Logically debunking activist claptrap
If leftist activists are correct and black people can never be racist because racism is prejudice plus power, and white people are always prejudiced then:
1. Racism = Prejudice + Power
2. White people always hold power in all circumstances
3. Black people never hold power in any circumstance
4. White people are inherently prejudiced
So if this is true, then...
1. White people always have power anywhere they exist
2. Therefore in terms of having power, white people are always superior to black people.
3. Meaning, by the premises of critical theory as practiced by activists, honest white people are logically mandated to be prejudiced (at least in this one respect) within the bounds of activist CRT logic, becuase they always have power in all situations, and thus are always superior in this regard.
But why is racism wrong?
1. Racism is typically considered wrong because it is unfair -- if someone is capable of something but is kept from their potential by being prejudged as incapable due to race, then that's unfair.
But...
1. If racism is wrong because it is unfair, and critical theory logically proves that it isn't unfair, then racism isn't wrong.
2. It might look at first like the racism is instrumental to power due to our own biases, but that can't be the case because our axioms hold that white people always hold power, meaning that even in a scenario where there's one white and millions of blacks, the white holds power, suggesting that the white's mere whiteness gives them inherent power.
I don't believe in critical race theory, so I don't believe in any of the foundational statements above other than racism being wrong because it is unfair. I think of racism as any idea that one race is inherently superior to another, an older definition that doesn't self-refute like CRT racism does.
I do need to make sure I'm clear that I'm only talking about the activist version of CRT. Academic CRT may make mistakes, but not basic mistakes like this.
This also shows how postmodern-modernism is self-defeating. All you need to do in order to fix this is to accept that some black people have power and some white people don't and all the logic falls apart, but then you can't make the statement that black people can't be racist because racism is prejudice plus power which as I've shown is inherently white supremacist in its logic.
In fact, someone like Thomas Sowell (He's a world renowned economist) is inherently superior in all ways to Cletus the Goat Fucker (He fucks goats), and most people would admit that.
1. Racism = Prejudice + Power
2. White people always hold power in all circumstances
3. Black people never hold power in any circumstance
4. White people are inherently prejudiced
So if this is true, then...
1. White people always have power anywhere they exist
2. Therefore in terms of having power, white people are always superior to black people.
3. Meaning, by the premises of critical theory as practiced by activists, honest white people are logically mandated to be prejudiced (at least in this one respect) within the bounds of activist CRT logic, becuase they always have power in all situations, and thus are always superior in this regard.
But why is racism wrong?
1. Racism is typically considered wrong because it is unfair -- if someone is capable of something but is kept from their potential by being prejudged as incapable due to race, then that's unfair.
But...
1. If racism is wrong because it is unfair, and critical theory logically proves that it isn't unfair, then racism isn't wrong.
2. It might look at first like the racism is instrumental to power due to our own biases, but that can't be the case because our axioms hold that white people always hold power, meaning that even in a scenario where there's one white and millions of blacks, the white holds power, suggesting that the white's mere whiteness gives them inherent power.
I don't believe in critical race theory, so I don't believe in any of the foundational statements above other than racism being wrong because it is unfair. I think of racism as any idea that one race is inherently superior to another, an older definition that doesn't self-refute like CRT racism does.
I do need to make sure I'm clear that I'm only talking about the activist version of CRT. Academic CRT may make mistakes, but not basic mistakes like this.
This also shows how postmodern-modernism is self-defeating. All you need to do in order to fix this is to accept that some black people have power and some white people don't and all the logic falls apart, but then you can't make the statement that black people can't be racist because racism is prejudice plus power which as I've shown is inherently white supremacist in its logic.
In fact, someone like Thomas Sowell (He's a world renowned economist) is inherently superior in all ways to Cletus the Goat Fucker (He fucks goats), and most people would admit that.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 3
Now explain how the whites that got raped and slaughtered in zimbabwe or sierra leone had power...
...after which your lefties will start pulling stuff outta their asses
...after which your lefties will start pulling stuff outta their asses
Mathematically debunking activist claptrap
@sj_zero if Racism = Prejudice + Power, then Power = Racism - Prejudice, and negative Power = Prejudice - Racism.
By the latter rule, a classicist can never hold power. We can see that this has always been true, by the lack of staying power in European feudal society where serfs routinely triumphed over aristocrats, and in China which never managed to maintain an Empire for very long, and in India where the caste system collapsed immediately and is only known to us from Egyptian records.
By the former rule, an open-minded racist is an unstoppable political force. We can see the truth of this by the common saying "4chan Owned Government", or "4OG", and by the eagerness with which high society everywhere practices racism whenever possible. If you joke about Jews in the halls of Congress, all you'll get in reply are jokes about other races, and those held in the highest esteem are congressmen who can speak about the most races while - lacking prejudice - making the brightest distinctions between these 'statements about groups' vs. 'statements about individuals'. Even if men are taller than women as a group, it doesn't mean you can't find a short king who looks up to a woman. The most powerful understand this most clearly.
With this simple algebra, and with the obvious correctness of the implied equations, the truth of the original equation is left as an exercise for the reader.
By the latter rule, a classicist can never hold power. We can see that this has always been true, by the lack of staying power in European feudal society where serfs routinely triumphed over aristocrats, and in China which never managed to maintain an Empire for very long, and in India where the caste system collapsed immediately and is only known to us from Egyptian records.
By the former rule, an open-minded racist is an unstoppable political force. We can see the truth of this by the common saying "4chan Owned Government", or "4OG", and by the eagerness with which high society everywhere practices racism whenever possible. If you joke about Jews in the halls of Congress, all you'll get in reply are jokes about other races, and those held in the highest esteem are congressmen who can speak about the most races while - lacking prejudice - making the brightest distinctions between these 'statements about groups' vs. 'statements about individuals'. Even if men are taller than women as a group, it doesn't mean you can't find a short king who looks up to a woman. The most powerful understand this most clearly.
With this simple algebra, and with the obvious correctness of the implied equations, the truth of the original equation is left as an exercise for the reader.