View Single Post
Old 10-15-2018, 08:58 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
"A significant portion of the voting public" also voted for Donald Trump. Being "a significant portion of the voting public" doesn't preclude being dumber than a box of hammers and just plain bone-ignorant about the world.
If that's all it took to win arguments, I'd never lose them. I win arguments with racists and bigots because racists and bigots are fundamentally dumb.
How many arguments have you won with racists? Have you changed even one racist mind in your life? Probably not. But unless you are saying that all Trump supporters are racists and bigots there are in fact people whose minds can be changed and shouting them down with accusations of racism isn't going to do it.

You realise you're accusing people like Bell, Matsuda and Crenshaw of being unable to debate?
No, I think they can debate just fine. I know Mari Matsuda and as Posner says, she is among the most likely contemporary legal scholars to have a long lasting effect on society. She uses Crit race theory to try and provide another lens through which we can [should?] view the law. She doesn't use it as the foundation for legal arguments.

Critical race theory allows people to speak with the underlying racist assumptions of our entire social framework exposed to the best disinfectant first. That's its strength, not its weakness, much as you would have it otherwise.
No that's not what crit race theory does. Here is the wiki link for our viewers at home.

There is no objective truth.
Science and facts beg to differ.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide what this website is and isn't exclusively about.

Or choose for me how I get to debate race.
You can proselityze on this board but the board does in fact have a mission. Its right there in the banner (its in a small font tho).

The axiom of whiteness which underpins social discourse is not as old as that.

Since race has no scientific validity, it's entirely subjective too. So subjectivity is an entirely appropriate approach.
I think you are misinterpreting the notion that race is a social construct.

But no real, reasoned, logical response, I see...
So you think that you photo proves that America is Naziland? Really?

I never ignore logic.
It seems like you do.

I just never mistake myself for a Vulcan or a robot.

And you have no frigging idea what my political goals might be.
I think I have some idea what your political goals are (or at least your political views). I think any7one reading this thread does.

Do you know the difference between a single event and a movement?
OK fine. Do you think the civil rights movement could have stopped the Holocaust?

Visited Eastern Europe lately?
I take your point, and not to quibble but those were widely regarded as revolutions not civil rights movements. I doubt it would have worked for small beleaguered minorities protesting for their rights.

Repeating it doesn't actually make the argument.
It does when I am repeating an actual argument.

"shit in one hand democracy in the other" is an argument? I STILL don't know WTF that was about.

Especially when the critiques include such absolute absurdities as there being no white racism inherent in the US legal system.
Who said that again?

It's a cornerstone of how most people discuss race, though.
You really can't.
Just FYI history and actual laws on the books are not generally considered subjective anecdotes or storytelling.

Yet this is self-evidently the case.
Brack Obama
Mark Zuckerberg
Hillary Clinton
See Jewish-Americans Generally
See Asian-Americans generally
See African immigrants generally
See Cuban-Americans generally

Because the argument of crit race theory isn't that white males have an advantage (which, I think most people could agree with). Its that white males have an almost unassailable advantage.

And if this is so, why is this so?
Because knew that white males had it easier long before crit race theory came along. What crit race theory adds to the mix is the notion that this advantage is almost insurmountable.

Yes, "throwing a tantrum" is exactly what the Whites here did when the British quit governing.
Once again, that's called a revolution. In a democracy, that doesn't happen a whole lot, its one of the best features of democracies. But you are succeeding in alienating a lot of voters in a democracy, where people vote for stuff.

It's a statement about the negligible value if the pure idea of democracy (which is what you seem to prize) vs the lived experience of that democracy for many PoCs. I realised just saying this might be too much of a subjective thing for you, so I turned it into a concrete empirical exercise for you. I figured you would be eager to put the much-ballyhooed faculty of reasoning to work on something undeniably real, not an airy-fairy subjective account.

But it looks like you only prize reason in the abstract, when you think it lets you win internet arguments. You appear unwilling to apply it to anything real.
Pure ideal or not, democracy is what we have and its better than anything else we've come up with to date. I happen to think that making me king would be fucking fantastic but you would probably disagree. So...democracy is what we have.

And in fact I bet you probably are more in favor of the "pure ideal" of democracy rather than what we have now with the gerrymandering and the voter suppression and all that shit.