View Single Post
Old 10-10-2018, 01:25 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,883
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Mine and a significant portion of the voting public.
"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.
Logic and reason are not the most important in YOUR toolbox because you have found that you can win arguments with accusations of racism and bigotry.
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.
Critical race theory is horse shit and only gains traction because it allows people who would lose arguments on the merits to win by accusing others of racism and bigotry.
You realise you're accusing people like Bell, Matsuda and Crenshaw of being unable to debate?

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.
Logic and reason are efforts to define THE objective truth.
There is no objective truth.
Not your truth or my truth, etc. THE truth. If that's not really interesting to you, you might be on the wrong website.
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.
The axioms of logic and reason were laid out over a thousand years ago in an effort to discern the truth.
The axiom of whiteness which underpins social discourse is not as old as that.
Critical race theory has little concern for the truth, only a subjective storytelling.
Since race has no scientific validity, it's entirely subjective too. So subjectivity is an entirely appropriate approach.

But no real, reasoned, logical response, I see...
You're right, you don't ignore logic. You only ignore it when it is inconvenient and leads to conclusions that are contrary to your political goals.
I never ignore logic. I just never mistake myself for a Vulcan or a robot.

And you have no frigging idea what my political goals might be.
So you think a march on Selma could have stopped the Holocaust?
Do you know the difference between a single event and a movement?
Which tyrannies were open to change as a result of civil rights movements like the one we had?
Visited Eastern Europe lately?
Its a lot to repeat. So let me just link it.
Repeating it doesn't actually make the argument. Especially when the critiques include such absolute absurdities as there being no white racism inherent in the US legal system.
That's bullshit. Whiteness is not a cornerstone of reason or logic.
It's a cornerstone of how most people discuss race, though.
You can argue about whiteness without relying on anecdote and storytelling
You really can't.
but it doesn't get you to the promised land of being able to say that all the troubles that minorities face today is the direct result of an invisible form of straight white male supremacy and this social urge is so powerful that as a general rule only straight white males can succeed in this society.
Yet this is self-evidently the case.
You don't need crit race theory to tell us that life is easier for straight white males.
And if this is so, why is this so?
You really think that's what happened?
Yes, "throwing a tantrum" is exactly what the Whites here did when the British quit governing.
Once again. WTF are you talking about? Is this what you consider argument because if so then I see why crit race theory appeals to you.
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.