Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[CDAK 216]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Abolition of the bourgeois family meant abolition of using family for wealth, status, and property acquisition/holding. Not really all that complicated.

Where does one get one of those families? My wife and kids don't contribute shit.

[TornACL 7698]

I find it interesting how quickly the internet's algorithm-fueled outrage machine works these days. 

In the past, a legitimate news story would get people talking about a subject. 

Now all it takes is a few well placed editorials about any inflammatory subject, one that doesn't even need to be particularly news worthy. And with enough clickbait headlines and loaded language, it gets shared and read all over the internet and then suddenly people feel they are experts in, and outraged by, Critical Race Theory. 

It's very easy today to stand up any manner of straw man so as to influence certain groups to support drastic overreaching reactions to the boogeyman of the week. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by TornACL

[synoptic 138]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Marxism isn't about social or political power...

This is false.  Marx treated society, economy, and politics as interdependent structures; Marxism is about social, economic, and political power.  

From Manifesto of the Communist Party:
"The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." 

"Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power."  

"From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised.." 

From Capital Volume 1 (which arguably has more to do with political theory than economics; in any case, it is certainly not solely a work on economic theory):

"In France and England the Bourgeoisie had conquered political power. From that time on, the class struggle took on more explicit and threatening forms, both in practice and in theory. It sounded the knell of scientific economics." - Marx's Postface to the Second Edition
 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

12 hours ago, FOXHOUND said:

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. 

More likely they heard it from a rap song or a movie than their parents.  

[Celery Man 20944]

Yep probably the 8 year old listened to “The Chronic” and then went to go use the word as a slur against a classmate.

[bad_teammate 13195]

5 hours ago, synoptic said:

This is false.  Marx treated society, economy, and politics as interdependent structures; Marxism is about social, economic, and political power.  

I know exactly what you're saying, I just think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is the nature of these kinds of discussions.

Politics and social power are explained in Marxist philosophy, but they are explained by material factors, not ideals. That's the massive break between Marxism and what the reactionary right calls "Cultural Marxism" (and has since the days of Hitler).

Progressive social values and Marxism can be very good friends (and should be, in my view), but they aren't necessary partners. I know many socially progressive Marxists would disagree strenuously with me as they want a more unified theory of material reality and social ideal utopia, but while Marxism would absolutely improve the lot of billions, it does not prefigure an actual cure for the diseases of the soul that systems like capitalism magnify and strengthen. (My prescription for the diseases of the soul comes from a place very unpopular among progressive social thinkers.)

[fuggled 576]

The first and most important priority any parent has is to give their children the best opportunity to succeed in life. Sending your kids to a nice, private, Christian school in Houston is a good way to do it. Kids with educated parents with similar socio-economic backgrounds forming bonds with other kids and being primed to get accepted into prestigious universities, which will open doors for them the rest of their lives. There is zero problem with that and any parent that has the opportunity and means to give their child that should be commended for doing so. There is nothing more important than securing an excellent education for your kids. Paying an arm and leg in tuition for private school and making that sacrifice, you bet your ass that a lot of people would be pissed off at a CRT curriculum that is divisive and disconcerting to kids at a young age. You want to teach your kids how to be grateful for their private school and nice lifestyle - take them to volunteer at the Star of Hope or the Houston Food Bank. What I don't fucking want is some 20 something teacher to tell me that my kids and I are oppressors.

"I demand you teach me only the things I want to learn and then give me my certificate that says I deserve an Ivy League education, damnit"

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Johnny Sack 8397]

52 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Yep probably the 8 year old listened to “The Chronic” and then went to go use the word as a slur against a classmate.

Word was everywhere in movies and music in the 90s. 

I never heard my parents use the word.  I heard it relatively frequently on tv and movies as a young kid.  Blazing Saddles.  All in the Family.  Jeffersons.  Sanford and Son.  Trading Places.  Full Metal Jacket.

Did not have to be a NWA record or Boyz N the Hood or New Jack City. And 8 year olds often have older siblings and cousins who do listen to the more adult stuff.  

[DonkeyCigars 143]

13 hours 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?”

 

Because CRT is radically crazy and stupid?

[bad_teammate 13195]

People talk a lot of shit about CRT but honestly playing emulators on LCD screens just doesn't capture the magic.

[DDD Dad 14339]

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

The only thing missing is a few pithy gifs from cheeseweasel.

[BabaYaga 15294]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

Never said it was.  It was posted originally to show an example of an extreme Marxist thought applied to CRT that property rights need to be "flexible" and redistribution of wealth amended from class and now to be based upon racial lines.  I think this qualifies as radical thought.  To take people's homes and property and give to others.  If you think otherwise, I'd like to know why?

 

9 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

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

Sourced from the Marxist.  Good thing no "right wing" sources are ever used, as they are biased...and bias is bad......next he can tell us why it didn't really fail.  It was just "implemented wrong"

[synoptic 138]

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

(My prescription for the diseases of the soul comes from a place very unpopular among progressive social thinkers.)

So what is your prescription and where does it come from?

[Captainant 27661]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Sourced from the Marxist.  Good thing no "right wing" sources are ever used, as they are biased...and bias is bad......next he can tell us why it didn't really fail.  It was just "implemented wrong"

You do realize that we aren't disparaging the sources you use because "they're right wing" - we're disparaging them because they are completely devoid of substantive arguments that are supported by evidence. The fact that that is a common characteristic of right wing sources is just a correlation, not a cause. 

You still haven't actually supported your argument from before that CRT means "redistributing property from whites to blacks" with anything more than the headline from an academic paper from two decades ago and a couple out-of-context sentences from the abstract.

[F250 28772]

14 hours 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.

 

48 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I know exactly what you're saying, I just think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is the nature of these kinds of discussions.

Politics and social power are explained in Marxist philosophy, but they are explained by material factors, not ideals. That's the massive break between Marxism and what the reactionary right calls "Cultural Marxism" (and has since the days of Hitler).

Holy Shit how are we even having this argument?

What BT is having to point out is fucking Freshmen level General Education Requirement shit. I can understand the aggy being ignorant because their basics covers aggy mythology and barn sex but pretty much everyone else not educated at Liberty University should have an understanding of something as basic as Marxism.

You don't have to agree with something to understand it.

 

 

 

[BabaYaga 15294]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

You still haven't actually supported your argument from before that CRT means "redistributing property from whites to blacks" with anything more than the headline from an academic paper from two decades ago and a couple out-of-context sentences from the abstract.

First, I never said CRT "means" redistributing.  I said a radical CRT proponent at a prominent university made the claim.

As for the paper?  So you've read it.  Cool.  I gave you the name of the body of work.  Since of course you have not read it, yet are so certain they are "out of context", then that tells us all we really need to know about you.....

[Captainant 27661]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

As for the paper?  So you've read it.  Cool.  I gave you the name of the body of work.  Since of course you have not read it, yet are so certain they are "out of context", then that tells us all we really need to know about you.....

Well it turns out since you're the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you - not on me the reader to disprove your unsupported position.

So again, show me in the paper where chris fuso/facebook/OANN/fox told you to point to when challenged on this point.

[Celery Man 20944]

46 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Word was everywhere in movies and music in the 90s. 

I never heard my parents use the word.  I heard it relatively frequently on tv and movies as a young kid.  Blazing Saddles.  All in the Family.  Jeffersons.  Sanford and Son.  Trading Places.  Full Metal Jacket.

Did not have to be a NWA record or Boyz N the Hood or New Jack City. And 8 year olds often have older siblings and cousins who do listen to the more adult stuff.  

this is in advance a pointless argument and I did a bad job introducing it anyways, but hearing the the n word as used in rap music doesn't lead to using it as a slur against classmates, or at least not to the extent that this is a more likely explanation than "i learned it from you dad". either way, all the more reason that you should proactively teach your kids what it is to be decent, and also interesting that you reflexively grab for the "more likely that he heard black people using the word than his own family" as an explanation for a kid using the n word in 1992.

[BabaYaga 15294]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Well it turns out since you're the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you - not on me the reader to disprove your unsupported position.

So again, show me in the paper where chris fuso/facebook/OANN/fox told you to point to when challenged on this point.

LOL, so they're not out of context then?  Great.  

[Captainant 27661]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

LOL, so they're not out of context then?  Great.  

No, you're just making wild claims based off of what your outrage machine told you to be upset about. And you're failing to support your claims and getting your snowflake melted because you can't.

[synoptic 138]

8 minutes ago, F250 said:

 

Holy Shit how are we even having this argument?

What BT is having to point out is fucking Freshmen level General Education Requirement shit. I can understand the aggy being ignorant because their basics covers aggy mythology and barn sex but pretty much everyone else not educated at Liberty University should have an understanding of something as basic as Marxism.

You don't have to agree with something to understand it.

 

 

 

Not sure if this was intended towards me, but I’ve taken the time to read a fair amount of source material from Marx, Engels, and others, as well as commentary on their works (the academic peer reviewed kind).  It simply doesn’t make sense to say that Marxism is not about social and political power.  He clarified what he meant in the follow up post and we are in agreement. 

[wildcat09 29354]

18 minutes ago, F250 said:

 

Holy Shit how are we even having this argument?

What BT is having to point out is fucking Freshmen level General Education Requirement shit. I can understand the aggy being ignorant because their basics covers aggy mythology and barn sex but pretty much everyone else not educated at Liberty University should have an understanding of something as basic as Marxism.

You don't have to agree with something to understand it.

 

 

 

The conservative problem with marxism is that if more people understand it more people will agree with it, and they can't have that. It's the same reason they hate teaching about any history but the barest hagiography of the founding fathers.

[TwiceHorn 31457]

13 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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?

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

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.

You're right.

But, the "oppression" rubric is revolutionary in nature, meaning using that term although the idea underlies a lot of political discourse.  Until recently, it hasn't been particularly common in American political discourse.

Also, it's kind of odd and I am sure that there are exceptions, but critical studies (I am most familiar with the legal variant), don't often advocate solutions, for example, revolution or revolutionary change.  Such solutions are often pretty blatantly implied, but not often explicitly stated.

You see the term "nihilistic" bantered about in connection with critical studies, and it's hard to avoid that feeling sometimes when reading.

[workswithseed 2103]

13 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

What happens if they don't give up their property that they want to pass on to their children? Also are you one of those Marxist that does the "personal property" differention?

Edited May 25, 2021 by workswithseed

[bad_teammate 13195]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, the "oppression" rubric is revolutionary in nature, meaning using that term although the idea underlies a lot of political discourse.  Until recently, it hasn't been particularly common in American political discourse.

-----------------------------
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
-----------------------------

That's from the Declaration of Independence.

Be serious.

Quote

Also, it's kind of odd and I am sure that there are exceptions, but critical studies (I am most familiar with the legal variant), don't often advocate solutions, for example, revolution or revolutionary change.  Such solutions are often pretty blatantly implied, but not often explicitly stated.

Buddy. Come on.

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

What happens if they don't give up their property that they want to pass on to their children? 

It's taken.

Marxism is absolutely, 100%, about the forceful abolition of property and borders.

Property != family

Your attempt to draw an equivalence between the two is Marx's entire point.

[BabaYaga 15294]

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No, you're just making wild claims based off of what your outrage machine told you to be upset about. And you're failing to support your claims and getting your snowflake melted because you can't.

Let's walk this back:

• Citation made as context for radical CRT wealth confiscation and redistribution.....suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.
• Sandy Vag tries to Google, can't find anything.  To everyone's surprise, cries foul, "didn't happen".
• Specific quotes provided along with the name of the actual publication
• They're out of context!
• Have you actually read it?
• Well, no.....but they are....and the burden of proof is on you to prove it....despite the name of the publication being "Whiteness as Property".  JFC...

Keep is up.  No really.  Let's sum this up below.  The actual review from the Harvard Law Library

Whiteness as property

Quote

Professor Harris concludes by arguing that distortions in affirmative action doctrine can only be addressed by confronting and exposing the property interest in whiteness and by acknowledging the distributive justification and function of affirmative action as central to that task.

All good as long as it's "justified".  Interesting rhetoric?  I know I've heard it somewhere before....

[Pancho 44777]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Because CRT is radically crazy and stupid?

White bro…am I right?

 

I would ask you to specifically explain how it’s radical, crazy, and/or stupid but you determined not to put your children in a public school “bECuZ CrT!” without even fully knowing what it actually is, so…

[BabaYaga 15294]

Just now, Pancho said:

White bro…am I right?

 

I would ask you to specifically explain how it’s crazy and stupid but you determined not to put your children in a public school “bECuZ CrT!” without even fully knowing what it actually is, so…

Your PhD was in CRT?  Correct?

[bad_teammate 13195]

51 minutes ago, synoptic said:

So what is your prescription and where does it come from?

Ego death. Lots of ways to get there. Obedience to god is a common path in the West. I find that to be the most useful path for me.

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

All good as long as it's "justified".  Interesting rhetoric?  I know I've heard it somewhere before....

In the Constitution?

[Captainant 27661]

Sigh. There is no getting through to Baby Aga. He's so certain that his facebook page will never mislead him.

He's just ignoring what we're saying and shitposting about MARXISM and COMMUNISM and how any sort of affirmative action to address structural inequity is really just REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!

Give me a fucking break. His smoking gun is the headline of a paper that examines how ownership and wealth have been the prime mechanisms for inequality - like it's some sort of radical thought historically. White folks in America - which is to say more broadly the American government and nation - have a long history of outright theft of property from non-white owners (Oklahoma and the trail of tears was a thing), enslavement of black people for their own personal gain, and the continued marginalization and stripping of representation from black (and generally non-white) peoples.

Shit, especially in the context of our post-citizens united world where money == speech it's now even codified into law that white people have a disproportionally larger voice than black people in our nation's discourse. 

But noooooooooo, let's just get reductive and use our UNGA BUNGA brains to call everything marxism because you can make a tortured comparison that your other all lives matter folks can repeat ad infinitum to dismiss and derail any sort of conversation.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

I will not buy into any idea that when taken to extremes, might be bad. I also will not buy into any idea where one anecdotal experience has a kid called an oppressor because that really means that anecdote is the mainstream. However, your anecdotal racial experience was just confusion on your part and our current systems as they are, are the best we should do, even when taken to the extremes. 

I'm sold. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

On 5/21/2021 at 10:36 AM, Neonmoon said:

Like most subjects, it all boils down to one side having to explain to a less intelligent side why their evidence is not credible and why their arguments are flawed. The less intelligent side is either mentally incapable of understanding this new information, or is not open to processing new information because they want to believe what they want to believe not matter what. (Or a combination of the two) 

It is the same as it’s ever been. It will always be this way. That’s why progress is hard.

 

 

1 hour ago, F250 said:

 

Holy Shit how are we even having this argument?

What BT is having to point out is fucking Freshmen level General Education Requirement shit. I can understand the aggy being ignorant because their basics covers aggy mythology and barn sex but pretty much everyone else not educated at Liberty University should have an understanding of something as basic as Marxism.

You don't have to agree with something to understand it.

 

 

 

I should just bump my post every couple pages 

[BabaYaga 15294]

42 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sigh. There is no getting through to Baby Aga. He's so certain that his facebook page will never mislead him.

He's just ignoring what we're saying and shitposting about MARXISM and COMMUNISM and how any sort of affirmative action to address structural inequity is really just REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!

Give me a fucking break. His smoking gun is the headline of a paper that examines how ownership and wealth have been the prime mechanisms for inequality - like it's some sort of radical thought historically. White folks in America - which is to say more broadly the American government and nation - have a long history of outright theft of property from non-white owners (Oklahoma and the trail of tears was a thing), enslavement of black people for their own personal gain, and the continued marginalization and stripping of representation from black (and generally non-white) peoples.

Shit, especially in the context of our post-citizens united world where money == speech it's now even codified into law that white people have a disproportionally larger voice than black people in our nation's discourse. 

But noooooooooo, let's just get reductive and use our UNGA BUNGA brains to call everything marxism because you can make a tortured comparison that your other all lives matter folks can repeat ad infinitum to dismiss and derail any sort of conversation.

LOL, you're so fucking bad at this.

[TwiceHorn 31457]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

-----------------------------
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
-----------------------------

That's from the Declaration of Independence.

Be serious.

Buddy. Come on.

It's taken.

Marxism is absolutely, 100%, about the forceful abolition of property and borders.

Property != family

Your attempt to draw an equivalence between the two is Marx's entire point.

Uh,  the Declaration of Independence is a revolutionary document. 

I am not even sure what you're on about.  Your post is not responsive to mine other than to quote a revolutionary document in response to my assertion that "oppression rhetoric" is of a revolutionary nature and hasn't been common in American political discourse in the last half century or so, at least, except among radical and fringe elements.  Until today.

To the extent CRT urges revolution based on race or identity, it shares the revolutionary notion with Marxism.  That's all.

Or maybe your response conflates mine with someone else's.  I can't tell. Then again, I have only participated in pretty conventional two-party politics, which is obviously pretty different from your experience.

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[CDAK 216]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It's taken.

Marxism is absolutely, 100%, about the forceful abolition of property and borders.

Property != family

So, I lose all my shit but get to keep my family. Hard pass.

[FOXHOUND 1021]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

More likely they heard it from a rap song or a movie than their parents.  

Hard 'er'? I doubt it. Kids at that age were listening to Fresh Prince and Kris Kross around that time. Hell that was the first time I heard the word, went and asked my parents and they were livid.

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by FOXHOUND

[bad_teammate 13195]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Your post is not responsive to mine other than to quote a revolutionary document in response to my assertion that "oppression rhetoric" is of a revolutionary nature and hasn't been common in American political discourse in the last half century or so, at least, except among radical and fringe elements.

You're reframing after the fact, which makes conversation and understanding difficult.

But even within this... you're wrong. The entirety of American political conservativism is centered around feelings of cultural oppression; of being surrounded. It's why suburbs and exurbs exist; to escape oppression. To escape social libertines. To escape taxation. To escape the influence of bad schools on kids. To escape mass culture raising kids improperly. And on and on.

Victimhood politics is what everyone is doing all the time. What other motivation would there be to even try to engage in an political project if not to escape oppression?

Why are gun sales so reactionary? Oppression. Why is gold-bugging a thing? Prepping? Oppression.

1 minute ago, FOXHOUND said:

Hard 'er'? I doubt it. Kids at that age were listening to Fresh Prince and Kris Kross around that time. Hell that was the first time I heard the word, went and asked my parents and they were livid.

My son first dropped the hard-r version after reading Breakfast of Champions on my recommendation.

Kind of blew the top of my head off hearing it come from his then-15-year-old mouth. Wife about went through the roof.

lol

[We’reTexas 1473]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Sigh. There is no getting through to Baby Aga. He's so certain that his facebook page will never mislead him.

I feel like we glossed over the actual Facebook post he literally copied and pasted from. 

[TwiceHorn 31457]

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're reframing after the fact, which makes conversation and understanding difficult.

But even within this... you're wrong. The entirety of American political conservativism is centered around feelings of cultural oppression; of being surrounded. It's why suburbs and exurbs exist; to escape oppression. To escape social libertines. To escape taxation. To escape the influence of bad schools on kids. To escape mass culture raising kids improperly. And on and on.

Victimhood politics is what everyone is doing all the time. What other motivation would there be to even try to engage in an political project if not to escape oppression?

Why are gun sales so reactionary? Oppression. Why is gold-bugging a thing? Prepping? Oppression.

My son first dropped the hard-r version after reading Breakfast of Champions on my recommendation.

Kind of blew the top of my head off hearing it come from his then-15-year-old mouth. Wife about went through the roof.

lol

I don't disagree with that premise.

I have conceded repeatedly that notions of oppression underlie most political discourse.  But only notions, as opposed to using the sort of "class warfare" variant of "I'm oppressed" and "you're the oppressor."

I'm 55 and I never heard the word "oppression" or even much "victim" from either "side" until recently.  Discounting fringey types and the occasional "victimhood" hyperbole.  I can only speak to what I know, and to what I have read to some extent.

I have complained about various taxes without ever using the term oppressed.  No one I know personally has ever called themselves oppressed while griping about politics or government.  And I run in the thoughtless white flight areas, as apparently, do you.

The whole victim/oppressor rubric, using those terms, not exaggerated similar notions, reflects either revolutionary desires or intentions, or an extremely deeply divided electorate, which are probably inseparable concepts.

Anyway, this is a ridiculous debate.

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45920]

I got behind on this thread and I'm not really up for 3+ pages of catching up.  So, I'll just say this:  before we address past inequity, perhaps we should start with current inequity, because anyone who doesn't think the average African-American is subjected to a systemically-enforced lower standard of living than the average white American is a fool, and it's not just an historically-accumulated headwind.  It's laws and policies and habitual looking the other way, intentional and unintentional. 

Now, I don't think we stop there, but we could start there.

[workswithseed 2103]

1 hour ago, CDAK said:

So, I lose all my shit but get to keep my family. Hard pass.

“Blessed is he who has no family,” Marx

[TwiceHorn 31457]

44 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I got behind on this thread and I'm not really up for 3+ pages of catching up.  So, I'll just say this:  before we address past inequity, perhaps we should start with current inequity, because anyone who doesn't think the average African-American is subjected to a systemically-enforced lower standard of living than the average white American is a fool, and it's not just an historically-accumulated headwind.  It's laws and policies and habitual looking the other way, intentional and unintentional. 

Now, I don't think we stop there, but we could start there.

I think the point of a lot of CRT, that should be non-controversial, is current inequity exists because of past inequity and you can't understand one without understanding the other.

I'm on board with that 100%.

The only issue remaining is at what age to bring these ideas into the classroom and should divisive rhetoric like "oppressor" be involved.

[Captainant 27661]

Salient to our discussion shitslinging here:

https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/majority-black-detroit-left-behind-as-economic-recovery-benefits-white-and-wealthy/Content?oid=27217522

For years, local advocates have warned that Detroit’s celebrated recovery and economic comeback were misguided, concluding that the beneficiary of these economic gains was largely white and wealthier, leaving the majority of Black Detroiters behind. A recent report published by Detroit Future City (DFC), "The State of Economic Equity in Detroit," seems to bear this out.

The report states that between 2010 and 2019 the median income of whites in Detroit increased by 60%, compared to the 8% increase in median income among African Americans — an astonishing 52% percent difference. We believe there is a stronger connection to be made between these outcomes and intentional policy decisions championed by our elected leaders over the past decade.

Policies that have called for the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in public tax abatements to corporations and developers have fallen short. Based on the data reflected in this report, the promise of jobs and economic mobility for Detroiters have failed to materialize. To the contrary, Black Detroiters tend to be overrepresented in low-wage, high-turnover jobs in industries like hospitality, leisure, and entertainment. These are not the middle-wage jobs characterized in the report that offer a path to middle-class benefits like homeownership. It’s not surprising that Detroit is surpassed only by Cleveland as the city with the lowest percent of middle-income households in the nation.

As local advocates have predicted, it turns out the beneficiaries of these policies and promises are not majority Black Detroiters. Responding to the report, life-long Detroiter and founding member of Detroit People’s Platform Ron Turner, shared, “these findings are not surprising to me given the lack of economic opportunity I witness every day across Detroit neighborhoods”

[Dahobbs 17534]

4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Let's walk this back:

• Citation made as context for radical CRT wealth confiscation and redistribution.....suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.
• Sandy Vag tries to Google, can't find anything.  To everyone's surprise, cries foul, "didn't happen".
• Specific quotes provided along with the name of the actual publication
• They're out of context!
• Have you actually read it?
• Well, no.....but they are....and the burden of proof is on you to prove it....despite the name of the publication being "Whiteness as Property".  JFC...

Keep is up.  No really.  Let's sum this up below.  The actual review from the Harvard Law Library

Whiteness as property

All good as long as it's "justified".  Interesting rhetoric?  I know I've heard it somewhere before....

It's very clear that you didn't read or understand the article at all. Whiteness as property doesn't mean that very concept of property needs to be cast aside. All the article is really saying is in the United States whiteness itself has come to be a property interest, one that has been protected under the law. That property interest has conferred privileges upon individuals identified as white to exclusions of others.  In order to combat that historical truth, and you can't seriously deny the above, the article promotes affirmative action. And it seeks to recast our understanding of affirmative action as not something done to subordinate whites, as you apparently fear. The purpose of affirmative action is not to "institute a regime of racialized hierarchy in which all whites, because they are white, are deprived of economic, social, and political benefits." Rather, the article proposes that its purpose should be seen as an effort to level the playing the field.

The article does promote wealth and property distribution in general terms. But that doesn't necessarily mean taking your house and handing it to a black family. Using tax dollars to pay reparations, or to provide loans and housing, or education opportunities would be less radical examples of types of wealth redistribution that are more commonly discussed and accepted. In fact, the article explicitly states that property rights should be respected, but that will not be viewed as absolute. Legally speaking, property rights are not absolute even now, for instance the government can take your property for the benefit of society. Our Constitutional restriction on the power is limited primarily to requiring compensation for the property. And then of course you have taxes, which is a form of redistribution itself that no one can seriously argue that the government cannot exercise. Legally, this article doesn't propose changing much of anything. It just proposes expanding our understanding of those benefits to society to include equalizing the privileges of blacks in response to their historic mistreatment. 

From the article:

Quote

 

Fundamentally, affirmative action does not reestablish a property interest in Blackness because Black identity is not the functional opposite of whiteness. Even today, whiteness is still intertwined with the degradation of Blacks and is still valued because "the artifact of 'whiteness' . . . sets a floor on how far [whites] can fall." Acknowledging Black identity does not involve the systematic subordination of whites, nor does it even set up a danger of doing so. Affirmative action is based on principles of antisubordination, not principles of Black superiority.

The removal of white privilege pursuant to a program of affirmative action would not be implemented under an ideology of subordination, nor would it be situated in the context of historical or present exploitation of whites. It is thus not a matter of implementing systematic disadvantage to whites or installing mechanisms of group exploitation. Whites are not an oppressed people and are not at risk of becoming so. Those whites that are disadvantaged in society suffer not because of their race, but in spite of it. Refusing to implement affirmative action as a remedy for racial subordination will not alleviate the class oppression of poor whites. Indeed, failing to do so will reinforce the existing regime of race and class domination that leaves lower class whites more vulnerable to class exploitation. Affirmative action does not institute a regime of racialized hierarchy in which all whites, because they are white, are deprived of economic, social, and political benefits. It does not reverse the hierarchy, but levels the racial privilege.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 45920]

58 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think the point of a lot of CRT, that should be non-controversial, is current inequity exists because of past inequity and you can't understand one without understanding the other.

I'm fully in agreement.  I'm just saying we should start with fixing the inequities in our current system of laws and policies and then work our way backwards in time to address prior behaviors.

[Pancho 44777]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The conservative problem with marxism is that if more people understand it more people will agree with it, and they can't have that. It's the same reason they hate teaching about any history but the barest hagiography of the founding fathers.

It really is something to see radical republicans who basically want to brainwash and indoctrinize future generations into believing slavery never existed and that everything was hunky dory from Day 1 in 1776 as that's the 1st day of America and everyone regardless or race, gender, or class lived in big mansions with lots of flowers, rainbows, and they all ate dinner together every 3rd thursday!

[elguapo 4586]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

It really is something to see radical republicans who basically want to brainwash and indoctrinize future generations into believing slavery never existed and that everything was hunky dory from Day 1 in 1776 as that's the 1st day of America and everyone regardless or race, gender, or class lived in big mansions with lots of flowers, rainbows, and they all ate dinner together every 3rd thursday!

See it's not that slavery didn't exist, it just wasn't nearly as bad as those libtard "historians" make it out to be. In fact most slaves lived exceedingly happy lives and loved their masters like parents. I've done the research so you can believe me.

[Samson's Wig 3192]

What do Marxists, evangelicals, academics, Trumpers, progressives, and fly fishermen all have in common?

CRT doesn't seem to fit in there, in my opinion.  

[workswithseed 2103]

1 hour ago, Samson's Wig said:

What do Marxists, evangelicals, academics, Trumpers, progressives, and fly fishermen all have in common?

CRT doesn't seem to fit in there, in my opinion.  

We're all on this thread.