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.
I think your anti-religious bias is showing here.
It seems to me in many cases, university students could do much worse than to try to learn something from a Campus Preacher.
They might find something there which is utterly lacking in their professors.
Feels refreshing to disagree with James about something again.
Lately, I’ve just been nodding and retweeting much of his timeline. 😆
• • •
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!”
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).