Jump to content

Hookah Horns

Full Members
  • Posts

    2800
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hookah Horns

  1. 91 politicians since September? Got damn. Anyone still running for local office in hot spots has got brass balls.
  2. The root cause of this is people basing their entire identity on their thoughts and beliefs. Meditation helps with this.
  3. I'm sorry if I was rude. Definitely wasn't my intent. I appreciated that was what you were doing. I thought I was being polite, so maybe I'm just an asshole.
  4. I'll rep them pro bono. I'm not a criminal defense attorney, but I'm confident a defense consisting of hours of Tucker tape will result in an acquittal, so long as I don't get an entire jury of trumptards.
  5. Truly great post @Brisketexan
  6. I'm open to more discussion. I'm just saying I haven't found your arguments about the chart to be persuasive, and that my opinion that their claims are ludicrous and offensive is unlikely to be changed. Kind of similar to how nobody is going to persuade me, e.g., that it isn't ludicrous and offensive to call an elementary school a superior academic institution to UT. At some point in any discourse you have sufficient information and arguments and have a different opinion. It doesn't mean I'm closed minded or on some kind of quest. No need for a facetious apology.
  7. We were. I'm not sure how saying we'll have to agree to disagree means it wasn't. What do you perceive to be my "quest"?
  8. I didn't say that. I guess you're referring to my omission of linearity from the post you quoted, which wasn't intentional. But yeah, it seems like they'd have just said "emphasis on linear thinking" if that's the distinction they wanted to make. Anyway, I think it's a ludicrous and offensive view and probably won't be changing my mind about that, so we can agree to disagree.
  9. I'd agree that those were fraudulent uses of the scientific method. But the emphasis didn't produce those things.
  10. I wouldn't say either of those things are the product of an emphasis on the scientific method. And again I think it's pretty insane to say an emphasis on the scientific method, objective/rational thinking, and cause/effect analysis have been foisted on the world by the white folks. That'd piss me off if I wasn't white. Hell, it pisses me off even though I am.
  11. Yeah I know it's a polemic, but it has citations so I gave it a little more cred than I would've otherwise. I've also read similar things elsewhere.
  12. Not a CRT source per se, but here's a graphic where the African American History Museum says the emphasis on the scientific method, quant reasoning, objective and rational linear thinking, and cause/effect relationships are white people stuff. Saw this recently and its absurdity has stuck with me. At the very least it jibes with the criticism of CRT you reject with "no."
  13. Here and some other places. The law review article washpark posted is the only other source I have handy, and here's how it puts it: "First, the storytellers view narratives as central to scholarship, while de-emphasizing conventional analytic methods."
  14. True, to an extent, anecdotes and narratives can help shape court decisions and public policy. But my understanding is that CRT argues that the subjective experiences of POC must trump so-called objective facts gleaned from science, reason, and evidence when they conflict (because those things have been corrupted or are corruptible by systemic racism). If that's an accurate description of CRT, I find it difficult to envision its application making much headway within our legal system. Also, wouldn't CRT say that the ideal of justice for POC can only be better reached when doing so is also in the best interest of whites? I know I need to study this theory more before making any judgments, but so far I'm not seeing a whole lot of hope in this perspective. It seems like the only real hope is for completely overhauling the entire "system" of our society.
  15. By "assumes" I think he means "proves."
  16. Not sure what this reply is about. Did you not get my question about whether CRT deems anything producing racially inequitable outcomes to be systemic racism? The basketball rules analogy is admittedly (and intended to be) ridiculous.
  17. What is the hope, though? Sincere question. I'm not clear on what implements it proposes to bring about change. From the article you linked and some other things I've read, it seems at least some CRT proponents dismiss legal reforms or anything incremental.
  18. I'm looking at a satellite view of that land and it really does seem like a great spot for it. No it doesn't have to be great or permanent, but the closer you get to great/permanent, the fewer people you're going to have to deal with penally. Of course there are always going to be some number of those, no matter how luxurious you made it, so at a certain point you get diminishing returns. The Community First model of tiny homes and campers is a proven winner, and it's staring the city in the face. I don't even live in atx anymore, but it really pisses me off that they are ignoring it and doing dumbass shit to address a homeless population of >3,000 by buying a few <100 room motels for ~$10 million a pop. I'm offended by how fucking stupid the city council is.
  19. Indeed, and it includes possibly my all-time favorite scene.
  20. Definitely going to give this a closer reading, but in perusal I noticed the author mentions something I intended to mention in my previous post: that CRT seems overly fatalistic. Pounding on the notion that the game of life is permanently rigged against you isn't, I imagine, terribly inspirational or motivating.
  21. I thought about that, but it's not big enough for everyone. My plan is based on one large camp. I also don't think it'd be a good idea to put it in that densely populated of an area. I think having it on the outskirts of town and providing transportation to the central city would be ideal. I also imagine the neighborhood around Hancock would lose its collective shit about it more than the one adjacent to Clay/Kizer.
  22. Hmm not a bad idea. Convert either Clay or Kizer to a permanent camp. I bet you could shelter a few thousand homeless on all that land. Install the appropriate shelters, amenities and services out there and provide shuttles into town. And then strictly enforce the camping ordinance. Bam, solved.
  23. I've read a lot of primers on CRT and still don't have a great grasp on how valuable it is as a theory. On the one hand, I think it's important to acknowledge and study the ways in which the reverberations of slavery and racist law and policy continue to shape our world today. What I'm not really clear on is: does CRT hold that everything that tends to advantage whites more than blacks = systemic racism? Or do its proponents methodically trace the disparate results to their patently discriminatory origins? Some of the criticism of it that I've seen would have someone believe that, if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot, the logic of CRT would hold that the game of basketball is systemically racist because its rules disproportionately advantage black players. And that CRT would advocate changing the rules in an attempt to eliminate or at least diminish the unfair advantage enjoyed by black players.
  24. He's said he supports some provisions (edit: and the John Lewis VRA) but not the whole bill. His reasoning: we currently have a lot of people who don't trust the election system, and their numbers would greatly increase if we pass a voting bill without bipartisan support. The reasoning is LOL funny in just how fucking backwards it is.
×
×
  • Create New...