It’s a simple math equation. Instead of going A+B+C+D=E, the argument is A=E
For example. As someone in the center, I can see the argument that “Black America has less chances of success in life liberty and pursuit of happiness because of previous policies in place(A). Those previous policies were done by politicians who openly wanted to keep Black America down (B). They wanted to keep Black America down because they were racists. (C). They were racist because we know these politicians were members of the KKK and other large hate groups (D). Those hate groups existed and were large because of the racism that existed (E).
To the liberal, the argument is A=E. Black America has a less chance of success because racism exists.
Im talking about their debate tqctic. Not their behaviors
Always have been.
Brilliant! Now, let's use calculus and do integration.
that's racist! Everybody who is politically correct knows math is racist as 1+ 1 is whatever you need it to be.
A straight A is received for showing up.
As George Carlin famously said: in a short while all you need is a pencil. Get in there it's physics!
Cause it's a big ass lie and anyone w two eyes and not a college degree or an agenda can see it
A=B B=C C=D D=E
But libs go A=E without even mentioning what B C and D are
Wait so are you trying to say they're right but they're just not explaining it well enough? What are the "previous policies" that still exist today or would still have any lasting impact? Especially when they've gone so far the other way with "diversity" policies? Like all of the highest achieving people I went to college with are black. Every time I get the alumni magazine in the back where it profiles like, this person from class of whatever got their MD/PhD or someone got a big grant or something they are ALL black. All the most successful businesses in my city that everyone seems to hype up, that get featured in the paper, etc. are all black. They all talk about "oh I never would have had been able to do this without the opportunities we're getting now" but they did and they are...?
I’m saying their argument would make more sense and common ground could be found because at least theyd be factual in their arguments.
It makes sense on the surface, but problem is superficial. It's one dimensional logic which is prized by those in control. Second order logic asks why do skip from A to D. In anything always ask how and why. I think you have that down. Crossing into third order logic is much harder. It requires seeing things most don't, such as trends, connections and the 'meta' of it all.