Critical race theory in Idaho

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,845
2,553
1,743
47
DFW
No it wouldn't and the new party wouldn't be 100% minority representation in the end. Guess you don't understand demographics. In the end it would turn out to be more of a class based representation. The people that are the most disenfranchised will be the ones to start it if change is actually wanted. It's amazing how you turn everything racist and call everyone racist.

Stating the disenfranchised should seek representation that represents them and not the corporate interest the two major parties represent is racist. Saw that coming from a mile away.
I think the communities of color need to abandon the Democratic and Republican parties and form a party of their own.
I understand demographics just fine. You literally stated people of color should form their own party.

I never called you racist. I just said the idea was racist.

Additionally: @Deere Poke, feel free to point out where I have called “everyone” racist, or even “everything.” I sincerely doubt I have called anyone racist. I very rarely (maybe 2-3 times?) have implied a statement was racist. This thread is explicitly on the topic of racism, so it shouldn’t be surprising that racist statements would be called out.
 
Last edited:

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,116
332
713
No it wouldn't and the new party wouldn't be 100% minority representation in the end. Guess you don't understand demographics. In the end it would turn out to be more of a class based representation. The people that are the most disenfranchised will be the ones to start it if change is actually wanted. It's amazing how you turn everything racist and call everyone racist.

Stating the disenfranchised should seek representation that represents them and not the corporate interest the two major parties represent is racist. Saw that coming from a mile away.
class based sounds better than race based...the problem (IMO) is that reps and dems politicians don't give a rat's @$$ about anyone but themselves and the upper class (groups that can really benefit them $$$$)...the middle and lower class are ignored, or when politicians do act on anything that would help these classes, it is more for show than actually doing anything.
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
12,982
7,162
1,743
Landlocked
You stated people of color should leave the established parties to create their own. This would leave the traditional parties as white.

No matter what PURPOSE you give for this, it doesn’t change the fact that you are proposing segregation as the METHOD.

Bottom-line: this is a bad (racist) idea.
I'm understanding his post to be more of a referendum on the (garbage) two-party system. The system that gave us Donald freaking Trump as the POTUS.... We need better, more diverse representation. I think that's all he's really saying.

As an aside, do you think BLM is a bad (racist) idea for the same reasons you think that people of color shouldn't create their own political parties?
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,845
2,553
1,743
47
DFW
I'm understanding his post to be more of a referendum on the (garbage) two-party system. The system that gave us Donald freaking Trump as the POTUS.... We need better, more diverse representation. I think that's all he's really saying.

As an aside, do you think BLM is a bad (racist) idea for the same reasons you think that people of color shouldn't create their own political parties?
Once again, you are focused on purpose while I am criticizing the method. I am not disagreeing with your critique of the parties, but that is honestly beside the point. And your BLM reference is simply a red herring.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,741
6,738
743
Bixby-Bristow OK
I understand demographics just fine. You literally stated people of color should form their own party.

I never called you racist. I just said the idea was racist.

Additionally: @Deere Poke, feel free to point out where I have called “everyone” racist, or even “everything.” I sincerely doubt I have called anyone racist. I very rarely (maybe 2-3 times?) have implied a statement was racist. This thread is explicitly on the topic of racism, so it shouldn’t be surprising that racist statements would be called out.
How many times did you say racist in this one statement. It's crazy right I know you never say or imply racism.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,741
6,738
743
Bixby-Bristow OK
class based sounds better than race based...the problem (IMO) is that reps and dems politicians don't give a rat's @$$ about anyone but themselves and the upper class (groups that can really benefit them $$$$)...the middle and lower class are ignored, or when politicians do act on anything that would help these classes, it is more for show than actually doing anything.
Your mostly right, they don't give a crap about anybody but themselves. Should of stopped there. Once members of the upperclass quit greasing their palms they are going down they don't care about them either. With all the upheaval of the last few years I actually see a possibility for a third party that does actually represent some of the people not just themselves.

Class based really is no better than race based. It all creates tribalism and the problems that go with it. Those problems allow politicians to push divisive rhetoric to maintain power. Doesn't matter if the division is class based, race based or religion based and on and on.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,907
2,231
1,743
Not the Onion or SNL. This is one of WaPo’s video stories on race and CRT.

1:50 min mark: Oklahoma woman who admits she has racist thoughts, but apparently thinks everyone must feel like she does
2:00 minute mark: “white people need to get together specifically on race”. What is he advocating for?
2:45 min mark: “a deep shame for being white”
3:30 min mark “best to have sustained and meaningful relationships with people of color”. Hmm, person is admitting they don’t currently have relationships with POCs — maybe that is some woke people feel racist and shame and thinks other should feel like them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/the-lily/what-is-white-racial-identity-and-why-is-it-important/2021/06/18/a7db496c-02a7-4128-9f4e-0f924df83976_video.html-2
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
12,982
7,162
1,743
Landlocked
Once again, you are focused on purpose while I am criticizing the method. I am not disagreeing with your critique of the parties, but that is honestly beside the point. And your BLM reference is simply a red herring.
What method would you suggest, then? And no, the BLM reference is simply trying to understand your logic and/or proposed methodology. If an organized effort based on a demographic is wrong, then I can't understand how any demographic could ever organize without being wrong in your view.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,845
2,553
1,743
47
DFW
What method would you suggest, then? And no, the BLM reference is simply trying to understand your logic and/or proposed methodology. If an organized effort based on a demographic is wrong, then I can't understand how any demographic could ever organize without being wrong in your view.
I never said an organized effort based on a demographic is wrong. @Deere Poke proposed the demographic segregate into their own party. Doing so would have only allowed the other parties to ignore them more easily in our current system.

There are plenty of better options for organizing. Many are working to reform existing systems, not split off and create their own. As far as I can tell, that’s one of the goals of BLM, DEI programs, etc. But when they choose that route, it steps on too many toes and people start telling them things like, “Form your own party.”
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,741
6,738
743
Bixby-Bristow OK
I never said an organized effort based on a demographic is wrong. @Deere Poke proposed the demographic segregate into their own party. Doing so would have only allowed the other parties to ignore them more easily in our current system.

There are plenty of better options for organizing. Many are working to reform existing systems, not split off and create their own. As far as I can tell, that’s one of the goals of BLM, DEI programs, etc. But when they choose that route, it steps on too many toes and people start telling them things like, “Form your own party.”
If you can get 20 to 30 members in the house and two or three senators a new party can't be ignored. It doesn't take a huge number to create change. If neither of the established parties can get a majority without you they are going to listen to you.

What you are proposing is to do nothing. The established parties aren't gonna change unless they get pressure from a third party that becomes somewhat viable.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,845
2,553
1,743
47
DFW
you can get 20 to 30 members in the house and two or three senators a new party can't be ignored. It doesn't take a huge number to create change. If neither of the established parties can get a majority without you they are going to listen to you.
Forming a new party is no guarantee that existing congressional incumbents would join, nor that new candidates would be elected. If it doesn’t take a huge number to make change, why doesn’t it happen often?
What you are proposing is to do nothing.
Not at all. It’s not a binary option. There’s a whole spectrum of options that don’t include forming their own People of Color party (that I predict would be ignored).
The established parties aren't gonna change unless they get pressure from a third party that becomes somewhat viable.
Or until they get pressure from within. New candidates that come in with a stronger platform that appeals to a larger/more engaged block of voters. Either way, it still doesn’t mean people of color have to form their own party. There are plenty of third party options already available. I’m sure there are some that may be more appealing/helpful than the DNC/GOP.

My whole point is that your solution was too myopic, and it was segregation (which in itself is racist). It’s an over-simplistic idea and it pushes people of color out of the political arena and into the margins.
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
12,982
7,162
1,743
Landlocked
I never said an organized effort based on a demographic is wrong.
Can you clarify what you meant by this statement, then?

No matter what PURPOSE you give for this, it doesn’t change the fact that you are proposing segregation as the METHOD.

Bottom-line: this is a bad (racist) idea.


@Deere Poke proposed the demographic segregate into their own party. Doing so would have only allowed the other parties to ignore them more easily in our current system.

There are plenty of better options for organizing. Many are working to reform existing systems, not split off and create their own. As far as I can tell, that’s one of the goals of BLM, DEI programs, etc. But when they choose that route, it steps on too many toes and people start telling them things like, “Form your own party.”
What are you suggesting as a solution to our current problems with the two-party system as it relates to under-represented people?
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
12,619
16,470
1,743
Close, very close
The true test in evaluating whether CRT is valid is to replace the word "white" with "black" throughout the text and see how that works for those who support it. How much equality can one stand?
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,845
2,553
1,743
47
DFW
Can you clarify what you meant by this statement, then?
An organized effort based on demographic does not necessitate segregation.
What are you suggesting as a solution to our current problems with the two-party system as it relates to under-represented people?
I’m not. That’s not the argument we’re having. Let’s stay on topic.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,370
4,363
1,743
Wow, are you calling me racist because of my view on the compromise? That's why no one wants to discuss, because different opinions or trying to look at history through an unbiased view gets you labeled a racist. It's a moniker meant to just shut people up rather than have a discussion.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Maybe this is an opportunity for self reflection. I agree that it's important to look at history based on how the world was in that period but there are instances where anyone reasonable would say wow that was wrong even then. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are perfect examples. Both owned slaves which was common for wealthy land owners of the era. One freed his slaves on his deathbed and the other basically raped a girl 30 years younger than him starting when she was 14. It's ok to see that Washington did what was normal for the era and even say it was a little progressive of him to understand that it was wrong but not have the capability to make things right. He was a product of his time. Jefferson on the other hand, I don't know how you can justify what he did.

The 3/5 compromise is the same way. You can look at it through the lense of history but as I said earlier, it literally said slaves were less than human. At the time it was the equivalent of true bipartisan legislation but it still meant that white landowners were telling black and Native American slaves they were not people. It's ok to say that happened but it was the wrong thing to do at the time. If you wish to defend it because you think it was ok when it happened that is your call. But I am suggesting you ask yourself why you are ok with that and do some soul searching to find out why that is.

I'll say a prayer for you at church tomorrow. Hopefully you can work on it and get some answers.
I can say that ultimately I didn't like what they did, but I can't judge them because of it based on the way things are today. They were trying to diminish the power of the slavers while still being able to form a country to throw off British rule. I can look at it and see that they didn't think it racist and that wasn't their reason. And then I can look that many of those states, are the ones that helped the underground railroad and that sent people to die to end slavery altogether.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
What you are arguing for is cultural relativity, it's okay in that culture even if it it isn't in ours. I'm sorry, but slavery and racism are evil in every culture and context, and excusing them is tantamount to supporting them.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Slavery bad. Trying to diminish the power of slavers while ultimately ending slavery down the road, good.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,370
4,363
1,743
I think the communities of color need to abandon the Democratic and Republican parties and form a party of their own. Neither of those parties has ever represented their best interest. They need a party that will represent their interest and will have to be lobbied to by the other parties to get a majority to pass anything.
"Neither has ever" is a strong phrase considering the republican party was founded on anti-slavery principles.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,370
4,363
1,743
You stated people of color should leave the established parties to create their own. This would leave the traditional parties as white.

No matter what PURPOSE you give for this, it doesn’t change the fact that you are proposing segregation as the METHOD.

Bottom-line: this is a bad (racist) idea.
No it wouldn't and the new party wouldn't be 100% minority representation in the end. Guess you don't understand demographics. In the end it would turn out to be more of a class based representation. The people that are the most disenfranchised will be the ones to start it if change is actually wanted. It's amazing how you turn everything racist and call everyone racist.

Stating the disenfranchised should seek representation that represents them and not the corporate interest the two major parties represent is racist. Saw that coming from a mile away.
He's actually right. You said "communities of color".

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,370
4,363
1,743
You stated people of color should leave the established parties to create their own. This would leave the traditional parties as white.

No matter what PURPOSE you give for this, it doesn’t change the fact that you are proposing segregation as the METHOD.

Bottom-line: this is a bad (racist) idea.
I'm understanding his post to be more of a referendum on the (garbage) two-party system. The system that gave us Donald freaking Trump as the POTUS.... We need better, more diverse representation. I think that's all he's really saying.

As an aside, do you think BLM is a bad (racist) idea for the same reasons you think that people of color shouldn't create their own political parties?
To be honest, the republicans tried to get Ben Carson, Herman Cain and others on the tickets the last few elections but the primary system sucked horribly to be honest. Didn't help with 50 million candidates all trying.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited: