Then we could both be right
Yeah, I can’t define CRT either. But I also don’t talk about it obsessively.
Then we could both be right
You preggers?
Funny thing about CRT -- the actual legal studies subfield -- is that it takes the view that racism doesn't emanate from individuals but from the law and various other ins utions.
It also doesn't hold with biological essentialism. Instead it postulates, in harmony with its sociological theory, that race is not determined by phylogeny, but is instead a social.construction.
Libs like dead babies
Not really, I'm more of a women's libber.
Can't believe that at ude and that bike haven't gotten you drowned in pussy
What are you doing to leverage your priviledge, CD?
Me and my wife of 27 years are doing just fine, thanks for asking.
Spelling privilege correctly.
So we're now living in the world where principled libertarians can't be forced to wear masks indoors to prevent communicable disease, but women's libbers can be forced to carry babies to term, and compelled by law to do nothing that might imperil others.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-03-2021 at 12:05 AM.
Nah probs not
The other funny thing about CRT is that it doesn't exist
The essence of CRT is that the white man has suppressed all other races and that being a "minority" even if a land where you aren't a minority, meaning your skin isn't white, means you've been indoctrinated since birth to believe you are less than them, and that your entire past and future will be a struggle to overcome disadvantages put in place for you to struggle, by the white man.
aka white man bad.
So you're the one who's preggers.
You don't know know about CRT, you've just been dining from the end of that newspaper spoon.
Legal and social equality for "non-white" people feels like oppression to them.
The CRT furore amounts more or less to backlash against civil rights and teaching kids about it using concrete examples from current events and US history.
dp
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-03-2021 at 12:06 AM.
You are so full of . I have explicitly stated I am pro-choice and disagree with the recent Texas law.
At the same time, I think there should be limits on how late you can perform an abortion.
YOUR party supports abortions up to and including FULL TERM where they crush the living babys skull with tongs in the birth canal.
There has to be a reasonable middle ground.
cons like dead women
(shrugs)
So let me fix it then.
---------------------------------------
Doesn't really change my mind.
Your party get what an overwhelming majority of them want... abortion is illegal.
What do we do with women who miscarry? They are, in places where it is illegal, very often accused of botched abortions.
Your party is fine with putting innocent people to death, through your unflinching support of the death penalty, and the inevitable innocent people (brown) that get caught up in that.
You think it will be any different for this?
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...er-miscarriage
------------------------------------------------------
Now solve the problem of your party lynching women who have miscarriages.
off, chicken little. The sky isn't falling.
I will set aside my frustration with your brainwashing here, and rebut that.
No, that is not what the Democratic party supports.
Further, I will call you out on the bull you have swallowed:
Prove that to a reasonable degree. Your assertion, your burden of proof.
I'll wait.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)