Clarence Page: Who’s afraid of critical race theory? Those who don’t know what it is

[ok doser]

... Lyell Avenue near Murray Street Friday.

Used to teach right near there

 

[JudgeRightly]

Some people ignore black violence and racism. Others are bothered by it. Still others are enraged by the senseless violence democrats overlook in their stupid blindness to reality. There is no white racist violence epidemic in America today, but there is definitely an epidemic of black violence.

(WHAM) — Two teenagers, ages 16 and 14, have been charged with second-degree murder after police say they intentionally lit a man on fire, causing his death.
Rochester Police were called to Lyell Avenue near Murray Street Friday. They say 53-year-old Steven Amenhauser had been doused in flammable liquid while sitting in a chair inside his apartment and was lit on fire. Bystanders tried to put out the fire, and first responders transported him to the University of Rochester Medical Center.
They say he suffered second- and third-degree burns over 70% of his body. He died from his injuries early Tuesday morning.
Zayvion Perry, 16, and 14-year-old Adriel Riley, Jr. have been charged with second-degree murder in Amenhauser's death.

Both of them, upon conviction, should be executed.

Perhaps by dousing them in the same flammable liquid and lighting them on fire.

Hand for hand, foot for foot, eye for eye, life for life.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because it is so.

Except it isn't as I outlined earlier. You're welcome to your own opinion of course as Enyart is to his but that chart is as representative of actual political viewpoints as a note in a fortune cookie.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Except it isn't

Except it is.

as I outlined earlier.

Well, no, you shared your opinion, but didn't share anything substantive.

You're welcome to your own opinion of course as Enyart is to his

Our own opinions have nothing to do with it. The chart is an accurate representation of the political spectrum.

but that chart is as representative of actual political viewpoints as a note in a fortune cookie.

False.

 

[annabenedetti]

Why the American Right is Having a Meltdown About Race​

How White Rage Happens, And Why It Still Defines American Life​

. . . .

In other words, what they want is to shut you up. When a person flies into White Rage, it’s offten to deny the problem of White Rage exists at all. That is, they’ve become entitled to having this power — to bully, abuse, harass, or go further than that: to threaten, intimidate, even become violent. They’ve become accustomed to being atop a social hierarchy. That’s why this kind of person is usually a white dude of a certain kind — the kind who’ll also happily “put women in their place” and likes guns and so on. They have authoritarian personalities which come from being indoctrinated into believing in the rules of hierarchy: yes, some people really are superior to others, and some are inferior — like women and minorities.
. . . .
The person flying into a White Rage genuinely believes they deserve to have the power to abuse and harass — the power of dominance — and they don’t see that as power at all. They see it as equality.

The people who fly into a white rage think that having disproportionate power is equality. They think they deserve to have the most power of all — the power to put you back into your “place” if you’re a woman or minority or gay or what have you. They believe that not having that power is inequality. They think without that power, they are being deprived unjustly of something they rightly deserve.

So why would anyone think they deserve to have dominance over anyone else? Why would anyone think they deserve the right to abuse, harass, shout at, threaten, intimidate, bully, harass — punch, shout, kick, demonize, scapegoat, lynch — anyone else?

Because — and this is the final and Fourth Rule of White Rage — certain people prone to it believe that they are really inherently superior to you, and don’t know it, or at least don’t want to really openly say it unless they have to. It’s obvious that quite a few of the folks I’d triggered into a White Rage genuinely believed they were superior to me and minorities, women, gays, etc — “you should be scared of me, cuck,” “you should live separate from us.”

But it was also the case that many of them didn’t really even know they still believed in supremacy. They didn’t understand their own entitlement to power. They didn’t understand that they equated entitlement with fairness. They didn’t understand that by equating entitlement with fairness, they thought that taking away the power to dominate others was the truly unfair thing. And all of that is because they didn’t really grasp they still believed in these old, ancient, foolish ideas of superiority and inferiority. After all, the only way I can really say — and justify to myself — the thought: “I deserve the power to put you in your place!” Is if I believe your place is below me.

In that sense again White Rage is a form of Male Rage — we’re speaking about the ancient of idea of patriarchy, really, that the most violent man should be at the top of a hierarchy of slightly less violent man, and below them come feminized men, then women and the LGBT, and the other “races,” who are less intelligent, ruthless, acquisitive, and so forth. All this is essentially a Nietzschean idea: at the top is the uberman, who is there because he can make his “will to power” real, by becoming a “master” over “slaves,” who are just people less ready to do extreme violence to get what they want, and that’s OK, since God is dead, and we’re now “beyond good and evil.” Get all that? It’s OK if you didn’t — it’s just that these things are all connected, in deep historical ways, so I can hardly blame people for not understanding their own White Rage.

I’m speaking in a very specific and narrow context. About American culture and society. I’ve lived all over the world, and I don’t “white rage” really exists so much in Europe or Canada. It’s an American thing. Maybe also a British one, in a smaller way. But mostly, in the context I’m talking about, I mean it as a feature of American culture and society.

So basically, a retard on twitter encountered other retards on twitter and wrote about it for retards like our own little mush-for-brains, annabananahead

:yawn:

Nothing in my link indicated it was from from Twitter. It's not. I don't know why you imagineered that.

Also, thanks for showing how well you exemplify white rage.

 

[Right Divider]

Also, thanks for showing how well you exemplify white rage.

 

[ok doser]

Nothing in my link indicated it was from from Twitter. It's not. I don't know why you imagineered that.

Sixth word of the story.

Twitter('s)

 

[annabenedetti]

Sixth word of the story.

Twitter('s)

The essay wasn't from Twitter. Neither was my link.

 

[ok doser]

The essay wasn't from Twitter.

I didn't say it was.

Neither was my link.

supra

 

[Lon]

Of course it isn't. If you think people can be so neatly compartmentalized into some little box then up to you but it's entirely subjective and has no foundation to it. Simple as that. Anyone can come up with something akin and it would just be the same.

I'd agree. My theology is not informed by men's politics. Certainly my politics are an expression of my theology. It means not a heaven on earth, by our own hand. At the extreme of his chart is "constitutional" monarchy. Monarchy alone would be my extreme right so the 'relational' part is the ideology of a different group. God is relational, but He alone is God and He doesn't divest to imperfect people, unreserved power. It depends on how the chart is to be interpreted, but I yet see His kingdom as His alone, thus monarchy/theocracy alone is always going to be on the right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Except it is.



Well, no, you shared your opinion, but didn't share anything substantive.



Our own opinions have nothing to do with it. The chart is an accurate representation of the political spectrum.



False.

No, it isn't an accurate representation of the political spectrum at all. It is simply one man's highly subjective and biased view of it, that's all. That you happen to agree with his highly subjective and biased opinion is one thing, it doesn't render it factual. Anyone can construct a chart like that based on their own personal biases and it would no more be fact in and of itself. People can't be so neatly pigeonholed, not if you're objective at any rate. So you can tell me that my opinion is wrong as much as you want, I could do the same in turn and what would it achieve exactly? Little more than a point scoring contest with no prize at the end of it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, it isn't an accurate representation of the political spectrum at all.

As I said before, you're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but it doesn't make you right.

you're objective at any rate.

Thank you for the compliment.

Little more than a point scoring contest with no prize at the end of it.

So stop telling me your opinion, that what I said is wrong, incorrect, and start telling me "WHY," objectively, aside from your opinion, it is incorrect.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As I said before, you're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but it doesn't make you right.



Thank you for the compliment.



So stop telling me your opinion, that what I said is wrong, incorrect, and start telling me "WHY," objectively, aside from your opinion, it is incorrect.

Well, of course it doesn't in and of itself which is entirely the point. Neither does your telling me that my opinion is wrong make you right by the same token. Enyart's chart is simply one he's constructed with a biased and subjective opinion of the political spectrum. He's entitled to his personal views on the score of course as much as you are to agree with them but it isn't factual or immune to criticism. As I've already outlined, people simply can't be encapsulated into some little box because of differing degrees of political slant.

Your next is just a bit of quote mining which is up to you.

Your latter is a bit ironic considering you've been asserting that I'm entitled to my own opinion and that it's wrong...otherwise, I've explained how politics and people are more nuanced and can't be glibly compartmentalized.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, of course it doesn't

Then stop asserting that you're right simy because you have an opinion.

Neither does your telling me that my opinion is wrong make you right

Your opinion is wrong, whether I tell you it or not.

Enyart's chart is simply one he's constructed with a biased and subjective opinion of the political spectrum.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're wrong. Objectively.

He's entitled to his personal views on the score of course as much as you are to agree with them

DUH.

but it isn't factual

Bob' political spectrum is correct, objectively, because it's not based on subjective things. It's based on the natural flow of authority.

or immune to criticism.

You're certainly welcome to criticize Bob's views, but that doesn't make you right automatically.

As I've already outlined, people simply can't be encapsulated into some little box because of differing degrees of political slant.

I honestly have no idea why you keep saying this, as we're not talking about people, we're talking about political systems...

you've been asserting that I'm entitled to my own opinion and that it's wrong...

Because you are, objectively, in this case, wrong.

otherwise, I've explained how politics and people are more nuanced and can't be glibly compartmentalized.

Sure it can. See, you're wrong again.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then stop asserting that you're right simy because you have an opinion.



Your opinion is wrong, whether I tell you it or not.



You're welcome to your opinion, but you're wrong. Objectively.



DUH.



Bob' political spectrum is correct, objectively, because it's not based on subjective things. It's based on the natural flow of authority.



You're certainly welcome to criticize Bob's views, but that doesn't make you right automatically.



I honestly have no idea why you keep saying this, as we're not talking about people, we're talking about political systems...



Because you are, objectively, in this case, wrong.



Sure it can. See, you're wrong again.

The irony of your opening two sentences is priceless...

You can assert that my opinion is wrong as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.

Much like Bob's chart. Anything that has a gradient of right (good) and left (evil) has broadcast it's subjective bias from the get go.

If you think that people can actually be compartmentalized or pigeon holed into little boxes then that is lamentably ignorant.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The irony of your opening two sentences is priceless...

Whoosh...

You can assert that my opinion is wrong as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.

こちらこそ！

Much like Bob's chart.

You can assert that Bob is wrong, unobjective, non-factual as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.

Anything that has a gradient of right (good) and left (evil) has broadcast it's subjective bias from the get go.

You can assert that such is subjectively biased as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.

If you think that people can actually be compartmentalized or pigeon holed into little boxes then that is lamentably ignorant.

You seem to have ignored my previous post, where I said:

I honestly have no idea why you keep saying this, as we're not talking about people, we're talking about political systems...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Whoosh...



こちらこそ！



You can assert that Bob is wrong, unobjective, non-factual as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.



You can assert that such is subjectively biased as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.



You seem to have ignored my previous post, where I said:

There was no "whoosh" JR.

Of course I can assert it, because it isn't objective. Classifying a differing political view as "evil" is broadcasting subjective bias, I doubt Enyart is particularly shy about it. If someone concocted a similar chart with conservatism as 'evil' then that again would be chock full of subjective bias in turn so in fairness, it goes both ways.

Atheism and evolution are entirely irrelevant politically. Many 'liberals' are believers, many conservatives aren't. Plenty aren't and are in turn. There's plenty of conservative Christians who have no issue with evolution.

The 'emotion' part is kinda funny, though probably more sad than amusing really.

"Political systems", just like people aren't so easily broad brushed or categorized. Not objectively anyway.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There was no "whoosh" JR.

You don't get to decide that.

Of course I can assert it, because it isn't objective.

That's just your opinion.

Classifying a differing political view as "evil" is broadcasting subjective bias,

Not when it is, in fact, evil.

If someone concocted a similar chart with conservatism as 'evil'

They would be mostly wrong, objectively.

See the difference?

Atheism and evolution are entirely irrelevant politically.

Not when they affect politics.

There's plenty of conservative Christians who have no issue with evolution.

You sure do love your fallacies.

"Political systems", just like people aren't so easily broad brushed or categorized. Not objectively anyway.

False.

Theft is objectively wrong, therefore socialism (including "safety net" programs, for example) are wrong, because the government steals from those who have earned to give to those who have not.

The majority is wicked, as per Jesus Himself, the only one who's opinion is by definition objective. Therefore democracy (and it's close cousin republics, and especially democratic republics)) are wrong, because they rely on majority rule to function.

Etc...

 

[ok doser]

Clarence Page: Who’s afraid of critical race theory? Those who don’t know what it is​

What it is:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You don't get to decide that.



That's just your opinion.



Not when it is, in fact, evil.



They would be mostly wrong, objectively.

See the difference?



Not when they affect politics.



You sure do love your fallacies.



False.

Theft is objectively wrong, therefore socialism (including "safety net" programs, for example) are wrong, because the government steals from those who have earned to give to those who have not.

The majority is wicked, as per Jesus Himself, the only one who's opinion is by definition objective. Therefore democracy (and it's close cousin republics, and especially democratic republics)) are wrong, because they rely on majority rule to function.

Etc...

Then explain what this 'whoosh' supposedly comprised of, should be interesting.

Um, no, it's subjective, just the same as if someone on the 'left' had constructed similar with different gradients.

Which it isn't. A differing political view isn't 'evil' simply because it doesn't correspond with your own.

The next bit I actually agree with you on. Objectively, they most assuredly would be wrong. They would be just as much guilty of subjective bias and error as Enyart is with his chart.

Evolution doesn't affect politics. Beliefs in God(s) or lack thereof vary widely across the spectrum.

An observation isn't a fallacy JR. There are indeed plenty of Christian conservatives who have no issue with evolution.

Your latter is just the same tired stuff from threads and threads on the topic. Having a safety net and provision made for the poor is not 'theft' but you can continue to bang the same drum as you will. According to Enyart's chart, apathy and indifference are on the 'left' and love is on the 'right'. Do you still consider that homeless people are paying the consequences for bad decisions in life and similar ilk as you've stated on here?