Once again I’ll point out that I remember in the 90s when evangelicals were laughed at or told that they were engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. To be fair there are gays who want to be left alone but I guess with any activism that isn’t enough. I remember John Stossel interviewed a gay guy and said they should’ve stopped at tolerance instead of demanding that they be accepted or applauded Look at black teenagers who grow up in fancy suburbs who can’t shut up about their oppression.
It’s all semantic games. CRT originated in the study of law (as they like to remind us when they lie and say CRT isn’t in lower schools now) and lawyers are probably the most skilled at twisting language to suit their needs. A lot of chapter-length codes start with a definitions section that tells you what they mean by this word, that word, the other word when they use it in the code, which does help with interpretation but can also confuse anyone who merely looking up the law that applies to a current situation, and doesn’t turn back to the definitions section to see how certain words might be used in a nonstandard way. That’s ultimately critical theory’s only game: come up with a fancy technical definition of a standard word like “oppression,” start using it without defining it or ever conceding they’re using a made-up definition, and rage against “ignorant” people who try to use the word correctly, so that gradually their altered definition becomes the “real” definition purely through attrition.
Once again I’ll point out that I remember in the 90s when evangelicals were laughed at or told that they were engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. To be fair there are gays who want to be left alone but I guess with any activism that isn’t enough. I remember John Stossel interviewed a gay guy and said they should’ve stopped at tolerance instead of demanding that they be accepted or applauded Look at black teenagers who grow up in fancy suburbs who can’t shut up about their oppression.
The victimhood social status is beyond parody anymore.
I know! I never thought I’d see the demand for victim status be so off the charts.
It’s all semantic games. CRT originated in the study of law (as they like to remind us when they lie and say CRT isn’t in lower schools now) and lawyers are probably the most skilled at twisting language to suit their needs. A lot of chapter-length codes start with a definitions section that tells you what they mean by this word, that word, the other word when they use it in the code, which does help with interpretation but can also confuse anyone who merely looking up the law that applies to a current situation, and doesn’t turn back to the definitions section to see how certain words might be used in a nonstandard way. That’s ultimately critical theory’s only game: come up with a fancy technical definition of a standard word like “oppression,” start using it without defining it or ever conceding they’re using a made-up definition, and rage against “ignorant” people who try to use the word correctly, so that gradually their altered definition becomes the “real” definition purely through attrition.
you mean it's all a semitic game?
Someone who doesn't want to be banned might call it a semantic game, but they wouldn't be any more accurate.
Also get angry with those who notice the agenda and attack like a pack of wolves
The only thing the Pat Robertson crowd got wrong was badly underestimating both how bad things would get and how quickly we'd get there.