THIS is EXACTLY what is meant by “colorblindness.” This is what superheroes taught kids in the 80s. Reed has *exactly* the right attitude.
This *can* actually be done. It isn’t even that *hard* to do. This is how I have lived my life.
I have taught students of every ethnicity, faith, and continent in the world.
I've had students tell me, on numerous occasions (“students of color” we are supposed to say today), that they were VERY appreciative of the way I treat everyone just the same. That wasn’t their default experience (liberal professors what be embarrassingly patronizing to them).
I don’t say this to praise myself for moral virtue. I say it because I always found it an ODD thing to be thanked for—because it had simply NEVER OCCURRED TO ME to treat any of my students differently.
My parents and Reed Richards taught me better than that.
I have related before that Black Panther was my favorite Avenger when I was very young. I didn’t *know* he was black. I was too young to understand any political meaning of Black Panthers (I just really like Bagheera in the Jungle Book)—even Shere Khan was a bit afraid of him.
When, eventually. we saw Black Panther remove his mask, and I found out he was black, my reaction was pretty much like Reed Richard’s. “Oh.” It was just another fact I filed away about him, not super important.
And it was partly COMICS that had taught me that.
Many comics fans like Rogue, from the X-Men. I had gotten out of reading comics, but she got me back in—when I read X-Men 171, the issue she joins the X-Men.
She was a SUPERVILLAIN, literally a member of the BROTHERHOOD OF EVIL MUTANTS.
Rogue was a villain, but she came to the X-Men, her enemies, to ask for help. She had badly hurt Carol Danvers, taking her powers and memories—and Carol was very close to the X-Men, having stayed with them (and fought beside them) as Professor X helped her to regain her memory.
What the X-Men didn’t know was that Rogue’s theft of Carol’s powers and psyche was an ACCIDENT—more precisely, a set-up that Mystique had tricked Rogue into to power her up more. But the schism in Rogue’s mind was driving her slowly insane.
The X-Men, led by Storm, REFUSE to help Rogue. They are too angry at what she did to Carol.
Professor X proceeds to tear them apart.
Professor X gives one of the best speeches in comics. He basically says HE is going to HELP ROGUE, and if every single X-Man quits, then not to let the door hit their asses on the way out.
Here’s how THAT plays out:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A theory of something is not a movement UNLESS you are using the Marxist sense of “Theory.” This ALREADY gives the game away. This is IDEOLOGY, not SCIENCE or SCHOLARSHIP.
This (Marxist) Theory/movement RETHINKS traditional CIVIL RIGHTS ideas and concepts.
So CRT is NOT going to be about CIVIL RIGHTS — AS WE NORMALLY UNDERSTAND THEM.
Not at all. It turns out that it is like Communist country’s that define “democracy” as “Communist Party Rule.”
The LAW states something universal that applies to EVERYONE.
But no CASE is universal. It is PARTICULAR.
JUDGMENT is the application of the universal law/rule to a particular case.
In these laws, the legislators pass a “one size fits all” law that FORCES the judge to do this.
Yes, this is an OBVIOUS injustice.
This has nothing to do with the man’s race.
In fact it is utterly NON-RACIST since the judge had NO CHOICE AT ALL about the sentence. The man’s race COULD NOT have played a role in this sentence. It was mandatory by law.
I was once in the state finals in Lincoln-Douglas Debates. I *eviscerated* my opponent’s case in the semi-finals. L-D is like a court: if you are the negative, you don’t have to prove innocence; you just have to show the affirmative has FAILED to make his case.
When I learned I lost, I actually asked them to double check to make sure our names hadn’t got mixed up, because I had not lost. It was a decisive victory. But no, I really lost. I waited all day to get the judge’s reasoning back.
Her reason?
“While you completely refuted all your opponent’s arguments, you failed to make a case for your side.”
THIS IS LITERALLY DIRECTLY OPPOSITE OF THE RULES OF THE DEBATES. The negative has NO burden to make ANY case.
Progressive: *uses double standard to fuck over Non-progressive*
Non-progressive: “That’s a double standard!”
Progressive: *uses double standard to fuck over Non-progressive*
Non-progressive: “That’s a double standard!”
Progressive: *uses double standard to fuck over Non-progressive*
Non-progressive: “That’s a double standard!”
Progressive: *uses double standard to fuck over Non-progressive*
Non-progressive: “That’s a double standard!”
You were too busy learning from Very Smart People at the time, I take it?
I used to do something similar. I used to *argue* with Campus Preacher. I never tried to 'throw sand in his gears’ — *he* wasn’t acting in bad faith, although I thought he was misguided.
Years later, I learned that he eventually converted to Orthodoxy, leaving behind his cramped and narrow version of American Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalism.
We both got to the same place by very different routes. ☦️
I find it an odd take that you think a Campus Preacher (by that very fact) has NOTHING to offer in the way of wisdom or moral guidance that could be better than other “teachers" … ON A MODERN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.