Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 14:27:43 GMT
A Chinese woman who suffered under the brutal Communist Chinese regime of Mao Tse-Tung vehemently denounced Loudoun County’s School board in Virginia for its championing of Critical Race Theory, charging, “All of this seems very familiar … the only difference is they used class instead of race. … This is, indeed, the American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.”
Given one minute to speak, the Chinese woman wasted no time getting to the point, asserting, “I’ve been very alarmed by what’s going on in our schools. You are now training our children to be social justice warriors and to loathe our country and our history. Growing up in Mao’s China, all of this seems very familiar. The Communist regime used the same critical theory to divide people; the only difference is they used class instead of race.”
“During the Cultural Revolution, I witnessed students and teachers turn against each other,” she recalled. “We changed school names to be politically correct. We were taught to denounce our heritage. The Red Guards destroyed anything that is not Communist: old statues, books, and anything else.”
She pointed out that in China during the Cultural Revolution, students were also encouraged to report on each other: “We were also encouraged to report on each other, just like the Student Equity Ambassador program and the Bias Reporting System.”
She concluded, “This is, indeed, the American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The Critical Race Theory has its roots in cultural Marxism. It should have no place in our schools.”
Any doubts about the Marxist intentions of today's left should heed this woman's warnings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 14:45:14 GMT
There is truth in the notion that we shouldn't look for new ways to divide people.
But this same point and warning could have been made in the 1960's when a different cultural revolution was happening in the US.
The civil rights movement shares many points of contact with the modern social justice movement. This same criticism about denouncing the past, turning people against each other, the dangers of a cultural revolution, ostensibly apply to the 1960s just the same as now.
Yet we came out of that transition stronger for it. Its a better world today than the one based on segregation.
I am not convinced the same process is not playing out again.
There will always be people who resist extending dignity and respect to some marginalized group, religious, ethnic or otherwise. And if the culture evolves to believe this minority should be treated equally, a few of us will drag our feet and cry the sky is falling.
So there are really two threats to be on guard against as it concerns social change: the folks who believe cultural evolution is *always* a good thing, no matter what. These are the utopian liberals who can't imagine unintended consequences. But there are also reactionaries who see all social change as destabilizing, unable to see how change and evolution could lead to a new order, perhaps a better one.
Its always run for the hills! Escape the gulag! The Marxists are coming!
|
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Jun 10, 2021 14:54:35 GMT
CRT is not changing history. It is telling the truth that was hidden. European history only tells the good things that Europeans did in creating this nation. CRT also tells the bad stuff. Until recently, the Trail of tears is being taught in some curriculums. I never learn about that in school. We never learned about lynchings, KKK, the Black Walstreet massacre, the middle passage, etc. Why not teach all history and stop cherry picking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 10, 2021 15:10:53 GMT
There will always be people who resist extending dignity and respect to some marginalized group, religious, ethnic or otherwise. And if the culture evolves to believe this minority should be treated equally, a few of us will drag our feet and cry the sky is falling. Yes.. Those people are called Republicans. We've already done the things warned of in the OP.. Our violent and racist past was so loathed that it wasn't even taught in our schools at all .. Schools that had been renamed for Confederate Generals because it was Politically Correct at the time. The "War on Drug Users" and before that the "Red Scare" encouraged people to rat out their neighbors.. See something.. Say something .. Cancel Culture was invented by white religious conservatives.. The people that need to understand and embrace CRT the most are also the ones that are most adamantly against it.. a pernicious condition otherwise known as Right-Wing Conservatism .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 15:33:26 GMT
There will always be people who resist extending dignity and respect to some marginalized group, religious, ethnic or otherwise. And if the culture evolves to believe this minority should be treated equally, a few of us will drag our feet and cry the sky is falling. Yes.. Those people are called Republicans. We've already done the things warned of in the OP.. Our violent and racist past was so loathed that it wasn't even taught in our schools at all .. Schools that had been renamed for Confederate Generals because it was Politically Correct at the time. The "War on Drug Users" and before that the "Red Scare" encouraged people to rat out their neighbors.. See something.. Say something .. Cancel Culture was invented by white religious conservatives.. The people that need to understand and embrace CRT the most are also the ones that are most adamantly against it.. a pernicious condition otherwise known as Right-Wing Conservatism .. That's so true. Hypocrisy doesn't begin to capture it. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 10, 2021 16:00:18 GMT
Yes.. Those people are called Republicans. We've already done the things warned of in the OP.. Our violent and racist past was so loathed that it wasn't even taught in our schools at all .. Schools that had been renamed for Confederate Generals because it was Politically Correct at the time. The "War on Drug Users" and before that the "Red Scare" encouraged people to rat out their neighbors.. See something.. Say something .. Cancel Culture was invented by white religious conservatives.. The people that need to understand and embrace CRT the most are also the ones that are most adamantly against it.. a pernicious condition otherwise known as Right-Wing Conservatism .. That's so true. Hypocrisy doesn't begin to capture it. Does CRT seek to tear down institutions and norms? Many of its early and most prominent adherents certainly seemed to think so. So do many modern adherents. Is this one of those cases where it's not dangerous to do so while for other cases it's extraordinarily dangerous and could turn the USA into Nazi or (best case) Venezuelan type society? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 16:03:25 GMT
That's so true. Hypocrisy doesn't begin to capture it. Does CRT seek to tear down institutions and norms? Many of its early and most prominent adherents certainly seemed to think so. So do many modern adherents. Is this one of those cases where it's not dangerous to do so while for other cases it's extraordinarily dangerous and could turn the USA into Nazi or (best case) Venezuelan type society? Yes, it does. Not all institutions and norms are equal. The Fed is an institution. There are norms involved in how they conduct monetary policy. I am sure you are aware that I'm not a fan. The police and the prison system are also institutions with norms. Ditto for the IRS, ATF, DEA, FBI, the military, etc. You can fill in the rest, I am sure! |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 10, 2021 17:29:42 GMT
Does CRT seek to tear down institutions and norms? Many of its early and most prominent adherents certainly seemed to think so. So do many modern adherents. Is this one of those cases where it's not dangerous to do so while for other cases it's extraordinarily dangerous and could turn the USA into Nazi or (best case) Venezuelan type society? Yes, it does. Not all institutions and norms are equal. The Fed is an institution. There are norms involved in how they conduct monetary policy. I am sure you are aware that I'm not a fan. The police and the prison system are also institutions with norms. Ditto for the IRS, ATF, DEA, FBI, the military, etc. You can fill in the rest, I am sure! Is it fair to say broadly that you believe that the Norms and Institutions that you approve of should be defended at all costs, and any criticisms of them are from people who wish the country to be set on the path to Nazi Germany or modern Venezuela, while Norms and Institutions that you do not approve of should be torn down and dismantled for the betterment of society? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 17:37:26 GMT
Yes, it does. Not all institutions and norms are equal. The Fed is an institution. There are norms involved in how they conduct monetary policy. I am sure you are aware that I'm not a fan. The police and the prison system are also institutions with norms. Ditto for the IRS, ATF, DEA, FBI, the military, etc. You can fill in the rest, I am sure! Is it fair to say broadly that you believe that the Norms and Institutions that you approve of should be defended at all costs, and any criticisms of them are from people who wish the country to be set on the path to Nazi Germany or modern Venezuela, while Norms and Institutions that you do not approve of should be torn down and dismantled for the betterment of society? No. That sounds profoundly unfair. 1. Its not merely *my* approval that is the issue. There are compelling arguments that elections and democracy matter for liberalism. The police-prison state, the centralization of money and credit and its funneling to special interests, war for profit, the war on drugs, etc.. not so much. 2. Suggesting that democratic institutions are valuable and shouldn't be tossed aside as so much debris is not the same as saying they should be defended against *any* criticism, or defended "at all costs." Constructive criticism is a good thing, right? This criticism you're mounting seems to be without nuance. It's too simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 10, 2021 17:37:48 GMT
Yes, it does. Not all institutions and norms are equal. The Fed is an institution. There are norms involved in how they conduct monetary policy. I am sure you are aware that I'm not a fan. The police and the prison system are also institutions with norms. Ditto for the IRS, ATF, DEA, FBI, the military, etc. You can fill in the rest, I am sure! Is it fair to say broadly that you believe that the Norms and Institutions that you approve of should be defended at all costs, and any criticisms of them are from people who wish the country to be set on the path to Nazi Germany or modern Venezuela, while Norms and Institutions that you do not approve of should be torn down and dismantled for the betterment of society?
Are you suggesting that these have no metric with which to judge their benefit or injury to society?
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 10, 2021 17:49:52 GMT
1. Its not merely *my* approval that is the issue. There are compelling arguments that elections and democracy matter for liberalism. Was it the riots on January 6th and the unfounded allegations by the President that led to people's faith in elections being undermined? Or was it the completely unprecedented shutdowns, stay-at-home-orders, unprecedented layoffs leading to a completely revamped way in which the elections were executed that led to people's faith being undermined? What actually changed? Was Trump the one variable that changed? The "White Wing" mobs were the ones getting radicalized for Trump, or was there something else serving as the catalyst towards radicalization? The police-prison state, the centralization of money and credit and its funneling to special interests, war for profit, the war on drugs, etc.. not so much. Oh I couldn't agree more here. But isn't our opposition to the centralization of money and credit and its funneling to special interests carrying water for the anti-Semites among us? They use similar arguments. 2. Suggesting that democratic institutions are valuable and shouldn't be tossed aside as so much debris is not the same as saying they should be defended against *any* criticism, or defended "at all costs." Constructive criticism is a good thing, right? This criticism you're mounting seems to be without nuance. It's too simple. When the democratic institutions, like Congress or the news media, are nearly fully aligned with the illiberal institutions of our society ("The police-prison state, the centralization of money and credit and its funneling to special interests, war for profit, the war on drugs, etc."), how do you attack the latter without implicating the former? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 10, 2021 17:50:33 GMT
Is it fair to say broadly that you believe that the Norms and Institutions that you approve of should be defended at all costs, and any criticisms of them are from people who wish the country to be set on the path to Nazi Germany or modern Venezuela, while Norms and Institutions that you do not approve of should be torn down and dismantled for the betterment of society?
Are you suggesting that these have no metric with which to judge their benefit or injury to society?
I'm not really, but let's play that game. What are the metrics you use? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 18:15:44 GMT
1. Its not merely *my* approval that is the issue. There are compelling arguments that elections and democracy matter for liberalism. Was it the riots on January 6th and the unfounded allegations by the President that led to people's faith in elections being undermined? Or was it the completely unprecedented shutdowns, stay-at-home-orders, unprecedented layoffs leading to a completely revamped way in which the elections were executed that led to people's faith being undermined? What actually changed? Was Trump the one variable that changed? The "White Wing" mobs were the ones getting radicalized for Trump, or was there something else serving as the catalyst towards radicalization? I think anti-democratic sentiment is far older than either of these (the shutdowns or Trump's rhetoric) even if both contributed in their own way to its further decline. Which was more impactful and all that, I don't know. Different people will have different reads. I do know that Trump acted in a way that I believe was reckless and irresponsible but I see him as getting in front of a trend much more than starting it. With that said, his voice is powerful for a large number and he has given legitimacy to something that was more taboo before, in my view. I don't look for one big change. It doesn't have to be but it often is because of how many libertarians make their arguments, tying it back to "international banking families" or the Rothschilds, and related arguments. But if you approach it from a Hayekian knowledge problem point of view, or a George Selgin/ Larry White style argument about free banking and competition in currency, I don't see the anti-semitism angle. In short, if you let Mises-Hayek be your guide to fiat money criticism, rather than Rothbard or Edward Griffin, it shouldn't be too difficult to avoid the trap. Easy, you just keep in mind the old argument put forward by Etienne de la Boetie that ultimately the state can only do to us what we consent to do ourselves. If that's the case then this is something we've tolerated out of ignorance and or put up with because it satisfied some other need and represents some perfectly imperfect Nash equilibrium. This is getting close to this notion of "Moloch problems" that I read about recently. slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/The idea is that multi-polar traps can lock us into outcomes many people may want to see changed but because of the nature of the system they can't. The old me would say well that's a function of the state, we just need to have a whole new set of institutions and the problem will take care of itself. The new TL sees that as naive and believes that these problems are human problems in any sufficiently large scale society and doubts that any key hole solution is possible. Can we do better or worse? Yes, but I think these traps are largely unavoidable in complex & organized societies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 18:38:20 GMT
CRT is not changing history. It is telling the truth that was hidden. European history only tells the good things that Europeans did in creating this nation. CRT also tells the bad stuff. Until recently, the Trail of tears is being taught in some curriculums. I never learn about that in school. We never learned about lynchings, KKK, the Black Walstreet massacre, the middle passage, etc. Why not teach all history and stop cherry picking. You don't even know what Critical Race Theory is, do you? It's not about adding historical events to the curriculum; it's intended as a bludgeon to drive us toward a Zimbabwe style revenge along racial lines.
Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.
Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression.
In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.
Speaking of cherry picking, do you support telling the whole story of both sides? Will reveal that a quarter of the total number of lynchings from 1882 to 1968 (4700) were not blacks. Or discuss the hundreds of thousands of blacks killed by other blacks in the last 30 years in the black crime epidemic? Will the teachers discuss the atrocities committed by the carpetbagger controlled "Union Leagues" during Reconstruction when the original KKK existed? Or that ten of the first twelve killed in the "Tulsa Massacre" were white? Or that only 5% of slaves were brought to North America (in Northern or British owned shipping) during the "Middle Passage"?
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 10, 2021 19:08:14 GMT
I think anti-democratic sentiment is far older than either of these (the shutdowns or Trump's rhetoric) even if both contributed in their own way to its further decline. Which was more impactful and all that, I don't know. Different people will have different reads. I do know that Trump acted in a way that I believe was reckless and irresponsible but I see him as getting in front of a trend much more than starting it. With that said, his voice is powerful for a large number and he has given legitimacy to something that was more taboo before, in my view. I don't look for one big change. Fair enough, overall. I agree Trump was reckless and irresponsible with a lot of his language. I also believe that there's a very real flaw in the thinking of many on the American left who attribute too much of the distrust in our system to Trump's language and behavior. This misses some very important components of the breakdown in trust that is obviously occurring in many sub-populations of American society. It doesn't have to be but it often is because of how many libertarians make their arguments, tying it back to "international banking families" or the Rothschilds, and related arguments. But if you approach it from a Hayekian knowledge problem point of view, or a George Selgin/ Larry White style argument about free banking and competition in currency, I don't see the anti-semitism angle. In short, if you let Mises-Hayek be your guide to fiat money criticism, rather than Rothbard or Edward Griffin, it shouldn't be too difficult to avoid the trap. But are those arguments necessarily as flawed or unreasonable as you portray them? I don't think you've ever seen me make them, but I don't immediately jump to the "anti-Semite!" conclusions that you do. There are very wealthy and influential Jewish people. A disproportionate amount. If you shake a fist at the wealthiest people in finance and media, you're going to aim that stick at a lot of people of Jewish origin. But that doesn't make it anti-Semitic. 99.99% of Jewish people aren't billionaires and media moguls. The rich and powerful and politically influential can be criticized without carrying water from some nefarious groups that also criticize those same people.I'm not saying everybody who criticizes "Duh RoThsChilDs!" is right, but I am saying that they need not be anti-Semitic. Easy, you just keep in mind the old argument put forward by Etienne de la Boetie that ultimately the state can only do to us what we consent to do ourselves. If that's the case then this is something we've tolerated out of ignorance and or put up with because it satisfied some other need and represents some perfectly imperfect Nash equilibrium. This is getting close to this notion of "Moloch problems" that I read about recently. slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/The idea is that multi-polar traps can look us into outcomes many people may want to see changed but because of the nature of the system they can't. The old me would say well that's a function of the state, we just need to have a whole new set of institutions and the problem will take care of itself. The new TL sees that as naive and believes that these problems are human problems in any sufficiently large scale society and doubts that any key hole solution is possible. Can we do better or worse? Yes, but I think these traps are largely unavoidable in complex & organized societies. Have there been sudden and revolutionary steps in history which changed a society's governing structure for the better? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,417
|
Post by thor on Jun 10, 2021 19:17:09 GMT
Yes, it does. Not all institutions and norms are equal. The Fed is an institution. There are norms involved in how they conduct monetary policy. I am sure you are aware that I'm not a fan. The police and the prison system are also institutions with norms. Ditto for the IRS, ATF, DEA, FBI, the military, etc. You can fill in the rest, I am sure! Is it fair to say broadly that you believe that the Norms and Institutions that you approve of should be defended at all costs, and any criticisms of them are from people who wish the country to be set on the path to Nazi Germany or modern Venezuela, while Norms and Institutions that you do not approve of should be torn down and dismantled for the betterment of society? A re honest Fobbit raging at TL: |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 10, 2021 19:21:49 GMT
Is it fair to say broadly that you believe that the Norms and Institutions that you approve of should be defended at all costs, and any criticisms of them are from people who wish the country to be set on the path to Nazi Germany or modern Venezuela, while Norms and Institutions that you do not approve of should be torn down and dismantled for the betterment of society? A re honest Fobbit raging at TL: Holy shit, stupid. How many times are you going to post that same video clip that I still have never watched? A thousand times? It just seems so sad. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Jun 10, 2021 19:48:27 GMT
CRT is not changing history. It is telling the truth that was hidden. European history only tells the good things that Europeans did in creating this nation. CRT also tells the bad stuff. Until recently, the Trail of tears is being taught in some curriculums. I never learn about that in school. We never learned about lynchings, KKK, the Black Walstreet massacre, the middle passage, etc. Why not teach all history and stop cherry picking. You don't even know what Critical Race Theory is, do you? It's not about adding historical events to the curriculum; it's intended as a bludgeon to drive us toward a Zimbabwe style revenge along racial lines.
Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.
Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression.
In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.
Speaking of cherry picking, do you support telling the whole story of both sides? Will reveal that a quarter of the total number of lynchings from 1882 to 1968 (4700) were not blacks. Or discuss the hundreds of thousands of blacks killed by other blacks in the last 30 years in the black crime epidemic? Will the teachers discuss the atrocities committed by the carpetbagger controlled "Union Leagues" during Reconstruction when the original KKK existed? Or that ten of the first twelve killed in the "Tulsa Massacre" were white? Or that only 5% of slaves were brought to North America (in Northern or British owned shipping) during the "Middle Passage"?
That’s not true. That is just racist propaganda. Where do you get your lies from. None of what you call history is true. Kinda like saying that the Holocaust did not happen |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 21:25:10 GMT
You don't even know what Critical Race Theory is, do you? It's not about adding historical events to the curriculum; it's intended as a bludgeon to drive us toward a Zimbabwe style revenge along racial lines.
Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.
Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression.
In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.
Speaking of cherry picking, do you support telling the whole story of both sides? Will reveal that a quarter of the total number of lynchings from 1882 to 1968 (4700) were not blacks. Or discuss the hundreds of thousands of blacks killed by other blacks in the last 30 years in the black crime epidemic? Will the teachers discuss the atrocities committed by the carpetbagger controlled "Union Leagues" during Reconstruction when the original KKK existed? Or that ten of the first twelve killed in the "Tulsa Massacre" were white? Or that only 5% of slaves were brought to North America (in Northern or British owned shipping) during the "Middle Passage"?
That’s not true. That is just racist propaganda. Where do you get your lies from. None of what you call history is true. Kinda like saying that the Holocaust did not happen Everything that I posted is factual. About the lynchings, is the NAACP good enough for you?
From 1882 to 1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the U.S., according to records maintained by NAACP..... Black people were the primary victims of lynching: 3,446, or about 72 percent of the people lynched, were Black.
How about Henry Louis Gates and PBS on the number of slaves brought to North America?
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.
You're looking pretty stupid right now....let me know if you want me to prove you wrong on the rest. I'm tired of trying to teach you about reality.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 11, 2021 8:04:31 GMT
I don't see why so many con cucks are so down on CRT.
CRT is basically obsolete.
LED's are far more energy efficient, generate less heat, and give better resolution.
Perhaps con cucks can get with the program.
|
|
