The professor puts the woman on the spot by asking “You took this class because I’m black?”
That is EITHER suppose to matter deeply OR it isn’t. Which is it?
Critical Race Theory and Wokeness in general both CLAIM that blacks have special “black ways of knowing.”
If black people really do have special “ways of knowing”, then why on earth would it be a bad thing to select a class on the basis of the professor’s race?
Only if that is false would it be a questionable thing to do.
“I knew you were black when I signed up for this class. That was important to me.”
“You signed up for this class because I’m black?”
Not what she said. Speaking as a professor, it is very bad form to twist a brand new student’s words in a passive-aggressive way like that.
The correct question (if one were needed) would be: “Why was my being black important to you?”
Which, in today’s world, could very well have the answer “Well, Critical Race Theory teaches that black law professors have special knowledge that others professors can’t have.”
I mean, that’s the story, is it not? You are supposed to be able to get special occult knowledge from “centering black voices.”
It hurts so much because it is clearly trying to be “Look at the racist white woman trying so hard, and failing, to not show her racism” but just as clearly actually is “This is what I, the writer, thinks that racist white women probably sound like, although I’ve never met one."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Kant’s famous dictum “being is not a real predicate”—which he took from Wolff and uses in a Wolffian sense—is actually quite trivial. A “real predicate” is one which determines a thing in regard to what it is, that is, it pertains to essence. Whereas being pertains to existence.
So to say “being is not a real predicate” is just to say that “predicating existence to something is not an essential determination of the thing.”
This is true in all cases in which essence and existence are distinct—everything, that is, but God.
Kant’s critique of the ontological argument (which is Kant’s name for it), amounts to this:
For the ontological argument to work, existence would need to be a real predicate. But nowhere do we find this to be so. So the argument doesn’t work.
As an irrational feeling, empathy tells us almost nothing. Ethics is about action, about what should be done, should not be done, or is permissible to do or not do. There are no ethical systems that appeal to empathy *as* a justification.
There is no action A that would be made right by or justified by “I feel/felt empathy.” At best, empathy could be a partial motive for a right action — but even then the rightness of the action would not be a question in which empathy figures.
Empathy can easily (and commonly does) lead to wrong actions. Empathy can be evoked by storytelling, for example, and one can tell a story that paints someone not or little deserving of empathy as deserving of it.
CRT Poll: Is it true that the American Republic is, as it was founded to be, a system of White Supremacy?
CRT Poll: Is it true, as Derrick Bell, founder of CRT, maintains that if Americans were offered a highly beneficial deal by space aliens to sell all American blacks, that a majority would vote for this proposal?
CRT Poll: Is it true that it would be better to reject the idea that all persons are equal before the law and instead make laws which specifically favor some people and disfavor others, on the basis of their race?
It’s been 1 hour with Twitter just stuck on sending my 21 tweets. I’m gonna press X now, on the assumption that closing it will just vaporize the thread into the ether.
Wheel of Time: changing Egwene’s motive for leaving the Two Rivers and following Moiraine has been praised as ‘justification’ for changing the basic rules of the world of WoT, namely, that it is not possible for a man to be reborn as a woman (Egwene CANNOT BE the Dragon Reborn).
If Egwene could be the Dragon Reborn, and Moiraine doesn’t know who it is, of course she’d take Egwene with her (as she takes Rand, Mat, and Perrin in the books).
This is supposed to be a “better” reason for Egwene leaving the Two Rivers than Egwene’s own desire to leave.
Is it? Rand, Mat, and Perrin *have* to go with Moiraine.
Egwene, and for a different reason, Nynaeve, *decide* to go.
In other words, the AGENCY (at first) falls to the young women.
I suspect the Wheel of Time tv series is infected with trans ideology.
It may be a small point, but the first episode opens with Moiraine saying that the Dragon Reborn could be one of five children from the Two Rivers.
This makes no sense. The Dragon is male. He is always male. He will always be male. The Dragon is the avatar of maleness.
The Wheel of Time does reincarnate people, but it is *always* the same sex. Because “being a man” and “being a woman” in WoT is to have a connection to the Divine Source, which has a Yin-Yang male/female complementary structure. The connection is EXPLICIT in Aes Sedai & Asha'man.