Critical Race Theory Is The Left’s QAnon

[HomerJS]

You have to forgive @s0me0nesmind1. He still thinks BLM are terrorists vs the #1 terrorist threat in the country (as quantified by all our intel agencies)

 

[cytg111]

Lol no. It's really not.

You look like a simple pawn of the unintelligent.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1409178979387518980

Its a conundrum isnt it, when the redarded right needs to EDUCATE everyone else on what they are having a hysterical fit over now…: The left is pushing CRT OMG… btw here is what CRT means:………… 10 pages of gibberish.
This is how good a pres Biden is… the right is thoroughly consumed by potato head, Q and CRT. You have to admire them though, they’ve been under for years now and not once come up for a fresh breath of reality.

 

[outriding]

You have to forgive @s0me0nesmind1. He still thinks BLM and ANTFA are terrorists vs the #1 terrorist threat in the country (as quantified by all our intel agencies)

FTFY

 

[fskimospy]

How many Joe Blows on the street actually know what CRT is? I never heard of it till a few months back, and had to search out an explanation that was vague at best. Never did find a cliffs version, and that ended my curiosity.
My hunch is that a lot of people fall into that category.

It has an academic meaning but in the popular consciousness it now means ‘things conservatives don’t like’.

 

[Greenman]

Most people just know its' as frightening as Communism or Caravans of Latinos. Be very afraid.

Communism is fairly well understood by most people, both the theory and the actuality. Caravans of refugees are also a simple concept that can be seen and understood. CRT isn't cut and dried. I've yet to see a concise overview of the concepts involved, and I actually went looking for one. What a lot people do know about it is that it's being pushed by the far left, and that automatically makes it suspect.

 

[cytg111]

Communism is fairly well understood by most people, both the theory and the actuality. Caravans of refugees are also a simple concept that can be seen and understood. CRT isn't cut and dried. I've yet to see a concise overview of the concepts involved, and I actually went looking for one. What a lot people do know about it is that it's being pushed by the far left, and that automatically makes it suspect.

Did you mean to say right there... when you wrote left?

 

[Pohemi]

Communism is fairly well understood by most people, both the theory and the actuality.

Obviously.

It's so simple to understand, it's why conservatives use 'Communism/ Marxism/ Socialism/ Liberalism/ Leninism/ Mao-ism/ etc' interchangeably to describe anything that scares them.

 

[fskimospy]

Communism is fairly well understood by most people, both the theory and the actuality. Caravans of refugees are also a simple concept that can be seen and understood. CRT isn't cut and dried. I've yet to see a concise overview of the concepts involved, and I actually went looking for one. What a lot people do know about it is that it's being pushed by the far left, and that automatically makes it suspect.

It’s really not though, at least not in any serious way. It’s an academic concept that’s confined to colleges and universities, which is exactly the appropriate place to have those sorts of discussions.

The current panic over it is 100% a bad faith attempt by Republican politicians and conservative media to manufacture a topic to get in a culture war over. Biden isn’t pushing it, Democrats in Congress and state legislatures aren’t pushing it, it’s just Republicans whipping themselves into a frenzy because they haven’t been able to find a good way to attack Biden. They tried the same thing with cancel culture earlier this year but it didn’t really take hold so they shifted topics.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It’s really not though, at least not in any serious way. It’s an academic concept that’s confined to colleges and universities, which is exactly the appropriate place to have those sorts of discussions.

The current panic over it is 100% a bad faith attempt by Republican politicians and conservative media to manufacture a topic to get in a culture war over. Biden isn’t pushing it, Democrats in Congress and state legislatures aren’t pushing it, it’s just Republicans whipping themselves into a frenzy because they haven’t been able to find a good way to attack Biden. They tried the same thing with cancel culture earlier this year but it didn’t really take hold so they shifted topics.

"Omg! teH pROBleM is ThAt teH cuntrees dat tryed it DId'unt doo it the RitE wAy!!!"

 

[IronWing]

"Omg! teH pROBleM is ThAt teH cuntrees dat tryed it DId'unt doo it the RitE wAy!!!"

"omg ! ehtay oblempray isyay atthay ehtay untreescay atday edtryay ityay id'untday ooday ityay ethay iteray ayway ! ! ! "

 

[cytg111]

"Omg! teH pROBleM is ThAt teH cuntrees dat tryed it DId'unt doo it the RitE wAy!!!"

Reported for idiocy.

 

[fskimospy]

"Omg! teH pROBleM is ThAt teH cuntrees dat tryed it DId'unt doo it the RitE wAy!!!"

lolwut. Did you respond to the wrong post?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Nothing like a good Monday morning cup of rage with whipped meltdown topping to keep the forum alive.

 

[nakedfrog]

Nothing like a good Monday morning cup of rage with whipped meltdown topping to keep the forum alive.

Well, really, we've almost always had some kind of clown in P&N.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, really, we've almost always had some kind of clown in P&N.

Its probably the same person. Spidey, incorruptible, and now somep!eceofsh1t.

 

[nakedfrog]

Its probably the same person. Spidey, incorruptible, and now somep!eceofsh1t.

Hey, a ways back it was dmcowen

 

[Pohemi]

Its probably the same person. Spidey, incorruptible, and now somep!eceofsh1t.

All dishonest clowns in a very similar fashion. It's either the same person or they just all drink from the same bowl of tard-aid and parrot the same retarded, disingenuous nonsense.

 

[Paratus]

Lol no. It's really not.

You look like a simple pawn of the unintelligent.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1409178979387518980

So you are accusing me of being a pawn….

What do you know about anyone or anything in that tweet?

Let’s take a look shall we?

Wenyuan Wu PhD

Officers & County Co-Chairs | No on Proposition 16 - Californians for Equal Rights

Wenyuan Wu, Ph.D., Executive Director Wenyuan Wu previously was the Director of Administration at the Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE). She holds a Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Miami and has authored a book (Chinese Oil Enterprises in Latin America...

californiansforequalrights.org

One of the things she is known for is being the executive director of “Californians for Equal Rights: No on CA Prop 16”

Prop 16 would have repealed Prop 209 which basically banned affirmative action in CA. So being No for Prop 16 is being for a ban on affirmative action.

She’s appears to have a conservative position on race.

She’s also quoted favorably about CRT by The Epoch Times a far right site and The Daily Caller also a right site.

Weiterleitungshinweis

www.google.com

Dr. Wenyuan Wu

The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.

dailycaller.com

So far right wing media feels she’s conservative on race.

The pic in her tweet says “We’ll be teaching CRT, White Fragility & How to be Antiracist” It then goes on to suggest a number of things those books teach.



Have you read those books? I haven’t. A pawn of the unintelligent might just blindly accept what a blurry image tweeted out by a PhD lauded by far right conservative media but for me I’d like to know a bit about the books before I blindly accept the above characterization.

So White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo

Wiki Quote

DiAngelo describes white fragility to be a defensive response by a white person when their whiteness is highlighted or mentioned, or their racial worldview is challenged, whether this response is conscious or otherwise. She gives examples including a white man accusing someone of "playing the race card" or a white woman crying to avoid conflict.[2][7] DiAngelo proposes that white people are used to viewing themselves as "raceless" or the "default" race, and as such are insulated from feelings of racial discomfort.[4][14] She describes racism as systematic rather than overt and conscious, arguing that racial segregation has shaped the United States.[2][14] She points to research that has shown that children as young as four years old show a strong and consistent pro-white bias and an especially strong prejudice against black males.[15]

DiAngelo says that people associate racism with extremists such as neo-Nazis or self-identified white supremacists, who they label as "bad people", and conclude that because they are a "good person" that they cannot be racist.[2] She criticizes white liberals,[4] arguing that white people who identify as "progressive" view themselves as "woke" to avoid questioning any issue of racism in themselves. She terms these reactions "aversive racism" and writes that it prevents people from addressing unconscious racist bias, which she believes everyone has. Contrastingly, she uses the term "avowed racists" to refer to those who she believes are intentionally perpetrating racism.[2]

The author writes that "color blindness", the idea that one should not notice or think about a person's race, is unhelpful as it prevents people from understanding how race does matter in the current world.[4] She criticizes individualism, the American Dream and the philosophical concept of objectivity. Instead, she promotes utilitarianism.[4] The book describes the lynching of Emmett Till in 1955, a child who was accused of harassing a white woman.[2] It also uses as an example Jackie Robinson, the first African-American to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the modern era (1901- ).[16]DiAngelo says that a stereotype of black men as violent and dangerous is untrue and used to justify continuing racist brutality.[4]

TLDR excerpt with some

• Describes White Fragility to be a defensive response whenever racism or their whiteness is pointed out.
  
  (Seems like we’ve seen this in this very thread)
• She describes racism as systematic rather than overt and conscious, (systemic is more nuanced than saying it’s “everywhere”)
• says that people associate racism with extremists such as neo-Nazis - "bad people", and conclude that because they are a "good person" that they cannot be racist.
• criticizes white liberals,[4] arguing that white people who identify as "progressive" view themselves as "woke" to avoid questioning any issue of racism in themselves (whoa something you two can agree on!)
• prevents people from addressing unconscious racist bias, which she believes everyone has. Contrastingly, she uses the term "avowed racists" to refer to those who she believes are intentionally perpetrating racism (so she says everyone & has racist tendencies but most aren’t purposely trying to be racist - much more nuanced position than in the image above)

Now How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X Kendi

Wiki Synopsis

He relates his evolving concept of racism thematically, through the events of his own life over four decades, touching on observations and experiences as a child, young adult, student, and professor, from classes he has taught, via contemporary events such as the O. J. Simpson robbery case and 2000 United States presidential election, and through historical events such as the scientific proposals of polygenism in Europe in the 1600s and racial segregation in the United States. Kendi further details the manifestations of racism, such as scientific racism, colorism and their intersection with demographics including gender, class and sexuality.

Kendi comes to define racism as any policy that creates inequitable outcomes between people of different skin colors. Therefore a person is not "a racist" (noun). A policy is "racist" (adjective). Policy is made by the powerful. He examines his own internalized racism and disagrees with the prejudice plus power model of racism, which would not allow for Black racism.

Finally, he suggests models for anti-racist individual actions and systemic (i.e. policy) changes.

TLDR with some comments

• he relates his evolving thoughts on racism from anecdotes in his life
• defines racism as any policy that creates inequitable outcomes between people of different skin colors (policy in terms of the US govt should treat people equally so it’s not a bad definition)
• says a person is not "a racist" (noun). A policy is "racist" (adjective) (he says people aren’t racist which directly contradicts the image above)
• examines his own internalized racism and disagrees with the prejudice plus power model of racism, which would not allow for Black racism. (This contradicts the description in the image above)

So after this cursory review it seems the image Dr Wu has tweeted doesn’t adequately describe these books and in fact is diametrically opposed to the truth in some areas while other are only true in the most twisted sense. It looks to have been created to be easily swallowed by gullible conservatives.

I shouldn’t have to help you out by doing the research for your posts. You’re better than this.

 

[IronWing]

You’re better than this.

If I spend thirty seconds researching this topic, I could prove you wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

So you are accusing me of being a pawn….

What do you know about anyone or anything in that tweet?

Let’s take a look shall we?

Wenyuan Wu PhD

Officers & County Co-Chairs | No on Proposition 16 - Californians for Equal Rights

Wenyuan Wu, Ph.D., Executive Director Wenyuan Wu previously was the Director of Administration at the Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE). She holds a Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Miami and has authored a book (Chinese Oil Enterprises in Latin America...

californiansforequalrights.org

One of the things she is known for is being the executive director of “Californians for Equal Rights: No on CA Prop 16”

Prop 16 would have repealed Prop 209 which basically banned affirmative action in CA. So being No for Prop 16 is being for a ban on affirmative action.

She’s appears to have a conservative position on race.

She’s also quoted favorably about CRT by The Epoch Times a far right site and The Daily Caller also a right site.

Weiterleitungshinweis

www.google.com

Dr. Wenyuan Wu

The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.

dailycaller.com

So far right wing media feels she’s conservative on race.

The pic in her tweet says “We’ll be teaching CRT, White Fragility & How to be Antiracist” It then goes on to suggest a number of things those books teach.

View attachment 46424

Have you read those books? I haven’t. A pawn of the unintelligent might just blindly accept what a blurry image tweeted out by a PhD lauded by far right conservative media but for me I’d like to know a bit about the books before I blindly accept the above characterization.

So White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo

Wiki Quote

TLDR excerpt with some

• Describes White Fragility to be a defensive response whenever racism or their whiteness is pointed out.
  
  (Seems like we’ve seen this in this very thread)
• She describes racism as systematic rather than overt and conscious, (systemic is more nuanced than saying it’s “everywhere”)
• says that people associate racism with extremists such as neo-Nazis - "bad people", and conclude that because they are a "good person" that they cannot be racist.
• criticizes white liberals,[4] arguing that white people who identify as "progressive" view themselves as "woke" to avoid questioning any issue of racism in themselves (whoa something you two can agree on!)
• prevents people from addressing unconscious racist bias, which she believes everyone has. Contrastingly, she uses the term "avowed racists" to refer to those who she believes are intentionally perpetrating racism (so she says everyone & has racist tendencies but most aren’t purposely trying to be racist - much more nuanced position than in the image above)

Now How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X Kendi

Wiki Synopsis



TLDR with some comments

• he relates his evolving thoughts on racism from anecdotes in his life
• defines racism as any policy that creates inequitable outcomes between people of different skin colors (policy in terms of the US govt should treat people equally so it’s not a bad definition)
• says a person is not "a racist" (noun). A policy is "racist" (adjective) (he says people aren’t racist which directly contradicts the image above)
• examines his own internalized racism and disagrees with the prejudice plus power model of racism, which would not allow for Black racism. (This contradicts the description in the image above)

So after this cursory review it seems the image Dr Wu has tweeted doesn’t adequately describe these books and in fact is diametrically opposed to the truth in some areas while other are only true in the most twisted sense. It looks to have been created to be easily swallowed by gullible conservatives.

I shouldn’t have to help you out by doing the research for your posts. You’re better than this.

While this is an excellent and informative post I think you will be disappointed when he either doesn’t respond or responds with the equivalent off ‘fArT’.

 

[zinfamous]

Communism is fairly well understood by most people, both the theory and the actuality. Caravans of refugees are also a simple concept that can be seen and understood. CRT isn't cut and dried. I've yet to see a concise overview of the concepts involved, and I actually went looking for one. What a lot people do know about it is that it's being pushed by the far left, and that automatically makes it suspect.

I'm not sure about that.

We've still got at least 74million willfully retarded people in this country that honestly believe some version of "Bernie Sanders is a communist! Liberals are communists!" nonsense.

None of these people are literate, or curious about how anything actually works.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So you are accusing me of being a pawn….

What do you know about anyone or anything in that tweet?

Let’s take a look shall we?

Wenyuan Wu PhD

Officers & County Co-Chairs | No on Proposition 16 - Californians for Equal Rights

Wenyuan Wu, Ph.D., Executive Director Wenyuan Wu previously was the Director of Administration at the Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE). She holds a Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Miami and has authored a book (Chinese Oil Enterprises in Latin America...

californiansforequalrights.org

One of the things she is known for is being the executive director of “Californians for Equal Rights: No on CA Prop 16”

Prop 16 would have repealed Prop 209 which basically banned affirmative action in CA. So being No for Prop 16 is being for a ban on affirmative action.

She’s appears to have a conservative position on race.

She’s also quoted favorably about CRT by The Epoch Times a far right site and The Daily Caller also a right site.

Weiterleitungshinweis

www.google.com

Dr. Wenyuan Wu

The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.

dailycaller.com

So far right wing media feels she’s conservative on race.

The pic in her tweet says “We’ll be teaching CRT, White Fragility & How to be Antiracist” It then goes on to suggest a number of things those books teach.

View attachment 46424

Have you read those books? I haven’t. A pawn of the unintelligent might just blindly accept what a blurry image tweeted out by a PhD lauded by far right conservative media but for me I’d like to know a bit about the books before I blindly accept the above characterization.

So White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo

Wiki Quote

TLDR excerpt with some

• Describes White Fragility to be a defensive response whenever racism or their whiteness is pointed out.
  
  (Seems like we’ve seen this in this very thread)
• She describes racism as systematic rather than overt and conscious, (systemic is more nuanced than saying it’s “everywhere”)
• says that people associate racism with extremists such as neo-Nazis - "bad people", and conclude that because they are a "good person" that they cannot be racist.
• criticizes white liberals,[4] arguing that white people who identify as "progressive" view themselves as "woke" to avoid questioning any issue of racism in themselves (whoa something you two can agree on!)
• prevents people from addressing unconscious racist bias, which she believes everyone has. Contrastingly, she uses the term "avowed racists" to refer to those who she believes are intentionally perpetrating racism (so she says everyone & has racist tendencies but most aren’t purposely trying to be racist - much more nuanced position than in the image above)

Now How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X Kendi

Wiki Synopsis



TLDR with some comments

• he relates his evolving thoughts on racism from anecdotes in his life
• defines racism as any policy that creates inequitable outcomes between people of different skin colors (policy in terms of the US govt should treat people equally so it’s not a bad definition)
• says a person is not "a racist" (noun). A policy is "racist" (adjective) (he says people aren’t racist which directly contradicts the image above)
• examines his own internalized racism and disagrees with the prejudice plus power model of racism, which would not allow for Black racism. (This contradicts the description in the image above)

So after this cursory review it seems the image Dr Wu has tweeted doesn’t adequately describe these books and in fact is diametrically opposed to the truth in some areas while other are only true in the most twisted sense. It looks to have been created to be easily swallowed by gullible conservatives.

I shouldn’t have to help you out by doing the research for your posts. You’re better than this.

lol this post is THE living and breathing documentation of what is wrong with the left.

I posted a picture response - to your picture tweet, in which your tweet proclaims that if someone isn't for CRT - then they aren't for teaching about slavery.... Which is a load of shit - which is what the image clearly shows. It's a fallacy of an argument to make, showing the stupidity of your original tweet post.



So what's the first thing you do? The first thing you do is google the name of the person that posted it - and you attempt to discredit them, and put them into buckets. You're already making this into some kind of battlefield where you are attempting to declare what side they are on by notating certain things that you feel are relevant to the argument - but they actually have absolutely nothing to do with the argument. You're a 5th grader that didn't learn one of the first rules of debate - attack the message, not the messenger.

She’s appears to have a conservative position on race.

She’s also quoted favorably about CRT by The Epoch Times a far right site and The Daily Caller also a right site.

So far right wing media feels she’s conservative on race.

You post these as if it's a discredit in anyway, but it really just shows how far you have shoved your head in the sand instead of thinking rationally. You literally proved you are what I said - a pawn. Incapable of individual thought. Incapable of not judging others before segregating them into buckets that you classify people as. Do you realize how disturbing that is?


You then go on to read some wikipedia summarizations of books that you haven't read - and proclaim that the statements in the image MUST be false based on a couple paragraphs of summary. How in anyway did you think that was logical? Not to mention, you carved out one paragraph of the image and honed in on that particular part for whatever strange reason instead of actually seeing the overall point that was made.

 

[fskimospy]

lol this post is THE living and breathing documentation of what is wrong with the left.

I posted a picture response - to your picture tweet, in which your tweet proclaims that if someone isn't for CRT - then they aren't for teaching about slavery.... Which is a load of shit - which is what the image clearly shows. It's a fallacy of an argument to make, showing the stupidity of your original tweet post.



So what's the first thing you do? The first thing you do is google the name of the person that posted it - and you attempt to discredit them, and put them into buckets. You're already making this into some kind of battlefield where you are attempting to declare what side they are on by notating certain things that you feel are relevant to the argument - but they actually have absolutely nothing to do with the argument. You're a 5th grader that didn't learn one of the first rules of debate - attack the message, not the messenger.


You post these as if it's a discredit in anyway, but it really just shows how far you have shoved your head in the sand instead of thinking rationally. You literally proved you are what I said - a pawn. Incapable of individual thought. Incapable of not judging others before segregating them into buckets that you classify people as. Do you realize how disturbing that is?


You then go on to read some wikipedia summarizations of books that you haven't read - and proclaim that the statements in the image MUST be false based on a couple paragraphs of summary. How in anyway did you think that was logical? Not to mention, you carved out one paragraph of the image and honed in on that particular part for whatever strange reason instead of actually seeing the overall point that was made.

Do you have even the slightest shred of self awareness? lol.

 

[HomerJS]

lol this post is THE living and breathing documentation of what is wrong with the left.

I posted a picture response - to your picture tweet, in which your tweet proclaims that if someone isn't for CRT - then they aren't for teaching about slavery.... Which is a load of shit - which is what the image clearly shows. It's a fallacy of an argument to make, showing the stupidity of your original tweet post.



So what's the first thing you do? The first thing you do is google the name of the person that posted it - and you attempt to discredit them, and put them into buckets. You're already making this into some kind of battlefield where you are attempting to declare what side they are on by notating certain things that you feel are relevant to the argument - but they actually have absolutely nothing to do with the argument. You're a 5th grader that didn't learn one of the first rules of debate - attack the message, not the messenger.







You post these as if it's a discredit in anyway, but it really just shows how far you have shoved your head in the sand instead of thinking rationally. You literally proved you are what I said - a pawn. Incapable of individual thought. Incapable of not judging others before segregating them into buckets that you classify people as. Do you realize how disturbing that is?


You then go on to read some wikipedia summarizations of books that you haven't read - and proclaim that the statements in the image MUST be false based on a couple paragraphs of summary. How in anyway did you think that was logical? Not to mention, you carved out one paragraph of the image and honed in on that particular part for whatever strange reason instead of actually seeing the overall point that was made.

If only you had this much concern about the inaccurate teaching of history and all the glaring omissions over this countries history.

 

[Pohemi]

So after this cursory review it seems the image Dr Wu has tweeted doesn’t adequately describe these books and in fact is diametrically opposed to the truth in some areas while other are only true in the most twisted sense. It looks to have been created to be easily swallowed by gullible conservatives.

I shouldn’t have to help you out by doing the research for your posts. You’re better than this.

Excellent breakdown.

I disagree however, with your final posit. You give him too much credit, and play down the fact that it's always intentional with him.

Intentional misdirection, misrepresentation, dishonesty, and disingenuousness. And it's not likely to change. When this is all intentional with every post, thread, and comment he makes here...how likely do you think it is that he would listen to any opposing viewpoints, or perhaps ever change his retarded thought processes?

I do this kind of searching and info-breakdowns to confirm or refute other sources I might read, but I don't bother posting it all for him/them because as @fskimospy pointed out...the most you'll get back is some fucktard clownshoes reply, that he probably thinks is somehow clever. It's what happens when most of your news comes from YT, Twitter, Facebook, and other meme sites.

Edit: And...here's the proof, live and direct from Clown Studios...

lol this post is THE living and breathing documentation of what is wrong with the left.

So...reads (or probably didn't, but whatever) your detailed and informed breakdown, and...expectedly, shits all over it. Like I knew he would. Because he's a retarded, dishonest clown that can't give up his victim mentality.

If I spend thirty seconds researching this topic, I could prove you wrong.

To quote the retarded clown himself... "spot the fuck on".