# Colourful Genders, Races and Groomers

## Introduction
Marcuse thought much of radicalizing the intelligentsia, and this naturally falls within a particular age range. The age where one has not yet galbanized their beliefs of the world is primed for passion in pursuit, and has enough naivety to believe that they might suddenly discover a path to their desires (success, fame, attention, reverence, etc).

Many will repeat the common downplaying/dismissive statement "oh, racism is part of life and history, it makes perfect sense and is, in fact, a moral good for us to learn about this in a society". But what is ultimately being expressed there?
- We are just studying history
- We are improving awareness/fairness
- We are taking steps to bring into light that which has been wrongfully avoided for far too long

## History
James Lindsay shared an entertaining meme on this, and it was drawing attention tot he fact that teachers' unions have been deflecting and dismissing the allegations that they are teaching CRT.

Though they have insisted that a particular philosophy and system of thought has not been present in that environment, they don't make even the slightest bit contentious as to whether they themselves support the teachings of that philosophy.

Though they have insisted that a particular philosophy and system of thought has not been present in that environment, they don't make even the slightest bit contentious as to whether they themselves support the teachings of that philosophy. Yes, they both love and support the philosophy, proclaim that you don't know what the philosophy is, and that your inability to appreciate the philosophy is evidence of your depravety. And, of course, such philosophy is not found in their environment (but wouldn't it be great if it was?).

So, then, let us make the case that it is indeed history (simply). We wouldn't be having these discussions if not for the past!

## It's Just History
We know that injustices occur and that these exist in the form of humans subjecting one another to oppression. We know that the perceiving one another as someting other than ourselves can be the result of many things, but that the moment we have a preconceived means of qualifying someone as being outside the self, we are implicitly declaring the existence of groups -> at the most basic level, we are describing the group of persons who are not me.

Then, what does it take to reference that there are groups, or a group, of people who are not me, and who also deserve treatment by me which is equivalent to treatment that I would extend to myself?

## Othering as Inequity
Does it mean that there could theoretically be a group of persons who are not I who deserve the same treatment as I?

As soon as we establish that, we have the criteria sufficient for othering. If we can demonstrate othering on the basis of race, we can establish racial oppression.

But then, is that what CRT teaches? The history of othering on the basis of race, and what it means to ensure it happens no more?

CRT asserts that the phenomenon of othering o the basis of race occurred through the use of language and edification of structures, and taht this occurred so pervasively that it can be found in every aspect of society. Furthermore, it asserts that all of us taht have grown up in this society have been afflicated with racist beleifs, perceptions and habits, and that our very ability to participate and succeed in society is predicated on our maintenance and reinforcement of systemic racism. That we conceive of the world using language nad constructs of a racist society make ti such not only that we are unable to truly know when racism is manifesting, but that we haven't the concepts necessary to imagine what a society would look like without racism, thus we shoul ddedicate ourselves to anti-racism until such conceptions are possible.

## Implications
But does that really satisfy? You are forced to concede that you yourself of being guilty and complicit with fffffffffanything that is alleged, even if only at the systemic level, because all that is required to qualify it is merely any generally agreed upon historical precedent which leans in the same direction. If a present-day artifact need-be appended, any disparity will do, as surely no perfect distribution can even be fond, nor need there be one, as the Critical Theorist has already claimed that no model or description for an ideal society can even be conceived of and shared.

And the guilt is not so much yours as you are already of an age where you will never be expected to be a true believer. In fact, you likely already know yourself quite well, and that stands in the way of you being able to become the most reliable foot soldier for the revolution/justice/sustainability/etc...

So, ten, who si more appropriate for the revolution? Well, that is perfectly simple -> Your Children! Not having yet been fully poisoned with the norms and expectations of the oppressive society, there is still a chance for them. But what are the norms?

## The Norms
If the norm in society is oppression, and the development of society has been one characterized by hierarchies that are oppressive, then controlling the subcomponents without those hierarchies is necessary to seek justice. That is, the normal state of society is oppression and its momentum and systems of discourse are such that the unfair distribution of power creates bias and mechanisms to reinforce the dominance hierarchy, thus it becomes impossible to expect that the mistakes are easy to see, or that the oppressors would allow smaller people to take control over them.

*Then, how to regain power? Through destabilization*

We regain power through destabilization of the norms which breaks the patterns of oppression. This means that, for lack of specific evidence or procedure to liberate, the alternative is to dismantle the most obvious structures of society that affect absolutely everyone. Our social structures, and that means family.

And, so why protect children? Does one protect them from first-order physical harm out of reflect, but then go on to be complacent when others are involved? There can be several factors involved in why intelligent and rational persons go on to sacrifice their children to Moloch
- Maintains status (in society/social hierarchy)
- Psychological commitment to belief system
- Complete lack of competence (falls outside of rationalize/intelligent)
- Direct coersion

## Maintaining Status
- Some might refer to this quite aggressively as protecting one's own privilege, but the motive itself needn't be consequent to those who are high on the socioeconomic hierarchy. Instead it's those who have nothing and who are viewed as hopeless and pathetic by the intelligentsia. At that point, one realizes that it is, indeed, relatively easy to come to believe that one is gaining power in the world by simply relinquishing some of their own. This might be achieved by simply having a new, forceful, autoritative, commanding a a limiting statement which one can repeat. The predicaed logic of the statement becomes obligation on the part of its utterer, so that its use can expand or be repeated

The state can also provide seemingly complete domains, reports and studies. Thus, to adopt its recommendations instantly binds one to the mastery that might be implied for its related subject and contents. These can be very powerful, motivatoring factors.