jakee

Ron then: Conservatives are the grown up party of ideas and childish liberals can only offer emotions. Ron now: I'm angry and I need to be validated!

The bit where you dress the question in any meaningful way. Pretty sure no one here said you needed to become a Muslim either, so it’s another one of those ‘the fuck are you talking about?’ moments that are becoming so common.

Just one more massive (and irrelevant) broad brush stereotype from the guy who can't possibly be a racist because he treats everyone as individuals.

You're creating a racist strawman with which to not be ok.

An eloquent but meaningless digression about land negotiations between the government of Panama and its native tribes in 1972, would be my guess.

I don't know where you got the idea that it's an ideology.

Except that you have in this instance introduced a subject for discussion and stated that you won't be able to discuss it in any way, so attempting to discuss it with you is trolling. That's the biggest 'gotcha' I've ever seen.

Hang on a minute - if someone asks you a question you can't answer because you don't know anything about the subject you decided to introduce then you will define that as trolling? That's a rather shitty attitude, isn't it?

So just another cheap shot instead of honest discussion. Why? I'm curious as to what your motivation was to come here in the first place if that's all you wanted to offer.

You tell him Winsor! Who the fuck does that guy Winsor think he is anyway?

And? Why? Cool, you're ok with CRT being taught properly. So again, what's your problem? You would need to ask the anti CRT scaremongers about that. I'm not aware of any widespread high school level teaching of CRT as an entire standalone subject. I am aware of republican legislatures banning or attempting to ban any mention of a single part of CRT in any lesson on any subject.

Ok.... Since that's not what critical race theory is, can you just clarify whether you are indeed saying you don;t think critical race theory should be taught?

No, you cannot infer that he is talking about how CRT was or is being taught in his school, you are simply assuming it based on your preconcieved assumptions. If you do now acknowledge that he is talking about how he thinks CRT will be taught at his school then we're right back to the bit where he is simply relaying the scaremongering about CRT that has nothing to do with CRT. Ok cool! So we can teach CRT right. So what's your problem? Say your kid's school employs one incompetent maths teacher. Do you a) demand the entire school and all other schools stop teaching maths or b) ask them to either retrain or replace the teacher? Now consider the video dad's complaint about the educator at his school. If you ban CRT from the syllabus then what do you have? You still have an educator who thinks it is appropriate to tell a little girl she should know better because she's black. You still have school management who think it's appropriate to laugh at pupils who complain about racist treatment by teachers. You don't have a framework being taught which explains why those two things are still widespread in society in 2021. In what objective way is that a better situation?

It's funny that this conversation you recount from a 50 year old memory so perfectly supports the preconcieved judgements you appear to have about black society. I'd have thought a guy as educated as you would know more about how memory works. Second, what the actual fuck is your point?

Aren't you the guy who just demanded that people come at him with data? So what are those syllogisms and how are they flawed?

I did take the full two minutes into account. I fully addressed what he said would happen and I fully addressed what he said did happen. This is plainly obvious for everyone to see. You on the other hand haven’t said a single thing about the points he raised. So how about you now demonstrate some interest in actually discussing the topics instead of simply lying about the content of my post just so you can throw around ad-hom attacks.

No, you are wrong, watch it again and actually pay attention. He only speaks for 2 minutes, it's not difficult to follow. When he is talking about the teaching of critical race theory, he is talking about what he is afraid critical race theory will teach. Pay attention to his phrasing - "that would teach my daughter that her mother is evil." Critical race theory in his school has not taught his daughter that her mother is evil, he is afraid that it will teach that because he has paid attention to scaremongers. Now, what he says has happened - "A teacher pulled my daughter aside and said 'you're a minority, so you know better than to engage in certain things'" - he didn't say that had anything to do with the teaching of critical race theory, and it's fundamentally not a problem with critical race theory, is it? Critical race theory doesn't say minorities should know better. It doesn't say black children should be laughed at when they complain about teachers treating them differently because of race. That behaviour is actually a perfect example of the ingrained social and structural pressures that critical race theory attempts to explain. If he knew what he was talking about, he'd know that he was making an argument for more widespread teaching of what critical race theory actually is, not against it.

They are wrong. They're arguing against what scaremongers say critical race theory is rather than what it actually is.

I don't think you know what QED means.

Cry me a fucking river. Your entire strategy in these threads has been to say a bunch of clearly but just about deniably racist things and then when questioned about it simply respond with ‘hey look over there!’ If you think being called on the racism and hypocrisy you are expressing is abuse, then it’s abuse you are deliberately inciting upon yourself just so you can bitch about how unfair everyone is being to you.

I 'd be surprised if a single person in the country could honestly say that all of their Conservative friends and acquaintances are vaccinated. Vaccine refusal by conservatives in the US is a huge problem, and your denial of that is simply a denial of reality.

Except that's obviously not true, it's just a comfortable lie that you're telling yourself to avoid directly discussing the criticism. Which is no great surprise, for all your verbosity and superficial style, you are essentially a very lazy thinker. You have no focus, no insight and no depth, just one barely relevant tangent after another with no clear message, just complete deniability. Anyway, in your case he's not sayingyour a racist because he disagrees with you, he disagrees with you because you're saying racist things. Like defending racist hiring practicing, and prejudging people called La-a or similar black sounding names in the same way you would judge a group of rowdy frat boys.

Ending racism though? Fuggedaboutit, it was a doddle. No-one's racist anymore, just ask me!

It also has nothing to do with the ongoing conversation. Have you realised you can’t defend your defence of racist hiring practices?

So why did you bring it up? What point were you making? How does the example provide anything useful to the discussion of whether it’s ok to discriminate against candidates with ethnic sounding names? Because the way you structured your post really, really, really made it sound like you were saying it’s ok for HR to discriminate against someone called La-a because their name shows they part of an undesirable group, just like the frat boys at the restaurant.