(10-28-2022, 02:25 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(10-28-2022, 01:37 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Look dude, if Republicans made a Congressional Christian Caucus, then deny access to a Democrat, what are they saying? Either it's not for the entirety of Congress and should be renamed, or that person isn't a Christian in their eyes. It's pretty simple.

You can choose to attribute either of those motives. The first of those two is easy to solve. You just rename your group. That won't happen, though. You know why? They know they get to define terms, because people like you won't challenge it. If you knew anything about Critical Race Theory, you'd understand that race is an agent for change, and if it's not advocating for the overhaul of the system, it's complicit in the perpetuation of oppression and not worthy of the designation. This means they believe they get to define what is and isn't Hispanic. They are exercising that by rejecting her from this Caucus. It could be renamed, but that's not the issue. The issue is her beliefs.

Shame on you for letting them determine her identity.

I know about critical race theory.  Critical theory and critical race theory are concerned with questioning the foundations and original intents of our laws, typically for the purpose of "discovering" that the laws create and perpetuate an "oppressed" class. They are not looking to redefine or revoke anyone's identity, they are looking to subsume all possible identities into an "oppressed" or "oppressor" gradient. These theories have some currency on the left, but their influence in the halls of power is greatly overstated, just as the importance of the CHC is greatly overstated.

Said another way, perhaps these people do believe that their power derives from redefining words.  Perhaps that's what they're trying to do here.  However, power doesn't actually work that way.  If a bunch of dwarfs became convinced that they would acquire world-dominating magic powers after they acquired enough emeralds, we wouldn't necessarily need to stop them from acquiring emeralds, because power doesnt work that way.  Now if the dwarfs were after uranium, that would be a different story.

Said yet another way, everyone is instinctually aware of the essential holding of critical theory.  Legal and economic systems do place some people in charge of others, and the others don't always like it.  However, nearly everyone agrees that their status in the legal system or economic system is only a small part of their identity.  And in most societies, certainly in ours, there is some ability to improve yourself and gain a new status in the law or in the economy.  These are the blessings of an open and pluralistic society and there is no reason to believe any large number of people is willing to do anything more than tweak that.

Once again, you only understand the talking points of critical theory. You don't understand the depth of the subject. It's why you are so easily manipulated. 

Once again, you are wrong about linguistic fluidity. There is power in manipulating language. That's why they do it. It's why you are so easily manipulated. 

Once again, you live in the world of naivete. The world has changed TREMENDOUSLY over the last 10 years. It's because people like you are so easily manipulated.

---

(10-28-2022, 04:16 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote:

(10-28-2022, 11:37 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I agree 100%. However, as to this particular topic, Mikey is conceding that democrats get to define what it is to be Hispanic. He would not hold the same position if Republicans did anything remotely similar. Getting tired of these linguistic games.

You could stop engaging him. Or you can reply and ignore any counter he offers that way you get a word in without having to wade through the word salads.

I don't really argue with Mikey. He's a parrot. I argue against those who are carefully crafting the narrative he blindly follows.

---