Russ Douthat on Critical Race Theory

[Bootstrap]

You think her quote doesn’t promote violence. I think her quote does. (Burning down buildings, smashing windows, and looting does result in people getting hurt or killed.)

I don't think she promotes burning down buildings, smashing windows, or looting in that quote. I think you are twisting her words.

If you think damaging property is OK, let’s agree to disagree and not keep arguing about it further. But we won’t have any common ground to talk about things like Critical Theory.

You know I don't believe that. Yet you keep trying to make it look like I do.

I'm guessing you can't find the quote where Nikole Hannah-Jones says what you claim. I'm guessing that's why you keep doing this kind of thing.

[Josh]

NH-J: “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

I simply don’t agree with this. Do you agree with this?

[Bootstrap]

NH-J: “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

I simply don’t agree with this. Do you agree with this?

Depends whether your definition of violence is restricted to violence toward people or not. Both definitions are common. So this is basically a "wrangling over words". More importantly, neither of us believes it's OK to destroy property, whatever you call it.

But your claim is that Nikole Hannah-Jones promotes destroying property, what I have seen so far indicates that she is against destroying property but does not consider it in the same category as murder. Do you have a link to something where she clearly says what you claim? No need to respond if you don't, but I really need a clear quote to be convinced that she really promotes violence.

[RZehr]

Would destroying property in complete silence, be violence?

[Falco Underhill]

The etymology of violence is simply "vehemence." A display of strong feelings or passion. Nothing there to restrict it to "infliction of bodily harm."

One thing's for sure, it's an expression of hatred by biblical standards.

Webster's definition of violence, in addition to the one pertaining to inflicting physical harm, includes this one:

Violence -- LAW - the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

https://www.google.com/search?q=violenc ... e&ie=UTF-8

Presumably this would include the use of physical force to destroy property. So destruction of private property during riots is considered a form of violence, even in law.

Watch out, the left will try to change the dictionaries now.

[Bootstrap]

The etymology of violence is simply "vehemence." A display of strong feelings or passion. Nothing there to restrict it to "infliction of bodily harm."

One thing's for sure, it's an expression of hatred by biblical standards.

Does anyone have quotes in which the CRT authors quoted here promote hatred?

As far as I can tell, that would be against core values that they hold. If I'm wrong, can you please point to things written by these authors that make this plain? They write plenty of articles and books and give plenty of interviews, if they actually are saying these things, finding these quotes should be easy.

[Falco Underhill]

The etymology of violence is simply "vehemence." A display of strong feelings or passion. Nothing there to restrict it to "infliction of bodily harm."

One thing's for sure, it's an expression of hatred by biblical standards.

Does anyone have quotes in which the CRT authors quoted here promote hatred?

As far as I can tell, that would be against core values that they hold. If I'm wrong, can you please point to things written by these authors that make this plain? They write plenty of articles and books and give plenty of interviews, if they actually are saying these things, finding these quotes should be easy.

I was simply pointing out the meaning of violence, not saying anything about CRT specifically. (Just the left.)

As far as I'm concerned it would be very impolitic for CRT to openly express support for violence in any way. Whether it goes against their "core values" or not, call me skeptical, regardless of their claims.

[Josh]

CRT adherents promote violence as long as it’s against property; indeed, their slogan is “no justice, no peace”.

The entire mindset is incompatible with Anabaptist Christianity.

[Ken]

CRT adherents promote violence as long as it’s against property; indeed, their slogan is “no justice, no peace”.

The entire mindset is incompatible with Anabaptist Christianity.

CRT is an esoteric academic theory. To the extent that it has "adherents" they are academics doing research in law schools and places like that.

I think you are confused with BLM activists, some of whom chanted "no justice no peace" at rallies, and few of whom have ever even heard of CRT much less know what it really is.

[Josh]

CRT adherents promote violence as long as it’s against property; indeed, their slogan is “no justice, no peace”.

The entire mindset is incompatible with Anabaptist Christianity.

CRT is an esoteric academic theory. To the extent that it has "adherents" they are academics doing research in law schools and places like that.

I think you are confused with BLM activists, some of whom chanted "no justice no peace" at rallies, and few of whom have ever even heard of CRT much less know what it really is.

You don’t think the two are connected?