Well,well, Florida got it right...

[Atticus Finch]

4 minutes ago, badrouter said:

The underlined words are a link to an undressing of Kendi’s takes.

I've read pretty much everything I can access about this topic and not one person has ever undressed CRT which is what this topic is about.

Your quest to change the subject is noted.

[Atticus Finch]

4 minutes ago, badrouter said:

That was never my claim. 

Yes, it was.

👇

On 6/12/2021 at 12:05 PM, badrouter said:

Let me know whenever you want to debate this with me. Rest assured, it won't go the way you think it will go. I promise I know considerably more about it then anyone here.

🤡

[Atticus Finch]

4 minutes ago, badrouter said:

My claim was never tied specifically to “CRT”, and I’ve explained why that wasn’t the case several times here.

You absolutely responded to my post about CRT with the claim that you would debate it whenever I wanted and that you "know more about it than anybody here."

When that was proven false you started hedging like a bitch.

😄

🤡

[Atticus Finch]

4 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Those ideas are absolutely being presented as irrefutable fact. 

Of which you have provided exactly zero evidence.

[Atticus Finch]

5 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Whether they are rightfully labeled as “CRT” or not is a separate, semantical issue.

The actual topic of the thread is now just "semantics."

🤡

[badrouter]

16 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

This makes no sense.

Why would understanding the roots of systemic racism lead to anti-Asian sentiment?

It all comes down to the principal claim being made by Kendi and others on the race-obsessed left. To quote Kendi: “One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.” 

The gist of the message is that ANY outcome based on race that is not perfectly proportionate to the population is necessarily a result of racist discrimination. There can be no other explanation. So, when Asians earn more on average, have longer life expectancies, and are in jail at lower rates, it MUST be because policies or the system are racist in their favor. Thus, we see decades of resentment from some in the black community. 

[badrouter]

8 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

So you provided two rather weak examples of " better bills" in the face of the overwhelming majority of them outright banning thought.

The North Carolina bill also absolutely bans an idea from being discussed.

Promoted. 

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, badrouter said:

It all comes down to the principal claim being made by Kendi and others on the race-obsessed left. To quote Kendi: “One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.” 

The gist of the message is that ANY outcome based on race that is not perfectly proportionate to the population is necessarily a result of racist discrimination. There can be no other explanation. So, when Asians earn more on average, have longer life expectancies, and are in jail at lower rates, it MUST be because policies or the system are racist in their favor. Thus, we see decades of resentment from some in the black community. 

The gist is entirely made up by you.

When people turn totally innocuous claims or ideas into some kind of boogeyman they lose all credibility.

Not that you had any to begin with. 

If you had an *actual* example of CRT claiming that anything other than equal outcomes is racist you would present it.

But we all know that you don't. 

[badrouter]

5 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Of which you have provided exactly zero evidence.

Perhaps if you completely ignore all of the evidence I’ve submitted, there is no evidence. 
 

🤡

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Promoted. 

I read the text.

The bill forbids even having speakers come in and talk about any of the ideas.

It's the banning of thought, full stop.

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, badrouter said:

Perhaps if you completely ignore all of the evidence I’ve submitted, there is no evidence.

You have provided exactly zero evidence that CRT forces people to believe anything.

The idea that dissent from CRT isn't allowed is comical given this thread and dozens of states succeeding in banning it.

[Atticus Finch]

Notice that badrouter has nothing to say about the documented admittance of purposeful lying about CRT in order to push an agenda.

Talking about systemic racism in school is apparently immoral but purposefully lying about it to advance a political view is totally fine. 

[badrouter]

6 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

The actual topic of the thread is now just "semantics."

🤡

We’ve both acknowledged the language manipulation being attempted by all. That’s politics. “Pro Life” ends up meaning something vastly different from what a literal person would conclude by looking at the words. “Make America Great Again” really just means “I worship Donald Trump” instead of the otherwise benign meaning you’d derive from a literal reading of the words. And now, “anti-racist” really means “abolish capitalism, the police, prisons and whiteness” instead of the laudable intentions one would assume based on thE literal meaning of the words. The same types of games are being played with CRT now. The sort of basic bitch that considers Joy Reid to be an intellectual “knows” the move to make here is to say people opposing this stuff don’t know what they’re talking about.

[badrouter]

6 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

The gist is entirely made up by you.

When people turn totally innocuous claims or ideas into some kind of boogeyman they lose all credibility.

Not that you had any to begin with. 

If you had an *actual* example of CRT claiming that anything other than equal outcomes is racist you would present it.

But we all know that you don't. 

The examples are near limitless. Of course, you’re just going to come back and say “that’s not really CRT”. So, a distraction tactic.

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, badrouter said:

We’ve both acknowledged the language manipulation being attempted by all. 

No we haven't.

The "evil" CRT people at least have the courage of their convictions even if some of the offshoots are silly.

You and these Republican legislatures are admitted liars.

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, badrouter said:

And now, “anti-racist” really means “abolish capitalism, the police, prisons and whiteness” instead of the laudable intentions one would assume based on thE literal meaning of the words.

Because people like you and the guy in the Washington Post article lie about it.

This doesn't happen by accident.

It's a concerted effort by conservative groups to make it happen.

They did the same thing with Common Core.

They are simply liars.

[Atticus Finch]

4 minutes ago, badrouter said:

The sort of basic bitch that considers Joy Reid to be an intellectual “knows” the move to make here is to say people opposing this stuff don’t know what they’re talking about.

Well, this is easy.

The people who oppose CRT have been proven to either

1) not know what they're talking about

or

2) to be purposeful liars

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, badrouter said:

The examples are near limitless. 

😄

"They're limitless man!"

That's why you've posted several pages over several days and have provided not one example.

[Atticus Finch]

7 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Of course, you’re just going to come back and say “that’s not really CRT”. So, a distraction tactic.

Yes, I'm going to claim that the example you gave wasn't about the actual topic.

You then think that being honest and on-topic is a 'distraction tactic."

😄

🤡

 

[badrouter]

5 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

You have provided exactly zero evidence that CRT forces people to believe anything.

The idea that dissent from CRT isn't allowed is comical given this thread and dozens of states succeeding in banning it.

Once again, we can easily get bogged down in the true meaning of this word. The “trainers” typically do not allow dissent. Their lackeys back them up with disparagement and “dog piles”. The mainstream media helps as well. But, of course, the shit doesn’t actually persuade many of us. And bills and laws are put forth to stop the racial scapegoating and harassment. So, does that equate to being “forced” to believe anything? Perhaps not. But such a goal is obvious. Asserting that racism is endemic to American life does not allow for disagreement; it suggests that any attempt to disagree is itself part of said racism. More on CRT

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, badrouter said:

Once again, we can easily get bogged down in the true meaning of this word.

This was my main point from the beginning.

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, badrouter said:

And bills and laws are put forth to stop the racial scapegoating and harassment. 

The vast majority of bills put forward have been partisan attempts to stifle speech, thought and ideas.

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, badrouter said:

So, does that equate to being “forced” to believe anything? Perhaps not. 

"Ok, so was I wrong to say that? Yeah, probably."

😄

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, badrouter said:

 Asserting that racism is endemic to American life does not allow for disagreement;

😄

You are so ridiculous.

I think it is endemic but you can disagree with that.

You would not be able to adequately explain away American history sufficiently enough but you could try.

[badrouter]

40 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I read the text.

The bill forbids even having speakers come in and talk about any of the ideas.

It's the banning of thought, full stop.

Having speakers come in to push a set of ideas:

1) necessitates use of taxpayer $

2) amounts to promotion of said ideas.

The thoughts and ideas are not banned. Paying someone not employed (or vetted) by public organizations to spew hatred is banned.