Jump to content
Bellazon

The Political Correctness Haters' Club


Sarah.Adams

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

Nobody talked about banning books here, except you. You deflect the point, pick one example of angry folks and claim it is a proof of the validity of CRT. This is a little disingenuous and anti-scientific. Why not answering the points I brought?

 

MLK would have been against CRT. MLK had a dream of brotherhood. CRT is a nightmare that claims race war everywhere and every time (and this doesn't come from a random guy on the internet, it's from Californian High Schools).

 

Claiming the "the good guys" badge is not enough to be a good guy. That's the problem of all this woke rhetoric. They're not "the good guys".

 

MLK Jr. has been recycled to something utterly nonthreatening to the status quo. This is not who the man actually was.

He was a lot more radical than people choose to remember.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

MLK Jr. has been recycled to something utterly nonthreatening to the status quo. This is not who the man actually was.

He was a lot more radical than people choose to remember.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just deflect, deflect and deflect. It's weird to me, because you seem to be a reasonable guy, but when it relates to CRT, you don't answer, you avoid the main point and change the subject.

 

So, let me put it another way. More straightforward.  I assume you want peace between people (like most people do). So a couple of questions that directly relates to CRT:

- How exactly do you think it helps kids to tell them that "the basic tactics are to assume racism is everywhere every day"?

- How exactly does obsessing with race help to erase intolerance?

- How does indoctrinating kids with politics instead of fundamental knowledge (maths, science, reading, history, etc.) help them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: you won't convince anyone that knows MLK that he would support violence and race war. Claiming that "he would supported violence" is part of made up conspiracy theories propagated by far-left movements.

 

MLK said that he dreamt that people wouldn't be judged by skin color (which exactly what CRT does!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see how efficient it is for some con-artists (like the CRT creators) to claim to be the "good guys" or disguise their theories as altruistic (while in reality they are anti-humanist).

 

Cult leaders and totalitarian leaders often use the "good guy" tactics. "Wolves in sheep's clothing" or something close to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

- How exactly does obsessing with race help to erase intolerance?

 

 

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that pretending racism doesn't exist won't help much either.

 

And I am discussing anti-CRT when I am talking about book bannings. If the people trying to ban the books mention CRT as their reason why, it seems pretty fair to me. :idk:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that pretending racism doesn't exist won't help much either.

 

We don't have the choice between "race obsession" and "pretending racism doesn't exist". There are millions of paths in between.

 

This is a black and white vision, but the world is rarely B&W. It's mostly shades of grey. The B&W goggles tend to artificially create two camps: the good guys and the others. That fosters an "us versus them" narrative. This is fuel for division.

 

(How about all my other questions? I got 1 answer out of 3... If I they were asked by a hot lady, would it help to get more answers? :laugh:)

 

30 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

And I am discussing anti-CRT when I am talking about book bannings. If the people trying to ban the books mention CRT as their reason why, it seems pretty fair to me. :idk:

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's linked to the subject. The question is the value and validity of CRT. The fact that one of its opponent is a moron or a "book banner" is irrelevant. That's not how you prove the validity of a theory. That's not how you scientifically / rigorously do it.

 

(It's "le petit bout de la lorgnette" if you know this expression).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 1:45 PM, Cult Icon said:

 

This is how the Soviets react to Western weakness... 

 

They think that Westerners are weaklings. And they are not far from the truth.

 

Even if Biden inherits 20 years of bad US diplomacy, his team has been one of the worst band of amateurs. He discloses all of his weaknesses and doesn't even try to make the Russians think that he might have some assets. When he said he would never intervene, he basically told them that he's a toothless tiger (and possibly a toothless cat).

 

Macron tried to play it smarter, but we don't have many of the assets we used to have. Not anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

They think that Westerners are weaklings. And they are not far from the truth.

 

Yeah the Russians watched the USA fail in the middle east and the American public's turn against aggressive Foreign policy.  What I have observed a while ago is that Russian nationalism is more prevalent and extreme than the American type & with a paranoia over the "West".  So much so that the Russian people tolerate funding a 1 million man army, with 2 million reservists plus a 1 million plus police state plus paramilitary forces.  This is the biggest army in europe and is much larger than the US army.  

 

Their media seems to lack the countervailing push of the liberals, so the nationalism is unchecked.  Basically they are where we were circa 2000 with their militarism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This only makes sense if he can successfully install a puppet regime.

 

A long-term occupation is a non-starter.

This is a country larger than France and with a population of 44 million people.

Even the U.S. eventually lost the desire to deal with years upon years of insurgency, and they have a military budget that dwarfs Russia's (12x what Russia spends annually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American military budget is massive but isn't a sign of real effectiveness, there is a lot of waste, failed leadership, cradle to the grave benefits, corruption with arms manufacturers, and luxury.  In particular the special projects for the air force are unbelievably costly.

 

The Russian army is still based around Soviet military philosophy of having a big army on the cheap: numbers over quality, so they outnumber opponents in fighting equipment and personnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

The Russian army is still based around Soviet military philosophy of having a big army on the cheap: numbers over quality, so they outnumber opponents in fighting equipment and personnel.

 

True, but in a direct conflict with the  U.S., the Americans' air superiority alone would end the conflict before it even started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

True, but in a direct conflict with the  U.S., the Americans' air superiority alone would end the conflict before it even started.

 

Land based wars are NEVER ended by air power alone.

 

The numbers have a quality on their own- both strategically and politically.  Study Soviet military philosophy and military history.  

 

The "elite" troops and superior air power solving all the problems is an old myth going back to even the 1930s (eg. The British obsession with strategic bombers, which proved to be inferior to tactical air forces (like the Red Air force (RKKA) and the German air force (Luftwaffe)) in supporting ground troops. 

 

You still need numbers in the end, authoritarian regime, and a supportive/highly nationalistic population to generate political will & readiness to make sacrifices.  Basically this is the Chinese and Russian advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

Also, the combat-effectiveness of the Russian reserves is dubious at best. So the numbers are impressive, but they don't really translate like they would in smaller armies.

 

The purpose of the gigantic Soviet/Russian reserves is to flesh out the regular forces with combatants & support personnel.  So the ground force ends up having a lot of "holding" power. Only infantry can hold ground. 

 

For sensitive missions the Russians can used their elite air and ground forces.

 

Basically this is the "two armies" principle, you have a huge heavily armed and second-rate trained force and small elite/more professional forces to do the difficult tasks.  Also the big force can defeat/pre-empt the numerically inferior opponent with sheer weight in the attack, and in the defense they have a lot of holding power because there are so many of them. 

 

The Russians like to outnumber their opponents in tactical air forces/missiles/artillery and tanks, and infantry even if qualitatively they are inferior on a per unit basis.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...