 25, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[Guest Lobo]

We're 202 days since Election Day 2020.  And 533 more days to go until Election Day 2022.  So by the time Congress recesses for summer, that's about 30% of the way through this 2-year Congressional/Presidential controlled by one party cycle, right?  

NoCR/ But if this socialist takeover of the United States is supposedly happening...allotting a third of the time to watch center-right, middle-aged guys like us debate just the terminology and definitions doesn't seem like that smart of a move.  I don't like identity politics, nor Marxism, nor Russia, nor outcomes-based equity conversations.......but if there was really to be a CRT-based socialist takeover in the next 18 months, they should probably flip past the glossary pages.   

[bad_teammate 13221]

39 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

He starts talking about the abolition of the family at 47:00

And he talks about abolishing all religions at 54:00

Bullshit in both regards. You can't even understand this base-level primer.

On Family:

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

He's directly addressing people exactly like you. He is predicting your argument and addressing it over a century before you make it. But you literally can't understand. This was early/mid 19th century Europe and Russia. What was the "bourgeois family" there and then he was discussing? Any idea?

It's hilarious for you to look at this text and imagine some fantasy of 1950s America in its place.

KARL MARX IS COMING FOR OUR SUBDIVISION! RUNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Religion:

All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them.

This really doesn't need explaining, does it?

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The only point was that CRT at times engages in similar polemic or rhetorical tactics to Marxism, except based on race or identity rather than economic status.

What is the "tactic"? Using words to make arguments?

Quote

And, as I edited, the rubric of oppression is damned near universal, now.  Works great for the GOP.  CRT is a grand example.

When has "the rubric of oppression" NOT been universal? Do you think feeling aggrieved and blaming people/systems for problems was invented by Karl fucking Marx?

There is no mass movement of people that was not only fueled by grievance but eager to articulate the nature and causes of those grievances. Show me a worldview that doesn't have a bad guy/system, please.

[bad_teammate 13221]

If I introduce a better candy than black licorice and no one buys black licorice, then the new candy has "abolished" black licorice because it's better. That is the only sense in which Marxism advocates the abolition of religion. It's clear in its own terms without any need to know any historical context. That's the easy one.

Abolition of the bourgeois family does not mean making it illegal to have kids or forcing people to give up their babies to state orphanages or whatever dumb bullshit moron right-wingers believe. Abolition of the bourgeois family meant abolition of using family for wealth, status, and property acquisition/holding. Not really all that complicated.

[F250 28806]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

He starts talking about the abolition of the family at 47:00

And he talks about abolishing all religions at 54:00

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Sooooo, it doesn't have anything to do with Marxism. Cool.