[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




President Donald Trump has cracked down on the Centers for Disease Control reported decision to disobey a directive defunding federal diversity training seminars that utilize critical race theory.

On Sept. 4, Trump’s administration announced its decision to cancel and defund training seminars within federal agencies that teach government employees critical race theory.

Critical race theory is a theoretical and interpretive philosophy taught at various universities that instructs individuals to see racism as something that has infected every aspect of American culture.

Additionally, CRT assumes that those problems can primarily be solved through social activism and a reorganization of society.

Despite Trump’s order, the Discovery Institute’s Christopher Rufo, an investigative reporter, revealed the CDC was purportedly moving forward with a 13-week critical race theory program.

TRENDING: Fred Weinberg: Trump Just Shoved a Hockey Stick Down Dem Gov. Sisolak's Throat

Rufo released via Twitter CDC diversity training documents that he said were given to him by a disgruntled whistleblower.

The documents claim that “racism is a public health crisis” and imply that “systemic racism” — a theory heavily criticized for its vague definition — is responsible for “police killings of unarmed Black and Brown men and women.”

They also push the notion that values such as a “focus on the individual,” the “myth of meritocracy” and the “myth of American exceptionalism” are “societal barriers to achieving health equity.”

According to Rufo, the final session of the seminar was set to teach CDC employees how they could become activists promoting the tenets of critical race theory.
https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-shuts-cdcs-critical-race-theory-seminars-cdc-disobeys-order/
>>
On Tuesday, Russ Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the training had been canceled.

Trump confirmed in a later tweet that the seminar had, in fact, been “STOPPED.”

When the administration first announced its decision to defund critical race theory seminars, Vought explained in a memo why the president had made this decision.

“It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda,” Vought wrote.

“For example, according to press reports, employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that ‘virtually all White people contribute to racism’ or where they are required to say that they ‘benefit from racism.’

“According to press reports, in some cases these training[s] have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job,” added the memo, which was issued at Trump’s direction.

Vought also asserted that these training seminars were a clear example of “un-American propaganda.”

“We can be proud that as an employer, the Federal government has employees of all races, ethnicities, and religions. We can be proud that Americans from all over the country seek to join our workforce and dedicate themselves to public service,” he said.

“We can be proud of our continued efforts to welcome all individuals who seek to serve their fellow Americans as Federal employees,” Vought continued.

“However, we cannot accept our employees receiving training that seeks to undercut our core values as Americans and drive division within our workforce,” he said.
>>
This is old news that was posted about here weeks ago.
also westernjournal.com isn't a real news source
>>
>>692861
>President Donald Trump has cracked down on the Centers for Disease Control reported decision to disobey a directive defunding federal diversity training seminars that utilize critical race theory.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1305576816803938304

This is an update the CDC was refusing to comply it has now been stopped.
>>
If anyone has trouble understanding the main issue with CRT, its that any disagreement with the theory, a theory which isn't based on any empirical evidence and is simply philosophy, is labelled as racist and the dissenter is ostracized for daring to suggest that CRT may not be true. Its not the kind of defense that a robust theory requires, and its not the kind of tactic that supporters of an open discussion use. Its a tool to squash opposition. If CRT were valid, it would win debates, not avoid them. It would prove itself instead of seeking to force its acceptance.
>>
>>692867
If whites didn't want to pay the price then the shouldn't have been slavers. This next generation belongs to people of color. Maybe if you play nice we won't hurt you in the process.
>>
>>692856
>CDC wasting time on commie bullshit is a good thing
The absolute state of Trump haters
>>
>>693055
How many white people are even left in America at this point? The last time I was in America, i mostly saw people of color.
>>
>>693055
If blacks don't want to be slaughtered when the Whitoid is finally extinct you'll cut the shit. The rest of us don't have any reason to feel bad for you, and your constant fucking slurs are gonna get you killed.

Remember what happened at the start of these protests when you tried to fuck with Asians, Latinos, Arabs, Italians, basically any people other than Anglo/Germanics. You stopped. Immediately.
>>
>>693069
1619 bitch.
>>
>>693099
Mexicans have no ability to fight.we would wipe the floor with you. How many black drill surgents do you see? Now how many Mexicons? Yall are like 5 feet tall bro. Blacks are built like men, not boys.
>>
>>693102
1776 commie
>>
>>693103
So walk in and take Mexico then bitch.

>"We're so much better then them" he types, despite the fact he'd lose any fight against a decently athletic teenager of any race.
>>
>>693103
>Mexicans cannot fight
How do you explain Mexican boxers wrecking black boxers all the time? Or Mexican gangs destroying black gangs all the time?
>>
>>693102
You mean when Anthony Johnson set the precedent for slavery bu refusing to release John Casor from his indentured servitude following following completion of his term? Black men brought slavery to the US.
>>
>>692856
CRT is a scam blacks and (((fellow whites))) use to threaten business. Buy my pointless training or we will cause a media shitstorm and accuse you of being nazis.
>>
>>692856
When did critical race theory start? I only heard about it when Trump banned it
>>
>>693179
It started in 1987 at Harvard
>>
>>693179
1930's berlin
>>
>>692867
This is the main issue. I'm fine with all kinds of academic theories - the more the merrier - but they need to be able to stand on their own legs, or they're worthless. If I put forth a hypothesis, it's expected that I'll defend it and acknowledge any inconsistencies that I'm not able to account for. To do otherwise would be to take a big fat shit on everything I hold to be worthwhile (pursuit of truth, generally speaking). To shut down any argument or disagreement with literal ad hominem, whataboutism, other deflections is to remove it from the realm of academic theory and firmly recategorize it as religion. This doesn't help us move toward freedom and justice for all, it boxes people in categories and discourages them from having their own identity, and by requiring solidarity and uniformity, it ends up being hostile to actual diversity. You don't cure hatred with hatred, that's not how the world works, and by trying to enforce and codify morality it ends up making the concept of morality meaningless and ineffectual.
>>
>>692867
>If anyone has trouble understanding the main issue with CRT, its that any disagreement with the theory, a theory which isn't based on any empirical evidence and is simply philosophy, is labelled as racist and the dissenter is ostracized for daring to suggest that CRT may not be true.
This is my favorite line that reactionaries use - they spew ridiculous, anti-intellectual bullshit which runs contrary to socioeconomic data and then when they're called on it they do this pearl clutching victim routine where they wail and lament over how unfair it is that society at large would dare ostracize them for being fucking retarded in public.

Its more than reasonable to debate and or criticize certain aspects of CRT but to say that its some subjective science with a hardline yay or nay consensus that you're not allowed to speak out against is just right-wing victim baiting bullshit. Its a socioeconomic fact that the American life is statistically skewed along racial lines. Its a socioeconomic fact that minorities have been absolutely brutalized by socioeconomic policy in America. We have it measured and documented. It just isn't even up for debate. Nobody is shutting down good-faith interlocutors who want to discuss the finer aspects of CRT. Nobody is shutting down well constructed, thoughtful, fact based engagements about race relations in America. That's just a far-right reactionary talking point based in hysterical delusion - nazis and troll posters taking turns cry-jerking because people are mean to them when they spew racist /pol/ memes in public.
>>
Report any federal employee, federal organization, or any other organization which receives federal funding (this includes Fairfax County public schools) which is engaging in critical race theory (or anything similar) to FEDalerts@omb.eop.gov
Critical race theory is banned from the federal government and from federally funded organizations by executive order
The OMB director has appealed to the general public for assistance on this matter: https://twitter.com/RussVought45/status/1306386119412641795
>>
>>693251
You're literally doing it right now by accusing me of being a racist nazi for not accepting your interpretation of the facts.
>It just isn't even up for debate
See how CRTists don't want to debate the premise of their theory.
>Nobody is shutting down good-faith interlocutors who want to discuss the finer aspects of CRT.
I'm not interested in the minutiae of a theory that I think is bogus, I disagree with the fundamental premise of CRT and apparently that makes me a racist nazi. How convenient that CRT has a built in way to shut down those who don't accept its explanation for the data.
You're pulling a motte-and-bailey where you claim to address the economic disparity of the races, but then you push an assortment of other ideas as the causes of that disparity. You take it for granted that only CRT's framework fits the facts, and any alternative is demonized as racism.
>>
>>693265
>let's pretend there is serious debate
Not him but you're doing the same 'teach the controversy' bullshit that most right wingers do.
>>
>>693256
>Critical race theory is banned from the federal government and from federally funded organizations by executive order
>by executive order
>by executive order
So it's not really banned. Got it.
>>
>>693268
Biologists welcomed debate from creationists and didn't demonize them. Scientists came to accept natural selection after it faced scrutiny and testing. CRTists write off their opponents as racist nazis. Shutting down disagreement and forcing consensus isn't in line with the scientific method, and CRT isn't a scientific theory. The two controversies are incomparable.
>>
>>693281
Telling you how wrong you are isn't "shutting down disagreement" like you think it is.
>>
>>693283
Asserting that someone is wrong and calling them a racist is shutting down disagreement.
>>
>>693117
With boxers that's our thinnest of men. Thee are no Mexican heavyweights. With gang we are outnumbered. One to one we dominate, but Mexicon gang up and dog pile yiu. One on one they run away like the 5 foot boys they are
>>
>>693265
>You're literally doing it right now by accusing me of being a racist nazi for not accepting your interpretation of the facts.
You're very poor at reading. I never called you anything. Its funny how I mention that the "omg I'm getting shut down" position is mostly held by pearl-clutching dipshits with who say stupid shit then want play the victim when they're rightly criticized and you immediately made yourself a victim.

>See how CRTists don't want to debate the premise of their theory.
The validity of the socioeconomic data isn't really up for debate. We have two centuries of it and it all follows a very consistent logic, causative conclusion. The socioeconomic data isn't a theory. Its conclusive facts. How you want to interpret these facts or how much of an effect they play on modern issues is absolutely up for debate. The entire concept of multivariate regression analysis is built on the idea that few things that happen in our world have one single cause

>I'm not interested in the minutiae of a theory that I think is bogus, I disagree with the fundamental premise of CRT
Then you disagree with reality. The fundamental premise of CRT is that race is a massively influential factor which contributes to significant delineations in socioeconomic data. You disagree with reality because you're a giant, anti-intellectual snowflake who refuses to engage with science that makes you feel bad.

>You're pulling a motte-and-bailey where you claim to address the economic disparity of the races, but then you push an assortment of other ideas as the causes of that disparity.
This is a strawman. I haven't pushed any assortment of ideas in this entire post.

>that makes me a racist nazi
You're literally just making things up to get upset over. I never called you a racist nazi but you so effortlessly fell into the role of victim and started crying like a bitch. You proved my point amazingly.
>>
>>693292
>gaslighting this hard
You keep arguing from authority, asserting that those who do not buy your theory are really denying facts. You call dissenters anti-intellectual snowflakes. You're a transparent ideologue.
>>
>>693286
>implying black people don't also gang up on someone to ensure victory when possible
>implying this behavior is somehow racial and not an extension of a primordial human self preservation drive
>>
>>693055
>If whites didn't want to pay the price then the shouldn't have been slavers.
Who in the world weren't slavers back then?
>>
We are witness to the unfuckening of this country. Leftist take note. Your time is OVER.
>>
>>692856
>Critical race theory is a theoretical and interpretive philosophy taught at various universities that instructs individuals to see racism as something that has infected every aspect of American culture.
In other words, anti-American hogwash that only exists to vilify white people and incite violence towards them
>>
>>692867
You're a racist and a dissenter.
>>
>>694082
Boo fucking hoo, cry more you redditor, as if racism is a negative aspect to anyone but spineless faggots and shitskins.
>>
there is no such thing as racism
earned reputation however is a very real thing
>>
>>693220
>I'll defend it and acknowledge any inconsistencies that I'm not able to account for.
What makes you think they don't do that.
Obviously 4chan isn't the pinnacle of intellectuals, but everything so far about this since trump brought it up has been just actual racism.
Of course you aren't actually interested in any discussion, as shown by dismissing racism as existing in reality, even in academic theories.
>>
>>694091
>everything so far about this since trump brought it up has been just actual racism.
Such as?
>>
>>694092
>>693069
>>
>>693103
>Mexicans have no ability to fight.we would wipe the floor with you. How many black drill surgents do you see? Now how many Mexicons? Yall are like 5 feet tall bro. Blacks are built like men, not boys.

Remember at the start of these protests when you tried to fuck with Latinos? You stopped. Because you were stopped.

Because nobody, other than whites, lets you get away with your shit.
>>
>>694087
>he says as middle schoolers call black people niggers
>>
>>694159
>>he says as middle schoolers call black people niggers
They literally learned it from black people
>>
>>693292
>The validity of the socioeconomic data isn't really up for debate
Yes it is, it always is.
>The socioeconomic data isn't a theory. Its conclusive facts.
No, it's not facts. It's an interpretation. You don't know what facts are if you think socio- anything has any objective factual basis.
>The fundamental premise of CRT is that race is a massively influential factor which contributes to significant delineations in socioeconomic data.
Cool, now you get to prove it. Show us the supposed facts of your supposed empirical field of study.
>>
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-critical-race-theory-federal-government
>>
>>692856
Damn he still had a couple more based things in him.
>>
>>694201
Critical Theory as a whole only exists because the dumb commies in the 60s couldn't pass history, sociology, anthropology classes because the facts didn't align with what needed to be true for communism to triumph. This eventually played out when the Soviet Union fell, to the surprise of no one except the Critical Theorist, who now had to come up with yet another explanation for why the workers worldwide revolution hadn't happened yet.
>>693179
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
>>
>>694121
Pussy
>>
>>693281
>Biologists welcomed debate from creationists and didn't demonize them. Scientists came to accept natural selection after it faced scrutiny and testing.

And yet we still have dumbasses demanding that creationism be taught alongside (or even in place of) evolution in school. This is what that other anon meant by "teach the controversy bullshit", just because multiple views on a subject exist does not mean they are all equally valid or worthy of respect. They should not be given the same weight.
>>
>>694548
The problem is, Critical Theory and Sociology overlap, they're literally alternatives to one another. Sociologists are constrained by math, historical record, proper methods for conducting and interpreting surveys and interviews. Critical Theorists start with the presumption that there is something wrong with society that needs to be fixed, finds a problem (which always turns out to be capitalism), and then encourages activism amoung it's "students" (which always turns out to be communism). Critical Theory is much closer to Creationism than Evolution.
>>
>>694548
I never suggested that all views be given the same weight.
>>
>>694548
creationism: god created retards for the lulz
natural selection: jews evolved to poison their competitors with fluoride, promote dysgenics, and sabotage the science and education systems of their rivals
>>
>>694543
>Pussy

Now you're speaking my language. Pussy. Its what brings life into this Earth. Its what comforts a hard throbbing ribbed cock. And it's what provides the meaning of life to some men.

"What is the meaning of all of this?" Big Jim inquires to his massage client.

>She opens her legs then grabs the back of his head by his hair and pushes it into her vagina. "Right here. Make it squirt for a bonus."
>>
>>692856
Strange world we live in where liberals support something called "critical race theory"
>>
>>692867
Like most "left-wing truths," they find it so important to the fabric of society (and getting their way) that they simply can't afford to be wrong, therefore don't allow anything that might show them to be.
>>
>>693055
based
>>
>>694647
>>693055
Would you prefer a US in which blacks didn't exist then?
>>
>>694641
It doesn't matter what it means, what matters is how it's employed. And disagreement with it is treated as racism and idiocy, as proven by your immediate hostility.

So fuck you.
>>
>>694641
>attempting persuasive redefinition
CRT is a particular ideology, not just the literal meaning of the three words put together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
>>
>>693099
>Italians

I see what you did there.
>>
>>694665
Maybe if "arguments" against weren't just racist idiots there would be something to argue about.
>>
>>694695
"Racist idiots" are still a thing you have to argue with. If your arguments don't even stand up to "racist idiots," why should they be taught?
>>
>>693251
Social sciences aren't real sciences because you fags just come up with random ideological bullshit then try to rationalize it into being real.
Fuck off
>>
>>694709
The argument against those are to dismiss them on its face.
So...done.
>>
>>693251
>Its a socioeconomic fact that the American life is statistically skewed along racial lines
And if the only point of view allowed is "it's white peoples' fault" then you're not being intellectually honest
> Its a socioeconomic fact that minorities have been absolutely brutalized by socioeconomic policy in America. We have it measured and documented. It just isn't even up for debate.
And yet at least 3 minorities (asians, indians, and jews) succeed beyond whites and others (blacks, hispanics) are given preference over whites and still fail. Coincidentally, this all follows the lines of average IQ, but we aren't allowed to bring that up in this academic, intellectual discussion, are we?
> Nobody is shutting down good-faith interlocutors who want to discuss the finer aspects of CRT. Nobody is shutting down well constructed, thoughtful, fact based engagements about race relations in America
When you say "good faith," what exactly do you mean? It seems that when someone brings up a particular point that may not be kind to the sort of people who push CRT, it's labeled "hateful rhetoric" and banned without comment.
>>
>>694711
In that case, you lose the argument under the most basic, disgraceful logical fallacy
>>
>>694714
Your feelings are not an argument, cuck.
>>
>>694715
And your feelings being hurt doesn't invalidate anyone else's arguments
>>
>>694716
Exactly. Your feelings don't invalidate the crt arguments.
So make an argument or stop whining.
>>
>>693055
Lol, no white person alive has ever owned a slave, no black person alive has ever been a slave, maybe, if you stop vandalising, burning and looting buildings, you will not be deported after the november election.
>>
>>694719
I never argued that the opposition to CRT were my own raw emotions. I'm saying CRT needs to be able to withstand uncensored academic debate, not just "dismiss them on their face." Don't you agree?
>>
>>694724
>what racism
>what racism?
How are modern whites, who have never owned slaves and have grown up in a society that enforces toleration beeing racist?
If you fail highschcool, colledge, get sent to prison, it is your job to prove your merit to employers, despite your self-inflicted handicaps.
>>
>>694739
Answer him
>>
>>694725
You are either arguing with a troll or a woman.
>>
>>694725
There is no academic debate.
Glad we got that covered.
>>
>>694742
Whatever I'm arguing with, it's a pussy that runs away from any direct challenge
>>
>>694742
or a literal namefag. when did we stop hating them on principle?
>>
>>694747
Hypothetically, at least, you agree that CRT should be rigorous enough to withstand academic debate that may be presented, yes? You agree with that, right? Surely you're not arguing CRT should be regarded as unconditional truth
>>
>>694750
No, I don't.
Nothing is required to withstand anything.
Bait harder fuckboy.
>>
>>694751
*screenshots post*
All I was waiting for
>>
>>694748
The reason it is illegal to beat women isn't because they don't deserve it (they do) nor is it because it is easy (due to their physical weakness). It is illegal to beat women because they are halfwit followers and will imitate and follow you if you lead them. They are not responsible for their actions.
>>
>>694754
And there we go. You were never interested in an argument, just " winning".
Pathetic. But expected.
>>
>>694756
>You were never interested in an argument
You say this right after saying you refuse to acknowledge opposition to CRT
>>
>>694759
You keep saying there's these other arguments. They so totally exist and a real and are arguments.
And yet, you don't post even hints of them.
I can't acknowledge your schizophrenia as an argument.
Do your part. I'm waiting for many posts for it.
>>
>>694762
I even asked hypothetically, if there were arguments against it, if it would be necessary to consider and respond to them, just to see if you'd even be open to the idea, and you said, and I quote
>No
>Nothing is required to withstand anything
>>
>>694763
So no argument? Just dancing like the fool I called you out as?
>>
>>694767
The beauty of it is I don't even need to have an argument after admitted that you'd be unwilling to consider one anyway
>>
>>694768
How's it feel to lose an argument when the other side wasn't even playing?
>>
>>694770
Show me where
>>
>>694771
I do enjoy when you get so blasted that you deny parts of the thread that even you quoted.
Here, have a shovel. Dig yourself deeper into your insanity.
>>
>>694772
Show me where
>>
>>694773
Do the abject denial more. Maybe the literal string mismatches? Meaning doesn't matter, only unicode character order.
Or maybe the mind reader? Where what was posted wasn't what you meant?
Dance for me.
>>
>>694774
Show me where
>>
{ Disclaimer: I use the word ,, fool '' as a term of endearment. }
>>694774 [ Fool_A ]
lmao just read the whole exchange between this fool and this guy ( No.>>694775 ) [ Fool_B ] --
Fool_A literally says to Fool_B he doesn't agree that CRT should be rigorous enough to withstand academic debate that may be presented.
Fool_A also says: ,, Nothing is required to withstand anything. ''.
Is this person serious or trolling or what? Because I swear to God I have been slowly realizing that there are literally fools on the internet who speak as if they are quite literally preaching objective truth -- when in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth.
What is up with this recent phenomenon of fools being just downright fanatic zealots having ego-trip during online discourse?
Props to Fool_B for being rational:
>> I even asked hypothetically, if there were arguments against it, if it would be necessary to consider and respond to them, just to see if you'd even be open to the idea, and you said, and I quote
>No
>Nothing is required to withstand anything
>>
>>694779
Only the most real hypotheticals get props apparently.
>>
>>694780
lmao dude you might be too far gone -- I don't understand the message you are attempting to communicate with me -- Your point isn't that all Trump supporters aren't chill is it? Or is your point that all Trump supporters are ,, fanatic zealots having ego-trip ''? To be quite fair, this description is apt for many people today. Trump supporters, Biden supporters, BLM supporters, re-open supporters, and so on. Do you have anything worth saying for me to be worth reading?
>>
>>694782
Could you please clarify the point you are making? You sarcastic when you say ,, real hypotheticals ''? Or? ( I just don't understand your post… )
>>
>>694779
>Is this person serious or trolling or what?
Lurk this board for a while. Every liberal here is like this.
>>
>>694784
The guy has said throughout the thread that his complaint is criticisms of crt are ignored as just racism and idiots.
I want him to post what he believes is a valid criticism.
He won't do so.
He is an idiot.
He complains I'm dismissing him as an idiot.
I am.
>>
>>694789
And if he did so, you would have a discussion about it?
Start with this >>694713
>>
>>694794
He claims lighter minorities do better than darker minorities, then acts like that's somehow anything but confirming crt.
I guess if we start with that post, then we're done as it's been accepted as true.
>>
>>694803
That's not an answer to the post, that's another roundabout way of saying "racism, can't touch it"
>>
>>694806
I answered it fine, it just wasn't falling for the racial bait.
Get fucked.
>>
>>694807
You didn't even begin to address the point raised. You rephrased it in a contemptuous way and then dismissed it as you earlier said you would. You've got one more chance to redeem yourself.
>>
>>694809
>You didn't even begin to address the point raised.
>You rephrased it
Cry more.
>>
>>694766
>gibble gibberish
>muh racism
Wat?
>>
>>693251
>>693292
can you show me the "socioeconomic data" that proves all white people are inherently evil and don't deserve rights because everything bad that happens is due to how fragile and shitty white people are?
Because that's CRT in a nutshell you racist asshole. Show me the socioeconomic data that says MY TAXES should pay for government employees to be told they need to pledge to fight their own "white fragility" and other anti-white bullshit like that.
>>
Thank God. Someone has to put an end to this racism insanity
>>
>>693055
Cool it with the antisemitism, Sambo
>>
>>693251
> Its a socioeconomic fact that minorities have been absolutely brutalized by socioeconomic policy in America. We have it measured and documented. It just isn't even up for debate. Nobody is shutting down good-faith interlocutors who want to discuss the finer aspects of CRT. Nobody is shutting down well constructed, thoughtful, fact based engagements about race relations in America. That's just a far-right reactionary talking point based in hysterical delusion - nazis and troll posters taking turns cry-jerking because people are mean to them when they spew racist /pol/ memes in public.

How have " minorities have been absolutely brutalized by socioeconomic policy in America"?
Did slaves or prisoners have to worry about starving to death on the streets like the free man?
Why is share cropping bad, if a white guy in canada (urban farmer on youtube) has recently had so much success?
Based on your own objections, why would minorities want to work for an existing corporation or activist? Instead wouldn't minorities be able to avoid exploitation by using capitalism to pull their money together to start their own business? Is the only reason you want more minorities to work for a corporation or activist group, so you can exploit them?


Whats the difference between race realism & critical race theory?
>>
>>693173
/thread
>>
>>698403
>Did slaves or prisoners have to worry about starving to death on the streets like the free man?
Are you retarded?
>>
>>698403
Prisoners, sometimes. Not sure about early US, but people in prisons historically were fed by their families, or at least supplemented.

Slaves historically a little bit malnourishment to keep their energy levels low during transport was a thing.
>>
>>698428
Slaves were fed and clothed by their owner. A poor free man had no safety nets at all and would be dead in a gutter within a week if their employer suddenly laid them off from their 10 cents a week paying job, if they didn't die first from the abhorrent working conditions that slaves mostly never had to deal with
>>
>>698473
>Slaves were fed and clothed by their owner. A poor free man had no safety nets at all and would be dead in a gutter within a week
Weird how that mimics the two socio-economic policies of the two main parties today.

Does it make you think? It really makes me think.
>>
>>698475
>It really makes me think
What particular thoughts?
>>
>>698473
>Slaves were fed and clothed by their owner. A poor free man had no safety nets at all and would be dead in a gutter within a week if their employer suddenly laid them off from their 10 cents a week paying job
This isn't even remotely true. They used to have government funded poor farms for indigent people until the 1940s.
>>
>>694091
Well, I'm not a part of that pile-on, and don't consider myself a part of that "crowd", so I'd prefer not to be lumped in with the /pol/tards, thank you very much. Also, I'm not dismissing racism, either - all I suggested was that I see CRT used as dogma quite frequently, and not held to standards of academic rigor that I try to hold myself and others to. Believe it or not, you can accept that racism exists and is prevalent and disagree with other foundational arguments of critical race theory - namely, the lack of objectivity and the tendency to ignore other aspects of someone's identity in favor of aspects that make them marginalized - implying a homogeneity between marginalized individuals when such a homogeneity might not exist. Anecdotally, I hear this complaint from persons of various backgrounds - they get lumped in as "minorities" and their individuality is ignored in favor of emphasizing their status as oppressed minorities, and kinda gives the feeling that the only thing of interest about them is that which can be used as a political talking point / tokenism, "look how diverse we are", etc. I especially get this from people (who happen to be minorities) who are highly skilled in their respective fields and feel that they are under-utilized or that they only got a job so the company can show them off, etc. I see this mindset reflected in CRT, and find that it tends to emphasize incongruent concepts rather than congruencies between citizens that all belong to the same country. It also heavily downplays class struggle and ignores class priviledge, because it contradicts the idea that ethnicity/sex/sexual orientation is the prime determinant of oppression rather than economics having a major influence. But that's obviously not a rigorously academic critique; I'm not suggesting, however, that we engage in formal critique on a mongolian type-setter forum
However, when I bring up these inconsistencies, I get dismissed in some way or another.
>>
>>698628
So do you want to discuss crt based on academic rigor or on anecdotes. Still trying to use the latter yet claim the former.
>>
>>698638
Neither, I want to informally discuss flaws in CRT logic, as this is not the ideal platform for academic discourse. I make no claims of doing anything BUT the latter.
>>
>>698638
I believe that it's not an academically rigorous theory, but it's pretty far outside of my wheelhouse (chemistry) for me to give any academic critique beyond stating the above.
>>
>>698659
>>698663
If you want to reject it from academic rigor, then you need to use academic rigor to disqualify it. That's how discreditation works, in a general sense you prove something is not X by arguing what aspect(s) of X it does not meet. Anecdotes have no place in rigor, so excuse me if I don't care about your whining. If you want to just cast doubt, you can cast yourself off a cliff.

Feel free to step up, or step off.
>>
>>698671
See >>697917
You can't show that data because it doesn't exist because your "theory" doesn't have any academic rigor. It's just dumb bigots who took over academia so they can pretend their bigotry is somehow academic even though they can't defend it.
>>
>>692856
Critical Race Theory is an incoherent shit sandwich. Even Trump voters aren't too stupid to see that much.
>>
>>698685
So if, hypothetically, we showed data that it does exist, you would forfeit and confirm crt is academically rigorous?
>>
>>698685
Underrated Post.

Honestly, nobody 'proved' PC culture, it was forced on people. To act like any of this is an academic or scientific standard is laughable.
>>
>>698694
It's modern religion. It cannot be proved under any optic than pure faith.
>>
>>698694
There's no data you can produce that would hold up to basic empirical cross examination. CRT cannot survive in an academically rigorous environment because it's hokum. It exists and is propagated solely on the back of peer review, which itself has been shown to be compromised by experiments like the Sokal affair.

It's not a body of science, it's a club for people who were bullied for being shitty and weird and want to take revenge on society at large.
>>
>>694640
Almost forgot how weird this tripnigger is. Also
>horny on main
>>
>>698913
He is not a tripfag just a namefag
>>
>>698860
>>698869
Well, I gave you a fair chance. You act like a cult where only your "truth" matters, and when pressed you show your colors.
Silly me for doing anything but make fun of you.
>>
>>698915
Start the engagement with an academically rigorous argument in favor of CRT
>>
>>698914
What’s the difference? I’ve been lurking for 4+ years and I still miss retarded shit.
>>
>>698926
One has a tripcode one just has a name tag
>>
>>698694
Do it faggot
>>
>>692856
>>692857
> Trump confirmed in a later tweet that the seminar had, in fact, been “STOPPED.”

Fuck'n right!
>>
>>693251

The only ridiculous, anti-intellectual bullshit I see. is this flat-out openly racist "Critical Race Theory" propaganda that's being forced down employees throats using tax payer money.
>>
>>698918
>>698943

I'm so glad you finally brought this up.
Taking a wiki definition, we get redirected to scholarly method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method
So generally, let's take this as an academic rigorous definition;
>can be documented, can be replicated or elaborated, and can be and is peer-reviewed through various methods.
We can take Google scholar to look through various works, let's try "critical race theory"
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=critical+race+theory&btnG=
Seems to have plenty of results, so let's look for stuff that we don't have to pay for so idiots don't chimp out.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?casa_token=2mSMQVLixRoAAAAA%3ApPnttjBGYA5UOGQSgxksIZGuh_U1fcQhH95mQxVwAYNMYYiq6NGDflfoNPlzBqQAUTUmiEkhbE7bTBhbrk_l0cdrh8Yk51Xg1EIDunMwPPCXGIHip1LP&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Some data analysis, their methods, and procedures.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377675
Difficulties is separating racism from data and how crt shows their (mis)applications.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0002831218798325
How crt is not "antithetical" to quantitative data, as some here have tried to "argue".
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02680939.2018.1531314#abstract
Exploration of more data.
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=clsops_papers
Application of crt in law.

So obviously it has been documented. They have gone through the various peer review methods of their respective publishers. Multiple are successfully applying crt in different fields, so we have replication and elaboration.

So, as it meets the attributes of academic rigor, we have now argued that it is in fact academically rigorous.
>>
>>694159
Middle schoolers also call each other faggots constantly, but I don't see anybody peddling Critical Homophobia Theory
>>
>>693251
Who cares?
>>
>>698949
Anecdotes have no place in rigor, so excuse me if I don't care about your whining
>>
>>698985
Good thing I avoided anecdotes.
Cope harder.
>>
>>698986
Every thing you posted is anecdotal and you've proven nothing
>>
>>698990
Sadly no, it doesn't fit the anecdote definition.
Is this all there is in reply? Just shitposting when you even start losing? Not even good shitposting, just variants of "no u"?
Rhetorical of course, but I like to keep the possibility of rebuttal open to be fair.
>>
>>698995
I'm still waiting for the data
>>
>>699000
Have you forgotten we can't post images? Data is in the links, are you having difficulty accessing them? I thought I posted correct links.
>>
>>699003
The links I read that came closest to the topic were only about the anecdotal experiences of African Americans
>>
>>699031
So the analysis of schools and journals are African Americans?
>>
>>699035
Maybe? I wouldn't assume they aren't.
>>
>>699037
So Cornell is an African American anecdote?
>>
>>699040
I have no idea what that even means
>>
>>699041
That's been clearly evident from the beginning.
>>
>>699043
The beginning of what?
The beginning of you asking nonsensical sounding questions?
>>
>>699045
Backed into a corner of your own making, proceed to shit everywhere in hopes of saving face.
Pathetic.
If your next post is such nonsensical shitposting, I'll let your pride have the last word for now.
>>
>>699046
You were speaking some gibberish
Don't try to turn this around on me
>>
>whites hate it when they get treated the same way they treat others
Story of the world
>>
White Pride!
>>
>>699051
oh? Can you show me the evidence that the Federal government was using taxes (paid by black people) to teach their black employees that being black is a bad thing so they should apologize for being black?
didn't think so.
>bigots making things up to justify their bigotry
story of the world
>>698694
Yes. Show me the hard data that proves all white people are inherently evil and that everything bad in the world is due to how fragile white people are. Show me the hard data that proves other races are morally superior to white people. Show me the hard data that proves you should steal my money to teach government employees that the white employees need to feel guilty for being white, and need to fight against their own whiteness because being white is a bad thing.
Show me that data and I will concede.

But, hypothetically, if you can't show me that data (and instead show me some vague data about how maybe there's some racism but even that data left many things unaccounted for), then I assume you will forfeit and admit that modern sociologists are full of shit and CRT is just non-academic bigotry?
>>
>>698949
White government employees were being shamed for their race and made to feel guilty due to their skin color. They were told to confront their "white fragility" and that being white is a bad thing.

Now can you quote the data that proves this? Go on, quote the specific part of your sources that supports this "White people are all shitty and need to apologize for their white fragility because white people are awful" claim.
>>
>>699060
Given that's not the definition of crt, that wouldn't be productive to engage you with.
>>699061
>White government employees were being shamed for their race and made to feel guilty due to their skin color. They were told to confront their "white fragility" and that being white is a bad thing.
Source?
>>
>>699072
https://christopherrufo.com/federal-agencies-violate-presidential-order-on-critical-race-theory/
https://www.rt.com/usa/501329-agencies-defy-ban-critical-race-seminars/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/robin-diangelo-how-white-fragility-supports-racism-and-how-whites-can-stop-it/ar-BB159kVr?ocid=spartandhp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_DiAngelo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility

CRT and "white fragility" are pure anti-white racism. Statistically speaking, black people commit more violent crime than white people. Would you therefore support the federal government using taxes (paid for by black people but not white people) to teach their employees that black people are criminals? Would those statistics make it okay to teach black federal employees to feel guilty for being black?
>>
>>692867
Call it what it is. Religious drivel.
>>
>>699133
First actual sources in this whole argument finally.
Now, of you refer to the source I listed already, the Cornell again actually, it addresses this. White frailty specifically.
>>
>>692861
>>692862
Thread should have been deleted by mods weeks ago.
>>
>>698949
>>699166
Now if you could do what I asked and put forth an argument. If those are the sources you've chosen, highlight or summarize the points you're making with them.
>>
>>698949
>CRT draws from several disciplines, including legal scholarship on civil rights, ethnic studies, feminist epistemologies, and gender studies and critical legal studies, to examine and transform the relationship among race, racism, and power (Delgado and Stefancic 2001). Matsuda (1991) defines CRT as: ‘… the work of progressive legal scholars of color who are attempting to develop a jurisprudence that accounts for the role of racism in American law and that works toward the elimination of racism as part of a larger goal of eliminating all forms of subordination’ (1331). Thus, CRT is motivated by social justice and characterized by a passionate activism to eliminate racism as part of a broader effort to end subordination on gender, class, sexual orientation, language, and national origin lines (Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995; Solórzano 1997).
Nothing about this suggests CRT developed using any sort of scientific method. It's a theory asserted with no evidence and accepted by certain people for entirely political reasons. Why people are saying it's not academically rigorous is because it's a social justice movement that started with a perceived fact that was never actually established and has never accepted serious debate. If you disagree, enlighten us.
>>
>>699174
I made a claim, and supported it with sources. That's an argument, buddy.
>>699181
Do you reject the definition used or the sources themselves? Because your post is just sticking your fingers in your ears like the retard you keep showing yourself to be.
>>
>>699198
Random sources don't make up their own argument. After you gather sources, you quote the relevant information that you intend to use. What, for example, do your sources say about replicability?
>>
>>699199
There is text below the links. Try reading.
>>
>>699200
Those are not quotes from your sources. Posting a link to a 72 page article vaguely related to the topic is not the same as making an argument
>>
>>699202
...right, they're not quotes. They're summations of what I wanted them for.
>vaguely related
We're discussing an entire field, sorry there's actual reading to be done. Get good.
>>
>>699203
So what from them are you using exactly?
>>
>>699205
The exact parts that I used.
>>
>>699206
>...right, they're not quotes
So you didn't really use them, did you? You've summarised "what you wanted them for," now use them to provide the quotes that you're using in support of your argument
>>
>>699207
No, I used them. They supported the argument I was making. It's explained in the post with all the links, if you want to try reading it for once.
>>
>>699209
>No, I used them. They supported the argument I was making.
Using them would be quoting them to support your argument. If you're not even able to pull a quote from them that supports what you're saying, they're not a good source for the argument you want to make.
> It's explained in the post with all the links, if you want to try reading it for once.
You at least understand the difference between "here's my argument" and "my argument exists somewhere as a concept and it's up to you to uncover it" right?
>>
>>699210
I'm not gonna quote entire studies, they simply wouldn't fit in the character limit.
Let's drag you through this one step at a time since you're a complete dumbass with the attention span of a gnat.

Do you agree with the definition of academically rigorous pulled from wiki?
>>
>>699166
I checked the Cornell source, didn't see anything about white fragility/frailty. No evidence that white people are fragile. No evidence that white people are bad. No "socioeconomic data" proving that white people need to feel guilty for being white. Nothing at all to support your bigotry

But it does have some good gems, such as:
>many whites do not readily perceive racism. People of color, on the other hand, see and are on the receiving end of it daily. This has two effects: First, “even the most sympathetic, left-leaning whites” have to constantly be re-educated about racism
they of course do not have any data to back up these claims, nor do they have anything to back up the implication that "left-leaning" whites would be expected to be the least racist, especially since we know it's the opposite, and lefties are the ones pushing for more racism now

also this:
>In an article in the Law and Society Review, David Trubek assailed empirical social science. G. Edward White writes that Trubek implied two things. First, he suggested that empirical research legitimates the status quo in that it implies that research facts were objectively “there.” Second, he argued that a scholar could not separate ideology from methodology in any type of research, including empirical research.
Looks like you don't have any empirical research to back up any of your claims, because one of your claims is that empirical research doesn't exist. And any research your movement conducts would be tainted by your obvious hatred of white people

Thank you anon, this is fucking gold. So back to: >>699060
>But, hypothetically, if you can't show me that data (and instead show me some vague data about how maybe there's some racism but even that data left many things unaccounted for), then I assume you will forfeit and admit that modern sociologists are full of shit and CRT is just non-academic bigotry?
Well? You failed to show data to support your claims, time to admit CRT is a sham
>>
>>699329
You take quotations then ignore the dara itself.
Again, can't post images, so I don't see how I could possibly show you the data when you just blatantly ignore it like this.
Citation 135 for instance. The section A. Contiguous Models. Table 1. Law Faculty Engaged in Race/Social Science Research.

You are LITERALLY lying. Get bent.
>>
>>699333
You are LITERALLY seething because you were hoping nobody would dig through your """sources""" to find out how full of shit CRT is.
Also you can always post a link to an image like this: https://i.imgur.com/WM1zU4a.png

as for your """source""" literally all that shows is that more schools now are promoting your bigotry.
>From 2002-2006, there were 16 law faculty engaged in race/social science research
OH WOW YOU TOTALLY BTFO OF US! That data definitely proves that white people are terrible and that you need to steal my money and use it to teach government employees to feel guilty for being white because of their white fragility!
...but, just in case some people don't get it, can you please explain HOW that data table proves that white people should feel bad about being white and how their white fragility makes them inferior to other races?
And remember your own source says that empirical research is invalid because your anti-white ideology prevents you from having sound research methodology.

Let me guess: You've never gotten this far have you? Every other """debate""" you had was in a safe-space where you just call me a Nazi for disagreeing with you and get me banned. In class when your professor goes over this, nobody bothered to speak up and tell him how full of shit he is.
So this is the first time you've ever been challenged on these views isn't it? This is the first time you've ever been forced to look at the """data""" and realize "wait, the only thing this data proves is that there are law school faculty engaged in race/social science research. That's literally it. There is absolutely nothing in there that supports our bigoted claims about white fragility"

>Get bent
kek no need to be mad, next time just read your own sources and try actually thinking critically before you go shilling for a cult like this. The good news is you're anonymous so you can just forget you got BTFO this hard.
>>
>>699341
Linking externally is already done by linking the source referenced. If that is your answer, then I've already done so.
Also, you keep ignoring my argument. Why?
If I was able to believe you were genuine, then I could only assume you're confusing what you "think" the argument is, instead of what the argument I'm actually making is. So of course it's not satisfying you, you want beef when I'm talking about fish.
Of course you aren't genuine, as you ignore everything so you can chimp out over being called on your shit.
Your entire post here is just /pol/tier coping. If you want to argue what I am arguing, and not the boogeyman in your head, answer my question.
>>
>>693103
Why didn't BLM go into the LK neighborhoods in Chicago?
>>
>>694062
Me. I wasn't alive.
>>
>>699344
You didn't link directly to what you were talking about in the source you just threw out a bunch of irrelevant sources which don't support your claims and hoped that nobody would question it, because you're used to jerking off in echochambers. I then quoted parts of your source and you started seething. Then you directed me to a data table that literally just says "there are some professors who research this stuff" and nothing else.
You have repeatedly ignored our arguments while making no arguments of your own beyond "Here's some sources, my argument is hidden in there but don't ask me where it is" and after you FINALLY pointed to the specific data you were talking about, it was completely irrelevant and did not support your argument at all. The only data you cite literally just says "there are people researching this field". That's the entire basis of your theory that white people suck?
And right now you're just seething out of control and have begun ranting because your entire """theory""" has been exposed as bigoted propaganda without any legitimate backing and you have been unable to point to anything in your sources that say otherwise.

Once again: This is likely the first time you've been challenged on this. It's the first time you've stepped outside of your echochamber where you can't just win an argument by saying "Everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi!"
And that's why you're so fucking rattled and can't even make a coherent argument. You have yet to provide ANY data supporting your hatred of white people. You haven't provided any empirical research proving that white people are more fragile than other races, no data proving that white people are morally inferior to other races, no data proving that white people need to feel ashamed of their skin color. And in fact, your own source says that empirical research doesn't even exist because feels > reals.

You lost, deal with it kid.
>>
>>699370
...no, I did not use specific sections of any one source to support my argument. Mine requires the entirety of each study in order for the argument to hold.

It's clear you neither know what my argument is, nor are you interested in it. I tore through your paper skin and got this massive shitpost as a result.

Continuation of this starts here
>>699287

Else keep sperging out over science you don't agree with yet can't contradict. If you next reply is just more of...these tirades, then I'll let your ego have the last word as you cope through life.
>>
>>699344
>I went on a rant, vomited up some nonsensical sources that don't refute any of the arguments against me, refused to point to anything specific in those hundreds of pages of documents because I've never been asked to cite sources before, continued to refuse to point to anything specific in my sources, kept refusing over and over and over again because I didn't even read my own sources, then finally pointed to a single data table that says absolutely nothing meaningful, then started crying when I was asked to explain how that data table supports CRT
>REEEEEEEE WHY WON'T YOU ADMIT THAT I'M RIGHT????
The absolute state of Sociology majors. This is why academia is a joke. Nobody ever taught you how to debate, nobody ever taught you how to actually cite sources (hint: You don't just drop several papers with zero context or page citations, or literally any indication about what is supposed to be in those papers), nobody ever taught you how to make a coherent point about anything because you've already been brainwashed by the cult so you just blindly follow your leaders and never question what they tell you.

4chan isn't for you. Go back to your safe-space before your mental breakdown here gets any worse
>>
>>699378
LMAO AT THIS SEETHING AND DAMAGE CONTROL!
The argument in this entire thread is:
>Are white people more fragile than other races? Do white people need to be shamed for their race? Should white people feel bad for having white skin?
since that is what CRT is.
Also TOP KEK at you still trying to claim that dropping a pile of papers with literally zero argument attached makes you right.
>I did not use specific sections of any one source
You kept refusing to do this because you knew you were wrong. You tried to make the excuse of "oh noooo I would totally point you to it if this were an imageboard but I can't attach images and am too stupid to drop an imgur link so I guess you'll just have to trust that I'm right!"
Finally in this post >>699333 you cited a data table which literally shows nothing more than the fact that people are researching this. That's it.
>From 2002-2006, there were 16 law faculty engaged in race/social science research
that is LITERALLY the only actually data you have ever pointed to in this entire thread, and that is the entirety of your argument.
And then once you were asked how that supported your argument you started having your current mental breakdown because you were never taught how to actually defend your views before. You've never left your cult before.
>>
>>699385
>The argument in this entire thread is:
No, no it's not. But it does show you don't even know what my argument was.
I don't think you care what my argument is either. Sperg harder.
>>699379
He apparently wasn't even debating my argument, as shown by the post below you. Guess literacy is a safespace.
>>
>>699385
>>699390
You both seem pretty white and fragile. Just saying.
>>
>>699378
>tirades
that's rich coming from the guy who started having a mental breakdown once somebody actually read your fucking sources and pointed out that there is nothing in there.

You literally cannot point to ANYTHING in ANY of your sources that supports the anti-white bigotry of CRT. You have been asked a dozen times ITT and every time you were extremely vague, made excuses ("oh if this were an imageboard I would show you the data table but darn I guess there's no other way for me to show you the specific data!"), then finally, FINALLY, you cited to one data table that was completely meaningless.
>then I'll let your ego have the last word as you cope through life
You should have quit a long time ago. Once everybody else ITT called you out on the fact that you didn't even read the sources you dropped, that was time for you to quit. Instead you desperately tried to make excuses and then posted that absolute bullshit data table. I still have no idea what you were trying to accomplish by telling us that:
>From 2002-2006, there were 16 law faculty engaged in race/social science research
And I still find it fucking hilarious that somehow your brainwashed mind actually thought that little bit of data would win you the argument.

You lost a long time ago, and you already forfeit when all of your responses were so vague that you were obviously trying to avoid the topic.
>>
>>699394
>You literally cannot point to ANYTHING in ANY of your sources that supports the anti-white bigotry of CRT.
Which is irrelevant, as that is not the argument I am making.
I also haven't cited anything to prove pineapple does belong on pizza. That's just as relevant of a boogeyman for you to cope with.
If you want to continue my argument, and not your schizophrenia, I have told you where to go.
>>
>>699390
CRT claims that white people are fragile and that white people need to feel bad for being so awful. Then another anon said there is no academic rigor to support this. You then claimed there is academic rigor.
You then dropped links that you obviously never read, refused to cite which parts of those links you were referring to, started getting extremely vague, refused to address any of the replies, kept refusing to cite the specific data you were referring to while making the most bullshit of excuses (please tell me you knew that nobody would believe your "I can't cite anything because I can't post images!" excuse), tried to cite some completely unrelated data table in an act of sheer desperation, started crying when somebody pointed out that the table didn't support CRT, repeatedly refused to justify how that data table supports CRT, then started whining again.
>literacy
..... you literally linked papers that you never read, and when asked to cite something from them you made the worst excuse imaginable for why you couldn't. I don't think you can lecture people about literacy.
>>
>>699400
>Get completely and utterly BTFO
>"I-I-I was arguing about something totally different hehe! Yeah just because I'm in a thread about the merits of CRT and whether there is any valid academic rigor behind the bullshit theory doesn't mean that's what I was arguing!"
>"Oh you want me to tell you what my argument was? Hehe you stupid coping schizo!"
This is almost as sad as when you said that the only reason you weren't providing real citations is because you can't post images.

Isn't this you though?
>>698949
I thought that's the one I've been arguing with, you sound like him. That anon claimed that CRT, (i.e. the belief that white people are more fragile than other races, white people never experience racism, white people don't understand what racism is, and that white people should be shamed for being white):
>can be documented, can be replicated or elaborated, and can be and is peer-reviewed through various methods.
To support this, a list of links with zero context or argument.
Then a lot of vague statements and dodging of questions.
Then ridiculous excuses about how they can't make an argument because they can't post images.
Then more vague bullshit and refusing to make an argument.
Then finally dropping a single data table which literally says nothing more than "There are some professors who research this."
Then when somebody asked how the following statement:
>From 2002-2006, there were 16 law faculty engaged in race/social science research
supports the conclusion that all of the racist bullshit in CRT "can be documented, can be replicated or elaborated, and can be and is peer-reviewed through various methods," you once again went back to vague responses and dodging of questions.

Which you are still doing by the way, don't think we haven't noticed that you still haven't explained why you linked to that specific data table. We have noticed, and we know that the obvious answer is that you only cited it in a desperate panic
>>
>>699404
This entire thread is a case study in white fragility.
>>
>>699404
>>699416

The entirety of a source is needed for my argument, not piecemeals.
You keep looking for easy single quotes to dismiss. You want to argue rocks are not mountains, therefore everest isn't real. That's not how it works, so of course you're struggling to do so.
My single piece "citations"were never going to support an entire field's validity, because it was never meant to. The data I referenced was to show there was data in the study, not a claim about what it was for only that if exists.

Your disingenuous "arguments" are prime examples of said fragility, so keep it coming.
>>
>>699418
This entire thread reads like a case study in how SJWs can't debate for shit because they're so used to living in echo-chambers:
>Prove that white people are fragile
"Okay here's a bunch of sources!"
>What part of those sources proves that white people are fragile?
"All of them. The entire thing. Just read it"
>Okay but point me to the specific part that provides empirical data proving that white people are fragile
"It's in the Cornell one"
>I read that 72-page study and nothing in there provides any data for that
"Well I definitely *would* cite the specific data but I can't post images here. That's definitely the only reason I'm not citing data though!"
>Well just point out where it is
"No. I would but I can't because I can't post images"
>So you don't have any data?
"Of course I do, it's in Table 1. Law Faculty Engaged in Race/Social Science Research."
>That's a table of how many law faculty are engaged in race/social science research. Can you explain how that data means that white people are fragile?
"OMG you stupid lying /pol/tard get bent!"
>So you admit you don't have any data to support your argument that white people are fragile?
"Of course I do! But that's not my argument anyway!"
>Then what is your argument?
"I'm not telling you"

that's this thread in a nutshell, and every argument with you cultists as well. You completely fall apart once you leave your echochambers and are actually asked to defend your bigotry.
>>
>>699433
How fragile you are.
>>
>>699426
I've read the Cornell source (which you obviously haven't). So as the only person ITT who read that source I can tell you: That source does not support your claim that white people are fragile, nor does it support your claim that white people need to apologize for being white.
If you disagree then feel free to point to the specific part of the source you are referring to but... you can't.
Also it's really hilarious how obvious it is that you've never debated anybody before. "Just look at the entirety of this 72-page article" is not how you support your claim particularly when somebody who ACTUALLY read the article is telling you that it doesn't support your claim at all.
>>
>>699433
CRT is just Kafkatrap: The Theory and the sooner you understand this the easier its going to be on you
>>
>>699436
fragile or not at least I know how to read academic papers, I know how to read a data table, I know how to make an argument, and I know how to properly cite sources that I claim support my argument.

But thanks for admitting that SJWs literally have nothing other than "You're white therefore you're wrong!" to support your hateful non-academic theories.
>>
>>699443
Every reply you make you further advance the white fragility meme into reality
>>
>>699444
Every reply you make you further advance the "SJWs don't know how to debate and can't defend their views" meme into reality.
Still waiting for that source we've asked for 100 times.
>>
>>699433
You did all you could, they want to believe what they want and no amount of actual evidence will mean anything to them. It's really weird that so called progressives are some of the biggest bigots towards white people because its become socially acceptable to do so. The irony is palpable.
>>
>>699003
I want to bump this comment because I just can't get over how fucking stupid this excuse was:
>I would post the data but I can't because we can't post images! But that's definitely the only reason I'm not pointing out any data even though I said that there is hard data to support CRT's anti-white claims!
I just can't get over how they actually thought that excuse would work.

And then finally they tell us what data they're talking about and... >>699333
>From 2002-2006, there were 16 law faculty engaged in race/social science research
that's the data they were talking about. That's the data proving that white people are fragile. That's the data that proves CRT is rigorous enough to withstand academic debate. That's the data that proves the federal government should use taxes to force their white employees into white-guilt seminars about how white people are inferior


this whole thread is almost like a satire of SJWs. I almost wish it were on another site with usernames so we could continue to mock them in the future.
>>
>>699441
Fine, let's play your game and hopefully you stop shitting everywhere.
So how would you explain having to be constantly re-education on race, if not frailty? Your only real other option is amnesia, so I'm interested to see how you explain constant "loss" of knowledge.
>>
>>699455
It doesn't, and was never meant to prove anything. Why do you keep pushing this?
>>
>get called negative thing
>try to defend yourself as not being negative thing
>this is now evidence that you are negative thing
How can there even be a discourse?
>>
>>699462
Kafka trap at its finest.
>>
>>699426
>your Nazis
>your fragile
>>
>>699459
LMAO
>We have empirical data to support our claims instead of just anecdotes!
okay then where is your data?
>HAH! The fact that you just asked that question proves that you're fragile! I win!
Holy shit you people are hilarious. And I don't need to be re-educated on race, nor do most white people. You still haven't shown me any data to support that claim. I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually have this data...
>>699461
>backpedaling this hard
I hope you realize that backing out and claiming that was never supposed to prove anything just puts us back to you claiming you have data to support CRT's claims yet failing to produce any data.
>>
>>692867
This comment was prophetic as fuck
>>
>>699478
I try to engage you, and on your terms no less, and you just ignore anything I post.
You don't care what I have to argue, you don't care what you have to argue either, I can only assume now that you're doing this to prevent discussion. Can't talk to you about my points, can't talk to you about your points. But you type so much you fill up space to pretend you have something to say.
I know 4chan isn't a proper forum, but we were actually getting somewhere before you acted like this. My offer still stands.
>>
>>699481
>and on your terms no less
actually my terms are that you provide data to support CRT's claims. Your response was to be vague as fuck, constantly dodge the questions, make up the lamest most pathetic excuses ("Oh no I would totallllly post that data but I can't because we can't post images!"), and now you've basically admitted you were wrong and that you have literally nothing to support CRT.
>Can't talk to you about my points
What are your points again? Oh that's right you have none and anytime somebody calls you out on that you give very vague responses and refuse to tell us what point you're trying to make.
>can't talk to you about your points.
because you have nothing to say about them.
> but we were actually getting somewhere before you acted like this. My offer still stands
you're ACTUALLY mentally ill aren't you? Like not even meming you actually unironically have a mental illness don't you?
Where were we getting? We were getting to the point where you CLEARLY had no idea what you were talking about and where you had refused dozens of requests to share the data that you claim you have. Here's a summary of the thread:
>>699433

>offer
WHAT FUCKING OFFER YOU MENTALLY UNSTABLE SHITHEAD??? What world do you think you're living in? Literally what are you even talking about? You offered to show empirical data proving that CRT can stand up to academic rigor and then you kept making excuses for why you couldn't show us that data. But it just doesn't exist. You can't show it to us because it doesn't exist.
In fact: If you reply with anything short of you citing empirical data proving that CRT's claims about white fragility and the awfulness of white people in general can stand up to academic rigor will be taken as an admission of defeat. Because we've been going at this for 100 comments and all you've done is dodge the question and try to change the topic. Stop making bullshit excuses. Either put up or shut up.
>>
>>699481
>>699461
>>699459
>>699444
let's keep this as simple as possible:

Show me the data which proves that white people are fragile and uninformed about racial issues.
Show me the data which proves that the Federal government needs to use my taxes to teach white employees to feel guilty and sign "white people bad" pledges.

>b-b-but muh excuses!
don't care. Either show me the data or GTFO. Any comments after this that fail to show the data will be taken as an admission that you lost.
>>
>>699484
So, hypothetically, if I have data that supports crt claims, you admit defeat?
>>699485
Data such as
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1104686
>fragility is seen
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/194450/1/1047432218.pdf
>white spatial imaginary
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1610048
>Tina
http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249/116
>segregated lives
>Bonilla-Silva

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Spanierman/publication/232553783_Race_power_and_multicultural_counseling_psychology_Understanding_white_privilege_and_color-blind_racial_attitudes/links/0deec5366bd15191f3000000.pdf
>meant to remain oblivious
>Amoja Three Rivers
>CoBRA

At least to start with.
>>
>>699495
Just a heads up the first source is based out of house in my neighborhood.
2419 w Berkeley 65804
>>
>>699495
>The findings showed that all six preservice principals provided fragile responses, meaning that they minimized the significance of white privilege
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOLY SHIT!!! This is what you come up with? Seriously?
Yeah I can see why you were too embarrassed to show these a week and a fucking half ago when we asked for them.
You spent ELEVEN FUCKING DAYS telling us you had sources that you wouldn't show us.... and then you just confirm what >>692867 said
>disagreeing with us means you prove us right!
You found that white people said that being discriminated against in school, being discriminated against in employment, and being publicly shamed for their skin color does not make them as "privileged" as you think they are. And you use that as evidence that they are fragile.

let's look at what else it took you 200+ comments to FINALLY cite:
>He asserts that an unexamined “white spatial imaginary” often guides land-use decisions and policy practices in ways that privileges the pursuit of private property accumulation for the few over the pursuit of happiness and well-being for the broader public
that's an assertion, not data.
And right before that we have:
>Instead of helping to empower a packed room of white environmentalists with insights and tools to support socially diverse, resilient communities for all, he chose to omit discussion of race, racism, segregation, gentrification, and equity from the conversation. Perhaps this was a result of past conversations with white environmentalists having gone poorly, due to the pervasiveness of white fragility as a phenomenon that prevents open conversations about racism. Perhaps, guided by a social value of colorblindness, he used “we,” blindly assuming it was an inclusive word that means “all lives matter.”
an environmentalist talked about environmentalism instead of white privilege. This is evidence of white privilege!

(continued)
>>
>>699515
>>699495
>Evans and Moore report the experience of Tina, an African-American pilot who felt pressured to endure the racist comments of a white co-pilot during a flight:
I'm sorry but what happened to: >>698671
>Anecdotes have no place in rigor
Are anecdotes considered data now? I'm sure I can find plenty of anecdotes about white people who felt pressured to endure the racist comments of whoever is teaching the CRT seminar they were forced to attend.

next:
>The first factor leading to White Fragility is the segregated lives which most white
people live (Frankenberg, Lee & Orfield, 2003).
Still not data. Also, don't black people lead segregated lives? Are they fragile now too or are only white people fragile due to our racial inferiority? And did you forget that leftists are the ones pushing for more racial segregation now? Why would woke leftist SJWs want racial segregation if that's what causes White Fragility?

You waited 11 days and over 200 comments before you posted these because you knew it didn't prove shit. We had to ask you dozens of times to post this while you made pathetic excuses because you knew how much of a joke your """sources""" are. (Still laughing at the "but I can't tell you where the data is because /news/ doesn't allow images!" excuse btw).
But congratulations on what I can only assume is literally the first actual debate you have ever had in your life. Even though you got BTFO at least you learned something. Hopefully you learned that there's a reason your sociology classes never taught you how to read sources, never taught you how to cite anything, never taught you to ask questions, and never taught you how to debate. HINT: It's because your professors would be BTFO as hard as you did because there is no academic rigor in that field.
>>
>>699515
>>699516
>It's not data because I said so
It's my fault for indulging you.
>>
>>699517
It's your fault for being a fragile white person.
>>
>>698638
>So do you want to discuss crt based on academic rigor or on anecdotes. Still trying to use the latter yet claim the former.
>>698671
>Anecdotes have no place in rigor
>>699495
>Here's an anecdote about a pilot named Tina
>>699517
>WTF how dare you say that my anecdote is not real data!

also this: >>699518
disagreeing with me makes you fragile because I said so. I have empirical data to support that as well.
>>
>>699527
I'm curious then what you believe the difference is between an anecdote and a data point. I understood the difference was analysis, but apparently you don't agree with that.
>>
>>692856
Good, get that Marxist bullshit out.
>>
>>699529
You could argue that there is no difference, but generally a single datapoint is not really considered proof. And the fact that you previously said anecdotes are not valid means that you're still being a hypocrite.
And no matter how you look at it, some pilot with a victim complex does not prove that white people are fragile. I can definitely find a lot of anecdotes about anti-white racism in the workplace, and many of them are a lot more substantial than her vague bullshit. Like Google booing white people and celebrating non-whites. Or Google telling "cheesy white males" not to go to conferences. Or Apple bragging about how many non-whites they have and then declaring that diversity is only about race/gender. Or colleges openly discriminating against white people (which there actually is empirical data for). Or of course the "diversity training" which is about how white people don't work hard to get where they are and how they need to feel shame and guilt for being fragile white people.

But all of that is irrelevant because as stated:
>disagreeing with me makes you fragile because I said so. I have empirical data to support that as well.
I'm pretty sure that's /thread right there.
>>
>>699533
So then how many data points would be proof? You're still using a rock to dismiss a mountain, so what number does a bunch of anecdotes become data.
>>
>>699534
As a reminder:
>disagreeing with me makes you fragile because I said so. I have empirical data to support that as well.
sorry buddy but once again you just proved me right.

And the anecdote about Tina didn't even prove she was discriminated against it just proved that she *felt* like she was discriminated against. And again, there are far more substantial examples of anti-white discrimination at the institutional level of major organizations and universities, so your anecdote doesn't prove any kind of pattern of discrimination. You can't show me a major corporation booing black people or bragging about hiring more white people or telling black people not to go to conferences. When we talk about the institutional racism against white people at colleges we aren't talking about one white woman named Tina who thinks she was discriminated against, we're talking about actual empirical data proving that black people are admitted with far lower qualifications than white people.

And remember you were the one originally whining about how "Anecdotes have no place in rigor"
>>
>>699538
A mountain is not proven because this is just a rock. And this is a rock. And that rock. All these rocks. But no mountains.
Everest is a myth.
>>
>>699539
disagreeing with me makes you fragile because I said so. I have empirical data to support that as well.

>here's a rock
>well it's not really a rock, it's just a clump of mud
>but anyway this clump of mud that I called a rock is actually Mount Everest
I really want to give up but man you're just too funny.
>>
>>699541
Not him but you are pretty fragile. It's obvious from the way you keep lashing out.
>>
>>699542
disagreeing with me makes you fragile because I said so. I have empirical data to support that as well.

CHECK AND MATE
>>
>>699541
How many clumps of mud would be a mountain for you?
>>
>>699543
You don't need evidence to form an opinion. Just came into this thread to let you know.
>>
>>699542
Not him, but you and everyone else using the "fragile" argument are begging the question. He's fragile because he responds negatively to being called fragile. That's a pretty retarded concept.
>>
>This thread is still going on
>The pro-CRT bigot finally showed the sources he kept saying he had but kept refusing to provide
>The sources were bullshit as predicted and he's now pulled a complete 180 on the "anecdotes aren't evidence" stance in a desperate attempt to save face
>Now he's ranting about mud piles and mountains
So this... is the power of sociology. Wow we should definitely use taxes to teach this to federal employees and also spend a trillion dollars funding public universities
>>
>>699548
The fact that you felt compelled to reply to that post proves how fragile you are. That's the empirical data I'm using.
>>
>>699547
But you need to admit that your opinion is just an opinion for that to apply. Which CRT shills will never do, because then their entire narrative falls apart. So instead they claim that it's objective, irrefutable fact supported by Mount Everests full of empirical data so we need to spend taxes forcing federal employees to learn about it. Because CRT is definitely based on real hard facts and not just some half-assed opinion from bigots!
And when that's the claim, then you need to show your evidence instead of constantly saying "I have the evidence dude trust me it's totally real but I'm just not showing it to you".
>>
>>699549
I was never hiding any sources. It seems everytime I indulge, they jump away from the discussion into something that was never an issue.
Sorry you got filtered by reading. Try not being do frail.
>>
>>699549
Its always amazing how a discipline that involves communication and intelligence attracts people with such poor communication skills and creates such shitty ideas. Sociologists are antisocial weirdos promoting racists screeds like CRT. It reminds me of how psych majors are all insane, its like they think education can fix them.
>>699553
The fact that you felt compelled to reply to that post proves how fragile you are. That's the empirical data I'm using.
>>
>>699549
I'm not the "pro-CRT bigot" you are referencing but you are kidding yourself if you think anybody but only kneejerking conservatives give a crap about federal employees being taught this.
>>
>>699553
sorry buddy but see: >>699527
>disagreeing with me makes you fragile because I said so. I have empirical data to support that as well.
heh, beat you at your own game.
Replying to this comment is also evidence that you are fragile.
>>
>>699556
You are missing the point. We're both fragile. It's because we are both white.
>>
>>699557
the hoards of seething leftists says otherwise, they seem to care quite a bit. And that includes Biden/Harris who care so much that they've promised to bring back the pro-racism training if they get elected.
>>
>>699558
Thread theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFiv9M577a4
>>
>crt isn't real!
>i-i mean its real but isn't valid!
>n-no I meant the data isn't valid!
>a-actually i meant that all data isn't real!
waiting for the
>science isn't real!
>>
>>699557
I'm not that guy nor am I conservative, but I care about anyone being taught this in an employment situation. It carries an implied threat that if an employee doesn't accept the dogma then they will be fired.
>>699559
I'm Jewish. Any apparent fragility I have is actually justified by my experiences with antisemitism, and you erasing that is a microaggression.
>>
>>699564
oh wait here comes the science isn't real wave
>>
>>699564
Jews are white everywhere except /pol/.
>>
>>699566
I majored in STEM. I don't think CRT is a scientific theory to begin with. Its about as scientific as homeopathy.
>>
>>699567
When you need to deny my identity, I'm white. When you need to use my people's experience for your politics, I'm not. Another stunning act of erasure by CRTists.
>>
>>699570
ah, circling back I see. no balls to go forward
>>
>>699571
Okay Ben but I still want to fuck your sister.
>>
>>699574
Don't we all, anon?
>>
>>699563
>crt isn't real
what do you mean by "real"? Nobody ever said that it literally didn't exist, we just said it wasn't valid. The point from the start has been
>CRT is anti-academic bullshit promoted by bigots without any basis in fact
and we're still there. Because it took 200 comments and 11 days before anybody on the pro-CRT bothered to provide the sources and then it turned out that the reason you were hiding the sources is because they don't support your claims at all.
>B-b-but this one pilot named Tina said that she was a victim of racism!
oh wow that totally proves that white people are fragile!
>>699555
>I was never hiding any sources
okay then explain why was this comment: >>693251 made 11 days and 200+ comments ago and yet you didn't bother providing any """sources""" until this: >>699495 a couple hours ago, which turned out to be bullshit just like everybody predicted?
Oh wait you're right I forgot about this one: >>698949
which was still halfway down the thread. And where it was painfully obvious that you never actually read any of those sources yourself. And when asked for details you were being very vague and purposefully dodging the question, at one point (>>699003) even claiming that because "we can't post images" it was impossible for you to point out any data that supported CRT.
After constantly being called out for your bullshit you then FINALLY gave up this (>>699333) which said that
>From 2002-2006, there were 16 law faculty engaged in race/social science research
because that was apparently your big epic proof that white people are fragile.
You then went right back to dodging questions, refusing to address your own sources, refusing to explain your argument, and pretending that you didn't know that this thread was supposed to be about the validity of CRT

Did you forget that we can go back and read the posts? As said earlier this is just really, really obvious that you aren't used to debates because you don't even understand the concept
>>
Good, leftist parasites all need to be exterminated and thrown in mass graves alongside all subversive elements.
>>
>>699581
It's time for your apnea treatment, grandpa.
>>
>>699580
>explain
Well, since it wasn't my post, hopefully that's explanation enough.
>>
>>699562
nice
>>
>>699581
leftist here
could you take the genocidal larping down a bit maybe ? thx friend.
>>
>>699603
>teehee guys, eat the rich, kill the bourgeoisie, mayocide now
>but also pls no genocide larp thx
>>
>>692856
both sides will simultaniously win / reign together, there will be a historic first co-win, and both will have to swear in using the same glove with both their hands together, they will have a double wide oval office seat and will have to be wearing the same suit, what strange times to be alive my friend, yesyes my friend, very strange indeed you said.
>>
>>699605
i just want affordable healthcare, housing, and decent public transport actually - feel free to project if it makes your rage filled fantasy more enjoyable though ?
>>
>>699610
I am mocking leftist larping, tard
>>
Critical race theory is just a compositional fallacy wrapped in a pretty package so the below 120 IQ brainlets don't notice how blatantly self contradictory it is.
>>
>>699459
>So how would you explain having to be constantly re-education on race
Yes, why DO white people have to be constantly beaten over the head with racial shaming? That's what everyone here is arguing about
>>
>>699567
I would consider European Jews white but they're constantly flip flopping on their own identities when it suits them.
>>
>>699962
Because their behavior never actually changes.
>>
>>699610
>i just want affordable healthcare, housing, and decent public transport actually
The first step towards that would be closing and securing our borders.
>>
>>699965
>Because their behavior never actually changes.
Pretty sure electing a black guy to president twice (with very comfortable margins) counts as "behavior" that has "changed".
>>
>>699965
You think white people today behave the same as white people in, say, 1820?
>>
>>699965
>Giving up your livelihoods is NOT ENOUGH
Well, I guess its back to nooses and jackboots, then...
>>
>>699418
>If you disagree with me that proves I'm right
No wonder people call this bullshit a Kafka trap
>>
>>699965
I can't imagine a scenario when iron age peoples would have been pumped about seeing a complete foreigner showing up. Now, juxtapose that with the citizenry of Minnesota in the 90s.
>>
>>699418
>I think discriminating against people on the basis of race is wrong
>lmao why iz whitey so fragile?
Literally how all my discussions about race with leftists go. I knew I wasn't a democrat anymore when I started getting called racist for advocating against racism.
>>
>>692856
Critical race theory is neo-Marxist ideology created by a Frankfurt School nutcase.
>>
>>698403

Wow, I've seen some retarded posts in my time but this really takes the cake.

I can't even imagine how sheltered your upbringing was that made you so racist that you think slavery was a net positive for the slaves.

Please, for everyone who has to read your garbage in the future, please, please read a single book on the subject that challenges your worldview.
>>
>>700548
>I can't even imagine how sheltered your upbringing was that made you so racist that you think slavery was a net positive for the slaves.
What was the alternative?
>>
>>700602
While many would have been enslaved by other Africans, or just killed, part of the African slave trade was supported by European and American guns, and some slaves were caught by white people directly, without African middlemen. So some would be dead, others would still be slaves, but some would be free in their tribal society. Whatever you think of tribal shitholes, the Africans still preferred them to slavery.
>>
>>700548
but.. it was a net positive. objectively. they could be slaves in africa instead. or executed.
>>
>>700612
how do you know what dead africans thought and preferred?
>>
>>700612
>Whatever you think of tribal shitholes, the Africans still preferred them to slavery.
Some did, others didn't. Recordings of ex-slaves in the early 20th century revealed that many slaves admired their masters and felt they had a fair life. When slavery ended, few accepted the return to Africa, instead preferring to live in a discriminatory US than having their own freedom and sovereignty in Africa. Few even moved from the south. Modern blacks don't want to admit it but slavery was in fact the best thing to ever happen to the black race, even if actually being slaves wasn't the highest point
>>
>>700627
People don't like being captured and enslaved. When one tribe fights another, the losing tribe doesn't like losing.
>>700630
Where were they going to move back to? The ones that were born in Africa lost everything they had, land, home, society. The ones that were born in the US didn't have anything at all to go back to. They weren't choosing the US over freedom in Africa, they were choosing the US over a complete unknown.
The slave trade exacerbated an existing problem, there were tribes that could've had a fighting chance if not for the guns supplied to their enemies. There were fair masters and cruel masters, and it was up to the whims of the master, and that alone makes it a problem.
>>
>>700637
>Where were they going to move back to? The ones that were born in Africa lost everything they had, land, home, society. The ones that were born in the US didn't have anything at all to go back to.
US abolitionists created the colony of Liberia to repatriate ex-slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia
It was basically an all black USA, ruled by US-educated blacks with complete freedom
>>
Trump's bumbling and /pol/'s bullshit trolling will only make it more difficult for sensible moderates to rid America of these demagogues whipping up racial hysteria.

The core of their strategy and belief system, common among extremists, is that their particular group are the leading representatives of people of color, of anti-racism. The sole representatives preferably, and many extremists achieve this by the use of absurdities which only they would ever believe and which indoctrinated followers are emotionally attached to or just go along with to fit in.

You can see this in some of their decisions. If you want to reduce police brutality it makes sense to raise standards for hiring officers and give them special training. So why do they present something as irrational and ambiguous as "defund the police"? Because they can't compete in providing rational sensible solutions to problems with actual dogooders, they are here to abuse people's fears so of course they'd never actually want to reduce the problem, they want stupid white people to flip out and become racist.

The irony is /pol/ wants it too. /pol/ wants to see America burn, they want their opponents to make fools of themselves, make ridiculous demands and stoke the flames of racial hatred.
>>
>>700643
>The irony is /pol/ wants it too. /pol/ wants to see America burn
america's been burning for at least the last 50 years. there's not much left of it.
>>
>>700640
Liberals do not want to talk about Liberia, they do not want it to exist. Blacks were provided the exact same opportunities as the US and Canada did, but being led by blacks, it turned into yet another failed African shithole, thus proving that blacks cannot build a country.
>>
>>700652
Nah, it's like a whale carcas. Parts are gone, others beyond repair but still there, some can be saved, a few perfectly fine.
>>
>>700671
>Blacks were provided the exact same opportunities as the US and Canada did
Even worse, they started so much better off than the Pilgrims and other early NA settlers were, with ample resources, a great constitution, no foreign governmental oppression, not surrounded by powerful enemy factions, and with the US even giving them financial aid and building their infrastructure for them. They still managed to fuck it up somehow.
>>
>>700640
>military coups supported by the us
>complete freedom
Americans are retarded.
>>
>>700720
In what year?
>>
>>700725
Multiple.
>>
>>700727
Give, say, the earliest.
>>
>>700734
1870s. Too bad pol us retarded about history.
>>
>>700737
What happened in 1870s Liberia?
>>
>>700738
I already answered the what, the how,, and the when. Who and where is obvious. I don't have an immediate answer for the why. Would you like to weigh in?
>>
>>700739
Can you give more detail so we have some idea of what you're talking about? Maybe a name of this event?
>>
>>700740
No, i don't see a name for any of these coups. Or anything about any of their history except for the initial declaration of independence.
>>
>>700745
In other words, it was a false claim
>>
>>700746
You believe unnamed situations aren't real? Is that why you're claiming?
>>
>>700748
Unnamed and apparently unrecorded. Is your next argument going to be that you're a time traveler who saw it all happen?
>>
>>700750
You can read the wiki yourself if you doubt my claims. Unless you think wiki is lying here?
>>
>>700752
Again, show us what you're referring to. This shouldn't have had to drag out for 10 posts.
>>
>>700754
Guess I'm not really sure how to get your attention span past just a name instead of listed events and times and locations.
Congrats anon, socks are a lie.
>>
>>700759
Give some reference to what you're talking about
>>
>>700762
I can't, there's no name for the event.
Shoes are a myth too.
>>
>>700764
Where did you even hear about it? What can I read that you read?
>>
>>700765
I heard about them in high school, you can read about them on wiki, as stated previously.
>>
>>700767
Where on the wiki?
>>
>>700768
In the time section that was, again, already stated.
Ask what the time was again. Show us the power of American education.
>>
>>700770
I can't find whatever you're trying to reference. The existence of the Whig party? If there was anything supporting what you said, I think you'd be eager to make it apparent
>wait
You're the same guy from earlier, aren't you? Pretending you have an argument, then as soon as your fake sources are exposed, giving short, evasive replies hoping nobody will probe further
>>
>>700775
>the Republic of Maryland, was forced by an insurgency of the Grebo and the Kru people to join Liberia.

>the Seaside Grebo (...) who established dominance because of their relationship to United State


Then later in 1980 the have an entire section on another coup.

>had trained with the U.S. Army Special Forces.
>Doe led a bloody coup d'état
>Reagan more than tripled Liberia's financial aid


But these don't have names for the events. So they aren't real.

I'm eager to run you around more circles like the dog you are after dipping from our previous argument, coward.
>>
>>700786
Okay, so what you were arguing actually had nothing to do with the freedom of black ex-slaves in Liberia. You're referring to some indigenous Africans attacking another colony and making them want to merge with Liberia after Liberians helped them defend against the indigenous people, and attaching some conspiracy theory that the US wanted them to do it for whatever reason, like African tribes aren't known to fight otherwise. So yes, Liberians had complete freedom and sovereignty.
>I'm eager to run you around more circles like the dog you are after dipping from our previous argument, coward.
My last post in that was here >>699210
and you failed to do what I asked
>>
>>700805
>The area was first settled in 1834 by freed African-American slaves and freeborn African Americans

I made a reply to work on what you asked, you ignored it twice. Now thrice.

Bark for me.
>>
>>700824
Yes, Liberia was settled by ex slaves sent over from the US. What was your post trying to discredit?
>I made a reply to work on what you asked, you ignored it twice
Your reply was "I'm not gonna [support my argument]." Unless you want to do so now, you have still lost.
>>
>>700836
So it has nothing to do with freedom of the ex black slaves, just involved them and their autonomy and suppression of it.
Got it.

I can't even get you to confirm a definition, feel free to do so and we can work from there.

Woof.
>>
>>700845
>So it has nothing to do with freedom of the ex black slaves, just involved them and their autonomy and suppression of it
What are you getting at? They sent the ex-slaves across the ocean in order to oppress them somewhere else where under their own government?
>I can't even get you to confirm a definition, feel free to do so and we can work from there.
Let's use your definition and continue the discussion exactly as it was. Now quote your sources to show how they support what you claimed to be using them for.
>>
>>700857
I'm getting at exactly what I posted about. Playing dumb isn't playing when you do it repeatedly.

The next step in the argument would be if you agree that meeting the elements of the definition would be fitting that definition?
>>
>>700875
>I'm getting at exactly what I posted about
The point of which being what?
>The next step in the argument would be if you agree that meeting the elements of the definition would be fitting that definition?
Sure, now if you could do what you've had 24 hours to do now and quote the parts of your sources that substantiate what your argument was
>>
>>700878
>being what?
Try reading previous posts. If this is the quality of reply then I can toss you aside and you can pretend you gained e-points.

>Sure
So do you accept the studies as existing?
>>
>>700881
>Try reading previous posts.
Why do this? Just say what you're trying to say or admit you're wrong
>So do you accept the studies as existing?
They exist, now quote them
>>
>>700893
>They exist
Do you agree these existing papers have references?
>>
>>700898
Yes, quote the information that proves your point, starting as I asked with repliciability. Stop dragging out posts and just finally make your argument
>>
>>700900
>Yes
So then, do you agree the content in the papers are therefore documented?
>>
>>700902
Post your argument, you've had 24 hours
>>
>>700903
Yes
or
No
>>
>>700907
Yes, and you've got one more post to finally say something, and don't think I've forgotten about the Liberia argument you've already dropped
>>
>>700912
>Yes
So that is one element fulfilled.
Next, do you believe peer review is valid?
>>
>>700915
Skip directly to the argument you've been avoiding for 24 hours. What direct quote supports replicability? What experiments have been conducted multiple time with the same supportive results?
>>
>>700919
Yes. Or. No.
>>
>>700920
Answer my question
>>
>>700923
Yes or no.
>>
>>700925
You're doing the same thing you did last night. Here's a skip for the next 20 of your posts: If you make a value argument, yes I'll accept it. Now make that argument or accept that you're wrong.
>>
>>700927
yes or no
>>
>>700928
I sure would love to review that data you are hiding from your peers
>>
>>700928
Answer my question
>>
>>700929
>>700930
Yes or no.
>>
>>700932
No, and here is a peer reviewed study substantiating my argument.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
>>
>>700932
I said all the yesses you needed, why can't you begin making an argument?
>>
>>700933
So then, as we can never fulfill peer review, we can never fulfill the elements of academic rigor as previously agreed upon, and so nothing can ever be academically rigorous.
>>700935
Agreements are needed at every step so when some chucklehead like the other guy comes in, it is addressed as I have done. So, yes or no for you?
>>
>>700938
>Agreements are needed at every step
Yes to everything, now make an argument
>>
>>700938
Peer review is not perfect since people are flawed and therefore we cannot assume that everything published is 100% factual. That is why it is important for you to give us the actual data so that we can interpret it ourselves and come to our own conclusions.
>>
>>700944
I am asking yes or no to this, nothing more and nothing less.
I will be asking for more agreement at later elements, sach nothing more and nothing less each time.
So I ask for this yes or no. And just this.
>>700946
It feels like your issue is not peer review, but people. I asked about peer review, not people.
>>
>>700951
You are aware what "peer" means, right?
>>
>>700951
>I am asking yes or no to this, nothing more and nothing less.
And I said yes to everything, and I've been in agreement about this since last night. If your argument is valid, I will agree. If you can't make an argument, as you've ducked out of two separate arguments in this thread already, then that's all there is to it.
>>
>>700953
You are aware we're discuss peer review, not peers, right?
>>
>>700962
>I will agree
Okay. Do you believe the peer review implemented by the papers is a valid peer review method(s)?
>>
>>700964
>I said yes to everythig
Answer my question
>>
>>700969
Yes or no for this one.
>>
>>700972
Answer my question for this one, you already got a yes to every question you would possibly ask. If you can't even start your argument after 24 hours of filibustering, you lose.
>>
>>700973
Yes or no.
>>
>>700963
Does peer review rely upon the peers to be objective?
>>
>>700977
Are you willing to make an argument at some point?
>>
>>700977
You ready rejected peer review, so my confirmation or denial isn't productive. But for fun let's do both. I say yes, you have already rejected peer review. I say no, you have already rejected peer review. You have rejected peer review, have rejected an element of academic rigor, and so have rejected academic rigor.
Good thing this was taken step by step so we can deal with problems when they arise.
>>700984
Yes or no.
>>
>>700994
>Yes or no.
Likewise, yes or no?
>>
>>700999
I am in the process of doing so. Piece by piece, inch by inch, step by step.
Yes or no.
>>
>>700994
I rejected peer review in the context that you are applying it, not that guy. You are trying to use it as a way to essentially say that if a paper is published and went through peer review, it is correct. This is simply not true and one only needs to look at retraction watch to see why. Again, provide the data so that we may review it and come to our own conclusions. You have nothing to gain by withholding evidence
>>
>>701001
>I am in the process of doing so
You've yet to start. Yes or no?
>>
>>701003
You have rejected academic rigor. Thank you for playing.
>>701005
When you are ready to continue the argument I will be here. I waited this long to get you to start it, I can wait longer for you to continue. Just reply to the last unanswered question with either your yes or no response.
>>
>>701009
>When you are ready to continue the argument I will be here. I waited this long to get you to start it, I can wait longer for you to continue
Hahahaha. So, what part of your sources talk about replicability in CRT?
>>
>>701009
Academic rigor does not believe that peer review ever ends. It is an ongoing process throughout the life of a paper and if evidence is brought to light which discredits it at a later date, it is rejected. Withholding data is against the principles of academic rigor, so let us peer review that evidence you have.
>>
>>701014
Yes or no.
>>701015
We have in fact already discussed this. It was answered with the "yes" of the yes or no I push so hard for. For people like you.
>>
>>701021
>Yes or no.
Back to dodging, even after I said yes to everything. I'm not going to make 100 more separate posts about it, yes I'll accept a valid argument if you make one. If you can't make a valid argument for the CRT thing, okay. If you can't make a valid argument for the Liberia thing, okay. We'll leave it at that.
>>
>>701025
You want me to make an argument.
You complain I am doing that.
You actively fight against me doing so. Then complain I am not doing so.
I've waited this long. If your next reply doesn't have anything productive to reply to, I'll let your ego be rubbed.
>>
>>701021
I did not consent to having someone else speak for me and therefore whatever they agree to is none of my concern. You are misrepresenting the concept of peer review as it relates to scholarly work in order to avoid having to provide the data. Stop the sophistry and act like the scholar you claim to be.
>>
>>701031
You jumped into the middle on an ongoing event. If you disagree with previous points, then disagree with them there. It's a binary branching tree, surely even you could follow it if you used both braincells.
>>
>>701038
I jumped in because I too want to see the data supporting your claims and recognized that you were just going to browbeat the other person into accepting terms which you could use to avoid providing the data. I was fine to watch it play out for a bit, but the way you were presenting peer review was so egregious I needed to step in. The very fact that you are, actively preventing peer review by not providing the data supporting your claims while still claiming to support the process was just too blatant. So, for the last time, provide the data. If your next post does not data supporting your initial argument, I will take it as evidence that you never had data.
>>
>>701059
>you were just going to browbeat the other person into accepting terms which you could use to avoid providing the data
And even after the terms were accepted, he just went back to the beginning to continue asking "yes or no" to the same things that were already said yes to 100 times. The kid never had anything to say.
>>
>people are upset that CDC isn't wasting money and time on how clocks and being on time is racist
>>
>>701059
>>701067
You say you want it but you don't want it to actually happen. You don't like what I'm doing, you have your own idea of what you want and, worst of all, already decided what you would accept.

If you were genuine, I would think you don't want me to make my argument, maybe fear you realize I'm right or maybe the attention span of a gnat.
You aren't of course, as I have told you how your participation would fit, and you continued to act like this.

We have left off at if the peer review methods used are valid peer review methods. Yes or no is what was asked. When you decide to be genuine again, I or in your specific case just start, I am here.
>>
>>701081
So go ahead and make your argument
>>
>>701084
Then follow it.
>>
>>701086
Okay, go
>>
>>701088
>>700964
>>
>>701091
>>701067
Continue to the point
>>
>>701093
So you refuse?
>>
>>701081
>no data
You could have just said you didn't have the data and saved everyone the effort. I already addressed peer review, but no the method is not sufficient because you are actively preventing the process of peer review by not providing the data.

>I won't provide it because you won't accept it at face value
Damn straight. If the data cannot stand up to scrutiny, it should be thrown out. However, while I will judge the data presented, I will try my best to not do so unfairly.

>insults
More sophistry. Provide something of substance.
>>
>>701094
Do you? You got a yes to every past, present, and future question and still aren't willing to answer the one question you were asked, which is simply following up on the sources you already posted for use
>>
>>701095
>scrutiny
Do you believe the peer review methods are valid peer review methods? What a coincidence this part is the one you refuse to continue on.
>>701096
I do admit I am not accepting a yes to future questions, only present ones. Accepting yes to future ones is just "do you admit you're wrong" "yes", which doesn't have the foundation yet so I your own interest i don't accept it yet.
I argue my argument, not the argument in your head.
>>
>>701101
>I argue my argument
Okay, so go ahead
>>
>>701102
So what is your answer?
>>
>>701101
I believe that peer review is an ongoing process and requires the dissemination of data to those who request it in order to properly be in line with the principles of the scholarly method as described in the wikipedia entry that was linked earlier this thread. Any other "method" of peer review is inadequate. Do you agree?
>>
>>701103
First, what in your source explains replicability of CRT?
>>
>>701106
I do not agree.
As the definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer%20review
does not include ongoing or synonymous terms, at this moment tour definition is not valid.
As far as we know, you are not a peer to any of them.

If you would like to rectify either, then the former requires alternative agreed definition to be had, and the latter requires personal information, if you're willing to share.
As of right now, your definition is nothing.
>>701107
Not my argument. Dismissed.
>>
>>701110
>Not my argument. Dismissed.
Oh yes it was. You lose.
>>
>>701111
No, it isn't and never was. Part of me thought we cleared this up when you kept quoting posters who weren't me, but given the nature of the site is an easy mistake with easy clarification to fix it, yet here you are, still repeating it. The audacity that someone else knows the argument instead of the arguer, well frankly fits you very well.
>>
>>701113
>No, it isn't and never was. Part of me thought we cleared this up when you kept quoting posters who weren't me
Was this not you? >>698949
If not, this shouldn't be you either >>700824
>>
>>701110
>a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field
I don't see where the definition states the process has an end, therefore my definition of an ongoing process of evaluating the merits of a publication are valid. It leave the "formal" peer review process which takes place prior to publication, however following publication it never leaves the "informal" peer review process. For it to leave the "informal" stage would be for it to be accepted as absolute fact, something which no academic should ever do.

As for the group of experts part, that really only matters if we are trying to formally disprove the findings of the article and lodge for a retraction. Not being an expert should not exclude a person from access to the data nor should it mean that we need to take all of the data an expert presents at face value. However, since we are discussing this among ourselves and not involving the academic body, we are reviewing data brought to us by a peer (or at least attempting to if you would provide it) which is supposedly on support of their conclusions. I actively encourage open access and discussion of all published research by the general public, especially that which was funded using tax payer money. Sure everyone will not be an expert, however new insights can arise from the process which challenge the claims and lead to wholly new, more accurate conclusions. Why are you, presumably, against this?
>>
>>701114
It was me.
Now, do you have it in you to go one more post further? One more that might be in that longer post? It won't be me, but it'll be about me.
Could you pretty please tell the class about what that post might say? The post that might be asking exactly what I've been trying to do with you for so long? Please, oh please tell us what that post says. Anyhow it is not asking for a source, but rather an argument. Do this one little thing for me. Do it.
>>
>>701116
It doesn't state a lot of things, don't be this fallacious. Try to be better than that.
I don't see anything in wiki about informal peer review, so again until with a definition to be agreed upon why even bring it up.
>since we are discussing this among ourselves and not involving the academic body
So, not peers. At least you admit it, so we can remove "formal" peer review from your contestion.
Now, if your "informal" version would like data to see, feel free to look at it yourself. I made sure none of the publications were locked behind a paywall, but if that is your issue let me know and I'll upload it elsewhere.
>>
>>701117
>It was me.
So you made that argument. Then when you were asked what the sources you supplied, which you believed made your argument for you, said, you ducked out. 24 hours later, here we are. Try again. And don't worry, I won't bring up your failed Liberia argument again.
>>
>>701120
I linked sources that I used. They're quite literally right there.
They were not used in the way you keep thinking they are. But as you are the infallible, it's not that you misunderstood the purpose or use it's that the other person must be incorrect in their own actions.
Right? Yes or no?
>>
>>701118
>so not peers
I was being nice by considering us peers. If you don't feel that way, fine.

I was using informal as a way to describe the kinds of discussions that take place in places like retraction watch on a daily basis.

Also, I took a quick look at your sources and here are my conclusions.

>Hines
Has a nice table, but no actual quantification of data that I can find.
>Walsh
No figures
>Liebow
No figures
>Spainerman
No figures

Do you actually have any stats or hard numbers to support your argument or is this it? Maybe even a simple bar graph or graphical representation of responses to a survey? Something we can quantify. Sorry if this is beyond what the field does, but in my line of work if I presented an article which didn't even have an immunofluorescence image or some form statistics in graphical form, I would be laughed at.
>>
>>701121
Now we have acceptance, you made that argument. Now for whether or not you substantiated that argument
>I linked sources that I used.
But you've yet to use them. You were asked to use them and then you left the conversation.
>>
>>701123
Data is more than graphs. They are representations. Sorry you have to read instead of pretty pictures.
>>701126
>you made that argument.
You keep saying this, still just you lying about it. And still falling into the complaint I'm not using sources how you want. Oddly enough, you both have the issue where the situation is not happening how you want, so you just...lie.
Like, you keep saying I left the conversation. But... I'm right here. I guess I'll just ignore you when you keep pushing your shit, would that make progress here?
I'll try it. I'll keep posting of course, but it won't be a reply to base lies.
>>
>>701127
>I made it and here's my sources I used
>But I didn't make it so why do you want me to use those sources?
Pick a path and follow it
>>
>arguing with CRTists
Quit wasting your time guys, you can't convince a fanatic that their religion is false. Race is their God now.
>>
I made the argument of crt being academically rigorous.
I did not make the argument that a single source includes some quote that shows crt fulfills an element of academic rigor.
That is what you want so badly, but it's not what I did. None of the papers argue for crt being academically rigorous, because that was my job to do, not theirs.
I picked my path and followed it for literal days so far. It just wasn't the path you wanted.
>>
>>701130
You came up with a definition of academic rigor by proxy of "scholarly method," then couldn't meet the definition of it.
>I made the argument of crt being academically rigorous.
>None of the papers argue for crt being academically rigorous, because that was my job
The point of posting sources is to use them for support. If you aren't going to use your own sources, they might as well not exist.
>>
>>701127
Yes, data is more than graphs. However the fact that you have not provided a single quantitative approach is a bit strange.
>>
>>701132
They were used to make my argument.
I tried decently hard to explain how the argument worked. Was met with just boneheaded rudeness. It's 4chan do that action is whatever, but I put in my effort to help you understand.
>>701133
What did you not accept about the Sablan data?
And make sure we're clear, that data is for their study about their conclusion. Not for any specific element of the academic rigor defined previously.
>>
>>701135
>Sablan data
Did you link an article attributed to someone named Sablan? I didn't see it in the links here >>699495
>>
>>701137
Oh I assumed you were talking about the first wave of links. My mistake.
Page titled 271 of spanierman.
>>
>>701135
>These are my sources
>What do they say?
>Uhhh, I don't know, why does that matter?
You posted alleged sources, you didn't use them. The best I can tell is you're trying to say "there are multiple papers that have to do with CRT, therefore the data is replicable" but there is no data and there's nothing being replicated
>>
>therefore the data is replicable
That's only in your head.
>>
>>701147
Are you saying that it isn't replicable?
>>
>>701130
>>701127
LMAO it is fucking comical how bad you are at debating! You literally don't even understand the concept of having to make an argument and back it up. You're so used to your echochambers that you just panic the first time somebody actually challenges you to support your argument. You're STILL just making vague statements and dodging the questions. You can't even say what your argument is anymore because you know that your original "argument" has been BTFO several times over.
Defund universities now, this is pathetic.
>>701123
Of course they have hard data. Did you forget that
>From 2002-2006, there were 16 law faculty engaged in race/social science research
I mean, what more data do you need? Obviously that conclusively proves that white people are fragile. And if that's not enough, there's also that random black woman named Tina who claims that she experienced racism. Checkmate, Nazi!
>>
>>701130
I like the study that showed you get destroyed and peer reviewed by people who are better equipped than you were. Just take the loss and work on your argument.
>>
No, that is not what I am saying. The post is right there, you can reread it since you grossly misunderstood.
>>
>the CRT shill's vagueness has now reached the level where xe won't even specify which anon xe is replying too
Top kek!
>>
>>698931
Thanks
>>
>>699559
I’m black you racist. How dare you assert black fragility as a concept. Don’t you realize how racist and bigoted that is? Educate yourself.
>>
Insomniac European here. WTF is this fragility stuff that Americans are constantly talking about?
>>
>>701780

https://www.westernjournal.com/victor-davis-hanson-fragility-woke/
>>
How do you know critical race theory is a scam?

They exclude Asians.
>>
>>702493
Good point



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.