• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

What, exactly, is CRT?

Jarhyn

Contributor
London is full of colonial rulers who collectively have a lot more blood on their hands than Hitler.

WUT? Which among them murdered over 6 million civilians in less than a decade, in their attempt to rule the world?

Any Medeival King is about on par with Hitler.

You are delusional. Name ONE.

So, two things, one way in which he is right and one in which he is wrong:

Name one awful racist despot throughout history, of any of the genocides, of any of those who wanted to "conquer the world" that would not, given the level of sophistication available in the last great war and the availability of victims, have murdered or enslaved so many?

I don't think Hitler was special, except in what means he had available to him.

Xi is doing as bad just this moment, and are contained by the undeniable reality that to break the equilibrium would be to kill us all. We are only at peace because of the standoff, and genocide continues well and alive in this world.

He is wrong insofar as he thinks they have "more". Any one despotic genocidal piece of shit is 'on par' with any other on average.

"Conquering the world" is a favored human passtime from Alexander the Great, to Napoleon to, yes, Hitler. The intersection of conquer + genocide is just coincidental and it's not the first time.

These days people figure it would be impossible without also breaking it. Eventually there will be someone who won't care about that.

The form of his comparison is wrong in the first, and right with regards to the latter.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
It seems like a bizarre diversion to me to ask whether Hitler was uniquely evil. I don't think we should set up shrines to honor evil people in the first place, whether or not they happen to be Hitler, and whether or not you feel that is the case, it has no bearing on whether censorship of academic theories in the schools is a wise idea. It is a bizarre, bizarre worldview, in my opinion, that leads one to believe that one should never tear down statues in public parks lest history be "erased", but that it's fine to censor actual history teachers in history classrooms.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
It seems like a bizarre diversion to me to ask whether Hitler was uniquely evil. I don't think we should set up shrines to honor evil people in the first place, whether or not they happen to be Hitler, and whether or not you feel that is the case, it has no bearing on whether censorship of academic theories in the schools is a wise idea. It is a bizarre, bizarre worldview, in my opinion, that leads one to believe that one should never tear down statues in public parks lest history be "erased", but that it's fine to censor actual history teachers in history classrooms.

Also a perfectly valid point: why should we accept evil? If evil can organize for the sake of stomping on a human face, forever, why cannot the rest of us say NO!?

This is the purpose of and need for museums, and history classes. We should teach what happened, and about, not from the propaganda of any time but from historical record as exists.

Certain things are wired into the human psyche, and certain things we ourselves put there on purpose through story and song. Effigies, I would think, are one of them. They of their form in prominent places are testaments of honor. The fact of their placement, before and after the statue comes down, acts as a good footnote in a book.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member

Some White people are racist and display their racism, and in response, a lot of people push a number of unwarranted false ideologies by the name "CRT", some of which are also racist - with a different target.

You're missing reasons in the "why", like the irrational commitment to some ideology of those pushing the ideologies in question.

And then notice that thehill and several other outlets report the events with capitalized "Black" and "Hispanic" but not "white", which makes me doubt the accuracy of the reports due to bias (of course, it might be that they are just doing what they need in order to avoid condemnation all across social media, but that too casts doubts on the accuracy of the reports),
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member

Some White people are racist and display their racism, and in response, a lot of people push a number of unwarranted false ideologies by the name "CRT", some of which are also racist - with a different target.

You're missing reasons in the "why", like the irrational commitment to some ideology of those pushing the ideologies in question.

And then notice that thehill and several other outlets report the events with capitalized "Black" and "Hispanic" but not "white", which makes me doubt the accuracy of the reports due to bias (of course, it might be that they are just doing what they need in order to avoid condemnation all across social media, but that too casts doubts on the accuracy of the reports),

I don't understand your world salad but you were just presented a case of institutional racism, the very thing CRT teaches about.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member

Some White people are racist and display their racism, and in response, a lot of people push a number of unwarranted false ideologies by the name "CRT", some of which are also racist - with a different target.

You're missing reasons in the "why", like the irrational commitment to some ideology of those pushing the ideologies in question.

And then notice that thehill and several other outlets report the events with capitalized "Black" and "Hispanic" but not "white", which makes me doubt the accuracy of the reports due to bias (of course, it might be that they are just doing what they need in order to avoid condemnation all across social media, but that too casts doubts on the accuracy of the reports),

I don't understand your world salad but you were just presented a case of institutional racism, the very thing CRT teaches about.

1. There is no word salad.
2. The point I'm making is that the versions of CRT explained by CRTists in this thread, were debunked. Other versions are debunked as well (pick your version and I'll debunk it). So, even if it teaches about institutional racism and there is institutional racism, it is still debunked. For example, Catholicism teaches about immoral behavior. There is immoral behavior. But Catholicism is still debunked - among other things, because it has the wrong teachings about immoral behavior.
3. Assuming that the accounts of the events claimed by biased parties are accurate, then that seems to be a clear-cut case of just plain old anti-Black racism. Sure, anti-Black racism exists and it is a problem. But there is no need for invoking "institutional racism". In fact, it is not even clear that there is also institutional racism in this case. What definition of "institutional racism" are you going by?
4. Even if you have a coherent and useful definition of "institutional racism" that applies to this case, that would not justify CRT. It's still unwarranted and false, even if it makes some true claims, like say Catholicism makes the true claim that there is such thing as immoral behavior, but Catholicism is still unwarranted and false.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
I don't understand your world salad but you were just presented a case of institutional racism, the very thing CRT teaches about.

1. There is no word salad.
2. The point I'm making is that the versions of CRT explained by CRTists in this thread, were debunked. Other versions are debunked as well (pick your version and I'll debunk it). So, even if it teaches about institutional racism and there is institutional racism, it is still debunked. For example, Catholicism teaches about immoral behavior. There is immoral behavior. But Catholicism is still debunked - among other things, because it has the wrong teachings about immoral behavior.
3. Assuming that the accounts of the events claimed by biased parties are accurate, then that seems to be a clear-cut case of just plain old anti-Black racism. Sure, anti-Black racism exists and it is a problem. But there is no need for invoking "institutional racism". In fact, it is not even clear that there is also institutional racism in this case. What definition of "institutional racism" are you going by?
4. Even if you have a coherent and useful definition of "institutional racism" that applies to this case, that would not justify CRT. It's still unwarranted and false, even if it makes some true claims, like say Catholicism makes the true claim that there is such thing as immoral behavior, but Catholicism is still unwarranted and false.
Your word salad response indicates you are mistaken. No one has debunked "CRT" because there is no one version of CRT.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
I don't understand your world salad but you were just presented a case of institutional racism, the very thing CRT teaches about.

1. There is no word salad.
2. The point I'm making is that the versions of CRT explained by CRTists in this thread, were debunked. Other versions are debunked as well (pick your version and I'll debunk it). So, even if it teaches about institutional racism and there is institutional racism, it is still debunked. For example, Catholicism teaches about immoral behavior. There is immoral behavior. But Catholicism is still debunked - among other things, because it has the wrong teachings about immoral behavior.
3. Assuming that the accounts of the events claimed by biased parties are accurate, then that seems to be a clear-cut case of just plain old anti-Black racism. Sure, anti-Black racism exists and it is a problem. But there is no need for invoking "institutional racism". In fact, it is not even clear that there is also institutional racism in this case. What definition of "institutional racism" are you going by?
4. Even if you have a coherent and useful definition of "institutional racism" that applies to this case, that would not justify CRT. It's still unwarranted and false, even if it makes some true claims, like say Catholicism makes the true claim that there is such thing as immoral behavior, but Catholicism is still unwarranted and false.
Your word salad response indicates you are mistaken. No one has debunked "CRT" because there is no one version of CRT.

Actually, some of us have debunked the versions of CRT explained here in enough detail to have a target to debunk. If you would like to propose another version, please define it or post a link, and I'll deal with it.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Your word salad response indicates you are mistaken. No one has debunked "CRT" because there is no one version of CRT.

Actually, some of us have debunked the versions of CRT explained here in enough detail to have a target to debunk. If you would like to propose another version, please define it or post a link, and I'll deal with it.
I understand you belief that some of you have debunked versions of CRT. I understand that your belief that something occurred does not make it so. I also understand from your posting history, that reason will not dissuade you from your ideological beliefs.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Your word salad response indicates you are mistaken. No one has debunked "CRT" because there is no one version of CRT.

Actually, some of us have debunked the versions of CRT explained here in enough detail to have a target to debunk. If you would like to propose another version, please define it or post a link, and I'll deal with it.
I understand you belief that some of you have debunked versions of CRT. I understand that your belief that something occurred does not make it so. I also understand from your posting history, that reason will not dissuade you from your ideological beliefs.

Of course, my belief that we debunked them does not make it so. We debunked them, it's in the thread, and that is why I believe so. The fact that you will not realize that does not change the facts.
Also, I do not have ideological beliefs. I do follow reason. But reason resulted in the debunking of CRT, in the versions presented in this thread with enough detail, as explained.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
I understand you belief that some of you have debunked versions of CRT. I understand that your belief that something occurred does not make it so. I also understand from your posting history, that reason will not dissuade you from your ideological beliefs.

Of course, my belief that we debunked them does not make it so. We debunked them, it's in the thread, and that is why I believe so.
No, you believe you debunked them. As usual, you are sadly mistaken.

[
Also, I do not have ideological beliefs. I do follow reason. But reason resulted in the debunking of CRT, in the versions presented in this thread with enough detail, as explained.
Everyone has ideological beliefs. That fact you claim you do not simply justifies my observation that reason will not dissuade you from your ideological beliefs.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
No, you believe you debunked them. As usual, you are sadly mistaken.
No, that's you.

laughing dog said:
Also, I do not have ideological beliefs. I do follow reason. But reason resulted in the debunking of CRT, in the versions presented in this thread with enough detail, as explained.
Everyone has ideological beliefs. That fact you claim you do not simply justifies my observation that reason will not dissuade you from your ideological beliefs.


No, not everyone has ideological beliefs of course. And one should not have them anyway. Ideology is not a proper tool to understand reality. It shows an improper commitment to some beliefs.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
No, that's you.
Not in this case.

Angra Mainyu said:
No, not everyone has ideological beliefs of course. And one should not have them anyway. Ideology is not a proper tool to understand reality. It shows an improper commitment to some beliefs.
As usual, you are mistaken. Whether or not anyone should have an idealogy is irrelevant to the fact that they do.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
No, that's you.
Not in this case.

Angra Mainyu said:
No, not everyone has ideological beliefs of course. And one should not have them anyway. Ideology is not a proper tool to understand reality. It shows an improper commitment to some beliefs.
As usual, you are mistaken. Whether or not anyone should have an idealogy is irrelevant to the fact that they do.

Axioms are ideological beliefs. All knowledge, understanding, and belief rests in a bedrock of axiomatic system.

Axioms are beliefs, and are necessarily ideological.

Saying one does not have beliefs is nonsensical.

On the other hand, "not worshipping things"... That's fairly easy.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Not in this case.

As usual, you are mistaken. Whether or not anyone should have an idealogy is irrelevant to the fact that they do.

Axioms are ideological beliefs. All knowledge, understanding, and belief rests in a bedrock of axiomatic system.

Axioms are beliefs, and are necessarily ideological.

Saying one does not have beliefs is nonsensical.

On the other hand, "not worshipping things"... That's fairly easy.

Obviously, I never said I do not have beliefs. That would be silly. I said I have no ideology. And no, axioms aren't ideological beliefs. The meaning of the words is given by usage, not by what you choose.

As for the claim that knowledge, understanding or belief rests in a bedrock of axiomatic system, do you have any argument or evidence in support of it?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Here's something that I reacted to. "my daughter is Ethiopian". WTF does she think the Ethiopian kingdom did to make money back in the day? It was sending tribal Bantu captives as slaves to Rome, the Ottoman kingdom and used them as labour in their plantations.

Hey, lady your daughter is just as fucking historically tainted by slavery as white people. Her playing the victim card here is amazingly insensitive to all the victims of slavery. Back the fuck off.

Strange to see you advocating collective guilt..

Her mother did. I didn't. Also worth noting is that the mother is white, with an adopted Ethiopian child. Outrage by proxy
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Who is we? Do you live in London?

I'm not a nationalist. I see all of humanity as one nation.

What was their ideology? Did they do something for the people of London that is worthy of venerating? Why are you bringing collective guilt into this? If you live in London, and feel this strongly about not venerating those rulers with statues on public grounds, then I encourage you to organize a way to remove them to a more appropriate venue.

No, I think we should keep the statues. I think you put me in the wrong ideological box.

No one who is advocating that statues venerating Confederate leaders be removed is advocating that we hide our history. In fact, it is those who want to keep the statues who are trying to hide history, by turning those venerated into heroes, rewriting history to claim they were fighting for something other than to keep people enslaved, and are also now passing laws that both sides the fucking holocaust in our schools.

The confederate statues are just as much monuments over how racist the south was in the 1930'ies.

There are no Nazi statues in Europe. But we still have plenty of Nazis. Wonder why? If removing the statues magically removes what they represent we shouldn't have.

I never said that removing statues magically does anything. It very clearly removes the perception that the State is endorsing their ideology, and there is nothing magical about that.

In a democracy states shouldn't endorse any ideology, and don't. Are you sure that's why we keep the statues? Sweden is a country where 90% is atheist. We've kept all the churches and we keep them maintained. It's hardly because the Swedish government are promoting Christianity.

All a statue means is that some time something or someone was really important, and it's worth to stop a moment to think about it. It's to keep a link between the present and our ancestors. It's interesting to think about why our forefathers thought it was really important to honor this or that person. The statue is a living memory of that.

In colonial Britain the colonial heroes from the peak of British power (1870) were mostly placed in cramped little squares and other awful locations. Because all the good locations had already been snatched by heroes from the Napoleonic wars. This is interesting.

Creating a world where nobody is ever offended is a dangerous world.

Creating a world where we appease offensive racists by venerating their leaders with statues on public grounds is a dangerous world. One in which the targets of their hate are lynched, oppressed, and/or treated as second class citizens.

It's not venerating IMHO.

The concentration camps are still there. We didn't remove them. I wonder why? Do you think it's to promote Nazism?

The concentration camps were not erected to venerate the Nazis, they were left as a reminder of the atrocities committed by the Nazis. They have been turned into places where the horrendous ideology that they represent can be critically examined and learned from. There is a qualitative difference.

Not at all. They do the same job.


We are not advocating that tasteful markers on Civil War battlefields that teach the history of what happened there be removed. We are only asking that Confederate leaders not be venerated with statues on public grounds. I do not have a problem with them being removed to museums where they can be placed in the context in which they belong, and those viewing them can learn about the horrendous ideology that they truly represent.

Fuck tasteful. History isn't tasteful. History is quite often horrendous. Like slavery.

Isn't it a better idea that for every confederate statue we put two civil rights statues next to it?

The problem with hiding things in museums is that only special interest nerds (who already know the correct story) will ever see it.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
London is full of colonial rulers who collectively have a lot more blood on their hands than Hitler.

WUT? Which among them murdered over 6 million civilians in less than a decade, in their attempt to rule the world?

Any Medeival King is about on par with Hitler.

You are delusional. Name ONE.

Lol. Nice to add "in less than a decade". If you add enough qualifiers you can make anybody unique.

When colonial powers took power they dismantled the existing power structures which caused a godawful mess when they left. This killed more people in wars and starvation than died in WW2. Not to mention the people who died outright when the colonies were passivized. India was more industrialized before Great Britain took over than when they left. Generally, a strong effective economy is good for keeping people alive.

The main problem of British colonialism was that it was white supremacist and ruled over non-white people. So it created a culture of rule directly opposed to the people it was supposed to rule. Which, I might add, is similar to Hitler's general attitude.
 
Here's something that I reacted to. "my daughter is Ethiopian". WTF does she think the Ethiopian kingdom did to make money back in the day? It was sending tribal Bantu captives as slaves to Rome, the Ottoman kingdom and used them as labour in their plantations.

Hey, lady your daughter is just as fucking historically tainted by slavery as white people. Her playing the victim card here is amazingly insensitive to all the victims of slavery. Back the fuck off.

Strange to see you advocating collective guilt..

Her mother did. I didn't. Also worth noting is that the mother is white, with an adopted Ethiopian child. Outrage by proxy

That appears to be you taking the mother out of context by quote-mining.

Let's review the previous article snippet:
"She was very upset about it. My daughter's Ethiopian," Stutterheim told CNN this week.

Her daughter has encountered racism firsthand, Stutterheim says and "the more she talked about this, the more upset she got."
Stutterheim did what any concerned parent would do and reached out to the school to find out what happened.

What she found was that an increasingly familiar scenario was unfolding at her child's school. Across the US, there are two diametrically opposed conversations about race going on at the same time. In one, some White parents are telling school leaders that lessons about race make White students feel bad. And in the other, there's the racism that is actually happening in schools.

The mother in context was discussing current racism toward her daughter which is why she made the comment that her daughter is Ethiopian.

BUT what you did is completely snip all that context about current racism, pretending it didn't exist.

Then, you appear to have fabricated a different context to the statement about historical slavery in the US which we can infer from your commentary about centuries-old historical slavery in Ethiopia.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Her mother did. I didn't. Also worth noting is that the mother is white, with an adopted Ethiopian child. Outrage by proxy

That appears to be you taking the mother out of context by quote-mining.

Let's review the previous article snippet:
"She was very upset about it. My daughter's Ethiopian," Stutterheim told CNN this week.

Her daughter has encountered racism firsthand, Stutterheim says and "the more she talked about this, the more upset she got."
Stutterheim did what any concerned parent would do and reached out to the school to find out what happened.

What she found was that an increasingly familiar scenario was unfolding at her child's school. Across the US, there are two diametrically opposed conversations about race going on at the same time. In one, some White parents are telling school leaders that lessons about race make White students feel bad. And in the other, there's the racism that is actually happening in schools.

The mother in context was discussing current racism toward her daughter which is why she made the comment that her daughter is Ethiopian.

It's still her talking about someone else's experiences. That's not quote mining. The daughter is not being interviewed in the article. It's white people talking with each other about the evils of racism, excluding the actual victims from having a say. The fact that she has an Ethiopian daughter doesn't make her black nor allows her to talk about racism first hand. Who knows whether her daughter would have formulated herself differently?


BUT what you did is completely snip all that context about current racism, pretending it didn't exist.

I did no such thing.

Then, you appear to have fabricated a different context to the statement about historical slavery in the US which we can infer from your commentary about centuries-old historical slavery in Ethiopia.

If you get offended because of how your ancestors were historically treated, you better have ancestors who have been a victim of what you claim. Historically, East Africans were slavers rather than slaves. Ie ethnically Cushite rather than Bantu.

It's a bit rich when East Africans try to get on the BLM bandwagon. While people with Ethiopian heritage might live in USA, be poor, and be the victim of racism, they're poor for different reasons than those who are decedents of slaves. Black Americans decedent of slaves have lived for generations in the most affluent country on Earth (richer than any other country ever has been in world history) yet have been artificially kept back. They have valid reasons to be angry with white people. While Ethiopians are poor because the Ethiopian royal family stubbornly held on to a medieval style rural feudalism well into the modern age because they were afraid that any change might threaten their hold on power.

Ethiopia was never a colony other than very briefly under Italy. They can't really claim any kind of victimhood from white people.

If Ethiopians want to cry about ancestral mistreatment they can only blame other black people. Which doesn't fit into the BLM narrative.

Let's not forget Nigeria In the 1970 to 2000. A fascist nationalist government dominated by Yoruba and characterized by ethnic mistreatment of non-Yoruba. Since it was black people oppressing black people the international community became confused and gave them a free pass. Focusing all the efforts on stopping a similar kind of government in South Africa... the Apartheid regime.

Simplified stories are simplified. They risk us becoming stupid. If we just blindly swallow woke narratives without speaking up we'll all become dumber.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Here's something that I reacted to. "my daughter is Ethiopian". WTF does she think the Ethiopian kingdom did to make money back in the day? It was sending tribal Bantu captives as slaves to Rome, the Ottoman kingdom and used them as labour in their plantations.

Hey, lady your daughter is just as fucking historically tainted by slavery as white people. Her playing the victim card here is amazingly insensitive to all the victims of slavery. Back the fuck off.

Strange to see you advocating collective guilt..

Her mother did. I didn't. Also worth noting is that the mother is white, with an adopted Ethiopian child. Outrage by proxy

Yes, you did.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
I'm not a nationalist. I see all of humanity as one nation.



No, I think we should keep the statues. I think you put me in the wrong ideological box.

My point was that if the people of London do not see them as oppressors, because they did their oppression in the colonies, and the people of London further see them as someone to be venerated, then it is a non-issue for them. I doubt that the same statues would be allowed to stand in the colonies they oppressed.

No one who is advocating that statues venerating Confederate leaders be removed is advocating that we hide our history. In fact, it is those who want to keep the statues who are trying to hide history, by turning those venerated into heroes, rewriting history to claim they were fighting for something other than to keep people enslaved, and are also now passing laws that both sides the fucking holocaust in our schools.

The confederate statues are just as much monuments over how racist the south was in the 1930'ies.

No, they are not. Not if you do not know the history, because the history is not displayed on the monument, or worse the history displayed has been revised by those who erected the monument.

There are no Nazi statues in Europe. But we still have plenty of Nazis. Wonder why? If removing the statues magically removes what they represent we shouldn't have.

I never said that removing statues magically does anything. It very clearly removes the perception that the State is endorsing their ideology, and there is nothing magical about that.

In a democracy states shouldn't endorse any ideology, and don't.

You may be right about the former, but in the US you are definitely wrong about the latter.

Are you sure that's why we keep the statues?

I am absolutely certain that played a part in both why they were erected, and why people resisted removing them for so long.

Sweden is a country where 90% is atheist. We've kept all the churches and we keep them maintained. It's hardly because the Swedish government are promoting Christianity.

That's nice. We aren't talking about Sweden, or churches.

All a statue means is that some time something or someone was really important, and it's worth to stop a moment to think about it. It's to keep a link between the present and our ancestors. It's interesting to think about why our forefathers thought it was really important to honor this or that person. The statue is a living memory of that.

And when they did it to revise history, and to show the people they hate because of the color of their skin that the State still endorses racism against them, they do none of what you say. They only encourage division and perpetuate racist ideologies by honoring them.

In colonial Britain the colonial heroes from the peak of British power (1870) were mostly placed in cramped little squares and other awful locations. Because all the good locations had already been snatched by heroes from the Napoleonic wars. This is interesting.

In the Southern US States they were placed in wide open places in the middle of town, atop high pedestals with plaques that either white washed their history, or revised it, because that showed the blacks where their place was.

Creating a world where nobody is ever offended is a dangerous world.

Creating a world where we appease offensive racists by venerating their leaders with statues on public grounds is a dangerous world. One in which the targets of their hate are lynched, oppressed, and/or treated as second class citizens.

It's not venerating IMHO.

It was venerating them, and anyone who knows the history of those statues knows that. Unfortunately, you don't need to know the history of the Statue, you only need to read the plaque on the Robert E. Lee statue to know what a great person he was, because it says "NAMED IN HONOR AND MEMORY OF GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE. / “IT IS BETTER TO DO RIGHT, EVEN IF WE SUFFER IN SO DOING, / THAN TO INCUR THE REPROACH OF OUR CONSCIENCE AND POSTERITY.” And mentions nothing about the terrible things that he and his Confederates did to our nation.

The concentration camps are still there. We didn't remove them. I wonder why? Do you think it's to promote Nazism?

The concentration camps were not erected to venerate the Nazis, they were left as a reminder of the atrocities committed by the Nazis. They have been turned into places where the horrendous ideology that they represent can be critically examined and learned from. There is a qualitative difference.

Not at all. They do the same job.

Are you saying that when one visits the concentration camps, one is not educated about what happened there, but is rather treated with a nice plaque about how it was cool little summer retreat for the Jews to visit during the war, like the one above that gushes on what a great guy Robert E. Lee was?

We are not advocating that tasteful markers on Civil War battlefields that teach the history of what happened there be removed. We are only asking that Confederate leaders not be venerated with statues on public grounds. I do not have a problem with them being removed to museums where they can be placed in the context in which they belong, and those viewing them can learn about the horrendous ideology that they truly represent.

Fuck tasteful. History isn't tasteful. History is quite often horrendous. Like slavery.

OK, fuck tasteful. It doesn't matter for my argument if the markers are tasteful or not, only that they teach the actual history

Isn't it a better idea that for every confederate statue we put two civil rights statues next to it?

Maybe, if when it was first proposed that the statues be taken down, the State legislatures countered with something like that, or at least removing the plaques that honor them and replacing them with the actual history of what they did. That did not happen. They dug their heels in for decades, and yelled "Y'all ain't taking mah Rebel statues down without a fight!" (paraphrase)

The problem with hiding things in museums is that only special interest nerds (who already know the correct story) will ever see it.

The problem with leaving them intact on public grounds is that they tell an incorrect story, which is far worse that not knowing the original story to begin with.
 
Last edited:

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Her mother did. I didn't. Also worth noting is that the mother is white, with an adopted Ethiopian child. Outrage by proxy

Yes, you did.

No, I didn't. Read it a bit more carefully. Pay attention to who is bringing up the collective guilt

So when you said:

Here's something that I reacted to. "my daughter is Ethiopian". WTF does she think the Ethiopian kingdom did to make money back in the day? It was sending tribal Bantu captives as slaves to Rome, the Ottoman kingdom and used them as labour in their plantations.

Hey, lady your daughter is just as fucking historically tainted by slavery as white people. Her playing the victim card here is amazingly insensitive to all the victims of slavery. Back the fuck off.

… that's not tarring the child with collective guilt? You have no idea of her background or ancestry. Just that she's Ethiopian and therefore guilty of slavery.
 
That appears to be you taking the mother out of context by quote-mining.

Let's review the previous article snippet:


The mother in context was discussing current racism toward her daughter which is why she made the comment that her daughter is Ethiopian.

It's still her talking about someone else's experiences. That's not quote mining. The daughter is not being interviewed in the article. It's white people talking with each other about the evils of racism, excluding the actual victims from having a say. The fact that she has an Ethiopian daughter doesn't make her black nor allows her to talk about racism first hand. Who knows whether her daughter would have formulated herself differently?


BUT what you did is completely snip all that context about current racism, pretending it didn't exist.

I did no such thing.

Then, you appear to have fabricated a different context to the statement about historical slavery in the US which we can infer from your commentary about centuries-old historical slavery in Ethiopia.

If you get offended because of how your ancestors were historically treated, you better have ancestors who have been a victim of what you claim. Historically, East Africans were slavers rather than slaves. Ie ethnically Cushite rather than Bantu.

It's a bit rich when East Africans try to get on the BLM bandwagon. While people with Ethiopian heritage might live in USA, be poor, and be the victim of racism, they're poor for different reasons than those who are decedents of slaves. Black Americans decedent of slaves have lived for generations in the most affluent country on Earth (richer than any other country ever has been in world history) yet have been artificially kept back. They have valid reasons to be angry with white people. While Ethiopians are poor because the Ethiopian royal family stubbornly held on to a medieval style rural feudalism well into the modern age because they were afraid that any change might threaten their hold on power.

Ethiopia was never a colony other than very briefly under Italy. They can't really claim any kind of victimhood from white people.

If Ethiopians want to cry about ancestral mistreatment they can only blame other black people. Which doesn't fit into the BLM narrative.

Let's not forget Nigeria In the 1970 to 2000. A fascist nationalist government dominated by Yoruba and characterized by ethnic mistreatment of non-Yoruba. Since it was black people oppressing black people the international community became confused and gave them a free pass. Focusing all the efforts on stopping a similar kind of government in South Africa... the Apartheid regime.

Simplified stories are simplified. They risk us becoming stupid. If we just blindly swallow woke narratives without speaking up we'll all become dumber.

Your ranting about history has absolutely nothing to do with the quote that you are using to quote-mine the mother.

The mother said that she has two daughters, one who is White and one who is adopted and Ethiopian. She said that their CURRENT experiences in the school system are vastly different because of CURRENT RACIST INCIDENTS.

The article and additional articles go into big detail on some of the CURRENT RACIST INCIDENTS in the CURRENT SCHOOL SYSTEM.

You keep harping on history in Ethiopia, taking a very small phrase the mother uttered out of context and applying it to something she didn't say about history.

Yes, unfortunately for you, that is QUOTE-MINING.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
No, I didn't. Read it a bit more carefully. Pay attention to who is bringing up the collective guilt

So when you said:

Here's something that I reacted to. "my daughter is Ethiopian". WTF does she think the Ethiopian kingdom did to make money back in the day? It was sending tribal Bantu captives as slaves to Rome, the Ottoman kingdom and used them as labour in their plantations.

Hey, lady your daughter is just as fucking historically tainted by slavery as white people. Her playing the victim card here is amazingly insensitive to all the victims of slavery. Back the fuck off.

… that's not tarring the child with collective guilt? You have no idea of her background or ancestry. Just that she's Ethiopian and therefore guilty of slavery.

No, I didn't. The mother said that leaflets about bringing back slavery is a dig at her Ethiopian daughter. That's collectivism. I took the moms logic and showed how stupid it is
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Not in this case.

As usual, you are mistaken. Whether or not anyone should have an idealogy is irrelevant to the fact that they do.

Axioms are ideological beliefs. All knowledge, understanding, and belief rests in a bedrock of axiomatic system.

Axioms are beliefs, and are necessarily ideological.

Saying one does not have beliefs is nonsensical.

On the other hand, "not worshipping things"... That's fairly easy.

Axioms are either self-evidently true or are effectively non-provable in the context of the mathematical proof. Outside of mathematics, axioms can be treated as assumptions provisionally accepted as true because there is no counter argument and no contradiction inherent in them.

Beliefs have no requirement to be self-evidently true, nor are they provisionary assumptions. They are tenets not axioms.

That said, many ideologies *treat* their tenets as *axiomatic*. They assume them to be true and present them as facts. But they are not actually axioms.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
Not in this case.

As usual, you are mistaken. Whether or not anyone should have an idealogy is irrelevant to the fact that they do.

Axioms are ideological beliefs. All knowledge, understanding, and belief rests in a bedrock of axiomatic system.

Axioms are beliefs, and are necessarily ideological.

Saying one does not have beliefs is nonsensical.

On the other hand, "not worshipping things"... That's fairly easy.

Axioms are either self-evidently true or are effectively non-provable in the context of the mathematical proof. Outside of mathematics, axioms can be treated as assumptions provisionally accepted as true because there is no counter argument and no contradiction inherent in them.

Beliefs have no requirement to be self-evidently true, nor are they provisionary assumptions. They are tenets not axioms.

That said, many ideologies *treat* their tenets as *axiomatic*. They assume them to be true and present them as facts. But they are not actually axioms.

Are you kidding! LOL!

How long have you been here watching the littany of Christians "looking for challenge" pass through claiming that they believe their beliefs because of how those beliefs make them feel, because they are "self evident" or even because they are "self reinforcing"?

If someone basis their worldview off of it, and it rests on nothing, it is an axiom.knterestingly, some axioms are circular to the other axioms, and that circularity impugns the axiom that creates it and the whole system in which it is "necessary' as being, itself, one that necessarily involves fallacy.

This is why Occam's Razor was first proposed, a.ong other purely philosophical observations.

You think a system of reality that operates first and foremost with mathematical precision and perfection is not itself limited by those very rules of math?
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Axioms are either self-evidently true or are effectively non-provable in the context of the mathematical proof. Outside of mathematics, axioms can be treated as assumptions provisionally accepted as true because there is no counter argument and no contradiction inherent in them.

Beliefs have no requirement to be self-evidently true, nor are they provisionary assumptions. They are tenets not axioms.

That said, many ideologies *treat* their tenets as *axiomatic*. They assume them to be true and present them as facts. But they are not actually axioms.

Are you kidding! LOL!

How long have you been here watching the littany of Christians "looking for challenge" pass through claiming that they believe their beliefs because of how those beliefs make them feel, because they are "self evident" or even because they are "self reinforcing"?

If someone basis their worldview off of it, and it rests on nothing, it is an axiom.knterestingly, some axioms are circular to the other axioms, and that circularity impugns the axiom that creates it and the whole system in which it is "necessary' as being, itself, one that necessarily involves fallacy.

This is why Occam's Razor was first proposed, a.ong other purely philosophical observations.

You think a system of reality that operates first and foremost with mathematical precision and perfection is not itself limited by those very rules of math?

Um... no. You're simply wrong. Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
Axioms are either self-evidently true or are effectively non-provable in the context of the mathematical proof. Outside of mathematics, axioms can be treated as assumptions provisionally accepted as true because there is no counter argument and no contradiction inherent in them.

Beliefs have no requirement to be self-evidently true, nor are they provisionary assumptions. They are tenets not axioms.

That said, many ideologies *treat* their tenets as *axiomatic*. They assume them to be true and present them as facts. But they are not actually axioms.

Are you kidding! LOL!

How long have you been here watching the littany of Christians "looking for challenge" pass through claiming that they believe their beliefs because of how those beliefs make them feel, because they are "self evident" or even because they are "self reinforcing"?

If someone basis their worldview off of it, and it rests on nothing, it is an axiom.knterestingly, some axioms are circular to the other axioms, and that circularity impugns the axiom that creates it and the whole system in which it is "necessary' as being, itself, one that necessarily involves fallacy.

This is why Occam's Razor was first proposed, a.ong other purely philosophical observations.

You think a system of reality that operates first and foremost with mathematical precision and perfection is not itself limited by those very rules of math?

Um... no. You're simply wrong. Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is.

""You are wrong"

"[Provides no arguments]"

Something presented without evidence, dismissed without evidence.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Um... no. You're simply wrong. Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is.

""You are wrong"

"[Provides no arguments]"

Something presented without evidence, dismissed without evidence.

:rolleyes: I gave you definitions and meanings of the terms axiom and belief. I highlighted the key ways in which they differ. You responded by scoffing and making some strange claim to christians and then proceeded to dismiss what I said out of hand.

I've done what I could, I provided you the information. If you reject it for inside-your-head reasons, there's not much more I can do. Go look into it and learn the meanings of the terms, and the contexts in which they apply. Until then, you will simply remain wrong.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
Um... no. You're simply wrong. Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is.

""You are wrong"

"[Provides no arguments]"

Something presented without evidence, dismissed without evidence.

:rolleyes: I gave you definitions and meanings of the terms axiom and belief. I highlighted the key ways in which they differ. You responded by scoffing and making some strange claim to christians and then proceeded to dismiss what I said out of hand.

I've done what I could, I provided you the information. If you reject it for inside-your-head reasons, there's not much more I can do. Go look into it and learn the meanings of the terms, and the contexts in which they apply. Until then, you will simply remain wrong.

No, you said "Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is."

You did NOT: back up this with an actual definition (which would not support your argument), nor justify the meaning or worth of this definition against my usage, nor justify how my usage is inappropriate with that definition of did not give.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
:rolleyes: I gave you definitions and meanings of the terms axiom and belief. I highlighted the key ways in which they differ. You responded by scoffing and making some strange claim to christians and then proceeded to dismiss what I said out of hand.

I've done what I could, I provided you the information. If you reject it for inside-your-head reasons, there's not much more I can do. Go look into it and learn the meanings of the terms, and the contexts in which they apply. Until then, you will simply remain wrong.

No, you said "Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is."

You did NOT: back up this with an actual definition (which would not support your argument), nor justify the meaning or worth of this definition against my usage, nor justify how my usage is inappropriate with that definition of did not give.

Neither did you! You just made up something that is not in keeping with the general usage of the terms and then claimed it as the "right" definition! You didn't provide any references for your redesigned language either, Humpty Dumpty!

I don't suppose I should be surprised though. You seem to frequently redefine common terms to mean new and exciting things that only you understand, and then you declare people who use those terms in the commonly accepted fashion to be wrong.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
:rolleyes: I gave you definitions and meanings of the terms axiom and belief. I highlighted the key ways in which they differ. You responded by scoffing and making some strange claim to christians and then proceeded to dismiss what I said out of hand.

I've done what I could, I provided you the information. If you reject it for inside-your-head reasons, there's not much more I can do. Go look into it and learn the meanings of the terms, and the contexts in which they apply. Until then, you will simply remain wrong.

No, you said "Go find a dictionary, do some reading, and come back when you understand what an axiom is."

You did NOT: back up this with an actual definition (which would not support your argument), nor justify the meaning or worth of this definition against my usage, nor justify how my usage is inappropriate with that definition of did not give.

Neither did you! You just made up something that is not in keeping with the general usage of the terms and then claimed it as the "right" definition! You didn't provide any references for your redesigned language either, Humpty Dumpty!

I don't suppose I should be surprised though. You seem to frequently redefine common terms to mean new and exciting things that only you understand, and then you declare people who use those terms in the commonly accepted fashion to be wrong.

Ok, than you should have no problem demonstrating from principle why "beliefs" are not fundamentally axiomatic in their operation.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
So when you said:



… that's not tarring the child with collective guilt? You have no idea of her background or ancestry. Just that she's Ethiopian and therefore guilty of slavery.

No, I didn't. The mother said that leaflets about bringing back slavery is a dig at her Ethiopian daughter. That's collectivism. I took the moms logic and showed how stupid it is

If you say so. :rolleyes:
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.
 
Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

The new draconian laws are really covered in another thread. Here is a link:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...islation-for-Classrooms-to-Stifle-Free-Speech

The whole CRT thing is really the Reich wing using hyperbole etc to fight against anti-racism but also make it seem like it's a massive communist conspiracy. The laws also go way too far and make fragile parents (who are the targets of conservative propaganda) think when their white children are alleged to feel guilty that laws are being broken. From the other thread, I'd recommend reading this post in particular to catch up:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...le-Free-Speech&p=940651&viewfull=1#post940651
 

Elixir

Content Thief
I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

Republicans... I was unaware of that as well, and also unaware there was massive fraud in the 2020 election, necessitating the passage of hundreds of laws intended to suppress the vote. But the GQP is making its living passing laws against shit that isn't being done, in the hope that they can scare people with the implication that those things are in fact being done.

Republican voters are so easy to scare, it's scary.

If it's not the Others taking their jobs and indoctrinating their chilluns, it's the homegrown socialist commies trying to take their bread money and give it to the lazy black guy selling crack on the streetcorner, or killing their dreams of becoming billionaires by taxing the rich.
Correspondence with any actual facts isn't needed, and may actually detract from the desired effect, since facts are rarely as stark as the fictitious pictures they so strenuously try to paint.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

It doesn't, of course. Indeed, I can't imagine any social scientist so much as using a phrase like "members of a race" the way this law does, semi-personified and monolithic. But none of this has ever been about the actual theory, which the legislators involved know very little about. What the proponents of these laws want is to stifle critical conversations about race, slavery, and the American Indian genocides by characterizing anyone who discusses white supremacist ideology and its effects as attacking white children for their skin color. This is why you have the dogwhistling about blame at the end, which makes it a judgment call about whether a child "feels blamed" for white supremacist actions in the past, rather than a question of what was actually in the curriculum to begin with.

This isn't an honest conversation we're having here. If liberal legislators had created a law that threatened jail time for anyone who advocates the superiority of one race over another, American conservatives would have been furious, screaming about liberal fascism and thought crimes and the first amendment and tyranny in the classrooms. But they're fine when their own side does it, because they know these laws will not be used to fight institutional racism.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

It does not mean that.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Ok so I’m coming late to this party but yesterday the Alabama Board of Education passed the following teaching ban:

no state education agency, local education agency, or school should train any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee, or teach any student, to believe that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; that members of one race or sex cannot, or should not attempt to, treat others disrespectfully due to race or sex; or that fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex solely or partly because of their race or sex;

The governor promptly tweeted that CRT had been banned from our schools.

Does this in fact ban the teaching of important key elements of CRT? I was unaware that CRT advocated the superiority of one race or even that people are guilty of some misdeeds merely because of their race.

Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

How so? Teaching that discrimination exists is a far cry from teaching that one sex or race is superior to another.
 
Note that this means you can't teach about discrimination.

How so? Teaching that discrimination exists is a far cry from teaching that one sex or race is superior to another.

Emphasis added. This was discussed in the other thread, which is about the actual legislation.

You are rephrasing the law into things it doesn't say. It doesn't say teaching THAT one race is superior is illegal. The actual text amounts to inclusion of the concept in teaching is illegal. See the difference? Also, the topic of the legislation is in another thread, not this one.

From the other thread:
Don2 said:
... it states "...make part of a course the following concepts...." which means INCLUDE, not TEACH as a truth.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
I came by this short video of Putin making this short speech about wokeness and it seemed appropriate for this thread. President Putin's own words about how he believes western PC culture and wokeness amounts to crimes against humanity. Appearing to be hyperbole....until you actually fit this in the context of Soviet history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHpt4gB0-Mw

Putin said:
"The advocates of so-called "social progress" believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say and go right ahead! The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all because Russia has been there already."

I agree with what Putin had to say. And I did not know this before, but the Bolshevik were a very "woke" movement during Lenins revolution. That's just not something I learned in my history class at grammer school. They say history does not always repeat itself but it does seem to rhyme. And this time it is looking to be the "woke" US instead of the "woke" USSR.
 
Top Bottom