View Single Post
Old 10-17-2018, 01:23 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,874
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
How many arguments have you won with racists?
All of them?
Have you changed even one racist mind in your life? Probably not.
At least 5 that I know of...
But unless you are saying that all Trump supporters are racists and bigots
It's an interesting question - I would say "all Trump supporters are unquestionably supporters of racism and bigotry" and argue that it's a picayune distinction.
there are in fact people whose minds can be changed and shouting them down with accusations of racism isn't going to do it.
Once again - it's not the racists I expect will change. It's the subsequent generations.
No, I think they can debate just fine. I know Mari Matsuda
Oh, and have you told her your views on CRT?
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.
I wouldn't know, I don't follow her cases. But you admit she uses it for arguing what the law should be. How does that gel with CRT only gaining traction with losers?
No that's not what crit race theory does. Here is the wiki link for our viewers at home.
From your own cite:
CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
I'm sorry, what about what I said disagrees with that?
Science and facts beg to differ.
Give me the scientific definition of "Truth", then...
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).
Dude, that's a (stupid) fucking marketing slogan. Not holy writ. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is.
I think you are misinterpreting the notion that race is a social construct.
No, I'm just highlighting one implication of that fact.Social constructs are inherently subjective. You disagree?
So you think that you photo proves that America is Naziland? Really?
Are those not Nazis?
It seems like you do.
I'd say the same for you.

As your refusal to carry out empirical studies shows.
I think I have some idea what your political goals are (or at least your political views). I think any7one reading this thread does.
Oh, really? From this thread(not elsewhere on the Dope) you think you can identify my political views? What would those be, then, pray tell? In 5 words or less.
OK fine. Do you think the civil rights movement could have stopped the Holocaust?
Sure. Of course, it wouldn't look like the Civil Rights movement of King by the end. Probably end up a lot more like the ANC...
I take your point, and not to quibble but those were widely regarded as revolutions not civil rights movements.
"Not to quibble" but you're going to anyway. And like all quibbles it's a distinction without real difference you choose to make.

Let me expand - the first sentence of your cite is:
The Revolutions of 1989 formed part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond.
What do we find under the heading of "20th C" at that 1st link?
The Black Power movement and the Civil Rights Movement organized successful protests against government and private discrimination. Continuing unrest in African-American communities led to the multi-city riots during the "Long Hot Summer of 1967" and the various 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In Trinidad the Black Power Revolution is successful.
Please, by all means continue to give cites that undercut your own arguments...

It does when I am repeating an actual argument.
Except you're not, though. You're just posting a link. "making an argument" would be, you know, actually making all those critique points in this thread,
"shit in one hand democracy in the other" is an argument? I STILL don't know WTF that was about.
Try it and see. It doesn't have to be your own shit. You could try a big handful of bullshit, for instance...
Who said that again?
Peter Wood. More specifically, he said "Its pretense, [...], is that the Civil Rights Movement was hollow and that we continue to live in a nation the laws of which are pervasively racist."

Oh, I bet you're going to "quibble" that that's not exactly the same as "no white racism inherent in the US legal system" - knock yourself out.
Just FYI history and actual laws on the books are not generally considered subjective anecdotes or storytelling.
People's experience of same, is.
Brack Obama
Mark Zuckerberg
Hillary Clinton
Firstly, "general rule". Secondly -
  • Not allowed to fully succeed - by a Congress of mostly White Males, I might add
  • Zuckerberg is a White Male, what is that supposed to refute?
  • Is Clinton president? Stop making my arguments for me.
See Jewish-Americans Generally
See Asian-Americans generally
How many Asian congresspeople? How many Presidents?
See African immigrants generally
Are you fucking kidding me?
See Cuban-Americans generally
The White ones, like Cruz and Rubio...
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.
You saying that's not the case? And "But, Barack Obama..." is, under it all,the sum total of your "logical" reasoning for that?
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.
No, CRT is not that fatalistic. What CRT points out is that not only is the deck stacked, it's that way by design. And purposefully kept that way.
Once again, that's called a revolution.
Errm, no. Learn about South African history before you attempt a gotchya at me about it, please. The faction that set Apartheid in place got into power through a democratic process.
Pure ideal or not, democracy is what we have and its better than anything else we've come up with to date.
We've come up with better. They just weren't allowed to succeed by outside forces.
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.
Well, I am even less in favour of false dichotomies compared to "pure ideal" democracy, so in a way you're probably right. Of course, it's possible to have a modern non-pure democracy without "all that shit", which would be even better. Still not my first choice, but of course you know that, since you know all about my political leanings and all.