3 ms·

You can as well as me google to see the myriad of critical social justice conferences and events she has contributed to. She is quite productive. You can also s

You can as well as me google to see the myriad of critical social justice conferences and events she has contributed to. She is quite productive. You can also see her calls for the critical social justice DEI solution when she calls for racial equity (as in redistribution based upon identity politics traits - not equality), inclusion (as in critical social justice activists of all identities must be given a platform with no critique by viewpoint opponents - not openness to different values being expressed) and calls for diverse voices to be heard (as in political activist voices with a critical consciousness - not viewpoint opponents). Having a critical consciousness is about the process I described above, I never claimed I had to know what she felt. Deconstructing her words and going down the endless rabbit hole of claiming a “it quacks like a duck and walks like duck, it has ducklings, although it’s not necessarily a duck” then that might work on someone else, but not on me.

wolverine876 5y ago
> You can as well as me google ... I think the burden to support your claims is on you. Readers can't check the evidence for every comment. It's more efficient too - you already know your argument and what you've seen, and you do it once rather than every reader duplicating effort. Sorry, but with no evidence it's not meaningful to me - there is so much dis- and mis-information on the Internet that I think people are insane to trust it. Note that I did spend the time to ask you, because you seem to have thought it through. Nothing personal. > I never claimed I had to know what she felt. You did make claims about the project's motivations and about hers as a teacher (and maybe more - I don't remember). > Deconstructing her words and going down the endless rabbit hole of claiming a “it quacks like a duck and walks like duck, it has ducklings, although it’s not necessarily a duck” then that might work on someone else, but not on me. Maybe assume some good faith; nobody is trying to make something work on you. For the reasons I said above, I simply can't trust what I read on the Internet; I need evidence. Trusting people's claims on the Internet is a cliche for foolishness these days, and we know it does incredible harm in our world. I know you don't want to write a dissertation on HN, but maybe link to someone with credibility who already has.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  > I think the burden to support your claims is on you. Readers can't check the evidence for every comment. It's more efficient too - you already know your argument and what you've seen, and you do it once rather than every reader duplicating effort. She is the creator of one of the biggest critical social justice anti-racist projects, the 1619 project, which is the strongest argument I can think of that she is an adherent of and an important figure in that ideology. With that as an established fact then in the context of a traditionally liberal creed organization like the ACLU or a liberal University, its relevant to detail how that ideology is in conflict with liberalism and why it is reasonable that a top ideologue of critical social justice is not given stewardship of a liberal position. > Maybe assume some good faith; When you question if the creator of one of the biggest critical social justice projects is a critical social justice adherent I think its fair to question if you are arguing in good faith.

wolverine876 5y ago

> You can as well as me google ... I think the burden to support your claims is on you. Readers can't check the evidence for every comment. It's more efficient too - you already know your argument and what you've seen, and you do it once rather than every reader duplicating effort. Sorry, but with no evidence it's not meaningful to me - there is so much dis- and mis-information on the Internet that I think people are insane to trust it. Note that I did spend the time to ask you, because you seem to have thought it through. Nothing personal. > I never claimed I had to know what she felt. You did make claims about the project's motivations and about hers as a teacher (and maybe more - I don't remember). > Deconstructing her words and going down the endless rabbit hole of claiming a “it quacks like a duck and walks like duck, it has ducklings, although it’s not necessarily a duck” then that might work on someone else, but not on me. Maybe assume some good faith; nobody is trying to make something work on you. For the reasons I said above, I simply can't trust what I read on the Internet; I need evidence. Trusting people's claims on the Internet is a cliche for foolishness these days, and we know it does incredible harm in our world. I know you don't want to write a dissertation on HN, but maybe link to someone with credibility who already has.

asabjorn 5y ago
> I think the burden to support your claims is on you. Readers can't check the evidence for every comment. It's more efficient too - you already know your argument and what you've seen, and you do it once rather than every reader duplicating effort. She is the creator of one of the biggest critical social justice anti-racist projects, the 1619 project, which is the strongest argument I can think of that she is an adherent of and an important figure in that ideology. With that as an established fact then in the context of a traditionally liberal creed organization like the ACLU or a liberal University, its relevant to detail how that ideology is in conflict with liberalism and why it is reasonable that a top ideologue of critical social justice is not given stewardship of a liberal position. > Maybe assume some good faith; When you question if the creator of one of the biggest critical social justice projects is a critical social justice adherent I think its fair to question if you are arguing in good faith.