To eco. You said:
You don't realize it but you did. See why there's no point? You don't have the slightest grasp of the concept or what it's based on. You just ignorantly side with the "white victims".
Are you gonna claim, like them, sociology is a scam? Because that's what the concept is based on - science.
I have to ask you: do you know about the differences between a "hard science" and a "soft science"?
There's a vast gulf between things like sociology, psychology, etc., and mathematics/physics. The former isn't necessarily bunk and I never said that*, but the latter is rather more solid than the former.
____________________
*Please do stop lying about what I am and what I think. That'd be nice. I'd appreciate it.
Your response was a citation to degrees, not an argument.
I think so. I've an MSc and PhDc, including classes on sociology and anthropology.
And this is the internet, where I could have ten post-graduate degrees. Talk about an irrelevant appeal to authority! Why don't you respond to what I'm saying instead of throwing insults?
And then I responded to the bizarre characterization of what I said.
Side with "white victims"?
Ignorantly?
Ok, now I'm actually getting curious. What in the precise **** do you think you are talking about regarding me? Who are these "white victims" and how am I siding with them?
So who are these "white victims" with whom I'm supposedly siding, how am I siding with them, and how do your claimed degrees explain why you seem to be acting as if a specific subset of sociology papers should be treated as objectively valid as a hard science paper?
How do these papers make me incorrect in asserting that if Group A runs institutions that disadvantage Group B, that does not necessarily make everyone in Group A complicit; here: a racist?
You haven't said much other than to insult people who disagree with you. That is bad. The most that can be read from your posts non-insult-wise is that you think every white person who doesn't agree with the article in the OP is a racist or ignorant or stupid. I could call you names too, but that wouldn't convince you that you're wrong now would it?
So how am I wrong in saying I'm not a racist as the author of the WaPo bit claims to be or complicit in this supposed "racism"? Could you actually explain yourself? If you're so blatantly correct in your beliefs, you should have no problem cutting me down to size in seconds.
With argument, not insults.
Oh, wait, there was an intervening response to the bit about your "white victims" nonsense:
The concept does not claim that. Your ignorance of the concept and adoption of the "white victim" narrative is showing, again.
An insult again?
See the above comments. You are behaving this way towards someone who actually IS concerned about racism and who regularly argues with other DP members about ongoing racism. You are showing me that I should simply scroll past your posts.
What's more important? Putting me in my place or making a point you have yet to articulate?