We know the DC Empire is immoral and spending itself into oblivion. It’s unsustainable, largely because its own ideology is killing it, just as socialism killed the Soviet Union. The Empire’s central article of faith about the equality of all peoples and cultures dictates that Western standards are no better than others.
The latest manifestation of this is a real doozy: There’s a bizarre new style of college-level debate that’s replacing real debate. Instead of making a logical case for or against a debate topic, participants change the topic at will, ignore the rules, and base the power of their arguments not on the standard of logic but on which debater has more “nigga authenticity.”
No, I’m not making this up. It’s from an Atlantic article entitled, so help me, “Does Traditional College Debate Reinforce White Privilege?” Here’s an excerpt:
Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.
Indeed, to prevail using the new approach, students don’t necessarily have to develop high-level research skills or marshal evidence from published scholarship. They also might not need to have the intellectual acuity required for arguing both sides of a resolution.
This “new approach” means that instead of presenting relevant facts to build a case, the “debaters” scream, curse, toss insults, and demand they be declared the winner. Not everyone in collegiate debating likes what they see:
[Debate coach] Aaron Hardy and others are also disappointed with what they perceive as a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions, and believe that the alternative-style debaters have contributed to this environment. “Judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs,” he said.
The Western ideals of objectivity and detached reason are dismissed as tools of oppression of minorities whose cultures stress subjective, emotional justifications for making choices. The Atlantic article continues:
Liberal law professors have been making this point for decades. “Various procedures—regardless of whether we’re talking about debate formats or law—have the ability to hide the subjective experiences that shape these seemingly ‘objective’ and ‘rational’ rules,” said UC Hastings Law School professor Osagie Obasogie, who teaches critical race theory. “This is the power of racial subordination: making the viewpoint of the dominant group seem like the only true reality.”
If you’re not familiar with “critical race theory,” here’s a definition from one of its proponents: CRT as applied to court cases, for example, “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” It’s Cultural Marxism, which sees everyone and everything through the lenses of socialist ideology. If minorities aren’t as successful as the majority, it’s all due to oppression. Period.
Can you imagine the real-world consequences if abiding by the rules of logic are discarded? Imagine if the NASA engineers during the Apollo 13 crisis, instead of scrambling to find a way to rescue the stranded astronauts when the ship’s air supply was running out, just stood and screamed “Screw the time limit!” and declared the problem solved?
This country has been propping up its official ideology through willful blindness. But despite affirmative action, prohibitions against the use of IQ tests, and racial gerrymandering, sooner or later reality is going to smack us in the face. Signs of that are already evident, and the longer we make believe everyone’s equal, and that Western standards are no better than others, the worse things will get.