patrick.net

"According to the poll, the right largely believes that racism is personal — the product of one individual discriminating against another. The rest of the country mostly agrees that racism is systemic"

Which is BS made up by the left.

Half the country can't stand the other half of the other country for being White people who may or may not hate Black people.

NDrLoR says

The rest of the country mostly agrees that racism is systemic"

The racism is absolutely systemic. Teachers unions have been employing systemic racism to prevent school choice so deserving minorities can get a decent education in schools that actually educate students instead of provide babysitting and a venue for them to work on their twerking skills. If every black kid in America was educated to the best of his/her natural abilities, this country would look much different.

"Critical Doctrines" are the doctrines designated by the hard core KommieKunts as those most essential to seed revolution. They are designed a priori to be political wedgies.

Even having the word 'critical' in the title is a signatory that it is communist subversion.

NDrLoR says

The rest of the country mostly agrees that racism is systemic

Yes, anti-white racism IS systemic and manifests itself in the "affirmative action".

Shaman says

Teachers unions have been employing systemic racism to prevent school choice so deserving minorities can get a decent education in schools that actually educate students

I agree that teachers' unions prevent school choice, but to show that is because of racism you need to show: (1) unions only employ tactics against certain races and (2) the tactics are employed because of the race of the targeted people. I think you find, however, that the unions try to prevent school choice universally, affecting all kids.

SunnyvaleCA says

Shaman says

Teachers unions have been employing systemic racism to prevent school choice so deserving minorities can get a decent education in schools that actually educate students

I agree that teachers' unions prevent school choice, but to show that is because of racism you need to show: (1) unions only employ tactics against certain races and (2) the tactics are employed because of the race of the targeted people. I think you find, however, that the unions try to prevent school choice universally, affecting all kids.

No. you just have to show "disparate impact." No school choice means that more Black kids are stuck in low performing schools than the White kids whose parents can afford to move or use private or at home schooling.

The constitution guarantees white people the right to shoot non-humans in the face with any gun they can afford to buy.

If you're three-fifths a man, you're fucked.

Freedom has its costs.

Shaman says

The racism is absolutely systemic. Teachers unions have been employing systemic racism to prevent school choice so deserving minorities can get a decent education in schools that actually educate students

This isn't systemic racism. The teachers unions are equal opportunity fuck ups. They want to fuck everyone no matter their race. Sorry to be crass in how I say it, but it's the simplest form of truth I can see. And it's not that they want to screw anyone either, they just care more about themselves and their power and are willing to sacrifice the poor, minorities, middle class, and anyone else that will let themselves become entangled in their devious web. This is typical run of the mill socialist outcome. And make no mistake, ANY union representing public workers has this fundamental conflict of interest.

I would pass the following (state) constitutional amendment. Any union representing public workers is barred from making political contributions (supporting public ballot measures would be ok). I would say just ban public unions, but I think that public employees shouldn't lose their right to free association because they are government employees. Does that sound radically right wing or republican!?!?

HeadSet says

No school choice means that more Black kids are stuck in low performing schools than the White kids whose parents can afford to move or use private or at home schooling.

There may be more of one race or another race impacted by a policy, but if subject to the policy, it's a plain old equally shitty outcome no matter if you are white, black, asian, indian, or latin.

In other words, to fix this issue, there is no need to discuss race. Independent of race, we can agree that this is a shitty policy.

Zak says

I would pass the following (state) constitutional amendment. Any union representing public workers is barred form making political contributions. I would say just ban public unions, but I think that public employees shouldn't lose their right to free association because they are government employees. Does that sound radically right wing or republican!?!?

Public employee's have always had a union - it's called the government.

What many people don't realize is that public servant's unions are a union against the public. They work for us - they are unionizing against us.

We have a lot of worthless government employees that don't do anything. They could never work in the private sector, because they are literally useless.

I don't think this is "right wing thinking" - it's just the reality of the situation. Any shithead can go into government work, it certainly isn't the other way around. If I don't produce, I get canned. If a teacher molests a student in NYC, they are put into a building where they have a cubicle "classroom" where they do nothing for 6 hours a day. Seriously, that shit happens and it's frustrating because a simple video camera in the classroom would fix that real quick.

richwicks says

Public employee's have always had a union - it's called the government.

I think that is a fundamental wrong take. It is absolutely the case that within governmental departments there can be shitty abusive bosses. I'm a firm believer in giving power to people in the form of organizing, and at work I can do that and form a union in the private sector. It's just that it is illegal for the union to basically bribe the bosses at the expense of the shareholders. In the public system, that is exactly what political contributions are, and why it should be made illegal. We the people, are the shareholders of the government, so in that respect I agree with you. We just can't pretend there isn't a power imbalance between worker and boss that unions bring some form of balance to.

NDrLoR says

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-the-real-reason-republicans-are-so-riled-up-about-critical-race-theory-090015052.html

Yahoo has been propaganda since the mid 2000's.

During the (second) Iraq War there was commenting on EVERY single "news" story. I remember the vigorous debate and discussion. I learned a lot from other people like how Hussein murdered any religious leader that he felt was a political threat to him, hated binLaden (she he wouldn't work with him), that Scott Ritter was the former weapons inspector of Iraq and openly disagreed with the Bush administration's claims - a ton of gold nuggets.

And then they deleted it all and the official recorded history is "It was an honest mistake! Nobody could have known that the intelligence agencies might be wrong!" Millions did. They deleted the history to cover that fact up.

The thing about a commenting section, a forum, is you learn more from other people than you do from the "journalist". You can't correct a journalist, this is not because they are arrogant and can't be convinced they are wrong, they know they are wrong - they are propagandists.

richwicks says

Seriously, that shit happens and it's frustrating because a simple video camera in the classroom would fix that real quick.

Why do you want surveillance on classrooms? For 10,000 years, teachers have been teaching without big brother video monitoring. We've also been pretty harsh with kiddy diddlers until pretty recently. Maybe that's what we need to bring back?

Zak says

richwicks says

Seriously, that shit happens and it's frustrating because a simple video camera in the classroom would fix that real quick.

Why do you want surveillance on classrooms?

Because I pay for those classrooms. I pay for those textbooks as well. They should all be online. Public employees work should be open to review by the public.

Now, there's plenty of daycares that have cameras running while they are taking care of parent's kids, so parents can observe whenever they want. Do you object to that? Now I shouldn't be able to see that, because they aren't my kids.

I'm recorded at MY job. I bet you are as well. Look up, see any globes in the ceiling? Those are cameras. Not all cameras are visible either. There's signs and notifications everywhere that I'm under observation when I'm at work. You know how much damage I could do if I went nuts? I could burn down the entire building with a can of gasolene and a match - millions of dollars of damage - perhaps billions if I destroy work cause contracts to not be fullfilled. It's trivial. I can understand their paranoia.

Zak says

For 10,000 years, teachers have been teaching without big brother video monitoring.

And Plato was fucking his students. Did you know that?

Zak says

We've also been pretty harsh with kiddy diddlers until pretty recently. Maybe that's what we need to bring back?

Yeah, we ought to bring that back. Getting raped as an adult is bad enough, but as a child? It screws up their entire life. It's one of the most viscous crimes imaginable.

richwicks says

Because I pay for those classrooms.

I pay for the street outside your house, but that doesn't mean I get to point a video camera at your driveway and monitor your comings and goings. How about a little restraint?

And yep, Plato was diddling his students. They made him drink hemlock if I recall. Liberal educators kind of don't bring that connection to bear too often do they? It's always "They hated his progressive thinking". Lol.

richwicks says

Now, there's plenty of daycares that have cameras running while they are taking care of parent's kids, so parents can observe whenever they want.

As a parent with a child in this situation, I rather detest it. My wife loves it, because she can watch the kids in her spare time. To me, it's just an oppressive bullshit that is training the kids to accept being watched by an unknown camera. My wife wants cameras all around the house for security. I'm a no fucking way kind of guy. It's not even argued that the police have access and ARE warrantlessly watching these feeds on providers like Ring/Nest.

Zak says

And yep, Plato was diddling his students. They made him drink hemlock if I recall. Liberal educators kind of don't bring that connection to bear too often do they? It's always "They hated his progressive thinking". Lol.

That was Socrates, who was a known Everlasting No asshole. His "Impiety" charge had nothing to do with "Deities" but rather with values.

He like to take the sons of farmers or tradesmen and teach them NOT to follow in their ancestor's footsteps, but sell almost everything, become philosophers, and cavort with him (in both senses of the meaning). And he laughed about being a "Shield Thrower", basically a coward who ditched their shield to runaway faster in a Phalanx battle that was getting thorny. He was also reputed to be a hen pecked man, like many Soy Intellectuals, and Gay passed the alloted time (Being a grown man with a wife, he was expected to stop chasing after teens).

At his trial, where he probably would have gotten a fine or exile for a few years, he decided to lambast the whole Community of Athens, and all their laws and values, and then proceeded to insult just about everybody and dared them to kill him. So they figured if he wanted to go out like that, they would oblige, and ordered his death.

Kind of a Sartre, Intellectual Ass type. Sartre bragged about goofing off while in the Maginot Line, but was very vocal about having a Violent Communist Revolution against "Bourgeois Society". Actual fascists "Je goof ze off hon hon hon" Against normal French society "Je revolution neaux, avec sangre et violence!!" DeGaulle should have had a Foreign Legionaire Vet can his ass.

Socrates had a characterization in the computer game 'Assassin's Creed Odyssey'. He was a pudgy, out of shape bisexual iconoclast. It was in interesting game, and I learned a few things about history of the Greek archipelago and islands of the ancient times.

Zak says

richwicks says

Now, there's plenty of daycares that have cameras running while they are taking care of parent's kids, so parents can observe whenever they want.

As a parent with a child in this situation, I rather detest it. My wife loves it, because she can watch the kids in her spare time. To me, it's just an oppressive bullshit that is training the kids to accept being watched by an unknown camera. My wife wants cameras all around the house for security. I'm a no fucking way kind of guy. It's not even argued that the police have access and ARE warrantlessly watching these feeds on providers like Ring/Nest.

There is no reason that anything can be tapped today.

Nest/Ring - that's fucking creepy.

Tox-core? That's end to end point to point encryption, and unless we're wrong about the encryption (and we may be!) it cannot be tapped.

I'd pose a question about phone numbers, but I'm thinking about patenting the idea. I know, for example, how to make it absolutely impossible for you to ever get a spam phone call again.

Technology does cause problems, but there are solutions.

Surveillance is GOING to happen no matter what. I could plant a camera in your home that is so goddamned small, you'd never detect it. It will be a little bigger than a pinhead. I can observe you banging your wife with infra-red right now, with no intrusion in you home.

You have to know what is possible, because ANY abuse you can think can happen with technology WILL happen.

Zak says

richwicks says

Because I pay for those classrooms.

I pay for the street outside your house, but that doesn't mean I get to point a video camera at your driveway and monitor your comings and goings. How about a little restraint?

Yes you can point a camera at my driveway. You might think this is morally wrong, but you can do exactly that, NOTHING prevents you.

Laws are always made to PROHIBIT things, and even then, it depends on a prosecutor to enforce the law, otherwise, it's legal for one group (like Clinton - she's free to destroy evidence under subpoena) and a law for everybody else.

I could easily hook up a camera that watches every time you enter and exit your home. Will I do this? No - I'm not a fucking asshole - but the FBI is nothing but assholes.

richwicks says

Yes you can point a camera at my driveway.

Ugg, very literal.. I mean that, as society, we(police, streets dept, etc) don't just point video cameras at everyone's driveway to monitor them because we pay taxes for roads (yet). Although some places are starting to roll this out without public comment periods. San Diego for instance has cameras and microphones on many streetlights. The public found out, and was PISSED, as it happened rather surreptitiously.

HeadSet says

No. you just have to show "disparate impact." No school choice means that more Black kids are stuck in low performing schools than the White kids whose parents can afford to move or use private or at home schooling

You need to show that the disparate impact is due to being black. However, your own comment suggests the disparate impact is due to being poor. By your standard, any public or private entity charging any money for anything is racist because a larger proportion of black people can't afford whatever it is bing sold.

SunnyvaleCA says

HeadSet says

No. you just have to show "disparate impact." No school choice means that more Black kids are stuck in low performing schools than the White kids whose parents can afford to move or use private or at home schooling

You need to show that the disparate impact is due to being black. However, your own comment suggests the disparate impact is due to being poor. By your standard, any public or private entity charging any money for anything is racist because a larger proportion of black people can't afford whatever it is bing sold.

Do not get me wrong, I am not against school choice. I am just saying that "disparate impact" is a commonly used tool to evaluate policies. Disparate Impact takes intent out, and just looks a results. For example, in Virginia, the Dems decided against strict enforcement of gun laws because that would have a "disparate impact" on people of color. School choice is not designed to keep out Blacks, but Dems will claim it will keep a disproportionate number of Blacks in underperforming schools. A good counter argument would be that not having school choice is racist, since the present system has a concentration of Blacks in low performing schools.

I am not for "disparate impact." I see "disparate impact" as nothing more than a scam to interject racism claims into situations where no racism exists.

HeadSet says

I see "disparate impact" as nothing more than a scam to interject racism claims into situations where no racism exists.

Agreed, it is.

I ran across this as a contractor at Wells Fargo. Wells was accused of racism for being less likely to lend when all objective measures showed the loan was less likely to be paid back.

Wells does not consider race at all, but other objective criteria like income and zip code ended up with black people being less likely to get a loan because they were less likely to pay it back. "Disparate impact" there.

Zak says

richwicks says

Yes you can point a camera at my driveway.

Ugg, very literal.. I mean that, as society, we(police, streets dept, etc) don't just point video cameras at everyone's driveway to monitor them because we pay taxes for roads (yet). Although some places are starting to roll this out without public comment periods. San Diego for instance has cameras and microphones on many streetlights. The public found out, and was PISSED, as it happened rather surreptitiously.

I'm sorry about this situation, but any technology that is developed will be misused. I'm not happy about this situation, but that's the situation.

I know what I'm up against the public should as well.

Technology can be used for the public good, or to exploit the public. You have to be aware that no matter where you are, you're probably under surveillance of some sort - if you're assaulted, mugged, murdered - you need to realize why isn't this technology used to find the perpetrator?

What's so ridiculous about Epstein's "suicide" is that cameras cost nothing, they don't fuck up normally, he was obviously either murdered or removed from his cell to retire somewhere. There's many people in the public that don't realize how TRIVIAL it is to have a camera running 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They think technology is like the 1990's where such devices were expensive and fragile. A camera costs $15 now and they don't randomly fail. When I say Epstein didn't kill himself, that's not a suspicion I'm voicing - that's a fact.

Surveillance is already ubiquitous - we MUST demand this is used for the public good. It's already here. When somebody is run down by a car, or there's a hold up at a store, the question is - why was the criminal allowed to escape? The event was almost certainly recorded, it should be public to remove the perpetrator from society.