in

Critical race theory summed up in two sentences: OJ Simpson “k!lled two people in cold blood” “His acquittal for murd3r was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal system”

What do you think?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ToS
ToS
1 month ago

So many, like OJ (I could name hundreds if not thousands) will come to find out that justice in this world would have been an easier go. Justice in the next world, where there is nowhere to run or hide, will be a different matter. It may sound harsh but essentially, God has perfect judgement and the people, as they leave this earthly plane, will realize if they had only come clean and told the truth in this life and asked for forgiveness, if would have been so much better for them in the hereafter.

OJ is finding all this out now . . .

Michele
Michele
1 month ago

I watched a documentary with independent investigators who concluded that it was likely OJ’s son who killed his mother and her boyfriend. The son had previous history of flying into violent rages and was on and off psychotropic drugs at the time.

Wowjustwow
Wowjustwow
1 month ago
Reply to  Michele

That would make sense. If he didn’t do it I always knew OJ was involved somehow

ibelieve
ibelieve
1 month ago

was OJ in The Naked Gun before or after the murder?

CJ Flintstone
CJ Flintstone
1 month ago
Reply to  ibelieve

Before

Wowjustwow
Wowjustwow
1 month ago

I don’t claim these retards

M313X
M313X
1 month ago

This quote is a rash or extremest statement against strict, classical liberalism. However, it’s important to understand the more thoughtful idea behind it: By strictly legislating justice only for individuals, as classical liberalism insists, justice for non-incorporated groups, e.g., races and genders, will be, at best, slow in coming, or at worst, absent. In my opinion, a better way of making adjustments for the failings of classical liberalism is to make extra compensations at the level of child development, e.g., state funding for child-care for children of black working parents, enhanced preschools, kindergartens, and grade schools for black children. Pay the employees well so these positions will attract the best.

Here’s an excerpt from p. 23 the transcript of the lecture, A Second-Best Morality, by the late philosophy professor at Temple University, Joseph Margolis. He pits classical liberalism against democracy because, I think, the demos value not only individuals but groups as well. (The title comes from Plato’s idea that the best (political) state cannot match any individual’s idea of best, so the best state is one where everyone accepts a second-best state.)

“Let me suggest, in order to fix our bearings, the beginnings of a plausible argument against the current American liberal vision of political morality. I have already hinted at it. Recently, favorable affirmative action policies for admitting minority candidates to graduate and professional schools have been formally reversed in California and Texas. This has resulted in a precipitate drop in the number of potential minority physicians and lawyers at a time when minority populations are growing at an accelerated rate. The enrollment of black and Hispanic candidates is practically down to zero in certain important schools.

“The argument against affirmative action takes a classic liberal form: race and ethnicity, it is said, are not relevant at all to the objective assessment of professional promise; every would-be candidate must count for one, and racial considerations must be unconditionally refused, in spite of the fact that those same considerations have already played a very large role in the history of racial injustice.

“You see the paradox: liberalism insists that every claim of fundamental right must confine itself to what is formally universalizable in terms only of the liberal conception of human reason or autonomy; hence, that the natural rights doctrine applies strictly, in ahistorical terms, to all historical situations. But justice itself—construed democratically, not in the liberal sense—cannot be discerned apart from local histories of injustice. Strict liberalism, which ignores (which must ignore) history, since to consider history is to depart from the formal neutrality of species-specific equality—must preclude all reference to collective (afortiori, historical) injustice. But, of course, ‘affirmative action’ explicitly addresses lapses of justice in the democratic sense. It is not a ‘liberal’ notion at all!

“If you see that, you see at a stroke why a second-best ‘liberal democracy’ would have to yield against its original liberal principles. Every perceived injustice involving race and ethnicity and sexual identity cannot fail to pit liberalism against democracy. Hence, liberalism cannot be expected to accommodate the emerging threats of both infra-species-wide and inter-societal injustice. There you have the essential challenge posed by multiculturalism and the global economy of the next century. A second-best morality urges that we yield, locally, on the inflexibility of liberal principles. In any case, the argument is an example of how we might legitimate a change in a mode of legitimation already entrenched in a lebensformlich way.“

Last edited 1 month ago by M313X
Sherry
Sherry
1 month ago

I agree with most of what they said tho.