Woke is a Joke

[winsor 185]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Critical race theory is a way of looking at history. Because history has many points of view; not only that of the “victor.”  It applies a lens of disparate treatment based on race to social and governmental structures, to see if it’s valid or made a difference. 
Like any cool new hammer, some people see it as the lens, rather than one of many. Using a hammer to remove a window is generally less than optimal, but that doesn’t make the hammer useless. 

 We’re used to the lens of US history and civics as interpreted and written by (generally) white and (generally) male authorities, because that human description was synonymous with professional and scholarly authority; certainly in the US, and very possibly throughout the western world. Why not try different lenses?

Ever wonder how history (you know, the one and only history) is taught in other countries? Maybe they don’t all have exactly the same viewpoint. 
Wendy P. 

Gee, you don't think I might read accounts of history from various sources, do you?

Some years back a group of amateur historians at the office mentioned within earshot of me that "you'll never see a history of the Second World War in German!"

The next day I brought in a copy of "Zweiter Weltkrieg im Bildern."  Of course the Laendser were the good guys, and the war in the Pacific lasted two pages.

Barbara Tuchman, a nice Jewish girl, did a marvelous job of background on a variety of key epochs, going with the treasury's records instead of the accounts provided to the King.  She exemplifies the Historian as skeptic.

Thomas Sowell is male and white haired, but not white, and his treatment of the nonwhite experience in the Americas, as well as his history of slavery, is brilliant.

It has been said that Progressives vigorously defend people's right to different opinions - and are horrified by the fact that people hold different opinions.

When the fundamental tenet of an investigation is "everything is, first and foremost, all about race," it is hardly surprising that everything that results is, first and foremost, all about race (kind of a coincidence there).

My Rabbi in Texas was a degreed Historian before his Rabbinical studies.  Torah study was great, since he would go through the Hebrew account, then point out that Egyptian accounts of the same event had been translated, and that (strangely enough) they took a slightly different position on what happened, who won and so forth.

If I read something that is dripping with racism, I try to filter it out to get to the heart of the matter, which can be difficult when the source is so biased.  Mein Kampf is a dreadful read.  No apologies, but I don't give anyone a pass.  I don't buy the concept of 'good racism,' and CRT, while they don't go for burning crosses and whatnot, is every bit as racist as the Klan (you'll forgive me if I greatly dislike the KKK, not simply because they killed Jews with as much enthusiasm as Blacks).

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,254]

10 hours ago, winsor said:

Gee, you don't think I might read accounts of history from various sources, do you?

Apart from the fact that you know the names of some authors, no. You really don't give that impression.

[billvon 2,380]

13 hours ago, winsor said:

When the fundamental tenet of an investigation is "everything is, first and foremost, all about race," it is hardly surprising that everything that results is, first and foremost, all about race (kind of a coincidence there).

Agreed.  CRT does not hold that, any more than an oncologist holds the view "every disease, first and foremost, is cancer."  However, he does spend all his time studying, and treating, and dealing with cancer - because that's his chosen field of study.  I am sure you can come up with plenty of other examples.

Quote

If I read something that is dripping with racism, I try to filter it out to get to the heart of the matter, which can be difficult when the source is so biased.  Mein Kampf is a dreadful read.  No apologies, but I don't give anyone a pass.  I don't buy the concept of 'good racism,' and CRT, while they don't go for burning crosses and whatnot, is every bit as racist as the Klan (you'll forgive me if I greatly dislike the KKK, not simply because they killed Jews with as much enthusiasm as Blacks).

You have been talking about racism for some time here; your posts are dripping with it, and at least half of your posts on this thread are about racism.  Are you one of the good racists or one of the bad racists?

[winsor 185]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Agreed.  CRT does not hold that, any more than an oncologist holds the view "every disease, first and foremost, is cancer."  However, he does spend all his time studying, and treating, and dealing with cancer - because that's his chosen field of study.  I am sure you can come up with plenty of other examples.

You have been talking about racism for some time here; your posts are dripping with it, and at least half of your posts on this thread are about racism.  Are you one of the good racists or one of the bad racists?

CRT by any definition I can find is about as well balanced as recommending Chemo for acne.  With what definition of CRT are you working?

Since I am strongly in favor of discrimination - discrimination I tell you! - on the basis of ability and integrity, I suppose that makes me the very worst kind of racist.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[wmw999 2,116]

4 minutes ago, winsor said:

Since I am strongly in favor of discrimination - discrimination I tell you! - on the basis of ability and integrity, I suppose that makes me the very worst kind of racist.

And since ability and integrity (and intelligence) can be defined and measured in ways that make it easier for some cultures to excel than others, there's obviously no chance whatsoever for the deck to be stacked, is there?

"He has to serve old ladies, and you know how they are"

"She just wouldn't fit in -- the guys couldn't be themselves any more"

"He couldn't pass the aptitude test (the one devised in 1950's NYC)"

Wendy P.

[winsor 185]

9 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And since ability and integrity (and intelligence) can be defined and measured in ways that make it easier for some cultures to excel than others, there's obviously no chance whatsoever for the deck to be stacked, is there?

"He has to serve old ladies, and you know how they are"

"She just wouldn't fit in -- the guys couldn't be themselves any more"

"He couldn't pass the aptitude test (the one devised in 1950's NYC)"

Wendy P.

One of the keys to project management is scope - define at the outset the parameters by which the project is deemed complete.

Thus I am curious what are the criteria we must meet in order to declare Mission Accomplished! and move on?

Like the pandemic, it will be nice if and when we can just get over it.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,380]

5 hours ago, winsor said:

CRT by any definition I can find is about as well balanced as recommending Chemo for acne. 

Yep.  Using CRT to evaluate your own self-esteem would be a similarly foolish pursuit.  That does not mean chemo is evil, or that acne is easily cured, or that CRT is racist, or that your own self-esteem is not worth evaluating.  Use the right tool for the job.

Quote

With what definition of CRT are you working?

The actual one, not the FOX News one.  Specifically, the study of the US law and US institutions and how they related to treatment of different races over the years.  For example, the study of redlining is CRT.  Your observation of people changing their chosen names for their children for less "ethnic-sounding" names - that is an observation that CRT discusses.  Your discussion of Evanston reparations is a topic covered in CRT studies.  It came out of CLS, which is a wider study of society and law with an eye towards how those factors tend to empower (and retain power for) specific groups of people - and how those factors help maintain the status quo.  (All the legal tax dodges for the very rich would be an example here.)

In other words, CRT is the discussion of how society and law in the US influences race and racism, and it is something that you yourself discuss.  You believe in some some sort of bogeyman where CRT means "whites are all evil" or "blacks deserve reparations" or whatnot, but again - that is a construct of a somewhat desperate political party that needs a wedge issue, not anything resembling reality.

[winsor 185]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Yep.  Using CRT to evaluate your own self-esteem would be a similarly foolish pursuit.  That does not mean chemo is evil, or that acne is easily cured, or that CRT is racist, or that your own self-esteem is not worth evaluating.  Use the right tool for the job.

The actual one, not the FOX News one.  Specifically, the study of the US law and US institutions and how they related to treatment of different races over the years.  For example, the study of redlining is CRT.  Your observation of people changing their chosen names for their children for less "ethnic-sounding" names - that is an observation that CRT discusses.  Your discussion of Evanston reparations is a topic covered in CRT studies.  It came out of CLS, which is a wider study of society and law with an eye towards how those factors tend to empower (and retain power for) specific groups of people - and how those factors help maintain the status quo.  (All the legal tax dodges for the very rich would be an example here.)

In other words, CRT is the discussion of how society and law in the US influences race and racism, and it is something that you yourself discuss.  You believe in some some sort of bogeyman where CRT means "whites are all evil" or "blacks deserve reparations" or whatnot, but again - that is a construct of a somewhat desperate political party that needs a wedge issue, not anything resembling reality.

Could you provide source material? If so, please do.

Your version is greatly downplayed from what the supposed founders of CRT have said on interviews. 

You also seem knowledgeable of what does or does not show up on Fox - please fill me in, I don't watch it.

What I pick up is from such alt-right sources as CBS, NBC and Googling the interwebs.

The definitions I have found for 'Inclusivity, Equity and Diversity' are all pretty much the same, regardless of the source.  If you are right and they are wrong, you should not worry about me but set millions of other misled people straight. 

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,254]

9 hours ago, winsor said:

What I pick up is from such alt-right sources as CBS, NBC 

And yet you haven't posted anything from CBS and NBC, you've posted stuff from Legal Insurrection Foundation, a well dressed part of the alt-right whose main claim to fame is insisting that Derek Chauvin was not guilty.

[BIGUN 1,049]

10 hours ago, winsor said:

Could you provide source material? If so, please do.

Morning, Winsor

The following is a good overview of what you seek:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

Any of the authors listed in the article are worth reviewing - "The originators of CRT include Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Cheryl Harris, Richard Delgado, Patricia Williams, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Tara Yosso" with Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado being the key authors and beginnings of CRT. 

"Race, Racism and American Law" by Derrick Bell 1973

"Critical Race Theory: An Introduction"  by Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado was written in 1995, but not published until 2001. 

I believe both are available on Kindle if that's a preference. I choose good old fashioned hardcover books. 

Note: I studied TQM in grad school. My thesis was on it and I got to speak with Dr. Deming on more than one occasion before he passed. There's what he said TQM was and then there were those who turned it into profit. Like what I said earlier in this thread - most are talking about race relations. Bill is one of the few that get what CRT really is. Maybe he'll chime in with some additional authors to review.

Be well. 

 

[winsor 185]

56 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Morning, Winsor

The following is a good overview of what you seek:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

Any of the authors listed in the article are worth reviewing - "The originators of CRT include Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Cheryl Harris, Richard Delgado, Patricia Williams, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Tara Yosso" with Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado being the key authors and beginnings of CRT. 

"Race, Racism and American Law" by Derrick Bell 1973

"Critical Race Theory: An Introduction"  by Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado was written in 1995, but not published until 2001. 

I believe both are available on Kindle if that's a preference. I choose good old fashioned hardcover books. 

Note: I studied TQM in grad school. My thesis was on it and I got to speak with Dr. Deming on more than one occasion before he passed. There's what he said TQM was and then there were those who turned it into profit. Like what I said earlier in this thread - most are talking about race relations. Bill is one of the few that get what CRT really is. Maybe he'll chime in with some additional authors to review.

Be well. 

 

Thanks, I appreciate actually referencing a source.

Unfortunately, I call bullshit on the first sentence of the tenets of "Principles of the CRT Practice" to wit: "Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed..."

If that's true, let's all just 'identify' as 'people of color' and be done with it.

Humoring people who wish to relabel themselves may be polite, but it doesn't change much:

On the one hand CRT disputes that 'race' even exists, OTOH the sole consideration is race.  I'm not sure if this is the result of irony or stupidity, but suspension of disbelief is necessary to proceed much further.

I guess the problem we have here is that I dispute the basis of CRT ideology.   From a semantic standpoint, their position if FUBAR.

Like any other religion, if it makes you happy, knock yourself out.  If you want me to pretend that CRT has fundamental merit (beyond agreeing that racial discrimination of ANY sort is bad), you're SOL.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[BIGUN 1,049]

33 minutes ago, winsor said:

Thanks, I appreciate actually referencing a source.

Unfortunately, I call bullshit on the first sentence of the tenets of "Principles of the CRT Practice" to wit: "Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed..."

Now, let's reframe the discussion from race to those disabled. That "Social Construct" comes from the term, "intersectionality" within the social science. "Intersectionality is a concept that enables us to recognize the fact that perceived group membership can make people vulnerable to various forms of bias, yet because we are simultaneously members of many groups, our complex identities can shape the specific way we each experience that bias."  

Do you look at the disabled in the same way they look at themselves?

Can you empathize with the way in which the disabled experience the world of physical and social barriers? 

[metalslug 31]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

In other words, CRT is the discussion of how society and law in the US influences race and racism...

I accept that's the most common (and definitely the historical) definition for CRT, although on the same Wiki page that has been referenced a few times in this thread there is also a mention; "More recently, CRT has been taught internationally, including in the United Kingdom and Australia".

The CRT being taught or proposed in those countries is not the US version; it's reshaped for the circumstances and history of those respective countries. This is either evidence that the definition or scope of CRT is dynamic  ...or grounds for an argument that these countries should not be calling it CRT, that perhaps they should formulate a more nationally distinctive name for their own studies.  If the scope of CRT is dynamic and expandable, then what authority gets to define what CRT is, to avert it from becoming whatever influencers want it to be including the 'scaremonger' version ?  Political parties might not control that definition but if the proposed content is seen as negative or divisive then it's voted out of the state or national curriculum. I have already compared CRT to the study of religious scripture; a theory better suited as a separate and optional curriculum subject. In any place where CRT is optional curriculum (student's choice) and still banned, I would agree that's unfair.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

On the one hand CRT disputes that 'race' even exists, OTOH the sole consideration is race.  I'm not sure if this is the result of irony or stupidity, but suspension of disbelief is necessary to proceed much further.

Now that's bullshit. 

A ) Social constructs do exist.

B ) CRT doesn't say race is the sole consideration of anything.

[sfzombie13 307]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

 

Unfortunately, I call bullshit on the first sentence of the tenets of "Principles of the CRT Practice" to wit: "Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed..."...

 

On the one hand CRT disputes that 'race' even exists, OTOH the sole consideration is race.  I'm not sure if this is the result of irony or stupidity, but suspension of disbelief is necessary to proceed much further.

I guess the problem we have here is that I dispute the basis of CRT ideology.  

what kind of moron actually believes this?  race was invented around the 1600's if i recall correctly, and it is a social construct.  of course it needs to be studied in a social environment.  i think i just answered my own question.  they have a word for that but it escapes me at the moment.

[jakee 1,254]

17 minutes ago, metalslug said:

If the scope of CRT is dynamic and expandable, then what authority gets to define what CRT is, to avert it from becoming whatever influencers want it to be including the 'scaremonger' version ? 

??

Who gets to say what anything is? Who gets to say what civics is? Who gets to say what history is? Who gets to say what biology is?

You seem to be saying that because the name CRT has been appropriated by right wing scaremongers as their latest boogeyman that CRT itself is therefore untrustworthy. It's a creative objection, I'll give you that, but it isn't a good one. All the subjects above can be appropriated by bad actors, whether they be authoritarians, holocaust deniers or anti-evolutionists but it doesn't reflect badly on real study of them.

[sfzombie13 307]

21 minutes ago, metalslug said:

I accept that's the most common (and definitely the historical) definition for CRT, although on the same Wiki page that has been referenced a few times in this thread there is also a mention; "More recently, CRT has been taught internationally, including in the United Kingdom and Australia".

The CRT being taught or proposed in those countries is not the US version; it's reshaped for the circumstances and history of those respective countries. This is either evidence that the definition or scope of CRT is dynamic  ...or grounds for an argument that these countries should not be calling it CRT, that perhaps they should formulate a more nationally distinctive name for their own studies.  If the scope of CRT is dynamic and expandable, then what authority gets to define what CRT is, to avert it from becoming whatever influencers want it to be including the 'scaremonger' version ?  Political parties might not control that definition but if the proposed content is seen as negative or divisive then it's voted out of the state or national curriculum. I have already compared CRT to the study of religious scripture; a theory better suited as a separate and optional curriculum subject. In any place where CRT is optional curriculum (student's choice) and still banned, I would agree that's unfair.

well, since crt is nothing more than telling history as it was rather than what the ruling elite say it was, aka whitewashing, it absolutely needs to be adjusted for every country.  most were just as racist and homophobic as in the us, but the differences are there, so the theory needs adjusted for them.  and since this thread is related to the us, or at least that is what everyone is referring to, then any changes other countries make are irrelevant, but duly noted.  like any theory, it can be adjusted without invalidating it.

damn, jakee, you're beating me to all of them today. 

 

[winsor 185]

39 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Now, let's reframe the discussion from race to those disabled. That "Social Construct" comes from the term, "intersectionality" within the social science. "Intersectionality is a concept that enables us to recognize the fact that perceived group membership can make people vulnerable to various forms of bias, yet because we are simultaneously members of many groups, our complex identities can shape the specific way we each experience that bias."  

Do you look at the disabled in the same way they look at themselves?

Can you empathize with the way in which the disabled experience the world of physical and social barriers? 

The commonality between hard sciences and soft sciences appears largely limited to the use of the term 'science' in both. 

Having been paralyzed with the prospect of never walking again, and later spending a fair amount of time stuck in a wheelchair, I guess I have some insight regarding being disabled. 

Having said that, I am all for keeping the Olympics, the Paralympics and the Special Olympics separate entities.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[wmw999 2,116]

What, to you, Winsor, differentiates the “races” besides skin color, and sometimes distinctive facial features? And why, besides the social treatment, does it matter?

If there is nothing of significance, then doesn’t that kind of mean that race is a social construct? And that therefore its social construction is worthy of study — especially since there’s a well-documented history of it’s being used in social and legal contexts? 

Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,049]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

The commonality between hard sciences and soft sciences appears largely limited to the use of the term 'science' in both. 

"The problem with using the terms “hard” and “soft” is that they are often misinterpreted. “Hard” science is often misinterpreted to mean that the discipline is more difficult or that the methods are based on true scientific principles. This can make people believe that “soft” science is wishy-washy and ideological.  The truth is that any scientific discipline, when practiced properly, is hard.  The scientific method requires hypotheses that can be tested using proper control groups and carefully designed methods. The difference between a chemistry experiment and a human behavior experiment is that it is easy to put chemical mixtures into positive and negative control groups.  It is not so easy to find human beings that conform to the design of the study. The bottom line is that to further any scientific discipline; hard or soft, it is critical that the scientist do her best to follow the scientific method.  The most difficult part of any experiment is interpreting results. Confidence in conclusions depends on design study."

~Karen Reece, BS, MS, PhD

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Having been paralyzed with the prospect of never walking again, and later spending a fair amount of time stuck in a wheelchair, I guess I have some insight regarding being disabled. 

Over the past two years, I too; have recently found myself in that situation and am only "walking" in the past three weeks. It has been a humbling experience fraught with frustrations and anger - at myself, at the world, etc. But, you probably know this.  [EDIT] And it "woke" me to the plight of the handicapped. I used to think that I was being helpful by opening the door or offering to help in some way . . . What I never realized was that I was constantly reminding them that they are handicapped and that I was more fortunate. 

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Having said that, I am all for keeping the Olympics, the Paralympics and the Special Olympics separate entities.

I'll let Oscar Pistorius, Ryan Raghoo and Sir Philip Craven share their thoughts with you on the matter.

You asked for a couple of resources of whom I gave the original authors of CRT.  You skimmed the attached article and found something to attack and support your ingrained thoughts on the subject and appear to have stopped there without reading more.  Peek and You and I used to sit at the WFFC in the evenings and have long conversations about safety and the direction of skydiving at the end of the day. I remember you as being more receptive than rigid.  

I feel pretty safe in saying that you don't really want to learn more about CRT as much as you just want to argue by using references and talking points from those who support your position. And, you have a right to your opinion, so we'll just leave it there. 

Edited July 27, 2021 by BIGUN

[wmw999 2,116]

I’m not sure Bigun’s opinion can be improved on. 
Wendy P. 

[winsor 185]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

"The problem with using the terms “hard” and “soft” is that they are often misinterpreted. “Hard” science is often misinterpreted to mean that the discipline is more difficult or that the methods are based on true scientific principles. This can make people believe that “soft” science is wishy-washy and ideological.  The truth is that any scientific discipline, when practiced properly, is hard.  The scientific method requires hypotheses that can be tested using proper control groups and carefully designed methods. The difference between a chemistry experiment and a human behavior experiment is that it is easy to put chemical mixtures into positive and negative control groups.  It is not so easy to find human beings that conform to the design of the study. The bottom line is that to further any scientific discipline; hard or soft, it is critical that the scientist do her best to follow the scientific method.  The most difficult part of any experiment is interpreting results. Confidence in conclusions depends on design study."

~Karen Reece, BS, MS, PhD

Over the past two years, I too; have recently found myself in that situation and am only "walking" in the past three weeks. It has been a humbling experience fraught with frustrations and anger - at myself, at the world, etc. But, you probably know this.  [EDIT] And it "woke" me to the plight of the handicapped. I used to think that I was being helpful by opening the door or offering to help in some way . . . What I never realized was that I was constantly reminding them that they are handicapped and that I was more fortunate. 

I'll let Oscar Pistorius, Ryan Raghoo and Sir Philip Craven share their thoughts with you on the matter.

You asked for a couple of resources of whom I gave the original authors of CRT.  You skimmed the attached article and found something to attack and support your ingrained thoughts on the subject and appear to have stopped there without reading more.  Peek and You and I used to sit at the WFFC in the evenings and have long conversations about safety and the direction of skydiving at the end of the day. I remember you as being more receptive than rigid.  

I feel pretty safe in saying that you don't really want to learn more about CRT as much as you just want to argue by using references and talking points from those who support your position. And, you have a right to your opinion, so we'll just leave it there. 

I am sorry to hear that we have miserable experiences in common along with some wonderful ones.   I am seeing too many people go from a picture of health to being debilitated or dead, and it is disquieting.

Oscar Pistorius comes to mind in that his prosthetic legs appear to give him, if anything, an advantage.  People with intact legs can run MUCH faster with the addition of prostheses such as Oscar's.

I actually read the whole article, but did not have to look far for flawed logic (the piece is rife with valid data and invalid correlation).  If someone writes a piece that is superficially in agreement with what I have figured out already, but they do so on the basis of one fallacy after another, I don't give them a pass on their garbled thinking.

I am aware of the bulk of the data they cite, but take exception to the context in which much of it is presented.  The soft sciences often seem to make presumptions on what constitutes 'good' and 'bad,' apparently on the assumption that the whole good/bad thing is universal.  I have yet to see anything to suggest that that is the case.

Tom Walker is a comedian and dedicated Liberal, but often his bits point out the flaws in the popular thought process:

 

I am not a follower of anyone, politically or philosophically.  

If someone can demonstrate the effectiveness of an approach I had not considered, fine.  If the gist of their argument boils down to 'you're wrong and you're a poopyhead,' suffice it to say that I am not swayed.

Many decades ago, some hippie types in Boston wanted my help in breaching the fence around the Seabrook nook-you-ler power plant so they could get in, protest and generally cause havoc.

I pointed out that their showing up on camera looking like idiots would only convince them that opponents of nuclear power were fools, and reinforce their support of glow in the dark technology.  I said that the way to end investment in nuclear power was to make it unprofitable - rather than running around and making a lot of noise, they should show up in three piece suits with briefcases and litigate the industry out of existence.

Needless to say, that's pretty much what happened.

Since my neighbors and coworkers have been from all social strata and from all over the world, it offends me to no end when I come across an ideology that entrenches the US vs. THEM divide, and the article you provided does just that.  Anything that detracts from equal rights and equal responsibilities - no more and no less (MY  personal criteria), whether it be from CRT academia or stormtrooper.com (if there is such a website...), I find unacceptable.

The whole of CRT is based on Petito Principii (Begging the Question), where the form of the answer is mandated by the form of the question.  I call bullshit.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[winsor 185]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

I’m not sure Bigun’s opinion can be improved on. 
Wendy P. 

The Right Wing source I could be accused of parroting is Irving M. Copi, author of "An Introduction to Logic" - a rather good read.

Many of the pertinent concepts may be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies

Anyone who espouses Marxism I hold suspect, mainly because I have seen "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in action, up close and in person, and I am unimpressed to say the least.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[SkyDekker 1,121]

58 minutes ago, winsor said:

If someone writes a piece that is superficially in agreement with what I have figured out already, but they do so on the basis of one fallacy after another, I don't give them a pass on their garbled thinking.

Like somebody who suggests to take Vitamin D to protect against COVID since autopsies show a vitamin D deficiency?

[winsor 185]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Like somebody who suggests to take Vitamin D to protect against COVID since autopsies show a vitamin D deficiency?

Pretty much.  Correlation does not imply causation and all that.

As far as COVID goes, doing everything that may work and doesn't hurt seems advisable.

Since 90% of auto accidents occur within 10 miles from home, parking in the next town and taking the bus to your car is the way to go.

 

BSBD,

Winsor