"𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰𝘰. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐’𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘥, 𝘐 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘙𝘶𝘧𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭."

The devil himself can speak truth when it serves his purpose. #𝟏 Is it true? #𝟐 Are knee-jerk assumptions and accusations that the speaker's motivation is the ism of your perceived oppressor helpful or proof of falsehood? #𝟑 Does the purpose or motivation of the speaker make something that is true false?

After saying all that, do the results of something true or false being spoken matter? What is CRT really? My understanding of critical theory in general is a thorough examination of something, often specifically the conventional views of a subject. Honest history is a good goal since history is often biased to the point of falsehood by omission. We should know the truth. If the result is increased hostility, is it helpful in leading to a better society for all? That leads to the question, can honest discussion take place in the 21at century or is that now impossible?

I recently read an article where the idea that many on the right prefer a Trump victory to another Republican victory because if would cause more anguish, wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left. I think it is true. By the same token, many on the left vindictively wish to tear down all things precious to the right to inflict the same emotional anguish. Heavy sigh!