It doesn’t really matter. CRT is not what you claim is. There was a report on NPR a month ago about the campaign to make CRT the boogieman worth false claim, such as you repeated and that it shouldn’t be taught in schools, which it isn’t.
2 Likes
Haven’t claimed anything one way or another about Cathode Ray Tubes. What are you on about? My point is 45 states aren’t going to hand all power to decide presidential elections over to the other five without a fight. Don’t use NPR as a source they’re as biased as Fox News.
1 Like
How about letting the actual people decide. One vote for each eligible citizen. Period.
Cows and empty land don’t vote and should not be able to determine the laws and representation for the rest of the people in the country. Minority rule is crappy. Gerrymandering, vote access limitations, it goes on and on.
5 Likes
Because when the vast majority of voters are concentrated in a few metropolitan areas area they will trample the rights of the rest of the country in perfect lock step.
“Democracy has been described as four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch” Los Angeles Times , Nov. 25, 1990.
2 Likes
So the minority should trample over the rights of the majority?
What? Individuals in cities have the same rights as those who live in other states - or SHOULD.
The issue is that they don’t. The rural areas tend to vote in lockstep to deny the majority in the country their right to representation based on voting.
See, if you reverse your argument you realize how bad it is.
One person. One vote. Equal representation as citizens of the United States.
6 Likes
That’s a non sequitur. The 45 less populated States can’t win every presidential election because they have competing interests. It’s why we have a federal system with representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. The President must win at least a few of the other states.
Nullus Tyrannide Democratiae
2 Likes
NPR where you believe or not has a slight conservative lean after three independent studies that looked at content, guests, and hosts. Frankly land doesn’t vote more should be a factor in deciding the president. You don’t find it a bit odd that the Senate is split 50/50 yet the Democrats in the senate represent close to 65% of the population. Like in 2010 when the GOP in congressional house races were out voted by almost 4M votes at won more than 40 seats.
1 Like
I find it working as designed. The Senate is where bills go to die or “the world’s greatest deliberative body ” as they style themselves. In fact Senators aren’t supposed to be elected by popular vote at all but by State legislatures. They screwed that up with the Seventeenth Amendment resulting in not being able to get most of the old farts out of office until they’re well into senility. It didn’t reduce the corruption one smidgen either.
NPR is a government establishment mouthpiece advocating the status quo and whatever those currently in power want for the most part. Gadzooks I sound like a lefty. They know who butters their bread. Trump was a disruptive influence so he didn’t get the benefit.
1 Like
good
ur making progress
3 Likes
What some call left now used to be middle conservative. The “right” has moved way way way out there instead of rejecting the more radical elements that attached themselves. Sadly there are now even members in Congress that espouse those super far right views.
We also have some rather far left views such as Sanders.
In a way the fringe views are good, they stimulate conversations and let people explore ideas. That is something we all usually do in college. We read then discuss widely different aspects of a topic - that has no right answer - then explore what is good as well as bad about said views or theories.
They are pretty neutral but with radicals screaming fringe stuff it can seem a bit different. NPR was not seen as a Trump mouthpiece for example.
There is a reason for that. I am old. I live on the East Coast. I am aware of him, and his family, for a long time. I am not into third generation silver spoon serial adulterers, financial fraud folks, etc.
4 Likes
Usually NPR doesn’t seem to mind. There are at least half a dozen of those in Congress from both parties at any given time. Some of the Presidents were too.
Not really. Equating the government with corruption is baked into my DNA.
Wow, an actual climate change denier.
You’re a very dangerous person.
3 Likes
No climate does change. We aren’t changing it and the world isn’t going to be doomed forever in ten years. If it were we couldn’t stop it. Follow the science and think for yourself. Do you know what decade had the hottest four years on record in the United States? Here’s a hint it was before you were born. The truth is always dangerous.
2 Likes
That is not science.
Scientists arent saying that either.
We (as humans) might be though. And it is true, we might not be able to stop it. (of course, we might be quite doomed without climate change too, it just adds to the explosive keg)
It would be more likely to say that sounding the alarm and enacting what changes we have has delayed more catastrophic outcomes when it comes to climate change, but there is certainly more room to improve when it comes to matters of pollution, deforestation, preservation, and so on. Weather being what it is, there will certainly be some variability over the years, as well.
Nonetheless, if climate change isn’t real, the question then becomes what is causing our planets permafrost to melt and sea levels to rise? Can someone point to evidence that that our yearly trips around the sun have resulted in a steady repositioning of our poles, and as a result, more or less implies north is moving south and vice versa? I’d imagine not in any appreciable manner that could further be correlated to measurable differences of light/darkness exposure in places where you could have sunlight 20 hours in a day, for example.
There are certainly other aspects where one may try to pick and choose what evidence is real, coincidental, and so on, but I’d more generally think the more populous areas like not being smog-laden, or bodies of water filled with toxic chemicals, yadda yadda. Green energy may not be perfect yet, but it’s also a comparably young technology that’s literally being lobbied against because it’s a threat to existing monopolies. Otherwise, some areas are better for wind turbines than others. Same with solar panels. The thing with science is that it’s continuous trial and error, ever moving forward to the desired outcome. Mistakes will happen, but that also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Your hamburgers aren’t going anywhere.
1 Like
Feel free to explain how it doesn’t separate people by demographic groups and paint some as victims and some as oppressors. I’d love to hear that because every time I have to sit for one of these “educational” sessions, that’s exactly what the speaker tells me CRT teaches. When I talk to my family members who are public school teachers who are now being asked to teach this in their math classrooms, that’s what they say it is. When I ask my friend who is a principal of a middle school now being ordered to teach this to kids, that’s what she tells me it is.
That’s why you add intersectionality so that you can unite various groups into one big coalition victim group by telling each of them that your one target group is responsible for all of their troubles. You simply create a bigger victim group for the binary.
No, they originated with millennia-old social constructs. They were co-opted by critical theorists into the victim-oppressor binary. Everything that follows in that paragraph indicates to me that what you ultimately want is a society without hierarchy - and more importantly that you want government to use power to ensure that. Would I be correct in that assumption?
It’s literally in their party’s name, Professor. Have you ever read their party platform? The State took control of the economy. It was socialist. Fascist, too, but that comes with socialism because an authoritarian state is necessary to implement socialism.
As for my biases. Yeah, I had a grandfather in the camps for four years. Had a childhood friend whose parents were Soviet defectors. I’m biased against Marxists authoritarians who lie to people claiming they can solve social problems, while instead only enriching themselves and working to preserve their chokehold on power.
I’d ask if you knew my agenda, but you don’t. I want to live in a country that lives up to its founding principles. More directly, I want to live my life freely and have the government leave me tf alone. But I can’t do that with CRT around, because CRT teaches that government power is the solution to social problems. And because people who looked like me did bad things, CRT says I’m supposed to be punished for my “privilege.”
I don’t need your resume. Resumes are often just paper credentials. I have 5 degrees. They don’t matter. They’re not going to convince you I’m not some backwater, Trump-humping redneck. Your resume isn’t going to convince me CRT isn’t a racist Marxist idea that should be resigned to the dustbin of history. If you’re as well versed in the theory and convinced of its correctness, and you’re as good a teacher as you seem to be implying, you should be able to make the argument simply.
4 Likes
The word is in their name strictly for populist reasons.
If you are referring to the 25 points from 1920, the few goals that are worded in a vaguely Marxist way are actually meant to consolidate the power of the “Volksgemeinschaft” against the Jewish people. In practice, the NSDAP was not the least bit socialist.
Again, to lock out the Jews, and there was no real seizure of the means of production by the state nor was there wealth redistribution. National socialism instead kept the concept of private property–except for the Jews.
The NSDAP was focused like a laser beam on eliminating the Jewish people and providing a utopian homeland for the volk, not on founding and maintaining a socialist state.
No, they were textbook fascist, with ultranationalist views, a brutal dictator, violent suppression of opposition, strict regimentation of society and pretty much every other point defining classical fascism.
Set aside your Hayek, and look at countries that have implemented socialist elements, like Denmark and New Zealand. Are these authoritarian places? Do you really believe that it is inevitable that Denmark and New Zealand will eventually become like Cuba or the old USSR?
3 Likes
Will derail the topic a bit but this is important to mention I think, the issue isn’t about being a lefty (or righty) or whatever, the issue is in the following:
A - the “support change for the sake of change” (i.e. extreme “left”) team
B - the “be against change for the sake of being against a change” (i.e. extreme “right”) team
And the reason why those 2 things are quoted is kinda cause it’s not what being a leftie or rightie means (it’s more about government and local authorities over corporations, or the other way around more like kind of thing)
But, in general: usually around 1/3 of “lefties” belong to A, and about 1/4-1/5 of “righties” belong to B… My problem with things as are lately is that I see a disturbance in the balance, i.e. I see a bunch vivid/active/organised/aggressive attempts to push A at all costs to the society, all organised by organisations and higher powers, that’s super dangerous in all honesty, support of “all changes no matter which” also means “let’s get rid of all objective criteria to judge the quality of leadership” simultaneously, i.e. get nothing left with to blame higher eschalon if/when they’re doing an active wrongdoing
I mean I could make a dumb sentence out of my a*s and say “the biggest problem of the world is today is that people from the west stopped questioning societal changes” and actually won’t sound as dumb as one might think, I mean there’s some actual truth in it…
That’s the result of the problem I just mentioned, that the “left” allowed the most “cuckoo” and “hysterical” individuals that always support a change for the sake of it to take higher positional (and representative) power… But so did the “righties” give power to the “let’s fight change at all cost” team, and regardless of who started it it’s a “war on une-up-ism” every term (or so) literally
And sadly think it’s gone over any reasonable limits to solve it peacefully or reasonable so much so that you guys have to find ways to just literally IGNORE the talking points of both of these extremes
It’s hard in a democratic/debating-open society but sometimes what needs to be done needs to be done, left-leaning to just ignore the most extreme ones (anti-tradition and anti-patriarchy for the sake of it), and right-leaning (conspiracy theories about the government/s, the doomsday is coming, e.t.c.) to do the same
IDK how, or even IF is possible to do such a thing, but again, it’s super obvious that the problem are BOTH extremes
1 Like
Except it’s not a mouthpiece for the government. Looks like someone just spouts what others tell him to.
The dude tries to sound as if he’s some free thinker but he just repeats talking points from the right. Pretty much everything hes stated in thus thread is wrong and has been debunked.
2 Likes