Interestingly, a lot of the boomer/millennial kids shows like sesame Street basically have no influence anymore. They're showing up on YouTube channels to scavenge some scraps of relevance.
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.
"Gais we just need to figure out which is the empire and which is the rebels! Then we can be the good guys!"
Using flour is actually something brought over by colonists. The precursor to bannock was allegedly made out of the dried root of bulrushes, but it wasn't until things like the Hudson Bay company where natives could trade their beaver pelts for large amounts of oil or fat and flour that it became a staple food rather than a very rare treat.
One of the really interesting things is that European cuisine was changed forever when the Americas were colonized because indigenous people had already domesticated things like corn or peppers or potatoes, but in the same way indigenous cuisine was changed by the introduction of things like lard and flour.
One of the really interesting things is that European cuisine was changed forever when the Americas were colonized because indigenous people had already domesticated things like corn or peppers or potatoes, but in the same way indigenous cuisine was changed by the introduction of things like lard and flour.
Interesting that it's got a slightly different name in all sorts of places. It's bannock here, other side of the province it's skaan, and I guess some places it's frybread.
I could really go for some fried bannock right about now. It's fantastic.
I could really go for some fried bannock right about now. It's fantastic.
Competition for elite jobs has been consistently rising, for a lot of them it wasn't a gravy train that could last forever.