She's off the mark, but she does have a bit of a point. CRT is clearly racist and incitement to genocide, but think about whom you're trying to convince with these arguments: You're trying to convince normies who've been so steeped in the myth of white privilege that you'll never get through to them by saying "This is racist against white people." It's better to argue against CRT on the basis that it's ahistorical and factually wrong.
Again, you're not trying to convince leftists. They really are in it for the power. You're trying to convince normies. Most people still aren't living their lives subsumed by the culture war.
Consent to any suggested -ism is what creates a hierarchy under false authority; because to consent to suggestion represents using free will to consent to a suggestion made by the free will of another. Free will represents the sole authority over self; consenting to the free will of another represents the ignorance thereof.
It is the free will of those who suggest the -isms that then has the power to define the narrative (the mainstream) for all who consent to believe it.
going along with lies in an attempt to sell people the truth never works well
What if we are form within flow aka life (form) moving from inception towards death (flow) and flow represents constant change; while both true and false represent forms ignorance thereof?
Could ti be that us consenting to the suggestions of others causes us to believe "true"; which then allows others to contradict it aka "false"? Does nature offer false information?
She's off the mark, but she does have a bit of a point. CRT is clearly racist and incitement to genocide, but think about whom you're trying to convince with these arguments: You're trying to convince normies who've been so steeped in the myth of white privilege that you'll never get through to them by saying "This is racist against white people." It's better to argue against CRT on the basis that it's ahistorical and factually wrong.
In your experience, has this ever worked on leftists? Being factually wrong and hypocritical is their normal state.
Again, you're not trying to convince leftists. They really are in it for the power. You're trying to convince normies. Most people still aren't living their lives subsumed by the culture war.
It's not a lie to argue against CRT on the basis that it's ahistorical and factually wrong.
Consent to any suggested -ism is what creates a hierarchy under false authority; because to consent to suggestion represents using free will to consent to a suggestion made by the free will of another. Free will represents the sole authority over self; consenting to the free will of another represents the ignorance thereof.
It is the free will of those who suggest the -isms that then has the power to define the narrative (the mainstream) for all who consent to believe it.
What if we are form within flow aka life (form) moving from inception towards death (flow) and flow represents constant change; while both true and false represent forms ignorance thereof?
Could ti be that us consenting to the suggestions of others causes us to believe "true"; which then allows others to contradict it aka "false"? Does nature offer false information?