30 years ago the correct term for kids with mental development problems was 'mentally retarded'. Then that became politically incorrect and was replaced by 'mentally disabled.' Then that got replaced by 'mentally handicapped', and now 'differently abled'. The root issue is the same, just the words around it switched around for political clout. Same with 'colored people', who were 'blacks' then 'African Americans', then finally 'people of color', which is just the same as before only the words are in different order. It's all just a power play to get people to comply.
The problem is that they assume changing the word will make people stop using it derogatorily. In reality, people will just use the new term to make fun of people in the same way. You can never not make it an insult.
They could and probably will be in the future, terms like "retarded" was never supposed to be used derogatorily when it was first used, now it's used derogatorily all the time
lmaooo bro I get called handicapped/disabled every time I fuck up a play when I'm playing online games. People will routinely use disabled as an insult. I've even seen it irl. Differently-abled is pretty new but give it time and it will also be used to insult people.
I think you ARE disabled (mentally) and that is why you are called disabled. After all, you DO push the "Itz da Jooz" narrative, so you're not very bright.
I have often noted this fact. It's a way for those elites to maintain an ingroup vs outgroup dichotomy. They were able to recognize each other back when most people were using the term "crippled" and they were using the politically correct term, "handicapped" and when most people started using the term "handicapped" the elites switched over to "disabled" and when most people started using the term "disabled" they switched to "differently-abled". No doubt they will switch to a new term as soon as "differently-abled" is used by enough people.
Slavery is not particularly important to the CRT argument. CRT analyzes every social dynamic, trend, etc., by race, and posits that if "people of color" are disadvantaged by it, then the cause is racism, and the solution is reverse discrimination.
The disadvantage is often said to come from slavery and past oppression. They say that's the root of the problem and that all their current behavior stems from that due to generational trauma or some bullshit
If you want to conflate "CRT" with the general black sentiment, then that's your choice, but that's not what it is. CRT first of all doesn't have specifically to do with blacks, or even more specifically with descendants of slavery, they conceive of the issue as between "white people" and "people of color", with descendants of slavery being a minor part of the whole of people of color. But more to the point, they don't have to explain disadvantage beyond the fact of it. If people of color are disadvantaged, it's by definition because of racism. The particular form of racism -- slavery, colonialism, or microaggressions -- really doesn't matter.
I suppose I hadn't considered other races in the matter as I tend to associate the movement with blacks because they tend to be some of the most vocal about it. When it comes to other races I would agree but I'm speaking of the justifications for critical race theory in their minds. Which yes, also includes things like microaggressions. I think all aspects are important when discussing this issue because if you're to debate someone on it you have to have a comeback for all possible arguments. I've anecdotally found in internet arguments that slavery gets brought up a lot.
Let's be clear, when you say that blacks "tend to be some of the most vocal about it," what you really mean is, "the media tends to focus its attention on black people who are vocal about it". I'm not saying that aspects of CRT aren't indigenous to and popular in the black community, some of it is, nor that slavery is irrelevant to CRT, it's clearly relevant. But there's a world of difference between an argument that slavery has lingering impacts and an argument that all racial disparities are due to racism. Only the latter is unique to CRT.
This is all in my experience. I don't tend to engage with the mainstream media often. When I say they seem to be the most vocal it is because on my university campus and online they tend to be the ones I most often hear spouting off about CRT (other than Jews of course but they do it from a saviour complex sort of angle). I can agree that the whole BLM thing propagandizing to black people probably made the situation worse IRL though.
Probably applies on a college campus as well. But yeah, look at the "Introduction to Critical Race Theory" written by Richard Delgado. The foundational text was written by Peggy McIntosh. The best selling book is by Robin DiAngelo. I'm not trying to absolve blacks of blame for this crap, but a lot of other groups have had a hand in it as well.
When Styx touched on "lies by structure" my interpretation was that he was attempting to convey that the structure of most mainstream articles purposefully places potentially conflicting info to the author's narrative at the end (99% don't read that far) to develop a false sense of reality to the vast majority of his/her readers (therefore generating a lie or twisted sense of reality to effect the public's opinion by the article's structure).
its always been used in the news Media as long as I can remember, the subtitle "Us or Them"
leading you to of course be of the opinion of "Us"
and then framing who or what the majority thinks or says, always leading you to want to be with the majority, always always there is the feeling given, that if you agree with "Us" your a "Superior more intelligent human being" and the unsaid but understood fact, that you need to "FEAR" being found out if you think or act differently.
more and more it has become blatant and "in your Face"
Free speech absolutism is the only way to fight against this propaganda. When you're limited in what you can say against a group then you begin to lose because they don't really have limits.
Taleb calls this anachronistic bigoteering: anachronistic meaning "out of its time"; bigoteering being the word Tim Ferriss coined meaning taking offence on behalf of others who may not even feel offended.
Neo-racist is the term I like because it's similar to neo-Marxist as used by JBP, and therefore it's more easily comprehendable to normies.
Whoever controls words and how they are used have a lot of influence over the minds of people in this age of orwellian propaganda.
true, which is why the left loves linguistic propaganda and uses it all the time, to fool people into supporting leftists causes
The Left is attempting to control thought by controlling speech.
Never let an enemy pick the terrain.
30 years ago the correct term for kids with mental development problems was 'mentally retarded'. Then that became politically incorrect and was replaced by 'mentally disabled.' Then that got replaced by 'mentally handicapped', and now 'differently abled'. The root issue is the same, just the words around it switched around for political clout. Same with 'colored people', who were 'blacks' then 'African Americans', then finally 'people of color', which is just the same as before only the words are in different order. It's all just a power play to get people to comply.
The problem is that they assume changing the word will make people stop using it derogatorily. In reality, people will just use the new term to make fun of people in the same way. You can never not make it an insult.
Terms like "handicapped", "disabled" and "differently-abled" have never been used derogatorily.
They could and probably will be in the future, terms like "retarded" was never supposed to be used derogatorily when it was first used, now it's used derogatorily all the time
Yes, well the term "disabled" is already considered to be derogatory, but only by progressives and they don't count.
True, progressives are offended by everything
Exactly
lmaooo bro I get called handicapped/disabled every time I fuck up a play when I'm playing online games. People will routinely use disabled as an insult. I've even seen it irl. Differently-abled is pretty new but give it time and it will also be used to insult people.
I think you ARE disabled (mentally) and that is why you are called disabled. After all, you DO push the "Itz da Jooz" narrative, so you're not very bright.
lol, you just contradicted yourself, you say that the word "disabled" have never been used derogatorily but then you use it derogatorily, lol
you're just mad cuz you're wrong again lol
What am I incorrect about?
George Carlin was a genius
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY
I have often noted this fact. It's a way for those elites to maintain an ingroup vs outgroup dichotomy. They were able to recognize each other back when most people were using the term "crippled" and they were using the politically correct term, "handicapped" and when most people started using the term "handicapped" the elites switched over to "disabled" and when most people started using the term "disabled" they switched to "differently-abled". No doubt they will switch to a new term as soon as "differently-abled" is used by enough people.
Mostly peaceful...
Slavery is not particularly important to the CRT argument. CRT analyzes every social dynamic, trend, etc., by race, and posits that if "people of color" are disadvantaged by it, then the cause is racism, and the solution is reverse discrimination.
The disadvantage is often said to come from slavery and past oppression. They say that's the root of the problem and that all their current behavior stems from that due to generational trauma or some bullshit
If you want to conflate "CRT" with the general black sentiment, then that's your choice, but that's not what it is. CRT first of all doesn't have specifically to do with blacks, or even more specifically with descendants of slavery, they conceive of the issue as between "white people" and "people of color", with descendants of slavery being a minor part of the whole of people of color. But more to the point, they don't have to explain disadvantage beyond the fact of it. If people of color are disadvantaged, it's by definition because of racism. The particular form of racism -- slavery, colonialism, or microaggressions -- really doesn't matter.
I suppose I hadn't considered other races in the matter as I tend to associate the movement with blacks because they tend to be some of the most vocal about it. When it comes to other races I would agree but I'm speaking of the justifications for critical race theory in their minds. Which yes, also includes things like microaggressions. I think all aspects are important when discussing this issue because if you're to debate someone on it you have to have a comeback for all possible arguments. I've anecdotally found in internet arguments that slavery gets brought up a lot.
Let's be clear, when you say that blacks "tend to be some of the most vocal about it," what you really mean is, "the media tends to focus its attention on black people who are vocal about it". I'm not saying that aspects of CRT aren't indigenous to and popular in the black community, some of it is, nor that slavery is irrelevant to CRT, it's clearly relevant. But there's a world of difference between an argument that slavery has lingering impacts and an argument that all racial disparities are due to racism. Only the latter is unique to CRT.
This is all in my experience. I don't tend to engage with the mainstream media often. When I say they seem to be the most vocal it is because on my university campus and online they tend to be the ones I most often hear spouting off about CRT (other than Jews of course but they do it from a saviour complex sort of angle). I can agree that the whole BLM thing propagandizing to black people probably made the situation worse IRL though.
Probably applies on a college campus as well. But yeah, look at the "Introduction to Critical Race Theory" written by Richard Delgado. The foundational text was written by Peggy McIntosh. The best selling book is by Robin DiAngelo. I'm not trying to absolve blacks of blame for this crap, but a lot of other groups have had a hand in it as well.
Here's a well-researched intro to CRITICAL RACE THEORY - https://justintrouble.substack.com/p/critical-race-theory-what-is-it
Yes, speaking of this area of linguistics, I am building a glossary/encyclopedia of culture war terms. https://justintrouble.substack.com/p/culture-war-glossary
i am German/American. my great uncle died in WW1 from German machine gun fire. fuck all these sub-human shit bag fuckers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wO5TnYaJ4o
🧠 What's on your mind? And, 🧠 What's on your mind? The central scrutinizer will tell Ya, so shut up and obey... 🤪 yes Master 🤯
Way back when Antifa first started, I seem to remember that it stood for Anti-First Amendment.
Being from the UK, how did this transform into Anti-Fascism?
Either way, both terms seem to describe highly fascistic gangs
Is this what you mean as "lies by structure"?
When Styx touched on "lies by structure" my interpretation was that he was attempting to convey that the structure of most mainstream articles purposefully places potentially conflicting info to the author's narrative at the end (99% don't read that far) to develop a false sense of reality to the vast majority of his/her readers (therefore generating a lie or twisted sense of reality to effect the public's opinion by the article's structure).
its always been used in the news Media as long as I can remember, the subtitle "Us or Them"
leading you to of course be of the opinion of "Us"
and then framing who or what the majority thinks or says, always leading you to want to be with the majority, always always there is the feeling given, that if you agree with "Us" your a "Superior more intelligent human being" and the unsaid but understood fact, that you need to "FEAR" being found out if you think or act differently.
more and more it has become blatant and "in your Face"
YOU NEED TO FEAR US!
Fear is not Respect, something these kind of people will never achieve
Free speech absolutism is the only way to fight against this propaganda. When you're limited in what you can say against a group then you begin to lose because they don't really have limits.
It's very important to debunk propaganda from the other side
"He who controls the spice controls the universe." ― Frank Herbert,
I encourage everyone to read Larry Koger’s book on black slaveholders.
Taleb calls this anachronistic bigoteering: anachronistic meaning "out of its time"; bigoteering being the word Tim Ferriss coined meaning taking offence on behalf of others who may not even feel offended.
Neo-racist is the term I like because it's similar to neo-Marxist as used by JBP, and therefore it's more easily comprehendable to normies.