https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/02/podcasts/the-daily/critical-race-theory-debate.html?

Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 5, 2021, 12:01:
It is really quite the obsession with the basement/cellar troll you have. Hit home does it?

As best I can tell, your argument amounts to "what about ism". Pick any political issue and you can pretty much guarantee on both the left and right there are people taking the issue too far.

What you're doing is whataboutism right now, man. I don't think what I'm doing is the same thing. There are some dangerous "anti-racism" ideas being shared out there by NYT Best Seller authors and the likes. That's what I am talking about. That's all I am talking about regarding this subject. This is my Problem A. I'm not the one coming in with the "What about Problem B". Show me where I did.

About the cellar dweller thing? Doesn't hit home even close. Like I said earlier... somewhere in me there's pity for the guy and his life revolving around Bluesnews (I mean come on, 2 years ago he had 7 post a day on average for the past... what? 7 years?). After a few hundred ad homs thrown at me, I just made a conscious decision to openly express my contempt instead of trying to treat him like a thinking person. But as you can see, I can't help it and sometimes I try to engage with him again, naively thinking it's possible to communicate with him.

It is really quite the obsession with the basement/cellar troll you have. Hit home does it?

As best I can tell, your argument amounts to "what about ism". Pick any political issue and you can pretty much guarantee on both the left and right there are people taking the issue too far.

Psssst, slow poke. I am not against teaching history, racist or otherwise. Every horrible thing from the past should never be forgotten. I'm not against that definition of CRT.

But again, language changes. Give me a name; a label; a category, that defines the practices of Robin DiAngelo and her ilk. You know of what I speak. You ignore it, you pretend it isn't there by not acknowledging it, but you know what I mean and what most people critical of quote unquote CRT mean. It's the ridiculous things like the assault on the nuclear family that's a real thing. The assault on the white race that's a real thing. It's the looking at everything through the prism of race again that's a real thing. Kids who don't see color are taught to see color again. Not everywhere, but at some places. That's a problem for all of us.There's a reason why both black and white parents unite against this. I know that seems alien to a person like yourself, but when black and white parents unite... that actually means something And that a cellar dweller disagrees and clings anally on the theoretical definition of CRT without proposing a new one, well... nobody gives a shit about that cellar dweller.

The panic over critical race theory is an attempt to whitewash U.S. history
Banning discussion of race makes it impossible to discuss the past accurately.

Critical race theory’s opponents are sure it’s bad. Whatever it is.
We've all seen how critics demonize it, then dismiss it.

So you didn't read it, choose not to read it. Even my suggestion to get somewhere regarding this subject you ignore and choose for ad homs alone. Tsk Tsk.

And stop talking about "we". You make an absolute fool of yourself. I'm honestly beginning to pity you.

We are all so happy that you keep coming back.
Rest assured you're in the right place as several good people here wantonly waste their time explaining things to you repeatedly until you eventually wakeup.
It's a long, slow and sometimes painful process to watch but nonetheless makes for good entertainment.

Have you read the article or did the mold knock you out before you could? Catch that whiff of fresh air and try again.

People that execute the divisive practices that don't fall under the definition of CRT, often call it CRT themselves. Do not pretend you do not know to what practices people refer to; parents refer to, when talking about CRT. To be so horrendously anal about words is to shut down a much needed discussion. Unless, of course, you find it completely fine that the likes of Robin DiAngelo and Aruna Khilanani influence the social atmosphere. Maybe you think everyone could learn from a cultist that believes racism among whites is an original sin we can't get rid of, and the genocidal psychotic psychiatrist that dreams of killing white people and feels good doing so. I doubt it, lest the mold affected your brain permenantly.

You know what? For the sake of conversation, I'll give you the honors to give all those practices you know people refer to when they talk about CRT, a new name like the article suggests.

8 out of 10 racists don't have a clue what critical race theory means.
Hope you enjoyed getting thoroughly schooled as much as we enjoyed schooling you.
Keep coming back.

Here's a good and nuanced article you should read before posting random CRT shit again. Here's a snippet:

"Instead of arguing over what the things they're calling critical race theory ought to be called, people should argue about whether the things they are calling critical race theory are good or bad. On this front, many of the critics of these things make sound arguments. It is true, for instance, that the "aspects of white supremacy" charts concocted by progressive antiracism writers Judith Katz and Tema Okun—which posit that punctuality, individualism, and belief in objectivity are traits associated with whiteness—are junk. Punctuality and whiteness have nothing to do with each other. People who strongly cling to the idea that there is such a thing as whiteness, and that it has to do with punctuality, objectivity, and hard-work, are actually promoting harmful and inaccurate racial stereotypes.

Yet this thinking clearly undergirds the modern antiracist approach to diversity and inclusion training. Here's an example of a Columbia University professor and diversity instructor informing K-12 educators that black students struggle with "dissecting and analyzing things" because Afro-centric epistemology is more context-driven than white epistemology. "This is why education is not working for so many students of color," says the expert.

Recall as well the psychiatrist who delivered a lecture at Yale University's Child Study Center titled "The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind." The journalist Katie Herzog interviewed the psychiatrist, Aruna Khilanani, for Bari Weiss's newsletter, and it was revelatory. Khilanani is possessed of one of the oddest notions I have ever encountered in my 10 years of critiquing progressive activist tactics and beliefs: She thinks white people refuse to eat bread (?) because they are guilty about their racism and want to starve themselves (??).

Suffice it to say that these are some very weird and unsupported ideas. Are they mandated by critical race theory? No. Do they exist within an increasingly popular strain of diversity and antiracism advocacy and training—training that takes place in schools of education, corporate HR departments, and will increasingly trickle down into the K-12 school system? Yes. If that's what parents are pushing back against when they show up to school board meetings and demand that CRT be banned from the classroom, it's hard to blame them."

Went outside yet?

Texas policy group shares—then deletes—ridiculous list of critical race theory 'buzzwords'
https://texassignal.com/right-wing-think-tank-walks-back-absurd-critical-race-theory-advisory/

Orogogus wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 05:41:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:14:

Orogogus wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 19:16:
As someone who follows VR, I thought that ZDNet article was garbage (as was Zenimax's case). Carmack and Iribe didn't get fired, despite being under just as much pressure from Zenimax -- Carmack was accused of wiping a hard drive to destroy evidence and stealing code. Iribe was a co-founder alongside Luckey, part of the same decisions with a higher title, and the court decision had him pay more out of pocket.

Then maybe you didn't pay anywhere near as much attention as you think you did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_v._Oculus
https://www.polygon.com/2017/2/1/14474198/oculus-lawsuit-verdict
https://www.vg247.com/2018/12/12/zenimax-facebook-oculus-settlement/

They're all in violation of the NDA, and of copyright infringement. If you think Zenimax's case is garbage, then I'm not sure how you're supporting the $250mil in payouts that came from them, 100 mil of which came from Facebook. Oculus pushed to try and have it dismissed multiple times. It never was. In the end, they settled. I wish I lived in your world where you think losing $100 mil of your employer's money isn't grounds for termination.

I didn't say I supported the payouts; I think Zenimax should have lost. I think they got an expert to lie on the stand about Carmack destroying the data on his hard drive, and about "non-literal" copying of data. They tried to get an injunction to stop Oculus from selling headsets, implying that those sales would hurt sales of a Zenimax VR headset, which they claimed to have spent tens of millions of dollars on in development -- I think that's a load of horseshit coming from a software company that hasn't remotely suggested coming out with any VR headset five years after the supposed IP theft. They said they hated to go to litigation, which I also think is a blatant falsehood.

In the original verdict, $300M came from Facebook; plus $50M from Luckey and $150 from Iribe. All that was cut in half (assumedly in the same ratio?), and then they settled. So if Carmack, Luckey and Iribe were all in violation, how come only one of them got fired? Supposedly the verdict proved that Carmack did some pretty heinous things (again, I don't agree). All three of them were there for the NDA. If anything the original payouts suggested that Iribe was more at fault, and he was the CEO.

Except, of course, if it was "blatant falsehood" and they could prove it in court, it's highly unlikely they would've settled. So now, in addition to everything else in this thread, you're arguing you're a better lawyer than FB had. Which is, let's be honest, extremely unlikely.

Iribe left around the time the settlement was announced. John Carmack is JOHN CARMACK, and is probably worth the hassle, for the technical knowledge in his brain alone. And Palmer Luckey has been making life miserable for Facebook since Occulus was acquired. Is it possible it figured into the termination? Sure. Is it possible Palmer Luckey was just generally an asshole around the office and that figured into the termination? Sure. Is it possible the fact that dozens of studios were refusing to work with Occulus because their founder was someone who said they didn't deserve basic human rights figured highly into it? Sure. The WSJ story you're continually citing also said the emails they obtained repeatedly pointed to Luckey's lack of transparency to his bosses in regards to his day-to-day work, which had been steadily decreasing since the acquisition. Does THAT figure into it? Yeah, you bet your ass it does. Is it possible that there were dozens, if not hundreds of things that went into the consideration? Absolutely.

But again, we're back to this original point of you claiming that it had to be his political reasons that got him fired, Facebook claiming it wasn't his political opinions that got him fired, and no statement from anyone post the settlement regarding the matter. The lawyer's claim you keep falling back on occurred before the trial, and is backed by no actual evidence. The WSJ article states that FB was pressuring Luckey to support Gary Johnson, specifically because his constant support of Trump was hurting their partnerships with other companies. But FB has come out a dozen times post this and said, repeatedly, that he wasn't fired for his conservative views, and I've provided you several other options, all of which likely figured into the matter, if not were in fact the crux of the matter. If Palmer Luckey thought he could prove that he was fired for political reasons, don't you think he would've proven that publicly in a court of law, to have it on the record, so he could talk about it for the rest of his life?

Again, you're picking and choosing which specious argument to believe.

Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 13:56:
Jdreyer explained what "protected groups" were... that was it... everything else was you further reading your own angle into his response.
Your whole focus on the "context" of the broader racism discussion you were having is fine... but it just doesn't make sense as a response to someone explaining something to you, and doing it correctly.
You multiple times ascribed him positions he didn't have, and differentiated his explanation from others making the same explanation.
You saw a difference in explanations where there wasn't one... which is why we insisted that you were confused.

Guess I saw a ghost where there was none then, this time around. Cheers for being patient while we got that sorted out.

Y'all do know you're wasting your time.

Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 13:50:
But why else is it OK to fire a man for no reason, but when the thought experiment gets injected about a black man being fired for no reason we start talking about the protected group? Again. Context.

Why is firing someone for no reason okay? Because corporations have welded their wealth and lobbied legislatures to make employment in most state as "at will". In your specific example there is nothing wrong about firing a black man. The problem rises from corporations firing people in a pattern which demonstrates they are making those decisions based on criteria they are not legally allowed to use.

Jdreyer explained what "protected groups" were... that was it... everything else was you further reading your own angle into his response.
Your whole focus on the "context" of the broader racism discussion you were having is fine... but it just doesn't make sense as a response to someone explaining something to you, and doing it correctly.
You multiple times ascribed him positions he didn't have, and differentiated his explanation from others making the same explanation.
You saw a difference in explanations where there wasn't one... which is why we insisted that you were confused.

Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 11:33:

Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 11:22:

Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:03:
Do you understand that your approach to this subject puts you at odds with jdryer?

Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 11:08:
It doesn't, you can read what he wrote again and again... it says the same thing that roguebanshee and I also said, as does the wikipedia article, as does the law, as does Dutch law, regarding discrimination.

While I appreciate the time you put into this, you are preaching to the choir at this point. It's true that initially, due to the context of the discussion, I went about the "protected group" aspect clumsily. But we're past that. Been past that for a while now. I'll say it again: I understand and have always understood that white people are a race and that male is a gender.

But let's forget it. You choose not to consider the context regarding the discussion from comment 79 and up. That's fine. I've been foolish to let go of the theory -- pragmatist that I am -- and focus more on in which context the "protected group" part was injected. Again, the context was this in a very tiny nutshell: Man gets fired. That's ok, we don't need a reason in Californian law. So if a black man gets fired for the same non-reasons, that's ok? No [inject protected group reference here].

Hope that tiny nutshell explains how shit got derailed.

Wow you almost admitted that you were confused about what "protected group" meant... ALMOST!
No nothing was derailed, you continued to pretend that you weren't confused while your posting made it clear that you were... at some point I think you figured it out, but yeah just can't seem to admit fully what happened.
The best we'll get is "went about the 'protected group' aspect clumsily".
No you were straight up wrong in your understanding of jdreyer's post as repeatedly demonstrated.

If that's not the case, then why claim that he said something he didn't?
Why differentiate roguebanshee's response from his?
Why say that I'm at odds with him?

I'm trying to convey that to you by pointing out the context. While I understood the theory of the "protected group" -- that straight white males are part of this group, or every single breathing human in existence -- I don't believe this protection protects all of us equally. I focussed on that last part to such an extent that I indeed sounded like I didn't understand the theory. This is why I call it being clumsy. When this happened: Man gets fired. That's ok, we don't need a reason in Californian law. So if a black man gets fired for the same non-reasons, that's ok? No because *protected group reference got injected* I think I'm not the only one who doubts this. Maybe jdryer does too? I can't speak for him. But why else is it OK to fire a man for no reason, but when the thought experiment gets injected about a black man being fired for no reason we start talking about the protected group? Again. Context.

I have zero issues with admitting I'm wrong. In fact, I love to be proven wrong because every second I think something that's incorrect, is a second too long. So keep 'em coming, and treat me with the charity of believing me on this. While you spend no energy trying to sound less condescening and are tenaciously selective to what's being said when we communicate, at least it feels somewhat honest. Those two cellar-dwellers could learn at least something from merely observing and shutting the fuck up for a change.

Critical race theory (CRT) is the current conservative media boogeyman spreading moral panic about poor white people being confronted with the history of racism in the United States. Claims about critical race theory range from plausible but incorrect (it's about white privilege and white people's racism) to outlandish and bizarre (it supports a white genocide and confiscating all white people's property). The truth of critical race theory is that it's a socio-legal framework for analyzing the disparate impact of policies on marginalized communities, most often Black people.
https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/critical-race-theory-2653581376/

It's always unsurprising when someone that thinks a law is out to get him, personally, and engaging in fear mongering, to learn that they never actually did research and are operating on their assumptions and feelings rather than logic and information.

And then they just endlessly double down despite having things explained to them as if they were a child, because they keep assuming their emotional based worldview is flawless and they never need to read to better understand things.

Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 11:22:

Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:03:
Do you understand that your approach to this subject puts you at odds with jdryer?

Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 11:08:
It doesn't, you can read what he wrote again and again... it says the same thing that roguebanshee and I also said, as does the wikipedia article, as does the law, as does Dutch law, regarding discrimination.

While I appreciate the time you put into this, you are preaching to the choir at this point. It's true that initially, due to the context of the discussion, I went about the "protected group" aspect clumsily. But we're past that. Been past that for a while now. I'll say it again: I understand and have always understood that white people are a race and that male is a gender.

But let's forget it. You choose not to consider the context regarding the discussion from comment 79 and up. That's fine. I've been foolish to let go of the theory -- pragmatist that I am -- and focus more on in which context the "protected group" part was injected. Again, the context was this in a very tiny nutshell: Man gets fired. That's ok, we don't need a reason in Californian law. So if a black man gets fired for the same non-reasons, that's ok? No [inject protected group reference here].

Hope that tiny nutshell explains how shit got derailed.

Wow you almost admitted that you were confused about what "protected group" meant... ALMOST!
No nothing was derailed, you continued to pretend that you weren't confused while your posting made it clear that you were... at some point I think you figured it out, but yeah just can't seem to admit fully what happened.
The best we'll get is "went about the 'protected group' aspect clumsily".
No you were straight up wrong in your understanding of jdreyer's post as repeatedly demonstrated.

If that's not the case, then why claim that he said something he didn't?
Why differentiate roguebanshee's response from his?
Why say that I'm at odds with him?