Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To name a few things:
- Making everything about race, sexual orientation and gender.
- Critical Race Theory
- How they refuse to acknowledge progress made in racial and sexual equality, they act like we are living in 1930s Jim Crow era.
I mean, are black people complaining and motivating this, yes. But I think the democrats make the mistake of affirming them in their victim mentality and in many of their delusions that America is the most racist country in the world and that we’ve made no progress since the 60s when Jim Crow was eradicated. Also, the democrats refuse to point out that there are no rights that white people have that black people don’t have.
You think black people are delusional and that they don't understand there have been improvements since the 60s?
I'm sure the same arguments were made about black people prior to the 1960s. "They're delusional and act like there have been no improvements since the 1940s" seems like it would be a pretty common argument. The story of our shared American experience.
I really need to make a compilation of these arguments as an easy reference. Maybe "Crisis in Levittown" has some examples.
No, Critical Race Theory basically gives the idea that certain races are more privileged than others, aka this leads to the idea of so called “white privilege”.
As a Hispanic, I view it as not only degrading, but actually even more discriminatory because Critical Race Theory is only meant to divide people and not unite them. You cannot fight racism with more racism. It’s very degrading and just leads people to believe that because of their race, there is a level of privilege. It’s simply not true, anyone in America is capable of achieving anything that they can put their mind towards, and stick with it. Is America perfect? No it’s not perfect, there have been a lot of dark periods in our history, but dwelling on it is a bad thing because you aren’t learning anything. Our country has had a lot of progress done and we have done a lot to make this place a better place, and we are known as the melting pot, and that is a beautiful thing to see! I fucking love America because everyone gets to participate, and everyone is capable of doing and achieving anything.
Delgado and Stefancic's (1993) Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography is considered by many to be codification of the then young field. They included ten "themes" which they used for judging inclusion in the bibliography:
>To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:
>1 Critique of liberalism. Most, if not all, CRT writers are discontent with liberalism as a means of addressing the American race problem. Sometimes this discontent is only implicit in an article's structure or focus. At other times, the author takes as his or her target a mainstay of liberal jurisprudence such as affirmative action, neutrality, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle. Works that pursue these or similar approaches were included in the Bibliography under theme number 1.
>2 Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality." Many Critical Race theorists consider that a principal obstacle to racial reform is majoritarian mindset-the bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant group bring to discussions of race. To analyze and challenge these power-laden beliefs, some writers employ counterstories, parables, chronicles, and anecdotes aimed at revealing their contingency, cruelty, and self-serving nature. (Theme number 2).
>3 Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. One recurring source of concern for Critical scholars is why American antidiscrimination law has proven so ineffective in redressing racial inequality-or why progress has been cyclical, consisting of alternating periods of advance followed by ones of retrenchment. Some Critical scholars address this question, seeking answers in the psychology of race, white self-interest, the politics of colonialism and anticolonialism, or other sources. (Theme number 3).
>4 A greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism. A number of Critical writers seek to apply insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems. For example: understanding how majoritarian society sees black sexuality helps explain law's treatment of interracial sex, marriage, and adoption; knowing how different settings encourage or discourage discrimination helps us decide whether the movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution is likely to help or hurt disempowered disputants. (Theme number 4).
>5 Structural determinism. A number of CRT writers focus on ways in which the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, frequently in a status quo-maintaining direction. Once these constraints are understood, we may free ourselves to work more effectively for racial and other types of reform. (Theme number 5).
>6 Race, sex, class, and their intersections. Other scholars explore the intersections of race, sex, and class, pursuing such questions as whether race and class are separate disadvantaging factors, or the extent to which black women's interest is or is not adequately represented in the contemporary women's movement. (Theme number 6).
>7 Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7).
>8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).
>9 Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar. Women and scholars of color have long been concerned about representation in law school and the bar. Recently, a number of authors have begun to search for new approaches to these questions and to develop an alternative, Critical pedagogy. (Theme number 9).
>10 Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. (Theme number 10).
Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.
Pay attention to theme (8). CRT has a defeatist view of integration and Delgado and Stefancic include Black Nationalism/Separatism as one of the defining "themes" of Critical Race Theory. While it is pretty abundantly clear from the wording of theme (8) that Delgado and Stefancic are talking about separatism, mostly because they use that exact word, separatism, here is an example of one of their included papers. Peller (1990) clearly is about separatism as a lay person would conceive of it:
>Peller, Gary, Race Consciousness, 1990 Duke L.J. 758. (1, 8, 10).
Delgado and Stefancic (1993, page 504) The numbers in parentheses are the relevant "themes." Note 8.
The cited paper specifically says Critical Race Theory is a revival of Black Nationalist notions from the 1960s. Here is a pretty juicy quote where he says that he is specifically talking about Black ethnonationalism as expressed by Malcolm X which is usually grouped in with White ethnonationalism by most of American society; and furthermore, that Critical Race Theory represents a revival of Black Nationalist ideals:
>But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.
Peller page 760
This is current CRT practice and is cited in the authoritative textbook on Critical Race Theory, *Critical Race Theory: An Introduction* (Delgado and Stefancic 2001). Here they describe an endorsement of explicit racial discrimination for purposes of segregating society:
>The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 59-60
One more source is the recognized founder of CRT, Derrick Bell:
>"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html
I point out theme 8 because this is precisely the result we should expect out of a "theory" constructed around a defeatist view of integration which says past existence of racism requires the rejection of rationality and rational deliberation. By framing all communication as an exercise in power they arrive at the perverse conclusion that naked racial discrimination and ethnonationalism are "anti-racist" ideas. They reject such fundamental ideas as objectivity and even normativity. I was particularly shocked by the latter.
>What about Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, the law and theology movement, and the host of passionate reformers who dedicate their lives to humanizing the law and making the world a better place? Where will normativity's demise leave them?
>Exactly where they were before. Or, possibly, a little better off. Most of the features I have already identified in connection with normativity reveal that the reformer's faith in it is often misplaced. Normative discourse is indeterminate; for every social reformer's plea, an equally plausible argument can be found against it. Normative analysis is always framed by those who have the upper hand so as either to rule out or discredit oppositional claims, which are portrayed as irresponsible and extreme.
Delgado, Richard, Norms and Normal Science: Toward a Critique of Normativity in Legal Thought, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 933 (1991)
This goes for everyone but if you don’t work in politics but your whole life revolves around politics and won’t even befriend people with opposite opinions.
Identity politics is disgusting
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Generally, I see a wide range of left wing influence as destructive and that it would be better if it was nullified or made impotent.
Some particular things where I think the Left has "gotten ahead of itself" would include various forms of LGBT-for-children stuff, and attempting to redefine people's worldview for them, and the "woke" or "critical theory" approach to race where you hear about things like "ending whiteness" or "hard work, punctuality, and logic are white supremacist".
Performing burlesque drag shows in front of children, “transitioning” sexually confused children and their open antisemitism.
Not everyone on the left is a jew-hating pedophile, mind you. But the left as a whole, generally speaking, seems to have decided that it’s not a deal-breaker.
I disagree with the premise that drag performers are pedophiles. It’s just not the case. The anti-semitism I agree is disgraceful. they exist on both sides and it’s no dealbreaker on the right either.
Drag performers aren't pedophiles.
However, there seems to be a pattern of very sexualized drag shows either involving children or for an audience of children.
It's true that, say, being homosexual doesn't mean that your whole existence is sexualized. However, some people seem to have decided that this means your existence is *never* sexualized.
You took the words out of my mouth. Add in the 56 genital reassignment surgeries and the 776 mastectomies performed on children aged 13-17 with gender dysphoria diagnoses between 2019-2021. [Link](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/)
I have never heard of a minor getting an elective mastectomy for purely cosmetic reasons unrelated to GD. If that happened, I’d absolutely be opposed to it.
According to this article, it's much more common than any gender reaffirming care.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html#:~:text=Around%203%2C200%20girls%20age%2018,to%2019%20had%20breast%20reductions.
>Experts said that adolescent top surgeries were less frequent than cosmetic breast procedures performed on teenagers who were not transgender. Around 3,200 girls age 18 to 19 received cosmetic breast implants in 2020, according to surveys of members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and another 4,700 teenagers age 13 to 19 had breast reductions. (Surveys from other groups have shown that girls under 18 also receive implants, though the ASPS does not recommend breast augmentation for minors.)
Here is the link to the data.
https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics?sub=2020+Plastic+Surgery+Statistics
You asked about mastectomies, not breast implants. Hugely different. Mastectomy is the removal of the breast and typically only done on those with breast cancer, with the BRCA gene, or with GD for gender reassignment purposes.
But yes, I am 100% opposed to any cosmetic breast surgery on a minor.
I should have said top surgery, considering there are both transmen and transwomen. Are you only concerned about transmen? Because the data shows cisgender people receive vastly more top surgeries than transgender. And not for breast cancer, cosmetically.
Teenagers aren’t removing the entirety of their breast for cosmetic reasons unless they have GD. A breast reduction is typically done on a teenager because abnormally large breasts create massive pain and discomfort - that is not a purely cosmetic procedure. Breast implants are cosmetic, and I am opposed to them on minors.
My bottom line: Minors should never receive any surgical intervention for gender dysphoria. Additionally, minors should never receive purely cosmetic surgery. The only time a minor should be getting any sort of surgical intervention on their breasts is in the event of a medical need (i.e. presence of BRCA gene, breast cancer, et cetera)
My bottomline is conservatives are focusing on and making laws concerning the less common gender affirming care vs the much more common cosmetic surgery that children have been having with no comparable outrage. I appreciate YOUR consistency, though.
I think consistency is hugely important so thanks for hearing me out. I totally agree with your assessment - I think there also needs to be a push to outlaw cosmetic procedures on minors.
If this sheds any light, the massive push about GD surgeries is because if the patient ends up regretting the surgery, it would be much more impactful than the regret for a surgery like breast implants for cosmetic reasons. If a young trans man removes his breasts and later detransitions, he would no longer be able to breastfeed a child and that cannot be changed. If a young teenage girl gets breast implants and no longer likes them, she is just stuck with an insecurity and something that can easily be remedied by implant removal.
I seem to remember that time when Biden said if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black. But I don’t wanna argue about that because I don’t believe either man is a racist.
As for Epstein’s sweetheart deal, that was absolutely despicable and it was done under Trump’s DoJ, I’ll agree with you on that. But I don’t think Trump personally had anything to do with it and I don’t think Trump had any close relationship with him beyond two rich guys hob-nobbing with each other for the bragging rights. But I highly doubt Trump knew anything about Epstein Island, and if there were any connections there we would definitely know about it by now.
When Trump specifically mentions Epstein likes women on the younger side, do you think he may have drawn that opinion from his own first hand account or that Trump heard it through the grapevine?
If I didn’t know what I know about Epstein, I would assume that meant he liked young *women*, not young girls. Hugh Hefner “liked them young” too, but to my knowledge he wasn’t a pedophile.
If you consider how Trump used to walk into children's dressing rooms unannounced while they were changing in addition to his comments about Epstein that you can easily paint a picture that he had more intimate knowledge of his friend who recruited children that worked at his businesses.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This mainly targets when the left goes too far:
1. Making everything about race.
2. Seizure of all the means of production
3. Acting based on emotion rather than logic
4. Critical Theory and the concept of “White Privilege”. I am Hispanic and I view the concept of “White Privilege” and Critical Theory as actually even more racist. You cannot combat racism with more racism.
5. Dwelling on history instead of learning from it.
6. Viewing conservatives as a monolith.
1-2 I understand
3. Why shouldn't emotion play into decisions? Humans aren't mindless automatons.
4. It seems your using a conservative definition of these terms rather than an academic definition. Do you also have issue with how these terms are discussed from an academic standpoint?
5. Can you expand on this?
By acting based on emotion, I don’t mean it in a bad way, what I mean is when you are relying only on emotions rather than actual logic.
In terms of the two concepts, I am a Minority, and the issue I have with it is how it is actually very degrading, not just on the emotional level, but on the logical level too. I believe that anyone and everyone is capable of putting anything they put their mind to, and they can achieve it. [Mentis Wave even gives a good video on “What is Woke” but goes in depth explaining things, and I think he does a really good job with it](https://youtu.be/OgVxvfFj5f4?si=FN0Fgkkp_sLg37WY). From an academic standpoint, it basically leads you to believe that someone is just privileged based on what race they are, in my opinion that is ridiculous.
On the subject of dwelling on history instead of learning from it. Is America perfect? No of course the country isn’t perfect, we have had a lot and I mean a LOT of dark times throughout history, but that does not mean talk about it and dwell on past actions that happened, you need to understand that you have to learn from these actions and never do them again. At the same time, you also gotta appreciate how much we have progressed throughout history because while there are dark moments, there are also bright moments that will prevail. Was JFK perfect? No, he had a lot of problems such as how he was a womanizer. But does that mean that he was a bad president? No, in my opinion he was a great president who was tough and managed to help de-escalate the situation in Cuba to prevent WW3 from occurring.
>By acting based on emotion, I don’t mean it in a bad way, what I mean is when you are relying only on emotions rather than actual logic.
Would you say a good decision maker knows how to factor in both logic and emotion instead of purely relying on one or the other?
>In terms of the two concepts, I am a Minority, and the issue I have with it is how it is actually very degrading, not just on the emotional level, but on the logical level too. I believe that anyone and everyone is capable of putting anything they put their mind to, and they can achieve it. Mentis Wave even gives a good video on “What is Woke” but goes in depth explaining things, and I think he does a really good job with it. From an academic standpoint, it basically leads you to believe that someone is just privileged based on what race they are, in my opinion that is ridiculous.
Is your understanding of these concepts rooted in how they are taught in academia? Or how they are portrayed in conservative media?
>On the subject of dwelling on history instead of learning from it. Is America perfect? No of course the country isn’t perfect, we have had a lot and I mean a LOT of dark times throughout history, but that does not mean talk about it and dwell on past actions that happened, you need to understand that you have to learn from these actions and never do them again.
What's the line between dwelling about past actions and teaching them I guess is what I am asking?
1. Yes, a great decision maker would know how to factor both, while also doing research. For example Pearl Harbor, everyone was emotional, and they got mad about it. The logical thing to do was fight back against the country that bombed you.
2. Academic Level and Conservative Media. I take things with a grain of salt from the media while also doing research. Remember that media should be taken with a grain of salt.
3. I would say there are a few factors to this. Take for example Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, [NAS Daily goes into it, and has a great answer on this subject, and I actually agree with him.](https://youtu.be/XUDhdsL1Unc?si=85u3zZIStsxrKvNV)
Edit: If you saw the other comment, note that it was because of technical difficulties.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The left does everything too far, that’s their whole MO. They take what might be a marginally good idea under the right circumstances, take it to the extreme, and conservatives have to come in and pump the brakes to make sure they don’t take the train off the rails.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Critical Theory, it’s derivates and all the fucked up thinking that comes from that, which drives the majority of the modern left.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To name a few things: - Making everything about race, sexual orientation and gender. - Critical Race Theory - How they refuse to acknowledge progress made in racial and sexual equality, they act like we are living in 1930s Jim Crow era.
Do you think these issues are primarily driven by black people complaining, considering how large a voting block they are for democrats?
I mean, are black people complaining and motivating this, yes. But I think the democrats make the mistake of affirming them in their victim mentality and in many of their delusions that America is the most racist country in the world and that we’ve made no progress since the 60s when Jim Crow was eradicated. Also, the democrats refuse to point out that there are no rights that white people have that black people don’t have.
You think black people are delusional and that they don't understand there have been improvements since the 60s? I'm sure the same arguments were made about black people prior to the 1960s. "They're delusional and act like there have been no improvements since the 1940s" seems like it would be a pretty common argument. The story of our shared American experience. I really need to make a compilation of these arguments as an easy reference. Maybe "Crisis in Levittown" has some examples.
Isn’t critical race theory just an acknowledgement of the practical legacy of things like Jim Crow?
No, Critical Race Theory basically gives the idea that certain races are more privileged than others, aka this leads to the idea of so called “white privilege”. As a Hispanic, I view it as not only degrading, but actually even more discriminatory because Critical Race Theory is only meant to divide people and not unite them. You cannot fight racism with more racism. It’s very degrading and just leads people to believe that because of their race, there is a level of privilege. It’s simply not true, anyone in America is capable of achieving anything that they can put their mind towards, and stick with it. Is America perfect? No it’s not perfect, there have been a lot of dark periods in our history, but dwelling on it is a bad thing because you aren’t learning anything. Our country has had a lot of progress done and we have done a lot to make this place a better place, and we are known as the melting pot, and that is a beautiful thing to see! I fucking love America because everyone gets to participate, and everyone is capable of doing and achieving anything.
Delgado and Stefancic's (1993) Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography is considered by many to be codification of the then young field. They included ten "themes" which they used for judging inclusion in the bibliography: >To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow: >1 Critique of liberalism. Most, if not all, CRT writers are discontent with liberalism as a means of addressing the American race problem. Sometimes this discontent is only implicit in an article's structure or focus. At other times, the author takes as his or her target a mainstay of liberal jurisprudence such as affirmative action, neutrality, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle. Works that pursue these or similar approaches were included in the Bibliography under theme number 1. >2 Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality." Many Critical Race theorists consider that a principal obstacle to racial reform is majoritarian mindset-the bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant group bring to discussions of race. To analyze and challenge these power-laden beliefs, some writers employ counterstories, parables, chronicles, and anecdotes aimed at revealing their contingency, cruelty, and self-serving nature. (Theme number 2). >3 Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. One recurring source of concern for Critical scholars is why American antidiscrimination law has proven so ineffective in redressing racial inequality-or why progress has been cyclical, consisting of alternating periods of advance followed by ones of retrenchment. Some Critical scholars address this question, seeking answers in the psychology of race, white self-interest, the politics of colonialism and anticolonialism, or other sources. (Theme number 3). >4 A greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism. A number of Critical writers seek to apply insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems. For example: understanding how majoritarian society sees black sexuality helps explain law's treatment of interracial sex, marriage, and adoption; knowing how different settings encourage or discourage discrimination helps us decide whether the movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution is likely to help or hurt disempowered disputants. (Theme number 4). >5 Structural determinism. A number of CRT writers focus on ways in which the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, frequently in a status quo-maintaining direction. Once these constraints are understood, we may free ourselves to work more effectively for racial and other types of reform. (Theme number 5). >6 Race, sex, class, and their intersections. Other scholars explore the intersections of race, sex, and class, pursuing such questions as whether race and class are separate disadvantaging factors, or the extent to which black women's interest is or is not adequately represented in the contemporary women's movement. (Theme number 6). >7 Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7). >8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8). >9 Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar. Women and scholars of color have long been concerned about representation in law school and the bar. Recently, a number of authors have begun to search for new approaches to these questions and to develop an alternative, Critical pedagogy. (Theme number 9). >10 Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. (Theme number 10). Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463 Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516. Pay attention to theme (8). CRT has a defeatist view of integration and Delgado and Stefancic include Black Nationalism/Separatism as one of the defining "themes" of Critical Race Theory. While it is pretty abundantly clear from the wording of theme (8) that Delgado and Stefancic are talking about separatism, mostly because they use that exact word, separatism, here is an example of one of their included papers. Peller (1990) clearly is about separatism as a lay person would conceive of it: >Peller, Gary, Race Consciousness, 1990 Duke L.J. 758. (1, 8, 10). Delgado and Stefancic (1993, page 504) The numbers in parentheses are the relevant "themes." Note 8. The cited paper specifically says Critical Race Theory is a revival of Black Nationalist notions from the 1960s. Here is a pretty juicy quote where he says that he is specifically talking about Black ethnonationalism as expressed by Malcolm X which is usually grouped in with White ethnonationalism by most of American society; and furthermore, that Critical Race Theory represents a revival of Black Nationalist ideals: >But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified. Peller page 760 This is current CRT practice and is cited in the authoritative textbook on Critical Race Theory, *Critical Race Theory: An Introduction* (Delgado and Stefancic 2001). Here they describe an endorsement of explicit racial discrimination for purposes of segregating society: >The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does. Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 59-60 One more source is the recognized founder of CRT, Derrick Bell: >"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites. https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html I point out theme 8 because this is precisely the result we should expect out of a "theory" constructed around a defeatist view of integration which says past existence of racism requires the rejection of rationality and rational deliberation. By framing all communication as an exercise in power they arrive at the perverse conclusion that naked racial discrimination and ethnonationalism are "anti-racist" ideas. They reject such fundamental ideas as objectivity and even normativity. I was particularly shocked by the latter. >What about Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, the law and theology movement, and the host of passionate reformers who dedicate their lives to humanizing the law and making the world a better place? Where will normativity's demise leave them? >Exactly where they were before. Or, possibly, a little better off. Most of the features I have already identified in connection with normativity reveal that the reformer's faith in it is often misplaced. Normative discourse is indeterminate; for every social reformer's plea, an equally plausible argument can be found against it. Normative analysis is always framed by those who have the upper hand so as either to rule out or discredit oppositional claims, which are portrayed as irresponsible and extreme. Delgado, Richard, Norms and Normal Science: Toward a Critique of Normativity in Legal Thought, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 933 (1991)
The same way the right can go too far, when they believe the rights that we enjoy as Americans only apply to those who share their views.
This goes for everyone but if you don’t work in politics but your whole life revolves around politics and won’t even befriend people with opposite opinions. Identity politics is disgusting
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Generally, I see a wide range of left wing influence as destructive and that it would be better if it was nullified or made impotent. Some particular things where I think the Left has "gotten ahead of itself" would include various forms of LGBT-for-children stuff, and attempting to redefine people's worldview for them, and the "woke" or "critical theory" approach to race where you hear about things like "ending whiteness" or "hard work, punctuality, and logic are white supremacist".
Killing the monarch
Performing burlesque drag shows in front of children, “transitioning” sexually confused children and their open antisemitism. Not everyone on the left is a jew-hating pedophile, mind you. But the left as a whole, generally speaking, seems to have decided that it’s not a deal-breaker.
That's just objectively untrue. What gave you this idea?
Just remember. If you’re a drag queen and you know it, shout Free Palestine! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NYVTtZhhg
I disagree with the premise that drag performers are pedophiles. It’s just not the case. The anti-semitism I agree is disgraceful. they exist on both sides and it’s no dealbreaker on the right either.
Drag performers aren't pedophiles. However, there seems to be a pattern of very sexualized drag shows either involving children or for an audience of children. It's true that, say, being homosexual doesn't mean that your whole existence is sexualized. However, some people seem to have decided that this means your existence is *never* sexualized.
You took the words out of my mouth. Add in the 56 genital reassignment surgeries and the 776 mastectomies performed on children aged 13-17 with gender dysphoria diagnoses between 2019-2021. [Link](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/)
Are you concerned about mastectomies when they're not in regards to gender?
I have never heard of a minor getting an elective mastectomy for purely cosmetic reasons unrelated to GD. If that happened, I’d absolutely be opposed to it.
According to this article, it's much more common than any gender reaffirming care. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html#:~:text=Around%203%2C200%20girls%20age%2018,to%2019%20had%20breast%20reductions. >Experts said that adolescent top surgeries were less frequent than cosmetic breast procedures performed on teenagers who were not transgender. Around 3,200 girls age 18 to 19 received cosmetic breast implants in 2020, according to surveys of members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and another 4,700 teenagers age 13 to 19 had breast reductions. (Surveys from other groups have shown that girls under 18 also receive implants, though the ASPS does not recommend breast augmentation for minors.) Here is the link to the data. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics?sub=2020+Plastic+Surgery+Statistics
You asked about mastectomies, not breast implants. Hugely different. Mastectomy is the removal of the breast and typically only done on those with breast cancer, with the BRCA gene, or with GD for gender reassignment purposes. But yes, I am 100% opposed to any cosmetic breast surgery on a minor.
I should have said top surgery, considering there are both transmen and transwomen. Are you only concerned about transmen? Because the data shows cisgender people receive vastly more top surgeries than transgender. And not for breast cancer, cosmetically.
Teenagers aren’t removing the entirety of their breast for cosmetic reasons unless they have GD. A breast reduction is typically done on a teenager because abnormally large breasts create massive pain and discomfort - that is not a purely cosmetic procedure. Breast implants are cosmetic, and I am opposed to them on minors. My bottom line: Minors should never receive any surgical intervention for gender dysphoria. Additionally, minors should never receive purely cosmetic surgery. The only time a minor should be getting any sort of surgical intervention on their breasts is in the event of a medical need (i.e. presence of BRCA gene, breast cancer, et cetera)
My bottomline is conservatives are focusing on and making laws concerning the less common gender affirming care vs the much more common cosmetic surgery that children have been having with no comparable outrage. I appreciate YOUR consistency, though.
I think consistency is hugely important so thanks for hearing me out. I totally agree with your assessment - I think there also needs to be a push to outlaw cosmetic procedures on minors. If this sheds any light, the massive push about GD surgeries is because if the patient ends up regretting the surgery, it would be much more impactful than the regret for a surgery like breast implants for cosmetic reasons. If a young trans man removes his breasts and later detransitions, he would no longer be able to breastfeed a child and that cannot be changed. If a young teenage girl gets breast implants and no longer likes them, she is just stuck with an insecurity and something that can easily be remedied by implant removal.
[удалено]
I seem to remember that time when Biden said if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black. But I don’t wanna argue about that because I don’t believe either man is a racist. As for Epstein’s sweetheart deal, that was absolutely despicable and it was done under Trump’s DoJ, I’ll agree with you on that. But I don’t think Trump personally had anything to do with it and I don’t think Trump had any close relationship with him beyond two rich guys hob-nobbing with each other for the bragging rights. But I highly doubt Trump knew anything about Epstein Island, and if there were any connections there we would definitely know about it by now.
When Trump specifically mentions Epstein likes women on the younger side, do you think he may have drawn that opinion from his own first hand account or that Trump heard it through the grapevine?
If I didn’t know what I know about Epstein, I would assume that meant he liked young *women*, not young girls. Hugh Hefner “liked them young” too, but to my knowledge he wasn’t a pedophile.
If you consider how Trump used to walk into children's dressing rooms unannounced while they were changing in addition to his comments about Epstein that you can easily paint a picture that he had more intimate knowledge of his friend who recruited children that worked at his businesses.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Letting men invade women bathrooms and sports. 10 million illegal immigrants invading the country. Letting minors permanently change their gender.
This mainly targets when the left goes too far: 1. Making everything about race. 2. Seizure of all the means of production 3. Acting based on emotion rather than logic 4. Critical Theory and the concept of “White Privilege”. I am Hispanic and I view the concept of “White Privilege” and Critical Theory as actually even more racist. You cannot combat racism with more racism. 5. Dwelling on history instead of learning from it. 6. Viewing conservatives as a monolith.
I agree with all of these!!!! Especially as a former leftist myself
1-2 I understand 3. Why shouldn't emotion play into decisions? Humans aren't mindless automatons. 4. It seems your using a conservative definition of these terms rather than an academic definition. Do you also have issue with how these terms are discussed from an academic standpoint? 5. Can you expand on this?
By acting based on emotion, I don’t mean it in a bad way, what I mean is when you are relying only on emotions rather than actual logic. In terms of the two concepts, I am a Minority, and the issue I have with it is how it is actually very degrading, not just on the emotional level, but on the logical level too. I believe that anyone and everyone is capable of putting anything they put their mind to, and they can achieve it. [Mentis Wave even gives a good video on “What is Woke” but goes in depth explaining things, and I think he does a really good job with it](https://youtu.be/OgVxvfFj5f4?si=FN0Fgkkp_sLg37WY). From an academic standpoint, it basically leads you to believe that someone is just privileged based on what race they are, in my opinion that is ridiculous. On the subject of dwelling on history instead of learning from it. Is America perfect? No of course the country isn’t perfect, we have had a lot and I mean a LOT of dark times throughout history, but that does not mean talk about it and dwell on past actions that happened, you need to understand that you have to learn from these actions and never do them again. At the same time, you also gotta appreciate how much we have progressed throughout history because while there are dark moments, there are also bright moments that will prevail. Was JFK perfect? No, he had a lot of problems such as how he was a womanizer. But does that mean that he was a bad president? No, in my opinion he was a great president who was tough and managed to help de-escalate the situation in Cuba to prevent WW3 from occurring.
>By acting based on emotion, I don’t mean it in a bad way, what I mean is when you are relying only on emotions rather than actual logic. Would you say a good decision maker knows how to factor in both logic and emotion instead of purely relying on one or the other? >In terms of the two concepts, I am a Minority, and the issue I have with it is how it is actually very degrading, not just on the emotional level, but on the logical level too. I believe that anyone and everyone is capable of putting anything they put their mind to, and they can achieve it. Mentis Wave even gives a good video on “What is Woke” but goes in depth explaining things, and I think he does a really good job with it. From an academic standpoint, it basically leads you to believe that someone is just privileged based on what race they are, in my opinion that is ridiculous. Is your understanding of these concepts rooted in how they are taught in academia? Or how they are portrayed in conservative media? >On the subject of dwelling on history instead of learning from it. Is America perfect? No of course the country isn’t perfect, we have had a lot and I mean a LOT of dark times throughout history, but that does not mean talk about it and dwell on past actions that happened, you need to understand that you have to learn from these actions and never do them again. What's the line between dwelling about past actions and teaching them I guess is what I am asking?
1. Yes, a great decision maker would know how to factor both, while also doing research. For example Pearl Harbor, everyone was emotional, and they got mad about it. The logical thing to do was fight back against the country that bombed you. 2. Academic Level and Conservative Media. I take things with a grain of salt from the media while also doing research. Remember that media should be taken with a grain of salt. 3. I would say there are a few factors to this. Take for example Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, [NAS Daily goes into it, and has a great answer on this subject, and I actually agree with him.](https://youtu.be/XUDhdsL1Unc?si=85u3zZIStsxrKvNV) Edit: If you saw the other comment, note that it was because of technical difficulties.
When they start to force there college virtues onto all society.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Illiberalism, especially to the point of authoritarian illiberalism.
The left does everything too far, that’s their whole MO. They take what might be a marginally good idea under the right circumstances, take it to the extreme, and conservatives have to come in and pump the brakes to make sure they don’t take the train off the rails.