Woke is a Joke

[wmw999 2,116]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

I'm pretty sure I do not recommend anything but equal rights and equal opportunities, no more, no less - even for frat boys.

But you don’t want the government to recommend, even when they’re paying (which is where affirmative action documentation — NOT specific hiring instructions — is a requirement)
Wendy P. 

[winsor 185]

This is NOT from the Onion:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brits-paying-200-ethically-sourced-24404906

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, winsor said:

This is NOT from the Onion:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brits-paying-200-ethically-sourced-24404906

According to Winsor's logic:

• Apple is a joke because of apple-product scams
• Performance Designs or [insert skydiving brand here] is a joke because someone pretending to sell one of their products scammed someone on Facebook once

[winsor 185]

Either is this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-pta-purge-of-asians-11626128073

The problem with equal opportunity on the basis of merit is that it does not always shake out the way some may like.

The problem with being okay with the principle of 'good racism' vs. 'bad racism' is that opinions seem to differ on the whole good/bad divide.

[wmw999 2,116]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Either is this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-pta-purge-of-asians-11626128073

The problem with equal opportunity on the basis of merit is that it does not always shake out the way some may like.

The problem with being okay with the principle of 'good racism' vs. 'bad racism' is that opinions seem to differ on the whole good/bad divide.

If one of the forms of education is the exposure of the people being educated to a variety of people and experiences, it's up to them to figure out how to provide that. Education is not necessarily just the narrow readin'-ritin'-rithmetic, it encompasses a lot of other stuff too. Navigating that territory is not easy, because

a. we have made education the government's business, to the benefit of the country (free primary and secondary education is part, and the making of generations able to do a whole lot more high-tech jobs, is a large part of what made so much industry move to the US in the early 20th century -- we could provide the workforce)

b. every single family and every single teacher has a different idea of what it means

The answers that come from cross-cultural teams tend to include more what-if scenarios. Consider, as an example, the instructions for nearly any product -- they were probably written by an individual, and thought to be perfectly clear by that (obviously insane) individual. Run those by other people, and those instructions might actually approach usefulness.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, winsor said:

This is NOT from the Onion:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brits-paying-200-ethically-sourced-24404906

It also has nothing to do with the ongoing conversation. Have you realised you can’t defend your defence of racist hiring practices?

[billvon 2,381]

6 hours ago, winsor said:

This is NOT from the Onion:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brits-paying-200-ethically-sourced-24404906

I like it!  

There's a place in LA that is called "The Fullerton Church Of Healing Cannabis."  (Again, not from the Onion.)  Now that is true marketing genius.  And if they really go with the religion angle, then they can say goodbye to taxes as well.

[winsor 185]

30 minutes ago, billvon said:

I like it!  

There's a place in LA that is called "The Fullerton Church Of Healing Cannabis."  (Again, not from the Onion.)  Now that is true marketing genius.  And if they really go with the religion angle, then they can say goodbye to taxes as well.

I'm in agreement. 

I don't happen to smoke, drink or take much of anything, but consider our penchant for prohibition to be singularly ill advised.  I figure that, if it isn't worse than alcohol or tobacco (name one recreational drug that's measurably worse than either) it should be legalized, not decriminalized.

Since we hold dear our relationships with invisible friends,  it is ironic that we should use an overlay of psychosis to effect a sane policy.

The economic virtues of holiness were handled brilliantly by John Oliver http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/.

When you mix Government Bureaucracy with Religion, the outcome is predictably bizarre.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[sfzombie13 307]

On 7/14/2021 at 12:57 PM, winsor said:

Prejudice is a bad thing, where one says 'all people of this group are the same.'  Postjudice, OTOH, is sometimes justified, where experience with a group gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.  ALL frat boys are not the same, but restaurant owners have said they treat the waitstaff badly, don't tip and often skip out on the check.  When the fleet is in port, one can have general expectations of the sailors, English football fans have a high percentage of hooligans (I've known rather a few), and so forth.

I

 

 

too bad my internet is spotty at the farm or i would have been able to participate in this shit show when it was recent, rather than now.  anyway, the information provided by you in this paragraph is worthless, as it does not describe people any longer, but it now describes groups.  not only is the premise flawed, it is well known that groups of people do not behave as people do.  i can't recall the information supporting it, but there are so many examples someone should have that handy, i would look it up but have to work shortly. 

 

after reading this whole thread, i expect that sort of deflection from a racist spouting obviously racist comments.  after carefully parsing all of the comments for a third time, i decided that you were just trolling, and i hope i am right in that regard.  some people just use terms and phrases like that which have been crafted by propagandists to contain just enough of that grain of truth to appeal to folks and get them using said racist terms.  it looks like you may have been deceived by that, and there is no shame in that.  those guys are good at what they do. 

 

take the stereotype of blacks being lazy for example.  notably, it comes from slave owners in the south who would classify them as lazy since they didn't do the work they were thought to be capable of.  well, they had no incentive, so of course they didn't work as hard or as fast as they could.  so it stuck.  similar thing with the fried chicken and watermelons stereotype.  that came from reconstruction when those were the items that blacks could sell which had the least overhead and were easiest to grow and raise, therefore getting more profit and/or food from the least amount of effort. 

 

it turns out that when viewed as individuals, blacks are not really any more lazy than any other race.  there is a huge range of individualism in every race or group of people, and some stereotypes are not rooted in reality, but perceived reality.  they are very close to the same thing, as my lazy example shows black folks not doing as much work as they are capable of, but the reasons for this lack of "work ethic" is not only wrong when viewed under the right lens, it is also a sign of the "systemic" portion of said racism due to the way it was formed.  the only other point i have to add to this discussion is that i could have sworn that lens was spelled "lense".  took me a bit to accept that part.

[winsor 185]

16 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

too bad my internet is spotty at the farm or i would have been able to participate in this shit show when it was recent, rather than now.  anyway, the information provided by you in this paragraph is worthless, as it does not describe people any longer, but it now describes groups.  not only is the premise flawed, it is well known that groups of people do not behave as people do.  i can't recall the information supporting it, but there are so many examples someone should have that handy, i would look it up but have to work shortly. 

 

after reading this whole thread, i expect that sort of deflection from a racist spouting obviously racist comments.  after carefully parsing all of the comments for a third time, i decided that you were just trolling, and i hope i am right in that regard.  some people just use terms and phrases like that which have been crafted by propagandists to contain just enough of that grain of truth to appeal to folks and get them using said racist terms.  it looks like you may have been deceived by that, and there is no shame in that.  those guys are good at what they do. 

 

take the stereotype of blacks being lazy for example.  notably, it comes from slave owners in the south who would classify them as lazy since they didn't do the work they were thought to be capable of.  well, they had no incentive, so of course they didn't work as hard or as fast as they could.  so it stuck.  similar thing with the fried chicken and watermelons stereotype.  that came from reconstruction when those were the items that blacks could sell which had the least overhead and were easiest to grow and raise, therefore getting more profit and/or food from the least amount of effort. 

 

it turns out that when viewed as individuals, blacks are not really any more lazy than any other race.  there is a huge range of individualism in every race or group of people, and some stereotypes are not rooted in reality, but perceived reality.  they are very close to the same thing, as my lazy example shows black folks not doing as much work as they are capable of, but the reasons for this lack of "work ethic" is not only wrong when viewed under the right lens, it is also a sign of the "systemic" portion of said racism due to the way it was formed.  the only other point i have to add to this discussion is that i could have sworn that lens was spelled "lense".  took me a bit to accept that part.

I am unsure of what you are saying here, but I gather you deem me to be a 'racist.'

Since 'anti' racists consider anyone with whom they disagree to be 'racists' in the same sense that 'anti' fascists label anyone with whom they disagree to be 'fascists,' I find it to be somewhat meaningless.

If you discuss, for example, the economic realities of parts of the Appalachians, it's hard to avoid the perception that one is criticizing the population on the basis of inherent traits.  To get defensive and say, oh, 'some of my best friends are Hillbillies...' simply reinforces the perception.

Living in a largely Sicilian neighborhood gave some idea of the social norms there, but as an outsider.  The same is true for time spent in majority Ukrainian, or Han Chinese, or African immigrant or Black American neighborhoods.

I try to be careful not to claim more than superficial insight of Americans of Sicilian descent by virtue of living in a neighborhood where I was tolerated as a non-Sicilian.  If I am to make sweeping generalizations, I prefer to qualify them as best as I can.  Any statement that takes the form of 'all Southerners are ...; for example may be discounted out of hand.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm not trolling.  Having had it pointed out to me that I was a "racist honkey motherfucker," I won't waste the breath to claim otherwise.  Since CRT defines anyone of European extraction as racist from birth, that particular definition is meaningless.

A wise man once asked "why can't we all just get along?"  I find the answer to that sage question to be worthy of discussion.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[sfzombie13 307]

if i thought you were a racist bastard, i would have no qualms pointing that out.  if you are racist, it's one of the passive ones, but whatever.  the reason we can't just all get along is that some folks need someone to put down in order to justify themselves, so they invented race and the rest is history.  just like denying science when it says the earth is not flat, but round, you can deny all you want, but it is a thing and some are still suffering from it.  i think you should not be so hesitant to allow folks to examine their history openly and honestly and not be so quick to judge critical race theory until you actually understand it.  cheers.

[winsor 185]

8 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

if i thought you were a racist bastard, i would have no qualms pointing that out.  if you are racist, it's one of the passive ones, but whatever.  the reason we can't just all get along is that some folks need someone to put down in order to justify themselves, so they invented race and the rest is history.  just like denying science when it says the earth is not flat, but round, you can deny all you want, but it is a thing and some are still suffering from it.  i think you should not be so hesitant to allow folks to examine their history openly and honestly and not be so quick to judge critical race theory until you actually understand it.  cheers.

I guess you're too young to get the Rodney King reference.

According to Science, the earth IS flat.  Kansas, at least, is topographically flatter than a pancake.  On a bigger scale, that model begins to break down.

Why do you assume that I am hesitant to "allow folks to examine their history openly and honestly?"  I recommend that you visit Thomas Sowell's discussion of slavery and check his references.

What makes you think that I do not understand CRT?'  Doing the barest modicum of homework on the claims contained therein makes abundantly clear that it is based on a massively flawed model, and contingent upon verifiable falsehoods at every layer.

I consider racial discrimination to be reprehensible, whether it is 'good' or 'bad' discrimination.

I do not accept anything other than equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less.

If that meets your definition of 'racist,' whatever.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,254]

8 hours ago, winsor said:

I am unsure of what you are saying here, but I gather you deem me to be a 'racist.'

Since 'anti' racists consider anyone with whom they disagree to be 'racists' in the same sense that 'anti' fascists label anyone with whom they disagree to be 'fascists,' I find it to be somewhat meaningless.

Except that's obviously not true, it's just a comfortable lie that you're telling yourself to avoid directly discussing the criticism. Which is no great surprise, for all your verbosity and superficial style, you are essentially a very lazy thinker. You have no focus, no insight and no depth, just one barely relevant tangent after another with no clear message, just complete deniability.

 

Anyway, in your case he's not sayingyour a racist because he disagrees with you, he disagrees with you because you're saying racist things. Like defending racist hiring practicing, and prejudging people called La-a or similar black sounding names in the same way you would judge a group of rowdy frat boys.

[sfzombie13 307]

5 hours ago, winsor said:

I guess you're too young to get the Rodney King reference.

According to Science, the earth IS flat.  Kansas, at least, is topographically flatter than a pancake.  On a bigger scale, that model begins to break down.

Why do you assume that I am hesitant to "allow folks to examine their history openly and honestly?"  I recommend that you visit Thomas Sowell's discussion of slavery and check his references.

What makes you think that I do not understand CRT?'  Doing the barest modicum of homework on the claims contained therein makes abundantly clear that it is based on a massively flawed model, and contingent upon verifiable falsehoods at every layer.

I consider racial discrimination to be reprehensible, whether it is 'good' or 'bad' discrimination.

I do not accept anything other than equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less.

If that meets your definition of 'racist,' whatever.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

again, as if i forgot tom mention it before, i did not call you a racist bastard, you're a troll, plain and simple.  you're obviously well read, and possibly well educated, but beyond that i will refrain, since i am tired of getting banned.  you have no concept of trying to understand any of what crt means, otherwise, you would know that it is just removing the whitewash from the history and teaching that we had flaws.  good evening.

[billvon 2,381]

8 hours ago, winsor said:

What makes you think that I do not understand CRT?'  Doing the barest modicum of homework on the claims contained therein makes abundantly clear that it is based on a massively flawed model, and contingent upon verifiable falsehoods at every layer.

Winsor: "I know almost nothing about critical race theory, but from my superficial perusal as a privileged outsider it is massively flawed - at least based on what I have read on various right wing Internet sites.  My point is unassailable!"

Also Winsor: "You clearly do not have a comprehensive understanding of Jewish culture that comes from being a part of it, and thus your point is invalid.  If you did understand it more deeply your point might carry some weight."

Again, never change.

[winsor 185]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

Winsor: "I know almost nothing about critical race theory, but from my superficial perusal as a privileged outsider it is massively flawed - at least based on what I have read on various right wing Internet sites.  My point is unassailable!"

Also Winsor: "You clearly do not have a comprehensive understanding of Jewish culture that comes from being a part of it, and thus your point is invalid.  If you did understand it more deeply your point might carry some weight."

Again, never change.

Since you are using quotes around something that you know damned well I did not and would not say, you are simply being libelous.  If you have something valid to add, that's great.

Such familiarity as I have with the tenets of CRT, BLM, etc, I pick up from such sources as NPR, interviews with and publications by the founders of these movements/isms and published espousals of these movements.  I take second hand accounts with a grain of salt - if at all.

If you think my stance is Jewish=good, gentile=bad your reading comprehension needs work.  Similarly, I am anything but an adherent of Manifest Destiny, and find some parts of U.S. history (highly celebrated events included) to be nothing short of appalling.

The Reparations proposed by Evanston, Illinois for past evils was framed by both Right and Left wing sources as a generic repayment for slavery.  In reality it was but an attempt to address specific zoning laws that moved nonwhite families out of desirable neighborhoods and to the wrong side of the tracks, by industrial and waste sites and so forth.  Houses were either uprooted and moved or bulldozed and repayments were to the specific families affected.

The process by which the original policies were enforced was downright immoral, and the ramifications are clear and identifiable.

During the '20s Jews bought large swaths of Stinking Desert in British Palestine, at above market rates, from people who then felt they had swindled the Jews.  Years later, after sweat equity resulted in groves of fruit trees and the like growing on the formerly barren areas, the people who had sold land they thought was worthless got worked up and declared they had been cheated.

During the Second World War Palestinian Arabs aligned themselves with the Third Reich, the Grand Mufti being welcomed in Berlin and issuing Fatwas against the Jews.  Thus my equal reaction to Hijabs and Swastikas.

Since you are moderately bright, I am not sure if you are being obtuse or demonstrating the Dunning-Krueger effect.  Given that Dunning and Krueger's subjects were Ivy League, I suspect the latter.

If you have a valid point to discuss (with legit references if possible), terrific .  If you limit your contributions to abuse, that's on you.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[sfzombie13 307]

47 minutes ago, winsor said:

Since you are using quotes around something that you know damned well I did not and would not say, you are simply being libelous.  If you have something valid to add, that's great.

Such familiarity as I have with the tenets of CRT, BLM, etc, I pick up from such sources as NPR, interviews with and publications by the founders of these movements/isms and published espousals of these movements.  I take second hand accounts with a grain of salt - if at all.

...

If you have a valid point to discuss (with legit references if possible), terrific .  If you limit your contributions to abuse, that's on you.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

quick question buddy, did you make that statement billvon quoted or not?  it looked like he just quoted you, but then you said you didn't say it.  i don't feel like looking, but inquiring minds want to know...

 

then you go on to expound your statement with another contradiction.  this time you said, and i quote, "Such familiarity as I have with the tenets of CRT, BLM, etc, I pick up from such sources as NPR, interviews with and publications by the founders of these movements/isms and published espousals of these movements.  I take second hand accounts with a grain of salt - if at all." which seems to me like you just said you got some second hand accounts and listened to them, then in the very next sentence you said you discard second hand accounts.  now i may not be as well read as you (but i probably am) nor as well educated (thank the gods of that), but i have been able to read since i was four years old, and some members' comments about my writing style aside, i can understand almost anything you could think to put out there, but this is pretty obvious to me, and also the reason i called you a troll. 

 

unless you have a good explanation or will try to change the meaning of some word or another, then my assessment stands.  go on, i'll wait.  skies look pretty good today, i may get a few jumps in.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

If you have a valid point to discuss (with legit references if possible), terrific .  If you limit your contributions to abuse, that's on you.

Cry me a fucking river. Your entire strategy in these threads has been to say a bunch of clearly but just about deniably racist things and then when questioned about it simply respond with ‘hey look over there!’

If you think being called on the racism and hypocrisy you are expressing is abuse, then it’s abuse you are deliberately inciting upon yourself just so you can bitch about how unfair everyone is being to you.

[winsor 185]

55 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

quick question buddy, did you make that statement billvon quoted or not?  it looked like he just quoted you, but then you said you didn't say it.  i don't feel like looking, but inquiring minds want to know...

 

then you go on to expound your statement with another contradiction.  this time you said, and i quote, "Such familiarity as I have with the tenets of CRT, BLM, etc, I pick up from such sources as NPR, interviews with and publications by the founders of these movements/isms and published espousals of these movements.  I take second hand accounts with a grain of salt - if at all." which seems to me like you just said you got some second hand accounts and listened to them, then in the very next sentence you said you discard second hand accounts.  now i may not be as well read as you (but i probably am) nor as well educated (thank the gods of that), but i have been able to read since i was four years old, and some members' comments about my writing style aside, i can understand almost anything you could think to put out there, but this is pretty obvious to me, and also the reason i called you a troll. 

 

unless you have a good explanation or will try to change the meaning of some word or another, then my assessment stands.  go on, i'll wait.  skies look pretty good today, i may get a few jumps in.

A) We ain't buddies.

B)- I have certainly said all the words enclosed in the quotes, but never in that order.  None of that is what I might have said to be facetious.

C) If you want to call names, good on you.

D) If I have the Nightly News on and a talking head makes a statement of opinion, that's a secondary source.  If they haven't done their homework, as is often the case, comparing it with original source material makes that clear.

E) It is not my job to sway your opinion. If you think I am wrong and have data to support your position, have at it.  If all you can do is to call me names, knock yourself out.

F) Understanding is often reliant upon definition, and using different definitions, whether lexical, precising, technical, legal, medical and so forth, can result in greatly different meanings (a variation on equivocation).  For example, there are rather a few definitions of 'troll,' and as far as you know I may meet at least one.

G) Everyone has the right to be wrong (except under oath).  Some people are more enthusiastic about exercising said right, but I am unsure what that buys them.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[sfzombie13 307]

website

1 hour ago, winsor said:

A) We ain't buddies.

B)- I have certainly said all the words enclosed in the quotes, but never in that order.  None of that is what I might have said to be facetious.

C) If you want to call names, good on you.

D) If I have the Nightly News on and a talking head makes a statement of opinion, that's a secondary source.  If they haven't done their homework, as is often the case, comparing it with original source material makes that clear.

E) It is not my job to sway your opinion. If you think I am wrong and have data to support your position, have at it.  If all you can do is to call me names, knock yourself out.

F) Understanding is often reliant upon definition, and using different definitions, whether lexical, precising, technical, legal, medical and so forth, can result in greatly different meanings (a variation on equivocation).  For example, there are rather a few definitions of 'troll,' and as far as you know I may meet at least one.

G) Everyone has the right to be wrong (except under oath).  Some people are more enthusiastic about exercising said right, but I am unsure what that buys them.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

yep, calling you buddy was a poor attempt at sarcasm, as you are definitely not my buddy.  maybe i needed the "/s" in parentheses.  you may or may not be aware that buddy is only half a word, but i doubt that too.  and as for being wrong, you're getting pretty good at it, no matter how you dress it up with flowery language.  a rose by any other name and all that.  and no, you don't have a right to be willfully wrong, and i can show you a website that underscores that.  last point, i would have definitely been banned to call you out on what you really are.  it's not so much calling you a name as it is placing you in order in my head.  it ain't all about you, no matter how much you think it is.

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

I have certainly said all the words enclosed in the quotes, but never in that order.

Libel suit, dismissed.

[winsor 185]

58 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

website

yep, calling you buddy was a poor attempt at sarcasm, as you are definitely not my buddy.  maybe i needed the "/s" in parentheses.  you may or may not be aware that buddy is only half a word, but i doubt that too.  and as for being wrong, you're getting pretty good at it, no matter how you dress it up with flowery language.  a rose by any other name and all that.  and no, you don't have a right to be willfully wrong, and i can show you a website that underscores that.  last point, i would have definitely been banned to call you out on what you really are.  it's not so much calling you a name as it is placing you in order in my head.  it ain't all about you, no matter how much you think it is.

Taylor Caldwell noted that "5% of the population think, 5% think they think, and 90% would sooner die than think."  Quite who is who is situational and debatable, but the sentiment rings true.

If you are proud of yourself for limiting your name-calling, that certainly says more about you than it does me.

DZ has killfile capabilities these days.  It works pretty well, but you are free to do as you please.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by winsor

[billvon 2,381]

15 hours ago, winsor said:

Such familiarity as I have with the tenets of CRT, BLM, etc, I pick up from such sources as NPR, interviews with and publications by the founders of these movements/isms and published espousals of these movements.  I take second hand accounts with a grain of salt - if at all.

Good.  Sounds like you've gotten a start in learning what it's about.  Some more learning might be in order, perhaps? 

Again, "Doing the barest modicum of homework" and claiming that you know "that it is based on a massively flawed model" is quite funny, given that in another thread you claimed my opinion was invalid because I "do not appear to [be] a student of History" and if I knew more "maybe your point might carry some weight."  (Direct quotes this time so as to not offend your sensibilities by paraphrasing.)  

It's even more funny based on what you posted below.

Quote

If you think my stance is Jewish=good, gentile=bad your reading comprehension needs work.  Similarly, I am anything but an adherent of Manifest Destiny, and find some parts of U.S. history (highly celebrated events included) to be nothing short of appalling.

Never claimed that, but outstanding strawman you have there.  To be clear, I am stating that your logic, not your position on any race or religion, needs a bit of work.

Quote

The Reparations proposed by Evanston, Illinois for past evils was framed by both Right and Left wing sources as a generic repayment for slavery.  In reality it was but an attempt to address specific zoning laws that moved nonwhite families out of desirable neighborhoods and to the wrong side of the tracks, by industrial and waste sites and so forth.  Houses were either uprooted and moved or bulldozed and repayments were to the specific families affected.  The process by which the original policies were enforced was downright immoral, and the ramifications are clear and identifiable.

An excellent point!  Let's look at that.

In many primary schools, the effects of racism are simplified as "racists were unfair to black people."  This is used to explain slavery (evil plantation owners exploiting black slaves) segregation (evil racists want to keep blacks out of schools) and violence (evil white supremacists attack black people.)  Racism in the US is thus described as direct actions by bigoted individuals to "keep blacks down" - and thus ending that racism will lead to equality and an end to these abuses.  A simple and direct cause-and-effect explanation.

Starting in the 1970's, scholars have begun studying the structural components of those things.  Perhaps racial outcomes in the US are not the simple result of explicit and intentional individual prejudices.  Perhaps they arose out of social and governmental structures, structures that sometimes were created unintentionally.  You give an excellent example - zoning laws and redlining, which was part of a framework of structures that systematically separated white from black families in new developments.  Many have argued that they were put in place not as a direct result of racism, but by city planners acting at the behest of people in neighborhoods who "wanted to preserve their property values," which is an indirect (rather than direct) form of racism on the part of city planners.  I am not sure I buy that, but it's a valid argument.

The study of these structures is called critical race theory.  Congratulations, you are understanding it a bit more.

[winsor 185]

The logic is simple.

Racism is evil.

Critical Race Theory is 100% racist.

Q.E.D.

I am aghast at the fact that you support CRT, every bit as much as if you supported the Klan.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,381]

6 minutes ago, winsor said:

The logic is simple.

Racism is evil.

Critical Race Theory is 100% racist.

And yet you just posted a summary of the Critical Race Theory as applied to redlining and zoning laws.  And did a quite good job of it I will add - even if you weren't trying to.

I'll let you connect the dots.  Again, your logic might need a little work.