CRT tangent from political meme thread and Cis tangent from Musk thread

"Ted Cruz and Gregg Abbot appreciate your support. " was toxic venom?

Ironic then, that you ignored this. I talked about dogma but didn't get personal until after that.

Kids don't get taught what I posted, you tedious fuck. Goddamn, actually stand for something rather than bending in the wind to please the middle.

Who was that again? LOL.

You know, before Amaris was confronted with the fact that yes, indeed, it was well known, just not by her.

Though granted, it wasn't as bad as Tererun, who because I disagreed with her the other day stated I was a pedophile.

Good times, good times.

Well, yeah, Ted Cruz killed some people in the 70's.

Are you sure it wasn't Beto O'Rourke? Amaris is pretty sure it was Beto that did it - just to watch them bleed.

Seriously? He was responding to you insinuating O'Rourke was a white supremacist and THAT hurt your feelings? Christ on a popcycle, you're the WF poster boy of can dish it out but not take it.

That's what I heard.

@Demiurge so we must love and never question people who give us a tiny scrap which is why @Amaris should STFU about beta?

This is tyhe same argument the Biden Bros use. It is the same argument the Trumpistas use to keep their people from criticizing him. We all should just be thankful we got something, and STFU and salute. That is the same idea that every single cult leader in history has used. If you criticize in the slightest you are an enemy of the cause and need to be destroyed. Then they mobilize their zombie minions to attack and root out anyone who any doubt or criticism.

This is one of the primary rules of cults and fascists. Demi is not saying Amaris is wrong, he is saying he is wrong to complain or look at anything the candidate under their flag does wrong because it disturbs people and might make them question the leader.

Oh, and in case anyone missed it, because I think most people did:

Look at who Amaris posted with the obvious lie Beto O'Rourke has flipped on critical race theory before going on her 'he's helping white supremacy' rant.

Christopher Rufo.

Who is that?

Go to the John Oliver analysis of CRT.

Here it is again:



At the 6:08 mark he introduces the right wing propagandist that admits he's lying about CRT to use it as a divisive wedge issue. Oliver shows that he knows he's lying about it at 8:35, from that propagandists own words.

Yep, you guessed it. Christopher Rufo.

You know, the one that categorizes CRT as "...a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining foundation of the Constitution."

He's literally the one leading the charge to destroy CRT.

The guy that on Fox News demanded Trump ban CRT in the Federal govt - and Trump did, because he saw that segment.

And she believes him uncritically, without a single question, because he says lies about someone she doesn't like.

I used Rufo because he had a direct link to the video. Your mistake is thinking that's where I stopped.
Ah well, go on, though, beat that dead horse until it's pulp. You'll still be here doing this while I'm taking care of things that matter. It's all you have.

You used an overt lying propagandist who selectively edited the full 6 min clip to show the 16 seconds he wanted, and you posted his lying propaganda stating you agreed with his premise without any other commentary.

Again, the guy who actually does want to stop CRT at any cost, and furthermore is the man who created the campaign to link it to any discussion of any racism.

When called on it you doubled down on the lying propagandist's assertion that Beto was backtracking, but went further stating that was supportive of white supremacy.

Great. Go back and do things that matter.

The only thing you are doing here is the GOP's work of spreading hate.

Once again, Gregg Abbot is thankful for your support.

This type of idiocy is why he gets re-elected, giving him the ability to continue to hurt the people he wants to hurt.

Meaning well isn't doing well. Do better.

ok biden bro

Beto does support white supremacy, whether you realize that or not. You don't understand this because you have no education in CRT. You truly do not understand. You know just enough to be self-satisfied with your ignorance. You're like the people who say Joe Biden is a good man. To reach that conclusion, you have to not only ignore everything he's done in his own past, but ignore the context in which he has risen to his position. You lack critical thinking skills to suss out what is valid and what is dross, and you throw it all together to reach a conclusion that only works if you don't think about it too hard, and it works especially well for people who want to stay where they are, where they're comfortable. More power to you, but I have no desire to waste what precious life I have left arguing about it. If you want to be this way, continue to be it. I can't stop you. If you want all of the internet points, you can have them. When your time comes, may they revive you and infuse you with the ability to live again. Otherwise, find something better with your time.

There are so many complicit people who are never going to call out the aggressive animals because a decent world for everyone is not worth their effort when they have something to cling to.

People in general, but especially white moderates, will forgive a lot from a politician as long as they can continue believing things aren't going to drastically change. The US itself is in for an exceptionally rude awakening.

MLK was right that the white moderate is the worst enemy of america. I can be pissed off at a bigot but when the moderate brings them into my protected area and tells me we have to get along because conflict is bad, I have some problems. Polite works, but if they want to tear up the social contract I got a flame thrower that sends most of them runnin.

No, he doesn't. White supremacy isn't 'anything associated with the US government'. Beto is about as white supremacist as Obama was. But go on, tell me Obama supports White Supremacy. Clearly that's what your dogma states - anything that supports the US government supports white supremacy. Obama was president, he didn't dismantle the government, he MUST be a white supremacist.

The guy you used to attack Beto DOES support white supremacy. Overtly. Up is down, left is right, only what matters is the dogma.

And once again, we go back to you expressly indicating what I have already stated - dogma. To you, it's indistinguishable from truth. For you, the only way to the truth is to accept your dogma. You literally just stated it.

I'm also certain you don't have any formal training in CRT, certainly not at the post-graduate level where it is actually taught. If you did, you'd see how clearly you are abusing it. That's why when you refer to CRT, it's just dogma. In your case, it provides justification (to you) on why the entire US government should be dismantled - which you have stated as your ultimate goal. You just radicalized yourself on the internet because you lack the education for true comparative analysis. You are a pseudo-intellectual.

CRT is just one tool of many, and it's useful for critiquing hierarchical power structures for unintended racism. Overt racism doesn't require CRT.

It's also not without its legitimate criticism or faults.

More of the same. Biden has made some profound mistakes and that's led to unintended consequences. But guess who put him into power? The black vote. Without that, Sanders is the Dem nominee. You know, the guy I voted for in the primaries twice. That being said, Biden is far, far more palatable than the actual fascist, even to the black community. Again, they put him into office. Once again, despite your obtusenes, either Biden or Trump was going to be the President in 2020. And I've seen a lot of good come out of the Biden presidency.

But please, explain to the black community on how you know better than them about who they should have represent them. I'm sure that will go along swimmingly.

As to internet points, again, not very self-aware, are you? You are here too. You keep saying you have more important things to do. You keep coming back. You don't need to do that.

But I do the same thing with you that I do to anyone that perverts the truth. I point out the fallacies in their argument.

Not to change them - clearly you are beyond that, as even overt evidence is handwaved away if it doesn't match your biases.

But to make everyone else know what they are.

I'd love to see some change. Universal health care, stronger voting protections, higher taxation on corporations and the wealthy. Dismantle private prisons, break police budgets up so they support social services and are more helpful than punitive. Decriminalize many forms of drugs. Treat drug addiction as a medical problem, not punitively. Stronger unions, more time off, treat people more humanely. Support for green technologies, a reduction of reliance on fossil fuels, stronger election laws. Start taxing churches that engage in electioneering. Just for a start.

I got to see several of these enacted in my home state, and felt gratified that my contributions and activism helped cause that.

However, I don't think that the US is evil, I don't want to see it overthrown, and you know what, the vast majority of people agree with me that live here, including most minorities. Who are far, far, far more 'moderate' than you. Who says so? They do. In every poll.

And especially when they vote.

Sports are evil. The US is addicted to moneyed sports. The US is evil.

We spawned Trump. Case closed.

Clearly no denying that logic. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Foosball is teh devil.

Agreed. Making civility a political ideology only allows the oppressor to continue oppressing people under the reproachful eye of a self-appointed babysitter. It serves no real purpose for a free people.

Right. So no slur is too vile or disgusting.

Anyone who dares disagree? Pedophiles, all.

Because that will clearly get you to a place where you can change people's minds.

Again, your dogma fails in the face of reality.

Your marginalization is self-inflicted.

Hey, can I try it too? Clearly it's justified.

Can I start trashing your sexuality? How about something simple, like misgendering you or calling you by your old name. If I'm right, and I know I am, it's clearly appropriate.

Nah. It's just you that are a raging hypocrite.

Yes, either agree with @Demiurge or he will start misgendering you. Because treating you with any respect was always contingent on your submissions to their ideology. Once you disagree then it is OK for them to be racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other bigotry they were kind enough to silence.

Thank you demi for admitting your prejudice is always there, and your respect is only given for those that are the good trannies in your opinion.

This is a good example of why transgender people (and LGBTQ+, women, black and indigenous folks, et. al.) can't rely on moderates. I know it's a bit of a broad brush, but I use it in the same convention MLK used it, because it applies here: a civil political discourse devoted to order rather than a system that understands the root of oppression and seeks to pull it out by that root. @Demiurge here immediately makes clear that his understanding of injustice is only surface level, that his willingness to help can change at any moment he no longer feels as if he's being given the respect he rightfully deserves not for acting to stop injustice, but merely for showing up.

This is why MLK was wary of the white moderate of his day: the white moderate was an "ally" right up until the moment he wasn't, and anything could trigger that withdrawal.

What good is civility if it's only to present a veneer of allyship? The politics of civility is more like a game than anything rooted in abolishing injustice. It is useless to anyone who seeks to do actual work among people fighting for their rights. It's as deep and meaningful as the corporations who put up rainbows every June. A shallow display of sunshine patriotism.

Demi's starting to sound like Lubak.

Or maybe he misunderstood "Making civility a political ideology only allows the oppressor to continue oppressing people under the reproachful eye of a self-appointed babysitter." just like I did? So what did she mean by that? If calling someone a spineless fuck is okay, then what's off limits?

Which is when you ask "what do you mean?" and not decide that someone's identity isn't valid anymore because they don't agree with you. It would be like a white guy saying to a black person "if you don't vote for (politician) you ain't black," and who would be awful enough to do that?

So if you call someone a spineless fuck, you expect them to take the moral high road?

Where does the low ground stop for someone who considers themselves an ally? If you deny someone their identity because you're angry with them, you're not an ally, you're merely supporting a marginalized group for your own ego. What idiot would be like "well if you won't be nice to me, I don't want any of you to have equal rights" and still expect to be seen as an ally? Someone who claims to support equity and justice?

If my being recognized as someone deserving of basic civil rights depends upon me walking on eggshells for someone who has the power and privilege to take that away, who is that? It's that same white moderate MLK was talking about. He knew, Malcolm knew, James Baldwin knew, Assata Shakur knew, you couldn't trust a person in full privilege to look out for you because their allyship could be revoked the moment you crossed them. Your rights were only supported by their desire to be seen as not only a part of the group, but as central to it.

So no, you don't have to take the high road, but if you're trying to deny someone their identity, you were never an ally, just an asshole using allyship for your own ego. I know a lot of people like that, unfortunately. It's rampant in many of the intersectional communities among people with greater privilege. Denying someone their identity isn't the low road. It goes well beyond that.

I think Caitlyn Jenner is full of shit. She's awful, she's on the wrong side of history, and she's clueless about what so many people go through, but she's still Caitlyn Jenner.

He wasn't denying your identity. He was juxtaposing being a bigoted shit heel with lacking civility...the root word being civil. What's the difference? "I can call you any hateful thing I want because you're a cis white male and civility is the devil, but my gender identity is off limits because it's Super uncivil" seems a little off kilter.

He opened his mouth and let it run before he engaged his brain. He didn't ask what I meant by civility politics, he just assumed it meant you don't have to be nice to people and can call them whatever you want, which is not the antithesis to what civility politics is at all.

Civility politics is the notion that we can come to an agreement through rational discourse and debate. The idea of agreeing to disagree. The truth is that such a compromise is rarely possible when it comes to civil rights, because on one side you have people demanding the right to be treated equitably, and the other side holding the position that such "people" are deviants, not worthy of such consideration. That is the foolishness of civility politics in the face of injustice and inequality. You cannot debate your way to equity in the face of gross injustice.

I'd have been more than happy to explain any questions of "what do you mean?" Instead, @Demiurge immediately decided I was no longer worthy of being identified as who I was. It was an excellent example of MLK's white moderate, that the moment disagreement appeared, the person in the lesser privileged position immediately lost who they were as a consequence. It was taken away as a parent might take a toy from a spoiled child. You need to understand that these tactics are not what allies engage in, it's what people who want to appear as allies without putting in the work tend to engage in. It fosters a lot of distrust. There are people here whom I trust with my identity, people whom I know see me as I see me, but there are those who go along with it because it's either expected of them, or they know they can't really say anything without being branded as something else, something less savory.

I never took away @Demiurge's identity, his humanity. I argue that he's an asshole, but then so many of us are, and yet here we are trying to parse whether or not what he decided to do was just a minor point of sophistry. See, my life gets decided like this all of the time in court houses, government buildings, and on news channels every day. For you, and @Demiurge, it's just a debate point. Your existence will never be seen as anything other than who you are, but because @Demiurge didn't like my tone, that subjected my entire existence to scrutiny.

That is the hole we have to dig our way out of, and also why it is absolutely crucial that it is understood the massive inequity that exists in this country. People like @Demiurge can posit all day long any number of hypotheticals about my behavior and how I should react to his involvement in who I am and what I do, and if I don't present my best foot forward, when he decides that I've crossed the line, it is felt that I'm asking for it.