This week's top woke fauxgressive idiot

[Metaphor]

In other words, you had no relevant point.

No. You had no relevant point. You claimed you were more concerned with the isolated and ubiquitously disapproved actions of white supremacists with the institutional power enjoyed by CRT believers and sympathisers. You may very well be concerned, but I think you have it exactly backwards in terms of impact.

At least this is explicit babble.

You always start civil, laughing dog.

 

[laughing dog]

No. You had no relevant point. You claimed you were more concerned with the isolated and ubiquitously disapproved actions of white supremacists with the institutional power enjoyed by CRT believers and sympathisers.

The incidents are not that isolated and clearly not ubiquitously disapproved. Your beliefs about the level of institutional power of CRT believers and their sympathizers are way overblown.

You may very well be concerned, but I think you have it exactly backwards in terms of impact.

Right, because attacking the killing people and attacking the US Capitol,ple is less of an impact than promoting ideas.

You always start civil, laughing dog.

Which is more than can be said about you.

 

[Metaphor]

The incidents are not that isolated

Of course they are. Or if you consider that they are not, they are easily dwarfed by the destruction entailed by the black lives matters riots alone.

and clearly not ubiquitously disapproved.

Ubiquitous means very widespread, not 'universal', not 'unanimous'. If you don't think violent white supremacist actions are widely disapproved, you do not live on the same planet as the rest of us.

Your beliefs about the level of institutional power of CRT believers and their sympathizers are way overblown.

That is your opinion.

Right, because attacking the killing people and attacking the US Capitol,ple is less of an impact than promoting ideas.

Promoting dangerous and destructive and false ideas is dangerous and destructive. Everyone is the poorer (poorer not just economically, mind) when bad ideas flourish.

Which is more than can be said about you.

Is it the Minnesotan winter making you so unkind? Or are you like this all year round?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course they are.

No, I even provided a link for the violence in 2019.

Or if you consider that they are not, they are easily dwarfed by the destruction entailed by the black lives matters riots alone.

Wow, a two-fer - a blm "whataboutism".

Ubiquitous means very widespread, not 'universal', not 'unanimous'.

No, it means being everywhere at the same time.

Promoting dangerous and destructive and false ideas is dangerous and destructive. Everyone is the poorer (poorer not just economically, mind) when bad ideas flourish.

It is your opinion that
1)all of CRT is false and dangerous,
2) it is flourishing, and
3) it is more dangerous and destructive than the actual destruction, damage and danger coming from white supremacists.

Is it the Minnesotan winter making you so unkind? Or are you like this all year round?

If you cannot take it, don't dish it out, hon.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I even provided a link for the violence in 2019.
Wow, a two-fer - a blm "whataboutism".

Are you fucking kidding me? It is not a 'whataboutism'. You specifically dismissed any of my concerns about CRT lunacy by saying you were 'more concerned' by violent white supremacists. You fucking introduced the comparison. You now have the fucking hide to say 'whataboutism' after you said 'what about violent white supremacists'?

If you are more concerned about white supremacism because it can be violent, then you ought be at least as concerned about CRT lunacy. The BLM riots in multiple cities were fueled by the CRT idea that America is systemically racist.

No, it means being everywhere at the same time.

[h=2]Definition of ubiquitous[/h]

: existing or being everywhere at the same time : constantly encountered : widespread a ubiquitous fashion





Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous, except in the closed circle meetings of white supremacists planning violent acts.

1)all of CRT is false and dangerous,

I didn't say that. Enough of it is false and dangerous that promoting the parts that are false and dangerous has and will lead to suffering.

2) it is flourishing, and

It's ubiquitous.

3) it is more dangerous and destructive than the actual destruction, damage and danger coming from white supremacists.

In total scale of human suffering, yes. That is my estimation.

If you cannot take it, don't dish it out, hon.

Brrr! Maybe Rose Nylund was like this too, before she moved from St Olaf to Miami.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you fucking kidding me? It is not a 'whataboutism'. You specifically dismissed any of my concerns about CRT lunacy by saying you were 'more concerned' by violent white supremacists. You fucking introduced the comparison. You now have the fucking hide to say 'whataboutism' after you said 'what about violent white supremacists'?

I did not introduce the topic of BLM protests. Pointing out my concern is not dismissing your obsessive overblown concerns about CRT (calling them obsessive overblown is an example of dismissing your "concerns". )

Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous, except in the closed circle meetings of white supremacists planning violent acts.

Nope. Our former President publicly refused to condemn two such events. In fact, in one case, he said there were good people on both sides.

In total scale of human suffering, yes. That is my estimation.

If that is not another example of your penchant for hyperbolic example (i.e. you are serious that you estimate that CRT – a fledging movement - is more dangerous and destructive in the total scale of human suffering than the actual danger and destruction from white supremacy) then rational discussion with you on that subject is not possible.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not introduce the topic of BLM protests.

Of course you did not introduce the violence that has arisen out of CRT ideology. That would have undermined your expression of fear about violent white supremacists being the bigger problem. But you shamelessly and ironically introduced the whataboutism by introducing violent white supremacy in a thread about a CRT believer who thinks black people and women are too vain and oppressed by society to wear mittens on cold days.

Pointing out my concern is not dismissing your obsessive overblown fear about CRT. Get a grip.

Your concern was a shameless whataboutism, coming from somebody who repeatedly dismisses others for 'whataboutism'.

Nope. Our former President publicly refused to condemn two such events. In fact, in one case, he said there were good people on both sides.

Are there good people in the BLM riot side? Were the people who violently attacked cops good people?

Also, get over Trump. He didn't barricade himself in the White House. He's gone. Move on.

Ah yes, the hand-waved slippery slope of fear-mongerer.

You falsely accused me of saying every single aspect of CRT was wrong. I was correcting you on that false accusation.

Really, you estimate that CRT – a fledging movement

Fledgling? Jesus Christ, if ideological capture of multiple multibillion dollar corporations, nearly the entire American academy, NGOs, and multiple agencies of the State is 'fledgling' - I'm even more concerned when this thing goes full throttle.

- is more dangerous and destructive in the total scale of human suffering than the actual danger and destruction from white supremacy? You really need to get a grip.

Yes, it's more dangerous and destructive.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course you did not introduce the violence that has arisen out of CRT ideology. That would have undermined your expression of fear about violent white supremacists being the bigger problem. But you shamelessly and ironically introduced the whataboutism by introducing violent white supremacy in a thread about a CRT believer who thinks black people and women are too vain and oppressed by society to wear mittens on cold days.

The first sentence and only your first sentence accurately represents my posts. The 2nd sentence is untrue. Since the CRT believer did not think black people and women are too vain and oppressed to wear mittens on cold days., your third sentence is also false. Perhaps you could focus more on actual content and less on your fanciful "interpretations"

Are there good people in the BLM riot side? Were the people who violently attacked cops good people?

Also, get over Trump. He didn't barricade himself in the White House. He's gone. Move on.

Another example of irrelevancies in your response I specifically gave examples that disproved your claim of "Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous, except in the closed circle meetings of white supremacists planning violent acts." Neither BLM protests/riots nor Trump barricading himself in the White House were mentioned. Try to focus.

You falsely accused me of saying every single aspect of CRT was wrong. I was correcting you on that false accusation.

Not with "Enough of it is false and dangerous that promoting the parts that are false and dangerous has and will lead to suffering."

Fledgling? Jesus Christ, if ideological capture of multiple multibillion dollar corporations, nearly the entire American academy, NGOs, and multiple agencies of the State is 'fledgling' - I'm even more concerned when this thing goes full throttle.

There is no evidence that CRT has the "if ideological capture of multiple multibillion dollar corporations, nearly the entire American academy, NGOs, and multiple agencies of the State ".

Yes, it's more dangerous and destructive.

I realize you are serious when you claim that CRT is more dangerous and more destructive to total human suffering (your words) than the actual destruction and danger from white supremacists. I am serious when I say I believe rational discussion on this issue is not possible with anyone whose views are so skewed by fear. that they blatantly ignore on the ground facts.

 

[Metaphor]

The first sentence and only your first sentence accurately represents my posts. The 2nd sentence is untrue. Since the CRT believer did not think black people and women are too vain and oppressed to wear mittens on cold days., your third sentence is also false.

The CRT believer thinks that black people and women are lacking the privilege that white men have to wear mittens on cold days. I think that's a batshit insane thing to believe and is laughably false. But, it's what CRT does to the brain. It's like feminism that way.

Another example of irrelevancies in your response I specifically gave examples that disproved your claim of "Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous, except in the closed circle meetings of white supremacists planning violent acts." Neither BLM protests/riots nor Trump barricading himself in the White House were mentioned. Try to focus.

You gave no examples. 'Widespread' is a synonym for 'ubiquitous'. Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous. Hell, it's probably present even in white supremacy circles where there exists a nonviolent separatist strain.

Not with "Enough of it is false and dangerous that promoting the parts that are false and dangerous has and will lead to suffering."

Your accusation was false and you are proving it by quoting me. I never said all of CRT was false and dangerous.

There is no evidence that CRT has the "if ideological capture of multiple multibillion dollar corporations, nearly the entire American academy, NGOs, and multiple agencies of the State ".

There would be no evidence in the world that would be convincing to you, of that I'm certain. You are in academia and you are denying it. You are impervious to the evidence.

I am serious when I say I believe rational discussion on this issue is not possible with anyone whose views are so skewed by fear. that they blatantly ignore on the ground facts.

Then I'm sorry that you've ruled yourself out of rational discussion with your ignorance of facts.

 

[Jokodo]

You've never heard of the individual, because she's a nobody. But she's espousing an ideology that is not only prominent, it has captured entire institutions.

And for those calling it innocuous, it isn't. It's the product of believing systemic racism is everywhere and everything, and that means fantasising that wearing mittens on a cold day is a sign of 'white privilege'. Remember, CRT believers want white people to give up their privilege, they want privilege dismantled.

Having concern over folks calling for the dismantling of something that doesn't exist is a weird flex but I can dig it.

I don't believe wearing mittens on a cold day is 'white privilege'. I also don't want to dismantle the ability for white people to wear mittens on cold days. Your mileage may vary.

That's not what anyone is talking about when they mention dismantling white privilege, though, and you know it (at least you would if you ever paid attention to what people are telling you). The idea behind calling Bernie Sanders' outfit an instance of white/male privilege isn't to demand that he, or white people in general, stop wearing mittens - it is to remind readers that a woman or black person sitting in his place, instead of becoming glorified in a meme, might well have been criticized for their unprofessional or "ghetto" posture. That contention may not be accurate, but at any rate it is dishonest to pretend that the author wants to bar white people from wearing mittens.

You know, when it used to be an (explicit, legally codified) white privilege to sit in the front of the bus, civil rights activists didn't want to force whites to sit in the back either - they wanted the right to sit in the front opened to everyone. In the same way, saying (whether right or wrong) that wearing mittens and casual clothing at a ceremony like that is a white privilege doesn't translate to demanding that whites should be stopped from doing it; almost the opposite, it means we should stop scrutinizing non-white people who do the same or similar things, stop calling them unprofessional/ghetto/poorly adapted to life in America over a personal choice of clothing.

 

[Jokodo]

You've never heard of the individual, because she's a nobody. But she's espousing an ideology that is not only prominent, it has captured entire institutions.

I have no idea why you would say so. I'm in a pretty left-wing bubble on facebook and I've only seen people criticize and ridicule this article, no-one share it uncritically.

 

[laughing dog]

The CRT believer thinks that black people and women are lacking the privilege that white men have to wear mittens on cold days.

At least now you are getting the facts right. Too

You gave no examples…

That is a blatant falsehood. In post 46 your wrote “Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous, except in the closed circle meetings of white supremacists planning violent acts.” I gave two examples that disproved it. I will not engage with your pathetic pedantic defenses of your hyperbolic rhetoric.

Not with "Enough of it is false and dangerous that promoting the parts that are false and dangerous has and will lead to suffering."

Your accusation was false and you are proving it by quoting me. I never said all of CRT was false and dangerous.

I doubt it was false, but your failure to recognize the bold-faced part of your defense indicates something more than disputing the claim.

There would be no evidence in the world that would be convincing to you, of that I'm certain. You are in academia and you are denying it. You are impervious to the evidence.

This is just another boring example of your flinging unsupported and fucking ignorant claims. Unlike many propagandists you appear unable to distinguish between factual truth and “inner truth” (i.e. what you believe).

You have presented no evidence to support your claim. You have no idea I know or what I have experienced in academia.

Then I'm sorry that you've ruled yourself out of rational discussion with your ignorance of facts.

The entire content of your response is evidence of the overwhelming irony of your observation.

 

[Swammerdami]

You've never heard of the individual, because she's a nobody. But she's espousing an ideology that is not only prominent, it has captured entire institutions.

'Fess up, and admit it's a joke, Metaphor! An "ideology that is not only prominent, it has captured entire institutions" and the best demonstration you can find for this prominent institutional capture is "a nobody." Did the incongruity of this amuse you as you were typing?

 

[Keith&Co.]

. In post 46 your wrote “Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous, except in the closed circle meetings of white supremacists planning violent acts.” I gave two examples that disproved it.

Saw this today:

 

[Elixir]

. In post 46 your wrote “Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous, except in the closed circle meetings of white supremacists planning violent acts.” I gave two examples that disproved it.

Saw this today:

View attachment 31773

GOOD!
Then we can rebuild infrastructure, fund free higher education, help small business, eradicate poverty and provide UBI.
And give Congress a raise.

 

[Metaphor]

You've never heard of the individual, because she's a nobody. But she's espousing an ideology that is not only prominent, it has captured entire institutions.

I have no idea why you would say so. I'm in a pretty left-wing bubble on facebook and I've only seen people criticize and ridicule this article, no-one share it uncritically.

You have no idea why I would say CRT has ideologically captured entire institutions?

 

[Metaphor]

You've never heard of the individual, because she's a nobody. But she's espousing an ideology that is not only prominent, it has captured entire institutions.

'Fess up, and admit it's a joke, Metaphor! An "ideology that is not only prominent, it has captured entire institutions" and the best demonstration you can find for this prominent institutional capture is "a nobody." Did the incongruity of this amuse you as you were typing?

What incongruity? An OP was written by Derec cataloguing a recent example of mentally deranged Woke nonsense. I didn't call it the 'best demonstration' of anything, though it certainly illustrates some typical markers of CRT disciples:
i) The person who wrote it is an academic
ii) The claim made by the person is not objectively verifiable, but rather assumes the audience should believe without question (that black people and women could never wear mittens on a cold day at a formal event).
iii) The claim was made with supreme confidence and without a trace of self-doubt or regard for anybody else's lived experience.

There's no incongruity, Swammerdami. Please don't be so dishonest.

 

[Metaphor]

That is a blatant falsehood. In post 46 your wrote “Opposition to violent white supremacy is ubiquitous, except in the closed circle meetings of white supremacists planning violent acts.” I gave two examples that disproved it. I will not engage with your pathetic pedantic defenses of your hyperbolic rhetoric.

You gave no examples that disproved it. Calling an attitude ubiquitous does not mean that every single person in the world shares it. If I said 'sleeping in beds in the US is ubiquitous', I am not disproved because you find some people who sleep on couches.

I doubt it was false, but your failure to recognize the bold-faced part of your defense indicates something more than disputing the claim.

Promoting false and dangerous ideas will lead to negative outcomes. You may disagree about my evaluation of CRT but I can hardly imagine why you would disagree with that sentence.

You have presented no evidence to support your claim. You have no idea I know or what I have experienced in academia.

The evidence has been presented regularly over years - regular threads documenting the insidious spread and effect of Woke ideologies across the English speaking western world.

 

[Metaphor]

That's not what anyone is talking about when they mention dismantling white privilege, though, and you know it (at least you would if you ever paid attention to what people are telling you). The idea behind calling Bernie Sanders' outfit an instance of white/male privilege isn't to demand that he, or white people in general, stop wearing mittens - it is to remind readers that a woman or black person sitting in his place, instead of becoming glorified in a meme, might well have been criticized for their unprofessional or "ghetto" posture. That contention may not be accurate, but at any rate it is dishonest to pretend that the author wants to bar white people from wearing mittens.

The author did not "remind" readers of anything. The author engaged herself in a fantasia that women and black people did not have the privilege of wearing mittens on a cold day and expected us to believe and sympathise.

You know, when it used to be an (explicit, legally codified) white privilege to sit in the front of the bus, civil rights activists didn't want to force whites to sit in the back either - they wanted the right to sit in the front opened to everyone. In the same way, saying (whether right or wrong) that wearing mittens and casual clothing at a ceremony like that is a white privilege doesn't translate to demanding that whites should be stopped from doing it; almost the opposite, it means we should stop scrutinizing non-white people who do the same or similar things, stop calling them unprofessional/ghetto/poorly adapted to life in America over a personal choice of clothing.

Bernie Sanders did not look unprofessional/ghetto/poorly adapted, not because he is white, but because he was fucking dressed appropriately. I do not understand the fucking memes that are all over my facebook nor can I see what the fuck anybody is talking about. He doesn't look shabby, he doesn't look like anything except an old man wearing a coat and mittens for a winter fucking day in DC.

The person documented in the OP made an attempt to capitalise on the popularity of a meme to spread her false gospel. Too bad she misjudged the limits of even the left wing audience for this crap (though, no doubt, there will be people who 100% believe her and will point to people's incredulity that she is exactly correct about privilege).

 

[Elixir]

Oh damn. Where’s that violin? Must have left it in my other shirt.