I want you to know that I totally understand how I make you feel.
In my office, I have to deal with people who don't know the difference between heat and temperature. I have to deal with people who don't know the difference between force and velocity. As an engineer, I have to try to help them communicate clearly with our clients, and bite my tongue as they misuse these highly technical terms.
So I come in here talking about what I think of critical race theory, but I haven't read the same books as either, and I haven't taken classes on it. You must be throwing your hands up, saying, "Gah! That's not what it means! What you're describing is actually this whole other issue!"
But here's the difference.
If I allow buildings and structures to be designed based on my untrained colleagues' understanding of the loads and material properties, these buildings will fail. People could get hurt. Millions of dollars will be wasted having to rehabilitate the structures and mechanical systems.
If any of us goes through life with a misunderstanding of the law, we might break the law and have to pay the penalties.
But you political scientists are not applying the laws of physics or the laws of men. You're creating a whole esoteric system of vocabulary that means nothing to anyone outside of your field. And you even have schisms with each other. Conservative political scientists insist that critical race theory is an overarching system of thought. Liberal political scientists insist that it is a set of ideas that are only loosely associated with each other, you can believe some without believing all. They must be talking about different things.

So you admit you don't really know enough about this subject to sound intelligent, and instead of backing down, you just disregard a whole discipline. You didn't even use terminology correctly in your post, but you think you have enough information to dismiss an entire field of knowledge? I wouldn't care if you were willing to learn anything over the course of our discussions, but you've shown time and time again that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but you don't care to learn. 

I hate to waste my time doing this, but your disingenuous argument is a perfect example of how clueless you are. When I google disingenuous, this is the first result, given by google:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

So, you googled disingenuous, then framed a whole argument around the first definition you found, all while completely disregarding the word, "typically." You should google it, if you don't know what it means. It means most of the time, which indicates that there are times when it is not used in that manner. The fact that you can't even think that hard about a word definition ought to set off alarms that you aren't equipped to think critically about a more complicated subject. To make it worse, you didn't even bother looking at anything else. Here's the next 4 results:

• Merriam Webster: lacking in candor
  
• Dictionary.com: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere
  
• Vocabulary.com: not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness
  
• Cambridge dictionary: (of a person or their behavior) slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth
  

So what is it? Were you too hasty and uninformed to understand basic vocabulary, or did you actually look at these other definitions before picking the one that best suited your position? Are you stupid or, by your own definition, disingenuous. You pick.

---

The next four results are basically the same.
Frank means simple words, minimal euphemisms or figures of speech.
Ingenuous means new to something, literally like a young lady who had a sheltered upbringing making her first independent strides in society.
Disingenuous is pretending to be these things, even though you have a high level of knowledge and vocabulary. It's the debate equivalent of pool sharking. Convince someone you're just playing for fun, then as soon as money is on the line, reveal your real talents.
I do that sometimes. So do you. Sometimes you have to ask questions that you already know the answer to to keep a conversation going.
But that's not your problem with me.
Your problem with me is, when I decide to make complicated arguments with big words, you think I'm using those words wrong.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Haha.

---

WHAT DOES THIS ARGUEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT?! 

Y'all need to stop hijacking threads with your bickering. You're like a couple of old crotchety women kvetching about stuff only you seem to care about.

---

WHAT DOES THIS ARGUEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT?! 

Y'all need to stop hijacking threads with your bickering. You're like a couple of old crotchety women kvetching about stuff only you seem to care about.

He said "critical race theory" was a big problem, and I said critical race theory is a meaningless bogeyman.
Both of these statements were on topic.
Everything else after that is him saying that I'm not allowed to have an opinion about that because I lack his expertise.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

WHAT DOES THIS ARGUEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT?! 

Y'all need to stop hijacking threads with your bickering. You're like a couple of old crotchety women kvetching about stuff only you seem to care about.

Are you being euphemistic or frank? 

---

WHAT DOES THIS ARGUEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT?! 

Y'all need to stop hijacking threads with your bickering. You're like a couple of old crotchety women kvetching about stuff only you seem to care about.

You have a right to feel that way, but I don't feel like it's an unworthy endeavor to call into question Mikesez's credibility. I mentioned critical race theory as the philosophy that undergirds the whiteness poster (which is a FACT), and he says that is meaningless, without providing any proof or real counterargument. He says he's looked into it and dismisses it, which is garbage, because he can't even characterize it properly. So, my original statement pertains to the post, and my cross-examination of Mikesez is to expose that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. This happens in the court of law and in open debate, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen here. When he wants to present facts, I will address the facts, but most of the time, he is just bloviating idiot that likes to pat himself on the back.

---

WHAT DOES THIS ARGUEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT?! 

Y'all need to stop hijacking threads with your bickering. You're like a couple of old crotchety women kvetching about stuff only you seem to care about.

Are you being euphemistic or frank? 

PMSing. 

---

Are you being euphemistic or frank? 

PMSing. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

PMSing. 

Just the chocolate. Make it dark chocolate and natural peanut butter. RIGHT NOW!! 

---

Just the chocolate. Make it dark chocolate and natural peanut butter. RIGHT NOW!! 

Deep fried peanut butter cookies dipped in dark chocolate?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Just the chocolate. Make it dark chocolate and natural peanut butter. RIGHT NOW!! 

Deep fried peanut butter cookies dipped in dark chocolate?

  I don't eat deep fried anything. Yuck.

---

Deep fried peanut butter cookies dipped in dark chocolate?

  I don't eat deep fried anything. Yuck.

Deep fried gator tail is pretty good.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Deep fried peanut butter cookies dipped in dark chocolate?

  I don't eat deep fried anything. Yuck.

Damn Yankee!

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

  I don't eat deep fried anything. Yuck.

Damn Yankee!

Nah, my dad says I am neither a rebel nor a yankee. He calls me a cattle roper being as I'm from Colorado. Lol.

---

  I don't eat deep fried anything. Yuck.

Deep fried gator tail is pretty good.

Yeah, exotic southern food was never my thing. I've tried different things but if it isn't cow or seafood (NOT battered and fried!) I don't care for it. I eat chicken because I need variety but I don't much care for it. Give me a broiled or grilled seafood platter and I'm in heaven.

---