I'm sorry that I forced you mistake the tweeter's commentary for my own, and that you missed the forest for the trees.
Trump Directs FEDs to End Racial Bias Training In Move to Further Inflame Racial Tensions.
- Thread starter lil devils x
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I didn't mistake the Tweeter's commentary for yours, I mocked how utterly bankrupt the Tweeter's comment was.
It's not my fault you took it as a personal offence against you.
You had an opportunity to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean that towards you, I meant it towards the tweeter, who isn't even here and has no idea that I'm mocking him", after I said "take it up with him", but you didn't. So I doubt that you didn't mean to direct that at me.
I indicated to you I was criticising your source when I said it was your responsibility to use a source that didn't suck. I also used that opportunity to tell you I didn't think your contribution to the debate was helpful.
But hey, if you want a game of making up stories about what other people think, then I don't believe you when you say you weren't criticising critical race theory. I think you thought that video was actual government diversity training. I believe you think black people should be returned to slavery, that pizza is a vegetable and the earth is flat. And no matter how much you protest otherwise, I'm going to sit here insisting it's true, not because it's actually going to accomplish anything or because I really care whether its true, but to fulfill some petty and pointless aggravation and one upmanship. So do you want to play that game?
You're right, I apologize. You weren't criticizing me, you only just quoted me and blamed me for everything even though you were really criticizing my source the whole time.
Apology rejected, for reasons you will obviously understand.
Certainly not, otherwise we'd have to outlaw these fine people first, and they'll be straight out there exercising their Second Amendment responses.
And if we're going to ban that sort of random, self-appointed nobody spewing gibberish as if they really knew anything, we'd need to ban this sort of conference, too.
That seems to be more of a forum thing than an actually sponsored/paid event, but I'm not certain. If it was meant as a seminar for government employees (I'm going to be more free with private employees because the companies can set their own rules for what they allow in a seminar), I wouldn't want her to have a paypal link in the presentation.
But the statement "all white people are racist", while sounding aggressive, is an excellent way to engage people and get them thinking. Even if your first thought is "Hell no, you're just plain wrong." You've still had an emotional response and connected with the subject. Using a provocation/provocative statement to further debate and engagement is a commonly used tactic in education.
I did not watch the video and I don't intend to so feel free to share any highlights that disprove my suggestion (if you want to).
I'll also just add that if there is to be no funding for CRT then all funding for people like Dave Grossman and his twisted killology should also be cancelled (it probably should anyway, but this presents an excellent opportunity to get rid of it).
As I understand it, laws could be passed that only applies to the state or to the government, as opposed to making it illegal everywhere, which would violate the first amendment. Kind of like how Prop 209 only applies to "the state".
Could such "racist hate speech" be outlawed only within federal programs (which, AFAIK, the memo intended)?
This example was probably not taken from inside a "government agency".
In the video, she says it in all sincerity. She also says "white people are born into not being human" and that white people are "taught to be demons". There is no indication that it is merely a provocation. There's no sort of "what do you think about this statement? Why do you think some people would believe this?"
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however. Perhaps she could return to this statement and cover it later. The clip was only 40 or so seconds long.
Last edited:
Correct.
You are absolutely right that they wouldn't be requesting Paypal donations on their cheap paper boards: they'd be getting formally paid as external consultants, or be salaried employees. They'd also be wearing formal (neat casual at least) clothes suitable for a professional environment. Secondly, you can see her name and look her up for yourself: she's really just some sort of low level artist / cultural commentator.
I don't believe anything exists like that in government programs.
Admittedly I'm in a different country, but I have plenty of experience of diversity stuff and official training as it's a big deal in my line of work, and I have never, ever, seen anything remotely that crass. The might discuss privilege and a bit of stuff like that, but at a level only the most hypersensitive right-wing snowflake would flip out over.
Why do you think that the public sector would never hire someone like this speaker? Serious question. Is there some kind of checks and balances or some kind of "degree of professionalism" they look for in one who gives a "diversity" lecture? They wouldn't just hire the lowest bidder?
Because that's how the US government usually does things that they can't do themselves, they just outsource from the private sector at the lowest bidder.
Last edited:
They'd absolutely be looking for someone professional with appropriate qualifications, credentials, track records, etc.: it's proper professional work. Lowest bidder really means lowest bidder that meets minimum standards. In many cases, some organisations will have dedicated staff and just do it in-house.
Of course, someone might screw up on the quality check, or take a chance on what appears to be an reputable external speaker that turns out not to be; such accidents do happen.
The worst part is if you do make this mistake, and then you don't invite that speaker back later on, there will be an outcry of Free Speech and how you are censoring them. The mistake gets compounded exponentially. Then you have a twitter flame war or actual fight on a campus (if its a uni we are talking about)
Ah, but who determines what clothes are suitable for a professional environment? the WHITE MAN.
I did the UK civil service training on diversity and equality a couple of months ago, it seemed pretty fair to me, nothing particularly controversial. The training even stressed that white men can be the victims of unconscious bias as well.
Funny you should say that. They've done studies on the ability of university professors to command attention. Students tend to be more respectful of their professors if they are a) male, b) white, c) wear a suit.
One of the reasons I became an academic was precisely because I didn't have to wear a suit for work...
USA
And that is not even getting into what hairstyles and religious items are appropriate or what is considered appropriate workplace behavior. Hell, if my tribe designed the workplace, child care would be integrated so that parents could interact with their children while they work as is done there rather than being see as " something that should be separate". Taking care of your family is seen as a benefit to a good employee rather than being seen as " baggage" that is not suitable for the workplace.
At my work the boss, a white woman, has a few stereotype she throws around. Asian workers are hard working, White people are independent and think for themselves. Thus you don't actually want too many of the latter because they keep questioning your leadership choices. They were the first to go when they need to cull people during corona shutdowns.
I know it's in jest, but considering that the Republicans are the conservative party in the US, and the party has got off the deep end, well...