I think this political cartoon is worth discussing as it is all side that do this

[Rhea]

So the example here is that a field of study in colleges examing the existence and mitigation of racism is “the wrongdoing,” the sketchy stuff,

No. The wrongdoing is leftists gaslighting everyone else by denying that critical race theory is hegemony at American universities.

How does that work, though?
As none pointed out, since “the left” coined the term, how does that comport with these supposed denials?

And moreover, what does it mean for a theory to “be hegemony” at American universities. Does it mean o one discusses anything else? Does it mean liberal universities somehow dictate to conservative ones what to teach? (They don’t). Can you explain the mechanism by which you can detect hegemony? Or is it vague conspiracy?

 

[Swammerdami]

The left denying that critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities springs to my mind of the left's gaslighting.

who da fuck coined the term?

It's the phrasing "CRT is the hegemony of American universities" that confuses me. Want to reword this? (Is there a missing "due to" ?) I don't think leftists will want to deny a clause they can't decipher.

I think Metaphor is claiming that a certain academic theory (CRT) has been proposed by academics. He's probably right about that! What should we prefer? Academic theories proposed by right-wing preachers? Proposed by FoxNews bimbos?

Frankly, I am mystified by Metaphor's comment. What is his point? Even if someone disapproves of CRT, surely it isn't a hoax, fake news, deliberate slander, disinformation from the Albanian troll farms, or conspiracy theory.

 

[Swammerdami]

Rightist may be more guilty of this on the whole, but that does not mean leftists are not doing this.

It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the past several years the GOP (and rightists more generally) have been between 100 and 1000 times as guilty.

But here comes repoman with "Rightist may be more guilty of this on the whole." I should think repoman is either a Trumpist himself or else is quite ignorant of present U.S. political realities.

 

[Metaphor]

How does that work, though?
As none pointed out, since “the left” coined the term, how does that comport with these supposed denials?

How...doesn't it? The academic left invented and named critical race theory. There is no conflict with saying that some on the left also deny or downplay the grip critical race theory has at American universities. Indeed, it would suit critical race theorists to say they are a besieged minority in a sea of structural, hegemonic racism.

And moreover, what does it mean for a theory to “be hegemony” at American universities. Does it mean o one discusses anything else? Does it mean liberal universities somehow dictate to conservative ones what to teach? (They don’t). Can you explain the mechanism by which you can detect hegemony? Or is it vague conspiracy?

I mean: universities accept critical race theory and its related intersectional theories without question (and advertise their acceptance) and publically accuse themselves of structural and ongoing racism. It means that applicants for chemistry or physics professors must first submit DEI statements that are pre-screened before an anything else about an applicant is even considered. It means a theory that began in sociology and English departments now touches almost every aspect of university life and there is no meaningful way to oppose it without that also being a career-limiting move.

It's one thing to defend CRT and intersectional critical theories. It's another to deny they have a pervasive (I would say: suffocating) presence across the American academy.

 

[Metaphor]

It's the phrasing "CRT is the hegemony of American universities" that confuses me. Want to reword this? (Is there a missing "due to" ?) I don't think leftists will want to deny a clause they can't decipher.

I have to say I do not think my original wording was unclear, and I am baffled at this confusion, but I said some leftists deny the power/influence of CRT and that is a gaslighting tactic.

Or, to put it closer to how the cartoon in the OP had:
Anna: CRT has completely taken over universities. I don't think I could survive university unscathed.
Bob: What are you talking about? It's like, a niche theory espoused by some sociology and English professors.
Anna: But the university accuses itself of being structurally racist right now, and it promises to do better, but it doesn't even say how it is being structurally racist. Isn't it a claim of CRT that all American institutions are structurally racist? So it's surely got influence beyond sociology and English departments.
Bob: You're being really paranoid. They're not going to change the way they teach maths because of CRT. Calm down. Why are you so racist?

I think Metaphor is claiming that a certain academic theory (CRT) has been proposed by academics. He's probably right about that! What should we prefer? Academic theories proposed by right-wing preachers? Proposed by FoxNews bimbos?

I am not making the mundane claim that CRT was invented by and the term coined by, academics.

Frankly, I am mystified by Metaphor's comment. What is his point? Even if someone disapproves of CRT, surely it isn't a hoax, fake news, deliberate slander, disinformation from the Albanian troll farms, or conspiracy theory.

I am mystified by your confusion, but if my original post was unclear (and I don't think it was), my point is that denying the pervasive influence of CRT is the leftist gaslighting tactic.

(And whatever else CRT is, it is certainly unfalsifiable and non-scientific, fueled almost entirely by academics making claims from whole cloth and other academics citing these claims as fact. But that would be a discussion for another thread).

 

[RVonse]

this pretty much feels exactly like how reality plays out.

"both sides do this!"

*gives zero evidence or examples of the left doing this*

Left conspiracy theories about Russia during the Trump administration (he was found not not guilty by Mueller). Left conspiracy theories about prostitutes peeing on Trump (was never true). Left conspiracy theories about Trump saying that bleach should be injected (he was actually talking about a medical disinfectant).

 

[Trausti]

this pretty much feels exactly like how reality plays out.

"both sides do this!"

*gives zero evidence or examples of the left doing this*

Left conspiracy theories about Russia during the Trump administration (he was found not not guilty by Mueller). Left conspiracy theories about prostitutes peeing on Trump (was never true). Left conspiracy theories about Trump saying that bleach should be injected (he was actually talking about a medical disinfectant).

Blue Anon is real.

 

[Emily Lake]

Examples of "the left" doing this:

Hunter Biden story being suppressed, links to the NYP article disallowed on social media, and the insistent framing that it was Russian disinformation
Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by the Russians
Any violence that occurs during a BLM peaceful protest is coming from bad actors who aren't part of the protest at all


Short story: PARTISANS do this, regardless of which party they're pandering for.

 

[Patooka]

Left conspiracy theories about Russia during the Trump administration (he was found not not guilty by Mueller).

Jesus fucking Christ. "Leftists" like McConnel, Graham and Cruz voted not once, but twice in confirming Russia interfered with the election. Trump's campaign advisor and several employees pleaded guilty. Enough assets were seized during the investigation it paid for itself. And that's not including times like when Trump compromised Israeli Intelligence to benefit Russia. So fuck off with your implication that it is just a "conspiracy theory" that is in any way equivalent with the shit you claim to be gospel according to My Pillow. Also, Mueller was specifically instructed to not investigate Trump and stood in front of Congress testifying that and (this is the important bit) he never found Trump not guilty of a crime.

Left conspiracy theories about prostitutes peeing on Trump (was never true).

Never been proven. Personally I don't think it is true and it was never anything important for leftists anyways except as a late night punchline. Unlike crackpot theories the Hugo Chavez stole the election for Biden or Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Atheist ready to impose Sharia Law. Again, not equivalent.

Left conspiracy theories about Trump saying that bleach should be injected (he was actually talking about a medical disinfectant).

"Injecting bleach" is just as fucking moronic as:

So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it'd be interesting to check that. I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what.

In fact, I think the second statement is even more fucking stupid. There isn't a conspiracy here; one is political short hand and the other is ramblings from a cunt who should have never been in a position of responsibility ever. For someone big on bullshit conspiracies, I would have thought you would have known the difference.

 

[untermensche]

this pretty much feels exactly like how reality plays out.

"both sides do this!"

*gives zero evidence or examples of the left doing this*

Left conspiracy theories about Russia during the Trump administration (he was found not not guilty by Mueller). Left conspiracy theories about prostitutes peeing on Trump (was never true). Left conspiracy theories about Trump saying that bleach should be injected (he was actually talking about a medical disinfectant).

Mueller was not deciding innocence or guilt.

He pointed out several times where Trump obstructed justice.

And basically begged the Congress to address it.

The AG ignored the crimes for some reason.

 

[Elixir]

I think Metaphor is claiming that a certain academic theory (CRT) has been proposed by academics. He's probably right about that! What should we prefer? Academic theories proposed by right-wing preachers? Proposed by FoxNews bimbos?

Exactly.
Poster @none never followed up with what he implied when he asked who invented the term. Derrick Bell was of course an academic, and one with impressive credentials that I seriously doubt that our brazilian trumper could approach. Yes, of course his product is pushed at Universities. You know what else is pushed at universities? Critical thinking, science, medicine and virtually everything else that has enabled Homo Sapiens Sapiens to reproduce itself into unsustainably bloated populations. Right wingers are suspect of those who keep them alive - they think that something being pushed at Universities is an inherently bad thing. Maybe they're right, but not for the reason they think.

To answer your question, yes. Right wingers would like crap such as Ayn Rand to be "pushed". Push the virtues of selfishness and the implied justness of white Europeans dominating all others. Bullshit like creationism, while taught in some "Universities", doesn't predominate among the best institutions of learning like it should.

 

[Rhea]

How does that work, though?
As none pointed out, since “the left” coined the term, how does that comport with these supposed denials?

How...doesn't it? The academic left invented and named critical race theory. There is no conflict with saying that some on the left also deny or downplay the grip critical race theory has at American universities. Indeed, it would suit critical race theorists to say they are a besieged minority in a sea of structural, hegemonic racism.

Hang on, the WHAT, now?
There are more than 5,300 colleges and universities in the USA. How many are actually “in the grip” of CRT?

Bonus question - how many USA universities have you ever been in, let alone enrolled in and evaluated the teaching of?
(I’ve got 2 kids currently in USA universities - your statements are really absurd)

Let’s count how many are “in the grip,” and to do that we’ll move on to how you detected “the grip” in the first place, and then we can count them.

And moreover, what does it mean for a theory to “be hegemony” at American universities. Does it mean o one discusses anything else? Does it mean liberal universities somehow dictate to conservative ones what to teach? (They don’t). Can you explain the mechanism by which you can detect hegemony? Or is it vague conspiracy?

I mean: universities accept critical race theory and its related intersectional theories without question (and advertise their acceptance) and publically accuse themselves of structural and ongoing racism. It means that applicants for chemistry or physics professors must first submit DEI statements that are pre-screened before an anything else about an applicant is even considered. It means a theory that began in sociology and English departments now touches almost every aspect of university life and there is no meaningful way to oppose it without that also being a career-limiting move.

It's one thing to defend CRT and intersectional critical theories. It's another to deny they have a pervasive (I would say: suffocating) presence across the American academy.

1. How do you know they do it without question? All 5,300 of them?
2. How many advertise their acceptance of CRT? How have you determined this number?
3. How many accuse themselves of structural and ongoing racism (even when true?). Where is tthis number catalogued?
4. How many require DEI statements from Chemistry and Physics neww hires? (How many have new hires?)
5. How do you know those are pre-screened? At all 5300 colleges?
6. How have you measured that opposing CRT is, across 5,300 colleges, overwhelmingly a career-limiting move?
7. How did you determine that “you would say: suffocating”? You’d say that based on what evidence?
8. (What if it is true thaat racism exists and it can be overcome?)

It seems like you fabricated a rant from the other side of the world to feed an additction to white outrage porn.


It is so obviously silly to think that all the universities in Utah and Wyoming and Texas and Mississippi (& etc) are all “suffocating” under this “hegemony” that is “besieging” them “pervasively.”

If it weren’t so hateful, it would be comical that you feel the outrage from 10,000 miles away. So intent on posting about inequality every day, but ONLY if you feel it is white people getting the short end of the stick.

Can’t wait for your next outrage porn post. What’s next, a white woman who can’t follow a custody agreement is put upon because she won’t stop waving a racist flag in her biracial daughter’s face?

 

[Metaphor]

Hang on, the WHAT, now?
There are more than 5,300 colleges and universities in the USA. How many are actually “in the grip” of CRT?

Are you suggesting that the general climate of the American academy cannot be appraised without a census of every university?

The number of left-leaning academics to right-leaning academics across academia is about 12:1. CRT is, of course, a theory from the radical left.

I've got a question for you: do you think Princeton is in the grip of CRT? (If you are unfamiliar with Eisgruber's open letter and its background, please take a minute to read up about it). Because if you regard Princeton as not qualifying as in the grip of CRT, we can probably end the discussion, because nothing would qualify.

Bonus question - how many USA universities have you ever been in, let alone enrolled in and evaluated the teaching of?
(I’ve got 2 kids currently in USA universities - your statements are really absurd)

Zero.

Let’s count how many are “in the grip,” and to do that we’ll move on to how you detected “the grip” in the first place, and then we can count them.

Sometimes people read about things they haven't personally experienced. You should try it.

1. How do you know they do it without question? All 5,300 of them?

Huh? Why would my claim that CRT is hegemonic at American universities (a general claim about its pervasiveness) lead you to believe it needs to be documented in "all 5,300" for my claim to be true.

Ironically of course, my claim that CRT is hegemonic at American universities is nowhere near a bold a claim as CRT's claims that racism is always and everywhere present, we need only to talk about how it manifested in a particular situation.

1. How many advertise their acceptance of CRT? How have you determined this number?
2. How many accuse themselves of structural and ongoing racism (even when true?). Where is tthis number catalogued?
3. How many require DEI statements from Chemistry and Physics neww hires? (How many have new hires?)
4. How do you know those are pre-screened? At all 5300 colleges?
5. How have you measured that opposing CRT is, across 5,300 colleges, overwhelmingly a career-limiting move?
6. How did you determine that “you would say: suffocating”?
7. (What if it is true thaat racism exists and it can be overcome?)

This would all be off topic to my original claim: that the left denies the pervasiveness of CRT and intersectional theories at American universities. However, if you are actually interested in the particular incidents that inspired my comments, I may start a general CRT/intersectional thread, though I try to start threads about specific events and instances.

It seems like you fabricated a rant from the other side of the world to feed an additction to white outrage porn.

It is so obviously silly to think that all the universities in Utah and Wyoming and Texas and Mississippi (& etc) are all “suffocating” under this “hegemony” that is “besieging” them “pervasively.”

It's silly to think I made the claim that every single university is in the grip of CRT. When feminists say 'women live in fear of men', they do not mean that every single man is a danger to women, or that every single woman lives in fear of men.

"CRT is hegemonic at American universities" is not the same statement as "every single university in America is in the grip of CRT".

If it weren’t so hateful, it would be comical that you feel the outrage for 10,000 miles away. So intent on posting about inequality, but ONLY if you feel it is white people getting the short end of the stick.

I'm sorry: what have I said that is "hateful"?

Can’t wait for your next outrage porn post. What’s next, a white woman who can’t follow a custody agreement is put upon because she won’t stop waving a racist flag in her biracial daughter’s face?

Why do you regard making a claim about leftist denial of CRT hegemony at American universities as 'outrage porn'?

 

[Rhea]

Are you suggesting that the general climate of the American academy cannot be appraised without a census of every university?

I am suggesting that you have not presented a case that is based on any number greater than 1 university, and you only just did that one in this post (Princeton (incidentally, my father graduated from Princeton)). Until this mention of Princeton, it was just a claim without any supporting information of any kind. Just your screed.

So yes, I am suggesting that you cannot claim to convey the general climate of American universities with a vague rant.

The number of left-leaning academics to right-leaning academics across academia is about 12:1.

Citation? It might be true, but it might be something you just made up. Who knows?

CRT is, of course, a theory from the radical left.

Certainly radical at the time; any discussion of racial equality in the 70s was radical left wing. I went to a bussing school when I was in high school, so it was kind of a topic for us. So _radical_, so _lefty_ to think that those black kids could have a decent edcation. Very radical left.

I've got a question for you: do you think Princeton is in the grip of CRT? (If you are unfamiliar with Eisgruber's open letter and its background, please take a minute to read up about it). Because if you regard Princeton as not qualifying as in the grip of CRT, we can probably end the discussion, because nothing would qualify.

“In the grip”?
You mean, like, forced and coerced? Or maybe brainwashed and fugued?
“Of CRT”?
You mean, like,

Critical race theory examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism

So, do I think Princeton is being forced or brainwashed to do something about racism?
No. It looks pretty voluntary, and it looks pretty thoughtful. You told me to go read a letter. It looks like a letter that discusses an issue and claims it will take steps to discuss some more.

Is that “in the grip”?

Bear in mind, I can’t figure out what objection you have to the idea that America has racism, and has had for some time now. But to add on his claim that there’s some “in the grip” of this idea... weird. Are you “in the grip” of the idea that it’s autumn in Australia?

Let’s count how many are “in the grip,” and to do that we’ll move on to how you detected “the grip” in the first place, and then we can count them.

Sometimes people read about things they haven't personally experienced. You should try it.

And sometimes they post self-righteous screeds about it, like, every day.
I’m fine with just reading and having discussions. I’ll take a pass on the outrage.


But the question was, when you read about this thing that yu have not personally experienced, WHAT, exactly, caused you to label it “pervasive.” I asked here for some definitions of what it means to be “in the grip,” and you failed to answer. Do you have an answer? What fueled your outrage about this that caused you to use words like “hegemony,” “pervasive,” “in the grip” - those are pretty strong words, you must have seen a LOT of data to get so riled up.

1. How do you know they do it without question? All 5,300 of them?

Huh? Why would my claim that CRT is hegemonic at American universities (a general claim about its pervasiveness) lead you to believe it needs to be documented in "all 5,300" for my claim to be true.

It was a question. How many, is it all 5,300? Or some smallerr number, like 1?
If you are claiming it is hegemonic, you are implying a hefty force of power or mandate. So - what’s the deal, what kind of weight lies behind it?
Is it all of them? Half? A tenth? One university?

Ironically of course, my claim that CRT is hegemonic at American universities is nowhere near a bold a claim as CRT's claims that racism is always and everywhere present, we need only to talk about how it manifested in a particular situation.

You’re claiming it’s dominant. Pervasive. You used words like suffocating, “in the grip.”.

It should be EASY to show evidence that it is overbearing at a large majority of universities if they are truly pervasively besieged.
But you showed nothing. And finally in this post, you refer to one university talking about having meetings to discuss it.

1. How many advertise their acceptance of CRT? How have you determined this number?
2. How many accuse themselves of structural and ongoing racism (even when true?). Where is tthis number catalogued?
3. How many require DEI statements from Chemistry and Physics neww hires? (How many have new hires?)
4. How do you know those are pre-screened? At all 5300 colleges?
5. How have you measured that opposing CRT is, across 5,300 colleges, overwhelmingly a career-limiting move?
6. How did you determine that “you would say: suffocating”?
7. (What if it is true thaat racism exists and it can be overcome?)

This would all be off topic to my original claim:

Every one of these is a quote from your post. So... if it’s off topic, then that’s on you.

that the left denies the pervasiveness of CRT and intersectional theories at American universities.

First you say it’s “pervasive” without a shred of support.
Now you say “the left denies the perrvasiveness” without a shred of support.

It could be that BOTH are just fabrications, for all you’ve shown.
What a lovely straw man. Have I stopped beating my wife?

However, if you are actually interested in the particular incidents that inspired my comments, I may start a general CRT/intersectional thread, though I try to start threads about specific events and instances.

... of white grievance

It seems like you fabricated a rant from the other side of the world to feed an additction to white outrage porn.

It is so obviously silly to think that all the universities in Utah and Wyoming and Texas and Mississippi (& etc) are all “suffocating” under this “hegemony” that is “besieging” them “pervasively.”

It's silly to think I made the claim that every single university is in the grip of CRT.

“Pervasive”
“Suffocating”
“Hegemony”
“Couldn’t survive unscathed”
“Major force”


Don’t pretend you have not implied it is at most places, and so thick that people cannot enjoy their freedoms because of it.

If it weren’t so hateful, it would be comical that you feel the outrage for 10,000 miles away. So intent on posting about inequality, but ONLY if you feel it is white people getting the short end of the stick.

I'm sorry: what have I said that is "hateful"?

This, as the 10,000th post denying racism exists - which perpetuates it. I find racism hateful.

Can’t wait for your next outrage porn post. What’s next, a white woman who can’t follow a custody agreement is put upon because she won’t stop waving a racist flag in her biracial daughter’s face?

Why do you regard making a claim about leftist denial of CRT hegemony at American universities as 'outrage porn'?

Because the poor white man is “Suffocating!” “Pervasively!” In the “grip!” Of “hegemony!”
So much outrage.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Also, Mueller was specifically instructed to not investigate Trump and stood in front of Congress testifying that and (this is the important bit) he never found Trump not guilty of a crime..

In fact, he explicitly stated: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

Which is basically the *exact* opposite of finding him not guilty.

 

[Metaphor]

I am suggesting that you have not presented a case that is based on any number greater than 1 university, and you only just did that one in this post (Princeton (incidentally, my father graduated from Princeton)). Until this mention of Princeton, it was just a claim without any supporting information of any kind. Just your screed.

I made a claim that the left denies and downplays the influence that CRT has on the American academy. I got several incoherent responses that appeared to imply that because the left invented CRT and coined the term, that meant my claim was somehow wrong or self-refuting. I assume we can put that part of the argument to rest.

Now, my claim that the left downplays CRT's pervasive influence could be wrong in at least two ways. The first is that the left doesn't actually downplay it. I admit this is difficult to quantify. It has simply been my experience that on this board I have been met with resistance to the idea that CRT and intersectional politics play a prominent role in American universities (and Australian ones). Now, if I was wrong about my claim in this way, then the second part of my claim would actually be true: that CRT is hegemonic at American universities. The second way my claim could be wrong is that CRT is not pervasive or hegemonic. Now, if you are challenging that claim, I would need to hear what you think that claim means.

So yes, I am suggesting that you cannot claim to convey the general climate of American universities with a vague rant.

Do you believe that CRT and intersectional theory plays a pervasive and hegemonic role at American universities? Are you simply challenging my claim because you hate my opinion? I want your honest opinion: which do you think is the safer option for academics and students to express at an American university:
* CRT is correct and we should recognise that in policy
* CRT is incorrect and we should not base any policy on its claims.

Citation? It might be true, but it might be something you just made up. Who knows?

I thought the left:right ratio in academia was a matter of common knowledge, but perhaps not.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

Certainly radical at the time; any discussion of racial equality in the 70s was radical left wing. I went to a bussing school when I was in high school, so it was kind of a topic for us. So _radical_, so _lefty_ to think that those black kids could have a decent edcation. Very radical left.

I agree that CRT claims are not regarded as radical at all in the American academy. In fact, that is evidence for my point. It isn't regarded as radical: it is mainstream. It is the safe opinion to have and express.

“In the grip”?
You mean, like, forced and coerced? Or maybe brainwashed and fugued?

I mean what you think in the grip means. If you don't think Princeton counts, then we should stop this exchange.

So, do I think Princeton is being forced or brainwashed to do something about racism?
No. It looks pretty voluntary,
and it looks pretty thoughtful. You told me to go read a letter. It looks like a letter that discusses an issue and claims it will take steps to discuss some more.

I didn't tell you to read a letter, I asked you to read a letter. I even used the word please.

I take it then you don't think Eisgruber's letter is enough to warrant my saying Princeton is in the grip of CRT?

In that case, we should terminate the discussion, because if Princeton's situation doesn't count then no university's would.

Is that “in the grip”?

Bear in mind, I can’t figure out what objection you have to the idea that America has racism, and has had for some time now. But to add on his claim that there’s some “in the grip” of this idea... weird. Are you “in the grip” of the idea that it’s autumn in Australia?

You are being misleading. If CRT were merely the idea that some people in America are racist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Some people are. CRT makes much bolder claims.

But the question was, when you read about this thing that yu have not personally experienced, WHAT, exactly, caused you to label it “pervasive.” I asked here for some definitions of what it means to be “in the grip,” and you failed to answer. Do you have an answer? What fueled your outrage about this that caused you to use words like “hegemony,” “pervasive,” “in the grip” - those are pretty strong words, you must have seen a LOT of data to get so riled up.

From reading about incident after incident after incident at American universities. From seeing the clusterfuck suicide unfold at Evergreen. From seeing institutions confess to institutional racism that they never describe. From reading hiring and DEI policies. I can't summarise all the incidents I've read about over many years.

It was a question. How many, is it all 5,300? Or some smallerr number, like 1?

It is not all 5,300, but it is much larger than 1.

If you are claiming it is hegemonic, you are implying a hefty force of power or mandate. So - what’s the deal, what kind of weight lies behind it?
Is it all of them? Half? A tenth? One university?

What number would you say qualifies as justifying the word 'hegemonic'?

You’re claiming it’s dominant. Pervasive. You used words like suffocating, “in the grip.”.

It should be EASY to show evidence that it is overbearing at a large majority of universities if they are truly pervasively besieged.
But you showed nothing. And finally in this post, you refer to one university talking about having meetings to discuss it.

Really? What evidence that is easy to obtain would persuade you? I'm curious.

First you say it’s “pervasive” without a shred of support.
Now you say “the left denies the perrvasiveness” without a shred of support.

Oy gevalt. How would you expect me to evidence the claim that I have experienced the left denying the pervasiveness of CRT?

It could be that BOTH are just fabrications, for all you’ve shown.
What a lovely straw man. Have I stopped beating my wife?

... of white grievance

Are white people allowed to have grievances?

“Pervasive”
“Suffocating”
“Hegemony”
“Couldn’t survive unscathed”
“Major force”

Don’t pretend you have not implied it is at most places, and so thick that people cannot enjoy their freedoms because of it.

Melissa Click was at Missouri University when she assaulted a journalist and called for physical violence to remove him from documenting a protest. Do you think somebody who has not been emboldened by CRT acceptance would have acted the way she did?

This, as the 10,000th post denying racism exists - which perpetuates it. I find racism hateful.

I haven't made a single post denying racism exists.

Because the poor white man is “Suffocating!” “Pervasively!” In the “grip!” Of “hegemony!”
So much outrage.

Rhea, do you believe white men can have legitimate grievances?

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, do you believe white men can have legitimate grievances?

White men who can’t talk about anything else besides their grievances are not making them legitimate.
When white men talk about the grievances of Black men, or Native women, and ALSO talk about their own grievances, then they demonstrate a legitimate conversation.

But the ones who never post anything at all except white grievance?
Addiction to outrage porn.

The fact that they do not acknowledge, and indeed mock and trvialize the grievances of others acts to highlight the paucity of their claim.

There are indeed some legitiamte white male grievances. You’ll see “the Left,” including me, address them from time to time when they come up. You probably don’t notice, but it certainly happens.

But false equivalences like the destruction of lives from the oppression of women by anti-abortion laws versus the “suffocation” of white men by the left’s “denial of CRT hegemony” are examples of white male outrage porn molehills being confused for tempests. As does the sobbing that white males are MORE put-upon than anyone else.

 

[Metaphor]

White men who can’t talk about anything else besides their grievances are not making them legitimate.

Rhea, that is not the question I asked. I asked if white men could have legitimate grievances.

I'm also unsure of your implication, but talking about legitimate grievances, even talking exclusively about them, does not make those grievances illegitimate.

When white men talk about the grievances of Black men, or Native women, and ALSO talk about their own grievances, then they demonstrate a legitimate conversation.

I haven't asked about legitimate conversations: I asked about legitimate grievances.

But the ones who never post anything at all except white grievance?
Addiction to outrage porn.

Rhea, why do you appear to believe that talking exclusively about your own grievances delegitimises them?

When feminists talk about grievances that apply to women, and specialise in talking about them, do you think that is outrage porn?

The fact that they do not acknowledge, and indeed mock and trvialize the grievances of others acts to highlight the paucity of their claim.

So, when you mocked and trivialised the 'reverse racism' claims that you heard from white men and delighted in their imagined tears, what does it say about their claims and your empathy?

There are indeed some legitiamte white male grievances. You’ll see “the Left,” including me, address them from time to time when they come up. You probably don’t notice, but it certainly happens.

So, is being discriminated against, say, by the US government, when it hands out life-saving bennies in the forms of vaccines, or money in the form of debt relief, a legitimate grievance?

But false equivalences like the destruction of lives from the oppression of women by anti-abortion laws versus the “suffocation” of white men by the left’s “denial of CRT hegemony” are examples of white male outrage porn molehills being confused for tempests. As does the sobbing that white males are MORE put-upon than anyone else.

I did not equate them. I provided an example of something the left does that they then gaslight everyone else about.

I have not made any claims that 'white males' are more "put-upon" than any other particular group. But I do not believe that raising grievances that particularly affect white people or male people is illegitimate.

 

[Trausti]

Also, Mueller was specifically instructed to not investigate Trump and stood in front of Congress testifying that and (this is the important bit) he never found Trump not guilty of a crime..

In fact, he explicitly stated: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

Which is basically the *exact* opposite of finding him not guilty.

No it's not. We don't have the confidence to say that you didn't commit a crime either. But we won't say which one!

 

[Shadowy Man]

Also, Mueller was specifically instructed to not investigate Trump and stood in front of Congress testifying that and (this is the important bit) he never found Trump not guilty of a crime..

In fact, he explicitly stated: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

Which is basically the *exact* opposite of finding him not guilty.

No it's not. We don't have the confidence to say that you didn't commit a crime either. But we won't say which one!

Disregarding the unsurprising false equivalence, I’ll skip to just pointing out that RVonse said that Trump was found not guilty by Mueller. Mueller himself said if they thought Trump was innocent he would have said so.

I’m not saying that Mueller said he was guilty. I’m just saying that RVonse’s claim about the Mueller report is false.