Disagreeing with the premise proves you are wrong

That's not really how debate is supposed to work.  You have a premise, I provide good faith counter arguments, the people around decide who is more convincing.

In a scary turnabout, Critical Race Theory has been adopted by much of the left.  CRT provides postulates (assumed to be obviously true) that you can not reject since rejection just proves your racism.

Here are the basic tenets:

• Racism exists today in both traditional and modern forms
• Racism is an institutionalized, multilayered, multilevel system that distributes unequal power and resources between white people and people of color, as socially identified, and disproportionately benefits whites.
• All members of society are socialized to participate in the system of racism, albeit in varied social locations.
• All white people benefit from racism regardless of intentions.
• No-one chose to be socialized into racism so no-one is bad, but no-one is neutral.
• To not act against racism is to support racism.
• Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged. No-one is ever done.
• The question is not Did racism take place? but rather How did racism manifest in that situation?
• The racial status quo is comfortable for most whites. Therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect.
• The racially oppressed have a more intimate insight via experiential knowledge into the system of race than their racial oppressors. However, white professors will be seen as having more legitimacy, thus positionality must be intentionally engaged.
• Resistance is a predictable reaction to anti-racist education and must be explicitly and strategically addressed.

Can you see the problem?  I can't say that I am not racist because the presumption is that I am.  Think back to Euclid's Elements, one of the earliest known texts on mathematics.  Euclid starts with definitions and postulates.  Neither are proven, they are just assumed.  You can't argue that a square doesn't have four equal sides and four right angles because that is a definition.  You can't argue that you can't draw a straight line between two points because that is a postulate and assumed to be obviously true.  Without the postulates the discussion breaks down completely because there is no way to prove them other than by experience and observation. 

Both Euclid and CRT use the same premise that you must assume some things to be true.  The result of Euclid's writings was a consistent and logical development of geometric proofs that last to this day and are born out in the physical world.  The result of Critical Race Theory is that no one can push back against their ideas for dramatic social change.

https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/20/the-influence-of-anti-racist-scholarship-activism-on-evergreen-college/

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/10/06/the-left-becomes-revolutionary/

By the way

Words have meaning.   At least they usually do.  Amidst the furor over "assault weapons" I present to you two rifles.  One is an assault rifle (by the popular definition) and one isn't.  Can you tell the difference?

If you said the second was the "assault rifle" you chose correctly.  The difference?  The first has the flash suppressor removed.  Full disclosure, technically they are both "assault rifles" because the threads are still on the barrel, allowing me to put the flash suppressor back on, but if I were to take a file to the threads, the rifle would, apparently, no longer be evil.

That's it.  They are both magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles.  They both fire the same .30 caliber round.  The thirty caliber rifle round has been around since the eighteen hundreds, the semi-automatic rifle likewise, the magazine fed rifle has been around and readily available since the 1920s.  The AR-15, a popular version of magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle has been around since the early 1970s.  So why the furor?

Well, for one they became popular.  It stands to reason that if a rifle is the most popular rifle, that rifle will also be used on occasion for evil acts.  Two, they look scary.  Seriously.  Look at that bottom picture and compare it to the top.  The top probably reminds you of hunting with your dad and your uncles in the winter; hot chocolate and cold wind nipping at your nose.  The bottom terrifies you.  Just kidding, of course.  They are the same rifle.

Those opposed to the ownership of guns are engaged in a decade long battle to ban guns.  Start with guns that the people will accept as banned "military style assault rifle" and then move on from there.  Inexpensive handguns (Saturday night special) because they are dangerous, expensive handguns (because who needs a Desert Eagle for home defense), "high capacity" meaning the number of rounds the gun came with from the factory.  Each restriction makes it more reasonable for the next to be passed.  "After all, we don't allow people to have ... so why would we allow them to have ...".  Don't be fooled, the ultimate goal of many of these groups is a ban on civilian ownership.

Meanwhile Antifa physically attacks conservatives who venture out to express their political opinions.  The left commits violence against us while attempting to disarm us.  What could possibly go wrong?