Sorting is the hardest part. If you can make that trivially easy, then your activist life is all dessert and no vegetables.
Back in the day, I used to recoil at conservatives who were in love with the Welfare Queen explanation of poverty. "Single women are having babies just to get money from the government and then they're doomed!" they'd exclaim. I thought that was a horrible thing to say. Most women have babies because they want babies. It's biology. If they aren't married, that's a whole different can of worms, worms that are pretty tough to detangle.
The Welfare Queen model made the hard part easy. You didn't have to sympathize or get to know anyone, you had the sorting completed and could move on to judging them. In the jar of marbles* that was the human population, there were green marbles and there were yellow ones. The yellow ones were bad people and the green ones were good people. Those were the only two colors present.
CRT, aka Modern Nazi Race Theory**, is the same thing. It's a philosophy made for 8-year-olds. That goes for anything else derived from Marx where we dispense with the intimate knowledge of individuals phase and move right on to the punishment phase. Punishment is ice cream and getting to know people is broccoli. Owners bad, workers good! Jews bad, Germans good! White men bad, PoC and LGBTQWERTY good! See how easy this is? Now let's tear down statues!
And that's all there is to it. CRT and all the SJW rubbish is just a shortcut so the activists can get to the pointing and yelling. That's where the self-esteem orgasms happen. It's a cost-benefit thing. CRT lowers the cost of finding people to hate to practically nothing.
I figured this out when I was thinking about the Canadians tearing down statues of Queen Elizabeth and mulling over the atrocities committed by the Indians. The education industry has simplified the story to the point where Canadian settlers are pantomime villains and the Indians are Pauline, tied to the railroad tracks. Their students, fully indoctrinated, were simply following the script.
 |
| Here, right-wing extremists are committing a hate crime against a trans-woman. Fortunately, the FBI is tracking them down using CRT. |
Bonus Indian Tidbit
Long time commenter and Interweb friend, Ilion, left me a note on yesterday's post about Indian atrocities turning me on to the Beaver Wars of the late 1600s wherein the Iroquois slaughtered tribes to the west to gain access to better beaver hunting. Dig this snippet from uswars.net.
Typically a raid on an isolated farm or settlement consisted of a war party moving swiftly and silently through the woods, swooping down suddenly, wielding tomahawk and scalping knife to slaughter the all the inhabitants. In some cases, prisoners were carried back to the Iroquois homelands. In the case of women and children, such prisoners were sometimes to be incorporated into the tribe. In the case of men, the prisoners were often subjected to a slow death by torture.
Yep. Iroquois or Comanche, it was all the same.
* - When you take undergrad classes in probability theory, a jar of colored marbles is the most common example used. After you pull out n marbles and see what colors you have, what can you deduce about the remaining marbles?
** - It's my blog and I get to beat the Modern Nazi Race Theory drum as often as I like. So there.
14 comments:
... there were green marbles and there were yellow ones. The yellow ones were bad people and the green ones were good people. Those were the only two colors present.
CRT, aka Modern Nazi Race Theory**, is the same thing.
Except for the part where Critical Race Theory actually teaches that it is the system/government/etc. that is racist and supports racial inequality, and absolves most white people as they don't have the individual agency to engage in the level of racism we see. Of course, you can't learn stuff like that about CRT from watching Tucker Carlson or reading his Daily Caller, so I'm not surprised you were not aware of that.
** - It's my blog and I get to beat the Modern Nazi Race Theory drum as often as I like. So there.
Absolutely. You get post whatever you like (no matter distorted it is from trusting people who are lying to you), you get to choose who gets to respond, you get to choose what counts as data sources that can be used on this blog, etc. You can even choose to eliminate all dissent, if you like. Your blog, your rules.
"Back in the day, I used to recoil at conservatives who were in love with the Welfare Queen explanation of poverty. "Single women are having babies just to get money from the government and then they're doomed!" they'd exclaim. I thought that was a horrible thing to say. Most women have babies because they want babies. It's biology. If they aren't married, that's a whole different can of worms, worms that are pretty tough to detangle."
But see, you didn't grow up amongst that sort of people. I did. And I can tell you that the "Welfare Queen explanation of [intergenerational] poverty" is not false.
By the way, KT, it may be well be that this "One Brow" found his way to infesting your blog by following the link to it from my blog.
It's curious. He claims to think I'm too stupid to pay attention to ... and yet he follows me around on the innnertubes AND he once created a blog dedicated to "disproving" me.
"... the Beaver Wars of the late 1600s wherein the Iroquois slaughtered tribes to the west to gain access to better beaver hunting."
When American settlers began moving into the Ohio territory in the late 18th century, it was still largely depopulated as a result of the Iroquois' mass-murders of the previous inhabitants.
Ilíon,
But see, you didn't grow up amongst that sort of people. I did. And I can tell you that the "Welfare Queen explanation of [intergenerational] poverty" is not false.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson
The best explanation of the intergenerational poverty is the regular destruction of black wealth by white race riots, followed by the system transfer of wealth from poor neighborhoods to wealthy neighborhoods starting in the 1920s.
Ilíon,
By the way, KT, it may be well be that this "One Brow" found his way to infesting your blog by following the link to it from my blog.
I honestly don't remember whose link I followed, but I do recall being mildly surprised you were here.
It's curious. He claims to think I'm too stupid to pay attention to ... and yet he follows me around on the innnertubes AND he once created a blog dedicated to "disproving" me.
It was a single blog post, not the entire blog, and devoted to the rare occasion you actually tried to lay out a logical argument. Did you ever fix the gaping holes I uncovered? I haven't seen your bragging about the argument in here, but there wouldn't be mush need to.
"Did you ever fix the gaping holes I uncovered?"
"Nyah-nyah" is not an argument, much less a rebuttal, and even less that uncovering of gaping holes.
"I haven't seen your bragging about the argument in here"
Why would I hijack KT's blog, when I have my own blog on which to "brag" about having uncovered the gaping holes in all variants of atheism?
"he best explanation of the intergenerational poverty is the regular destruction of black wealth by white race riots, followed by the system transfer of wealth from poor neighborhoods to wealthy neighborhoods starting in the 1920s."
And that explains why from the end of slavery until the Democrats' "War on Poverty" that black Americans were continually doing better.
Give it a rest; no one is buying your leftist, anti-liberty nostrums.
Ilíon said...
"Nyah-nyah" is not an argument, much less a rebuttal, and even less that uncovering of gaping holes.
I completely agree here, which is why I converted your argument into a second-order deductive series of statements and showed the gaps in the reasoning. So, I'll your non-response here as a firm 'no'.
Why would I hijack KT's blog, when I have my own blog on which to "brag" about having uncovered the gaping holes in all variants of atheism?
You weren't so shy about hijacking blogs before I analyzed your argument.
Ilíon,
And that explains why from the end of slavery until the Democrats' "War on Poverty" that black Americans were continually doing better.
55% of African Americans were below the poverty level in 19860, and about half that in 1970. Mind you, the War on Poverty helped about as many white people as well.
Give it a rest; no one is buying your leftist, anti-liberty nostrums.
I'm well aware you have no interest in facts or history unless they support your arguments.
Sorry, that should have been "1960", not "19860".
Me: "Yet, One Brow is constantly claiming to know this or that, and claiming to know that what he "knows" is the truth."
OB: "The greatest truth is that no human can ever be sure of an abstract truth."
Consider, consider *deeply* what OB has asserted. Consider the multi-level absurdity (*), and thus falsehood, of it.
His assertion of this absurdity just now is not some mere, and innocent, and understandable, mistake of failure to reason properly. He has been corrected *many times* over *many years* over just this sort of "failure to reason properly" -- but he is committed to denying the reality of God, and therefore *must* assert the absurdities which inescapably follow from God-denial.
He constantly asserts falsehood and absurdities, *knowing* that the assertions are false and/or absurd.
This is intellectual dishonesty. This is why I *accuse* him of being intellectually dishonest, of being worse than a mere liar. This is why I do my best to ignore him -- to not even *see* any post he has made to any blog on which I participate.
This is why I will not be reading, much less responding to, the remainder of the several posts he has made in "response" to posts I have made. This one sentence happened to catch my eye as I was clearing out my email inbox, and so I decided to comment upon it, as it perfectly illustrates the truth of my moral condemnations of the man.
(*) In case you're still not getting it, one absurdity is that it is an assertion that no human being can ever know that he knows anything at all; that "abstract truth" bit is just a distraction. Another absurdity is that the assertion is itself a claim to know "an abstract truth", and thus the assertion is self refuting.
Ilíon,
Thank you very kindly for pointing out for us how thoroughly and completely you miss the point. Thank you also for not subjecting everyone else here to further responses to my posts.
To a skeptic, saying something is "the greatest truth" means it's the closest approximation to the truth that can be reached at that time. My goal is to strive to be a little less wrong every day, but absolute correctness is a summit humans never seem to reach (and if they did, they would be unable to verify it, and immediately begin their descent).
Still, I know nothing I say will keep you from wallowing in your self-assured, imaginary notions of the absolute truths you think you know. So enjoy them, and may they bring you happiness.
Post a Comment