Daily Show on Critical Race Theory

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Because they know better than us.

In reality it’s because they’re run by Wokesters and they need this to properly virtue signal.

Simple, there is a school of thought that runs academia and the journalistic world. Whatever you want policy to be in a generation, indoctrinate the current children in school to those ends. They get everyone's child as a captive audience for 6 or 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 9 months (give or take) of the year. Even as a super involved parent it is hard to tell what they are teaching your child because much of this CRT/SEL/DEI curriculum is not available to you (and they are extremely resistant to sharing it). The aforementioned people want a Marxist type of society. They have trouble convincing adults of this, but if they ingrain it into kids at a young age, well then, in about 20 years they will have mid 20's to 30's voting age adults all ready to be good little CRT revolutionaries.

The revolutions always target the youth. Always.

They can feel however they want to feel about stuff. No one is saying they cannot. What they are saying is that they cannot weaponize their feelings against our children.

I’m afraid you’re both right.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Agree. Kids should be taught accurate history and be permitted to interpret that themselves. Which is why I always ask my kids “what do you think about that?” It’s critical thinking and encourages independence of thought.

Yes. All of this.

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

So you don't think we have a racist history, definitely not one to examine and study?

Aren't you big on the marketplace of ideas and tough but open discussion in the hopes to better understand how our society formed so we can make better informed choices?

I think he said it pretty succinctly....do you want to learn from history or wallow in it?

I think the distinction are some claiming that this makes current white males the big baddy which I think is misinformed or grossly exaggerated.

It's not to make you feel guilty for being white nor is it expecting you to apologize for being white.

It simply is designed to inform you of how our race relations have impacted our societal system from a historical perspective.

One of his points was that only 8% of high school seniors understand that the civil war was over slavery.

A handful of states don't even cover slavery in their curriculum.

Those are embarrassing numbers.

We're not a cult.

By the current, left-defined definition of “racist,” you are definitely one. You are white, correct?

Unfortunately, you are the current definition of a racist. You won’t be able to ever change that fact unless you can change your skin color. That won’t happen and do you will take that to the grave.

So, be careful throwing around the “racist” tag when your own skin color qualifies you as a full-fledged member. You do understand that, right?

 

[Jg48]

By the current, left-defined definition of “racist,” you are definitely one. You are white, correct?

Unfortunately, you are the current definition of a racist. You won’t be able to ever change that fact unless you can change your skin color. That won’t happen and do you will take that to the grave.

So, be careful throwing around the “racist” tag when your own skin color qualifies you as a full-fledged member. You do understand that, right?

So it is the color of your skin that makes you a racist. I have met people of every color of skin (and ethnicity) that are racists. The only question was who are they racist against? White people do not own racism, it is universal trait among human beings. Only a fool (or worse) suggests that it applies it to one group of people. It is trait owned by all humans and is equal disgusting regardless of who exhibits it.

 

[TommyCracker]

By the current, left-defined definition of “racist,” you are definitely one. You are white, correct?

Unfortunately, you are the current definition of a racist. You won’t be able to ever change that fact unless you can change your skin color. That won’t happen and do you will take that to the grave.

So, be careful throwing around the “racist” tag when your own skin color qualifies you as a full-fledged member. You do understand that, right?

I believe that's the distorted scary strawman that has been successfully built to represent and attack.

I've said all throughout this thread that a concept like CRT is for the majority culture. Because it's the majority culture that can make changes based on the best data available.

By keeping this stuff hidden then generations grow up with the data or fokelore that they learn from their close knit surroundings.

I think, at a simplistic level, we have two choices. One is to understand systemically what's causing or has caused our current relations and change it OR keep on rollin, say everything is fine and continue having violent outbreaks every couple of years before we get a super riot.

An anology being take our 1992 game vs Duke. Pretty frustrating right? I punched a hole in my wall in the second half when basically our whole f#$king starting lineup fouled out.

Say we played them every year for 200 years and every time it was the same, we are competitive until Teddy fouls us all out.

Duke fans grow up saying everything is equal, stop your bitching, we're just better.

We say if you're not going to change the refs then you'll need to give us double the amount of fouls to somehow try to even out your ref advantage.

Duke scoffs and says that's obviously anti Duke rules because Indiana just can't compete with Duke.

Anyway nothing will change until Duke finally acknowledges that, yeah it's kind of systemically weird how we always shoot twice as many free throws and foul out their starters every game.

To me, that's what this is about. Having a better understanding of our complicated and diverse history so future generations we can make better informed decisions.

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

So it is the color of your skin that makes you a racist. I have met people of every color of skin (and ethnicity) that are racists. The only question was who are they racist against? White people do not own racism, it is universal trait among human beings. Only a fool (or worse) suggests that it applies it to one group of people. It is trait own by all humans and is equal disgusting regardless of who exhibits it.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you just typed.
However, the current theories and propaganda about “racism” do not embrace or consider valid any of that. Racism is defined predominantly by DNA /race. Which is absurd but that is how the definition has been distorted over time.

 

[DANC]

Simple, there is a school of thought that runs academia and the journalistic world. Whatever you want policy to be in a generation, indoctrinate the current children in school to those ends. They get everyone's child as a captive audience for 6 or 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 9 months (give or take) of the year. Even as a super involved parent it is hard to tell what they are teaching your child because much of this CRT/SEL/DEI curriculum is not available to you (and they are extremely resistant to sharing it). The aforementioned people want a Marxist type of society. They have trouble convincing adults of this, but if they ingrain it into kids at a young age, well then, in about 20 years they will have mid 20's to 30's voting age adults all ready to be good little CRT revolutionaries.

The revolutions always target the youth. Always.

They can feel however they want to feel about stuff. No one is saying they cannot. What they are saying is that they cannot weaponize their feelings against our children.

It's already here - much of our younger population voted for a brain-dead puppet and and unqualified poser.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I believe that's the distorted scary strawman that has been successfully built to represent and attack.

I've said all throughout this thread that a concept like CRT is for the majority culture. Because it's the majority culture that can make changes based on the best data available.

By keeping this stuff hidden then generations grow up with the data or fokelore that they learn from their close knit surroundings.

I think, at a simplistic level, we have two choices. One is to understand systemically what's causing or has caused our current relations and change it OR keep on rollin, say everything is fine and continue having violent outbreaks every couple of years before we get a super riot.

An anology being take our 1992 game vs Duke. Pretty frustrating right? I punched a hole in my wall in the second half when basically our whole f#$king starting lineup fouled out.

Say we played them every year for 200 years and every time it was the same, we are competitive until Teddy fouls us all out.

Duke fans grow up saying everything is equal, stop your bitching, we're just better.

We say if you're not going to change the refs then you'll need to give us double the amount of fouls to somehow try to even out your ref advantage.

Duke scoffs and says that's obviously anti Duke rules because Indiana just can't compete with Duke.

Anyway nothing will change until Duke finally acknowledges that, yeah it's kind of systemically weird how we always shoot twice as many free throws and foul out their starters every game.

To me, that's what this is about. Having a better understanding of our complicated and diverse history so future generations we can make better informed decisions.

Agreed. That’s an immature straw man.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

It's already here - much of our younger population voted for a brain-dead puppet and and unqualified poser.

I assume the poser was Trump, and the puppet was Pence.
They lost, thank God.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I believe that's the distorted scary strawman that has been successfully built to represent and attack.

I've said all throughout this thread that a concept like CRT is for the majority culture. Because it's the majority culture that can make changes based on the best data available.

By keeping this stuff hidden then generations grow up with the data or fokelore that they learn from their close knit surroundings.

I think, at a simplistic level, we have two choices. One is to understand systemically what's causing or has caused our current relations and change it OR keep on rollin, say everything is fine and continue having violent outbreaks every couple of years before we get a super riot.

An anology being take our 1992 game vs Duke. Pretty frustrating right? I punched a hole in my wall in the second half when basically our whole f#$king starting lineup fouled out.

Say we played them every year for 200 years and every time it was the same, we are competitive until Teddy fouls us all out.

Duke fans grow up saying everything is equal, stop your bitching, we're just better.

We say if you're not going to change the refs then you'll need to give us double the amount of fouls to somehow try to even out your ref advantage.

Duke scoffs and says that's obviously anti Duke rules because Indiana just can't compete with Duke.

Anyway nothing will change until Duke finally acknowledges that, yeah it's kind of systemically weird how we always shoot twice as many free throws and foul out their starters every game.

To me, that's what this is about. Having a better understanding of our complicated and diverse history so future generations we can make better informed decisions.

Leave out whether I agree or disagree with any of that, what age should that discussion be had? And if you believe it belongs in grade school, being such a complex issue that college educated adults cannot agree on, should a rebuttal be allowed in the schools for some alternate opinions on causes of disparity now?

 

[TommyCracker]

Leave out whether I agree or disagree with any of that, what age should that discussion be had? And if you believe it belongs in grade school, being such a complex issue that college educated adults cannot agree on, should a rebuttal be allowed in the schools for some alternate opinions on causes of disparity now?

A curriculum that takes a real deep dive like that is a college level course IMO so I understand that feedback on a heavy topic, but that's going to leave out a huge chunk of the population.

Let me be clear, I'm more sensitive to potential whitewashing and glorifying our history (like the daughter's of the Confederacy did in the early 1900's in the south) I'm not even accusing we're doing that other than reacting to the passionate reactions on the topic of something like CRT.

I think we can be honest and frank in our current history classes but do a better job explaining how our history has led us to the social-economic place that we are today.

Then it will be up to future generations on how they want to go forward but armed with a frank understanding of why things are.

That's utopian and extremely tough to do but if it's done by CRT or whatever we want to call it...that should be the goal of our educational system IMO. When our kids go out into the world they are better problem solvers because they understand how and why things are the way they are first in the country that they live in.

Back to my Duke analogy, if Duke doesn't believe anything is wrong and that Indiana are just a bunch of cry babies that need to stop bitching about the refs, then they aren't going to make any changes and continue to kick our asses until we've had enough and force our will on the game.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Critical theory, including critical race theory, is fundamentally Marxist in nature.

It is fundamentally postmodern, not Marxist. Marxism requires a belief that class and economics drive everything in the social sphere--ideology, political movements, etc. Critical race theory does not. Today's CRT proponents have about as much knowledge of Marx as Trump or MGT do of Burke or Oakeshott--none.

Critical Race Theory: a Marxist Critique

'Critical Race Theory: a Marxist Critique' published in 'Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory'

link.springer.com

Adolph Reed, Jr. on "Marx, Race and Neoliberalism"

We've noted Reed's work previously, and I've been reading more lately, since he is far and away the most penetrating writer on issues related to race currently in America. This piece is particularly interesting. An excerpt: Race is a taxonomy...

leiterreports.typepad.com

Marxism is a coherent philosophy. It might be wrong, but it is coherent. Postmodernism is not--it rejects logic, reason, and truth. In my mind, the latter is much more dangerous than the former. (Yes, people can argue both of the points in this paragraph re Marxism and Postmodernism). Today's CRT/antiracism advocates prove this daily by refusing to engage in debate about their ideas. They don't think that is useful, because they think debate and speech is just a way to exert power.

Some old-style critical theory people believe what we call CRT--and they call Critical Social Justice--is antithetical to even original Postmodernism:

Postmodernism Versus Critical Social Justice

James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose join old-school postmodernist and libertarian thinker Thaddeus Russell on the Unregistered podcast.

newdiscourses.com

From what I've seen, good academics doing real scholarship think our current mess of CRT/antiracism (Critical Social Justice) is just that--a mess. They believe that the intellectual underpinnings, reasoning, and conclusions of Kendi and DiAngelo are, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. How they came to dominate corporate and K-12 educational DEI training and thought is one of the great mysteries of our current age.

A curriculum that takes a real deep dive like that is a college level course IMO so I understand that feedback on a heavy topic, but that's going to leave out a huge chunk of the population.

Let me be clear, I'm more sensitive to potential whitewashing and glorifying our history (like the daughter's of the Confederacy did in the early 1900's in the south) I'm not even accusing we're doing that other than reacting to the passionate reactions on the topic of something like CRT.

I think we can be honest and frank in our current history classes but do a better job explaining how our history has led us to the social-economic place that we are today.

Then it will be up to future generations on how they want to go forward but armed with a frank understanding of why things are.

That's utopian and extremely tough to do but if it's done by CRT or whatever we want to call it...that should be the goal of our educational system IMO. When our kids go out into the world they are better problem solvers because they understand how and why things are the way they are first in the country that they live in.

Back to my Duke analogy, if Duke doesn't believe anything is wrong and that Indiana are just a bunch of cry babies that need to stop bitching about the refs, then they aren't going to make any changes and continue to kick our asses until we've had enough and force our will on the game.

On most topics, there are never only two options. Whatever ill you think needs redressing, current Critical Social Justice (as defined in the linked podcast) is not a good option.

Here's a good book for all: Cynical Theories by Lindsay and Pluckrose. It shows how this school of thought arose from postmodernism, how it is fundamentally against the Western tradition of reason, science, and truth, and is, at its core, illiberal.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

From what I've seen, good academics doing real scholarship think our current mess of CRT/antiracism (Critical Social Justice) is just that--a mess. They believe that the intellectual underpinnings, reasoning, and conclusions of Kendi and DiAngelo are, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. How they came to dominate corporate and K-12 educational DEI training and thought is one of the mysteries of our current age.

How they came to dominate is not a mystery at all. The Woke have been gaslighting us for years.

To oppose the unreasonable side of anti-racism is to be racist. Dialog is discouraged. Obedience is expected. Anti-racism is fine and good and should be the goal - but not the Kendi and DiAngelo versions of it. They are, as you establish, post-dialog and post-critical thought. It’s a religion now and if you don’t put your coins in the coiffures, you’re a racist.

on edit: I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this matter. I’m not sure I can agree that CRT is not another version of Marxism. It is predicated on a class of people being unable to achieve their goals without the help of the people and government of the people. If the main argument against CRT IS MARXISM is that CRT practitioners reject any “useful tools” espoused by Marxism - such as the law because the law in and of itself is racist - then I get the argument. But it still at the end of the day wants a class uprising and requires external intervention to accomplish its goal of the great equality of outcome which in and of itself is Marxist.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

How they came to dominate is not a mystery at all. The Woke have been gaslighting us for years.

To oppose the unreasonable side of anti-racism is to be racist. Dialog is discouraged. Obedience is expected. Anti-racism is fine and good and should be the goal - but not the Kendi and DiAngelo versions of it. They are, as you establish, post-dialog and post-critical thought. It’s a religion now and if you don’t put your coins in the coiffures, you’re a racist.

on edit: I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this matter. I’m not sure I can agree that CRT is not another version of Marxism. It is predicated on a class of people being unable to achieve their goals without the help of the people and government of the people. If the main argument against CRT IS MARXISM is that CRT practitioners reject any “useful tools” espoused by Marxism - such as the law because the law in and of itself is racist - then I get the argument. But it still at the end of the day wants a class uprising and requires external intervention to accomplish its goal of the great equality of outcome which in and of itself is Marxist.

Re your edit, I get it. They have reasoned in a similar way to Marx and most of these people also have politically socialist and communist views.

 

[Jg48]

How they came to dominate is not a mystery at all. The Woke have been gaslighting us for years.

To oppose the unreasonable side of anti-racism is to be racist. Dialog is discouraged. Obedience is expected. Anti-racism is fine and good and should be the goal - but not the Kendi and DiAngelo versions of it. They are, as you establish, post-dialog and post-critical thought. It’s a religion now and if you don’t put your coins in the coiffures, you’re a racist.

on edit: I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this matter. I’m not sure I can agree that CRT is not another version of Marxism. It is predicated on a class of people being unable to achieve their goals without the help of the people and government of the people. If the main argument against CRT IS MARXISM is that CRT practitioners reject any “useful tools” espoused by Marxism - such as the law because the law in and of itself is racist - then I get the argument. But it still at the end of the day wants a class uprising and requires external intervention to accomplish its goal of the great equality of outcome which in and of itself is Marxist.

I think you are on to the purpose of CRT. It is a part of a bigger plan. If the founding fathers were racist and evil, then everything they created must also be racist and evil. Therefore, it all must destroyed and replaced with a new and better form of government. It is a part of a bigger agenda.

The second part is that it should be a new government based on a form of socialism or Marxism. People should not be treated equally and given an equal chance to succeed, instead there should be equity. Everyone gets a piece of the pie regardless of whether or not they help make it and bake it. This is because at some time in history, either they or their ancestors were unfairly treated by those people. Many people have and will buy into this reasoning. Particularly, people who see themselves as misfits in society. after all, if your not successful, you must be a victim of the system. I feel like I'm watching the demise of the United States. It may not happen my lifetime but, I do believe my grandchildren will have to deal with it.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Florida's board of ed has now banned it.

 

[HooDatGuy]

A curriculum that takes a real deep dive like that is a college level course IMO so I understand that feedback on a heavy topic, but that's going to leave out a huge chunk of the population.

Let me be clear, I'm more sensitive to potential whitewashing and glorifying our history (like the daughter's of the Confederacy did in the early 1900's in the south) I'm not even accusing we're doing that other than reacting to the passionate reactions on the topic of something like CRT.

I think we can be honest and frank in our current history classes but do a better job explaining how our history has led us to the social-economic place that we are today.

Then it will be up to future generations on how they want to go forward but armed with a frank understanding of why things are.

That's utopian and extremely tough to do but if it's done by CRT or whatever we want to call it...that should be the goal of our educational system IMO. When our kids go out into the world they are better problem solvers because they understand how and why things are the way they are first in the country that they live in.

Back to my Duke analogy, if Duke doesn't believe anything is wrong and that Indiana are just a bunch of cry babies that need to stop bitching about the refs, then they aren't going to make any changes and continue to kick our asses until we've had enough and force our will on the game.

Who/ what are the officials in your bad analogy?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Critical theory, including critical race theory, is fundamentally Marxist in nature.

And? Much of 20th Century scholarship is fundamentally Marxist in nature. So what? If you actually know what it means to make that statement, it shouldn't bother you at all.

 

[Jg48]

And? Much of 20th Century scholarship is fundamentally Marxist in nature. So what? If you actually know what it means to make that statement, it shouldn't bother you at all.

Not all of us are as familiar and comfortable with Marxism as you seem to be, OHG. Please expand on your statement.

 

[DANC]

I agree bigotry is a learned condition. I also agree an honest straightforward discussion about race is useful. But we are fundamentally dishonest about race. Republicans are in denial or ignorant about many instances of different treatment while Democrats lie about “Jim crow on steroids” or claim Tim Scott is a token black which lies are intended to advance political agendas.

I don’t see much use in hammering slavery and the strong feelings it provokes. This kind of teaching is what keeps conflicts alive that are based on events of 100’s years past. I continue to be dismayed why we can find national purpose in remembering George Floyd’s murder but we have never had a national celebration about the end of slavery. I think that would be a unifying event.

"This kind of teaching is what keeps conflicts alive that are based on events of 100’s years past."

Yes, it's why the Middle East is always in such turmoil.

 

[DANC]

Just to be boring, in WWI both sides used propaganda quite effectively to whip up support for the war inside their own countries. The paradox of this was that the more they did that the victory goalposts were moved further back. Germany could no longer negotiate a peace in 1918 that they could have in 1914 because their own people would have thought it a loss. Same for the allied side. The more they tried to win the war the more impossible it became to win the war.

I suspect we see that in America today. If we all believe we are in an existential battle the harder it becomes to work toward something together.

You mean like 'climate change'?

 

[TommyCracker]

Who/ what are the officials in your bad analogy?

The system man! Lol

Seriously tho, I'd have to add that the refs are all Duke grads to show the historical lack of representation.

Then the refs represent how are rules of governance have been enforced.

Starting with no accountability for the treatment of slaves since they were just personal property. To the enacting of Jim Crow laws. Through the lack of accountability in the rise of the Kkk who unabashfully pillaged minority businesses and was able to freely lynch publicly around 5,000 minorities in a show of intimidation with no concequences. Through our judicial system that had no representation and turned a blind eye to those intimidation tactics through the years of police brutality that went unaccounted for until what, the rise of video evidence in the early 90's through the war on drugs and other laws that targets minorities and so on and so on.

So yeah, they represent the enforcer of the system.

All the refs are Duke grads and the Ncaa who makes the rules and judges the rules are mainly all Duke grads in this scenario, working together kicking IU's ass every year as our starting lineup always fouls out.

Or maybe K is just that much better than Knight. We need to stop bitching about 1992. The refs had nothing to do with that loss. Everything was equal, Duke is just a superior team with a superior coach.

 

[HooDatGuy]

The system man! Lol

Seriously tho, I'd have to add that the refs are all Duke grads to show the historical lack of representation.

Then the refs represent how are rules of governance have been enforced.

Starting with no accountability for the treatment of slaves since they were just personal property. To the enacting of Jim Crow laws. Through the lack of accountability in the rise of the Kkk who unabashfully pillaged minority businesses and was able to freely lynch publicly around 5,000 minorities in a show of intimidation with no concequences. Through our judicial system that had no representation and turned a blind eye to those intimidation tactics through the years of police brutality that went unaccounted for until what, the rise of video evidence in the early 90's through the war on drugs and other laws that targets minorities and so on and so on.

So yeah, they represent the enforcer of the system.

All the refs are Duke grads and the Ncaa who makes the rules and judges the rules are mainly all Duke grads in this scenario, working together kicking IU's ass every year as our starting lineup always fouls out.

Or maybe K is just that much better than Knight. We need to stop bitching about 1992. The refs had nothing to do with that loss. Everything was equal, Duke is just a superior team with a superior coach.

Yeah but the rules aren't enforced like that anymore. Everything you cited was in the past and has been corrected. So in your analogy the refs were partisan in 1992 but are no longer today. Unless you think we have a problem with racially biased judges in 2021.

 

[TommyCracker]

Yeah but the rules aren't enforced like that anymore. Everything you cited was in the past and has been corrected. So in your analogy the refs were partisan in 1992 but are no longer today. Unless you think we have a problem with racially biased judges in 2021.

You believe representation, particularly judicial representation has been corrected? Per the interwebs, there are total of 3 black republicans in Congress (Byron Donalds, Burgess Owens and Tim Scott).

Trump anointed a ton of federal judges during his term and the overwhelming majority were white dudes. Those are lifetime appointments.

There's got to be a reason why the party tends to attract Duke graduates.

You believe police brutality/enforcement is corrected? What was last year all about? IU bitching about the refs?

CRT or whatever theory is the study of all those things to understand the POV of the IU player in this analogy and mainly for future Duke graduates to come to the table and continue to get things corrected and fair so the games come down to pure competition.

That's without going into how those things in the past, Duke has a hell of a head start and has recruiting advantages, therefore making IU recruiting their leftovers, but now it's about getting representation and the enforcement in a better place.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You believe representation, particularly judicial representation has been corrected? Per the interwebs, there are total of 3 black republicans in Congress (Byron Donalds, Burgess Owens and Tim Scott).

Trump anointed a ton of federal judges during his term and the overwhelming majority were white dudes. Those are lifetime appointments.

There's got to be a reason why the party tends to attract Duke graduates.

You believe police brutality/enforcement is corrected? What was last year all about? IU bitching about the refs?

CRT or whatever theory is the study of all those things to understand the POV of the IU player in this analogy and mainly for future Duke graduates to come to the table and continue to get things corrected and fair so the games come down to pure competition.

That's without going into how those things in the past, Duke has a hell of a head start and has recruiting advantages, therefore making IU recruiting their leftovers, but now it's about getting representation and the enforcement in a better place.

Fed judges are overwhelmingly white bc the pool of available black judges is smaller. Fed bench is about 14 percent black mirroring the pop percentage.

 

[HooDatGuy]

You believe representation, particularly judicial representation has been corrected? Per the interwebs, there are total of 3 black republicans in Congress (Byron Donalds, Burgess Owens and Tim Scott).

Trump anointed a ton of federal judges during his term and the overwhelming majority were white dudes. Those are lifetime appointments.

There's got to be a reason why the party tends to attract Duke graduates.

You believe police brutality/enforcement is corrected? What was last year all about? IU bitching about the refs?

CRT or whatever theory is the study of all those things to understand the POV of the IU player in this analogy and mainly for future Duke graduates to come to the table and continue to get things corrected and fair so the games come down to pure competition.

That's without going into how those things in the past, Duke has a hell of a head start and has recruiting advantages, therefore making IU recruiting their leftovers, but now it's about getting representation and the enforcement in a better place.

You equate unequal representation with discrimination/ racism, which is why you can't think about this clearly. And given that you are such a stickler for equal representation you should be lauding the fact that minorities are over represented in most major metro Police Departments. Shouldn't that nip the police brutality problem in the bud? And if there is a problem with police use of force, why is that automatically a racial problem?

I hate to use a tired example, but it seems fitting given your bad analogy. White men are underrepresented in the NBA. Is that discrimination?

 

[TommyCracker]

You equate unequal representation with discrimination/ racism, which is why you can't think about this clearly. And given that you are such a stickler for equal representation you should be lauding the fact that minorities are over represented in most major metro Police Departments. Shouldn't that nip the police brutality problem in the bud? And if there is a problem with police use of force, why is that automatically a racial problem?

I hate to use a tired example, but it seems fitting given your bad analogy. White men are underrepresented in the NBA. Is that discrimination?

That's not a racist example, that's a supremacy example. One that uses universally agreed measurements to determine.

When it comes to governing and policing communities, supremacy as a reason for why there is a lack of representation doesn't hold water.

 

[TommyCracker]

Fed judges are overwhelmingly white bc the pool of available black judges is smaller. Fed bench is about 14 percent black mirroring the pop percentage.

The pool of conservative federal judges are predominantly white male, which is why Trump's appointees are insanely white male.

Defend it all you want, bottom line is a bunch of conservative white dudes will be at their positions of power until they retire.

Now granted being conservative is priority #1. We both know if the only conservatives left were blacks than Trump would have appointed them....but there isn't a ton because the platform doesn't appeal.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Now granted being conservative is priority #1. We both know if the only conservatives left were blacks than Trump would have appointed them....but there isn't a ton because the platform doesn't appeal.

So this did not occur because of racism, systemic or otherwise....so what is your point exactly?

 

[HooDatGuy]

So this did not occur because of racism, systemic or otherwise....so what is your point exactly?

He doesn’t have one.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The pool of conservative federal judges are predominantly white male, which is why Trump's appointees are insanely white male.

Defend it all you want, bottom line is a bunch of conservative white dudes will be at their positions of power until they retire.

Now granted being conservative is priority #1. We both know if the only conservatives left were blacks than Trump would have appointed them....but there isn't a ton because the platform doesn't appeal.

The fed bench is 14 percent black. The black population is 13 percent.

 

[TommyCracker]

He doesn’t have one.

You guys get frustrated at the racist accusations, I'm just trying to offer some reasons why.

When your platform doesn't appeal to minorities, there's a reason.

When your party is overwhelmingly white, there's a reason.

It's up to the party on if they want to tweak some things and be more inclusive....or just be Duke in the analogy and say things are fine, IU is just a bunch of pussy complainers.

 

[HooDatGuy]

You guys get frustrated at the racist accusations, I'm just trying to offer some reasons why.

When your platform doesn't appeal to minorities, there's a reason.

When your party is overwhelmingly white, there's a reason.

It's up to the party on if they want to tweak some things and be more inclusive....or just be Duke in the analogy and say things are fine, IU is just a bunch of pussy complainers.

You’re really good at pointing our lack of representation. When asked to explain what it signifies you seem to just grasp for straws.

Why do YOU believe the Republican Party is heavily white male?

How bout you say something concrete for once.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You guys get frustrated at the racist accusations, I'm just trying to offer some reasons why.

When your platform doesn't appeal to minorities, there's a reason.

When your party is overwhelmingly white, there's a reason.

It's up to the party on if they want to tweak some things and be more inclusive....or just be Duke in the analogy and say things are fine, IU is just a bunch of pussy complainers.

The judge stuff is way off tho. 14 percent of the fed bench is black while only 4 percent of the bar is black. That’s big time representation

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The judge stuff is way off tho. 14 percent of the fed bench is black while only 4 percent of the bar is black. That’s big time representation

He's talking about the judges appointed by Republican presidents, specifically.

 

[mcmurtry66]

He's talking about the judges appointed by Republican presidents, specifically.

I understand that. If they chose zero blacks it doesn’t mean it’s racist. The bar is 4 percent black. Trump’s apptmts were 4 percent black. 9 in total. Now I don’t know the percentage of blacks eligible for apptmt so I’m generalizing a bit.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Not all of us are as familiar and comfortable with Marxism as you seem to be, OHG. Please expand on your statement.

I too am interested in Goats answer here.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I understand that. If they chose zero blacks it doesn’t mean it’s racist. The bar is 4 percent black. Trump’s apptmts were 4 percent black. 9 in total. Now I don’t know the percentage of blacks eligible for apptmt so I’m generalizing a bit.

You guys really need to stop defensively backing into the "it's not racist" corner. As far as I can tell, Tommy didn't even begin to suggest it was racist. Rather, he very explicitly pointed out that there weren't a whole lot of Republican blacks, because something about the conservative movement isn't exactly attractive to most black people, and that it might be worth it to conservatives to try to figure out why.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You guys really need to stop defensively backing into the "it's not racist" corner. As far as I can tell, Tommy didn't even begin to suggest it was racist. Rather, he very explicitly pointed out that there weren't a whole lot of Republican blacks, because something about the conservative movement isn't exactly attractive to most black people, and that it might be worth it to conservatives to try to figure out why.

the left has lost the benefit of the doubt. the inference is always patent. and i mean no offense to tommy with this - who is clearly a good dude

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not all of us are as familiar and comfortable with Marxism as you seem to be, OHG. Please expand on your statement.

I too am interested in Goats answer here.

What Marx and Engels did, at the core, was study society through the lens of socioeconomic interactions, particularly between the various economic classes. Academicians of many, many stripes have found this method of looking at the world very helpful. Obviously, you've got your classical Marxists in economics, some of whom are genuinely what laypeople would call "Marxists," i.e., quite sympathetic to communist economics. Others don't think communism is a viable economic system, but still think Marx's method of understanding the world is a vital one.

But, Marxism has expanded far beyond economics, and can be found in just about any field. For example, it's especially prominent in literary criticism, as is its bastard child, feminist theory. For example, a Marxist critic might find valuable things to write about, say, The Great Gatsby, or Oliver Twist, by looking at them through the lens of class. The key in all of this is that academic Marxism is a method, not a prescriptive policy proposition.