Media Bias

[Seabass]

Nice to see that you can justify government censorship by simply claiming that it isn't censorship. Well done, you.

It's amazing what you can accomplish if you are simply willing to out-stupid everyone else.

Great job out-stupiding everyone else! You sound as smart as an antefa provocateur.

Now, is removing creationism from school curriculums 'censorship'?

Yeah, kind of. The 1A prohibits the government from using public funds to promote religion. So while this does not outright ban the teaching of creationism, it has the effect of keeping it out of publicly funded schools, so yes it's a censorship of sorts.

Now what the fuck has this got to do with teaching students about racism?

[Cunt]

Inequality eh?

I refer you to my question upthread about the conflict between equality and equity. Which do you prefer?

I mean, if you even acknowledge the choice...

Again with the stupid trolling in your last sentence. You need to get rid of remarks like that if you want to stay here, simple as that...

I'm not trolling, the question has been ignored, so I may be prodding a bit, but I really think there is a clear and plain conflict between the two ideas.

Look at any homogenous groups - even within the same family - NO EQUITY.

If you have to assume I'm racist or something, because I don't ignore this fundamental fact, that might suggest you have gone down the wrong track.

Maybe you have to assume I'm trolling, because I won't agree. Try having the perspective I do, then consider Kendi's own bigoted trash...

On page 19 of his book, How to be an Antiracist, Kendi wrote:

[R]acial discrimination is not inherently racist. … The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbc-ho ... real-quote

I really like the 'content of their character, not the colour of their skin' idea. It seems the right way to treat people. Most people I know are similar. I happen to live in one of the best places in the world, for minorities.

[Hermit]

Nice to see that you can justify government censorship by simply claiming that it isn't censorship. Well done, you.

It's amazing what you can accomplish if you are simply willing to out-stupid everyone else.

Great job out-stupiding everyone else! You sound as smart as an antefa provocateur.

Now, is removing creationism from school curriculums 'censorship'?

Yeah, kind of. The 1A prohibits the government from using public funds to promote religion. So while this does not outright ban the teaching of creationism, it has the effect of keeping it out of publicly funded schools, so yes it's a censorship of sorts.

Now what the fuck has this got to do with teaching students about racism?

Creationism can be discussed even in publicly funded schools. It just has no place as a scientific theory in biology classes like flat-earthism has no place as a scientific theory in geography lessons.

[JimC]

Eek. Not another lap around the topic of racism. The word "racism" defines itself because there is but one human race. People who discriminate between ethnicities as if homo sapiens is made up of more than one race are racists. The discrimination is in the word.

Talking about racism is as legitimate and relevant a concern as talling about sexism or ageism or ableism or classism any other form of bigotry. 'Racism' is just what we call race-based bigotry. The distinctions between people may be slight, arbitrary, or non-existent, but acknowledging the existence of racism in society should not be confused for an endorsement of the race distinctions of racists.

I agree with Brian's distinctions here; the terms racist, racism, systemic racism etc. can still be applied and understood by everyone concerned even if racial distinguishing features are themselves trivial in a biological sense...

[Seabass]

Nice to see that you can justify government censorship by simply claiming that it isn't censorship. Well done, you.

It's amazing what you can accomplish if you are simply willing to out-stupid everyone else.

Great job out-stupiding everyone else! You sound as smart as an antefa provocateur.

Now, is removing creationism from school curriculums 'censorship'?

Yeah, kind of. The 1A prohibits the government from using public funds to promote religion. So while this does not outright ban the teaching of creationism, it has the effect of keeping it out of publicly funded schools, so yes it's a censorship of sorts.

Now what the fuck has this got to do with teaching students about racism?

Creationism can be discussed even in publicly funded schools. It just has no place as a scientific theory in biology classes like flat-earthism has no place as a scientific theory in geography lessons.

Yes, that's true. Would you consider that to be censorship though? It's a bit tricky since creationism isn't so much being suppressed, but rather put in the right category or context...

[Hermit]

Inequality eh?

I refer you to my question upthread about the conflict between equality and equity. Which do you prefer?

I mean, if you even acknowledge the choice...

Again with the stupid trolling in your last sentence. You need to get rid of remarks like that if you want to stay here, simple as that...

I'm not trolling, the question has been ignored, so I may be prodding a bit, but I really think there is a clear and plain conflict between the two ideas.

Look at any homogenous groups - even within the same family - NO EQUITY.

Does this mean you have no problem with the facts that as demographic groups

• 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
  45 % of Latinx families lived in owner-occupied homes and
  41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes
• $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
  $41,692 was the average family income of Black people
• $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
  $17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people
• Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
• Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment

?

[JimC]

I don't think you can consider it censorship if discussion of it is not forbidden, just that is not regarded as a science subject.

It belongs in a subject called "Myths and Legends of the Ancient World"...

[JimC]

Inequality eh?

I refer you to my question upthread about the conflict between equality and equity. Which do you prefer?

I mean, if you even acknowledge the choice...

Again with the stupid trolling in your last sentence. You need to get rid of remarks like that if you want to stay here, simple as that...

I'm not trolling, the question has been ignored, so I may be prodding a bit, but I really think there is a clear and plain conflict between the two ideas.

Look at any homogenous groups - even within the same family - NO EQUITY.

Does this mean you have no problem with the facts that as demographic groups

• 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
  45 % of Latinx families lived in owner-occupied homes and
  41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes
• $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
  $41,692 was the average family income of Black people
• $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
  $17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people
• Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
• Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment

?

I suspect that, probably without saying it, Cunt would regard those facts as proof of the lazy and shiftless nature of black people rather than any form of systematic disadvantage with racism at its roots...

[Hermit]

It's amazing what you can accomplish if you are simply willing to out-stupid everyone else.

Great job out-stupiding everyone else! You sound as smart as an antefa provocateur.

Now, is removing creationism from school curriculums 'censorship'?

Yeah, kind of. The 1A prohibits the government from using public funds to promote religion. So while this does not outright ban the teaching of creationism, it has the effect of keeping it out of publicly funded schools, so yes it's a censorship of sorts.

Now what the fuck has this got to do with teaching students about racism?

Creationism can be discussed even in publicly funded schools. It just has no place as a scientific theory in biology classes like flat-earthism has no place as a scientific theory in geography lessons.

Yes, that's true. Would you consider that to be censorship though? It's a bit tricky since creationism isn't so much being suppressed, but rather put in the right category or context...

It's not censorship. Creationism, like flat earth, can be discussed in the right category or context. That is exactly my point.

Which contrasts starkly with efforts by several US state governments to censor any discussion of racism by claiming it is critical race theory, which they say is purely intended to whip up hatred of wholesome American values.

[JimC]

From what I've read elsewhere, elements of CRT as a tertiary academic subject are indeed redolent with Marxist theory, including that capitalism is an inherently oppressive system that automatically leads to racism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that as an academic discussion, it was never going to fly in the US as a foundation principle of a secondary school subject.

Discussion of racism and its negative effects should be easily possible without a full-blown leftist theoretical framework.

[Hermit]

From what I've read elsewhere, elements of CRT as a tertiary academic subject are indeed redolent with Marxist theory, including that capitalism is an inherently oppressive system that automatically leads to racism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that as an academic discussion, it was never going to fly in the US as a foundation principle of a secondary school subject.

Discussion of racism and its negative effects should be easily possible without a full-blown leftist theoretical framework.

Yes, but a number of state governments are using CRT as a means to censor all discussion of racism. It's the same mob who condemn communism and use it to clobber social democracy with. Some of them label Biden as a communist, FFS.

[Joe]

Inequality eh?

I refer you to my question upthread about the conflict between equality and equity. Which do you prefer?

I mean, if you even acknowledge the choice...

Again with the stupid trolling in your last sentence. You need to get rid of remarks like that if you want to stay here, simple as that...

I'm not trolling, the question has been ignored, so I may be prodding a bit, but I really think there is a clear and plain conflict between the two ideas.

Look at any homogenous groups - even within the same family - NO EQUITY.

If you have to assume I'm racist or something, because I don't ignore this fundamental fact, that might suggest you have gone down the wrong track.

Maybe you have to assume I'm trolling, because I won't agree. Try having the perspective I do, then consider Kendi's own bigoted trash...

On page 19 of his book, How to be an Antiracist, Kendi wrote:

[R]acial discrimination is not inherently racist. … The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbc-ho ... real-quote

I really like the 'content of their character, not the colour of their skin' idea. It seems the right way to treat people. Most people I know are similar. I happen to live in one of the best places in the world, for minorities.

Are you sure The Daily Wire accurately quoted Kendi's book, Cunt?

Here's a little media bias lesson.

You see how they started the quote with the r in racial capitalized in brackets? That usually means they quoted a sentence fragment. Then there's an ellipsis ("..."} in the middle of the quote. That means they left out some amount of text. They could have edited for clarity, or to lie about what Kendi wrote. It's a typical trick for certain media hacks.

You can't know unless you read it in context.

Let me give you an example of how it works. See how the context around the red text drastically changes the meaning you'd get from the Daily Wire quote?

Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination,” transforming the act of discriminating on the basis of race into an inherently racist act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached.

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Kendi, Ibram X.. How to Be an Antiracist (p. 19). Random House Publishing Group

I like the "content of their character" idea too, but you have to remember the context of that quote too. It was part of King's dream. Dreams don't always come true.

[pErvinalia]

So Brian there is at this moment in time only one human race so what the fuck are you on about???

Races don't exist so racism isn't real? Fuck me.

[pErvinalia]

Nice to see that you can justify government censorship by simply claiming that it isn't censorship. Well done, you.

It's amazing what you can accomplish if you are simply willing to out-stupid everyone else.

Great job out-stupiding everyone else! You sound as smart as an antefa provocateur.

Now, is removing creationism from school curriculums 'censorship'?

Creationism has absolutely zero evidence in its favour.

Is creationism even banned by government edict? I doubt it.

[Seabass]

I don't think you can consider it censorship if discussion of it is not forbidden, just that is not regarded as a science subject.

It belongs in a subject called "Myths and Legends of the Ancient World"...

Great job out-stupiding everyone else! You sound as smart as an antefa provocateur.

Now, is removing creationism from school curriculums 'censorship'?

Yeah, kind of. The 1A prohibits the government from using public funds to promote religion. So while this does not outright ban the teaching of creationism, it has the effect of keeping it out of publicly funded schools, so yes it's a censorship of sorts.

Now what the fuck has this got to do with teaching students about racism?

Creationism can be discussed even in publicly funded schools. It just has no place as a scientific theory in biology classes like flat-earthism has no place as a scientific theory in geography lessons.

Yes, that's true. Would you consider that to be censorship though? It's a bit tricky since creationism isn't so much being suppressed, but rather put in the right category or context...

It's not censorship. Creationism, like flat earth, can be discussed in the right category or context. That is exactly my point.

Which contrasts starkly with efforts by several US state governments to censor any discussion of racism by claiming it is critical race theory, which they say is purely intended to whip up hatred of wholesome American values.

Yeah, it's hard to argue with that...