A few thoughts about January 6, 2021
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's Great Replacement Theory, which was coined by neo-Nazis. You really need to vet this stuff.
The black population of the United States is primarily composed of people whose ancestors were kept as slaves and most of the land was seized or cheated away from the natives. You can't really spin that in a positive way.
Even children should be taught about the slaves, and I was. We also learned that Washington stated something to the effect that he trembles in fear when he remembers that G-d is just (that slavery is an evil he would want to abolish but can't at that time). That the ideals that formed this country did end slavery and later created affirmative action that has been in place for nearly my entire life. And the natives narrative is a lot more complex than you state. To this day, they enjoy special rights I do not have.
I hope you would not support the kind of extreme teaching of things such as telling children all white people are racist. That this country is systemically racist, etc.
Yikes. Waaay off topic for Jan. 6. I'll have to look to see if there is a thread about CRT and such (I write and such as I understand the proponents of CRT are running from the term. It isn't about the term but teaching hatred of white people and country that seems to be in vogue with the Left at this time). Better place for this conversation.
Not to mention this is part of the fucking problem. CRT takes hours and hours of study to begin comprehending and dipshits want it summed up in a sentence or 2. It's the same reason I've stopped trying to explain socialism to dipshits who hate it without ever reading a single word written by a socialist thinker. Like why do you expect people to succinctly sum up an idea that takes several fucking books to explain and expand upon? Everyone who is against CRT has done basically no research on it and is a fuckwit.
These people don't think for themselves. They never have and it's quite possible that they can't. They just blindly accept whatever's being served to them by their media of choice. I can't even imagine the stupidity that it takes to dumb down and to attack a theory that you know nothing about and that you only heard of when your precious conservative media told you that it's the latest enemy.
It doesn't matter. They don't want an explaination, they don't want to know what it actually is, they just want to use it to paint any criticism of America's racist history as 'you hate white people, you think all white people are racist, and now you want to teach this to our children'. Contrary to what they might say, conservatives LOVE critical race theory since it makes it so easy to sucker already racist individuals into thinking THEY are the victims (even more so then they probably already do). Witness the example in this very thread.
Is that less short sighted that trying to abolish the polish? Is that less short-sighted then petulantly complaining that Democrats should destroy all the legislative norms so that they can take absolute power with a simple majority? Are you using a crappy example that Democrats deliberately made a political football to make a bad-faith argument about people that you're determined to hate regardless of what they do or say?
No, it's that most people, conservatives and progressives and liberals, see society as a cooperative effort for the betterment of the human experience, so things improving over time is taught as successes of society. Wacko leftists view society as a perpetual class struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors, who want to teach positive changes as times society lost and the oppressed won some small victory. Both groups may be inclined to teach the same facts about slavery and the American Civil War, state the same moral stance that slavery was bad and ending it was good, but one group sees that as a win for society, and the other sees it as a win over society, because they see American society as white supremacist (or whatever form of oppression is most useful for their argument) in nature.
See, here's why we should look to consensus, rather than individual figures (particularly ones who happen to be selling a book, or ones who refer to themselves as 'bad boys of environmentalism' as Michael Shellenberger has).
On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare — Environmental Progress
Climate change is real, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s not even our most important environmental problem.environmentalprogress.org
Article by Michael Shellenberger mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change
"Shellenberger’s article promoting his new book “Apocalypse Never” includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying...
climatefeedback.org
Careful, if you keep saying that reality is subjective, they'll go back to postmodernist cultural marxism
He couldn't even abolish it for himself. Must not have been that scared.
Without even clicking the link, it says "it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world..." Which my point was that not taking the most extreme position on climate change is not the same as being an anti-science climate denier.See, here's why we should look to consensus, rather than individual figures (particularly ones who happen to be selling a book, or ones who refer to themselves as 'bad boys of environmentalism' as Michael Shellenberger has).
Article by Michael Shellenberger mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change
"Shellenberger’s article promoting his new book “Apocalypse Never” includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying...
No, but writing misleading guff and falsehoods is pretty anti-science, so it's probably not a good article to illustrate that point.
And it's always worthwhile to debunk that kind of thing, regardless of why it was posted.
If you really want to dedicate your time to debunking misleading and false claims, the page you linked to debunk is itself full of readily debunked claims. Not even scientific claims, though some of that is suspect, but just on the face claims they make about what he wrote. Like, you get to the first person commenting who decides to "debunk" the claim that " climate plays no role in natural disasters", when the actually argument is "natural disasters aren’t getting worse", debunks the claim that nuclear is "the one true solution to climate change" about an article where he describes himself as an advocate for renewables.
The next commenter also takes on "climate change is not making natural disasters worse", focusing specifically on wildfires getting worse (because they can't really debunk the claim about other natural disasters to begin with), but then immediately goes into the technicality on why burnt areas have actually decreased, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that his claims could mislead people.
The third commenter makes no arguments at all, and states as fact that the article is wrong and unsupported, making it utterly useless for "debunking".
The 4th commenter finally makes an actual argument that sticks. But like, look at all that crap you posted! Always worthwhile to debunk that kind of thing, right?
And again, really pointless to the argument, because nobody there is interested in disputing the central argument, which is that AOC style "the world will end in 12 years" statements are insane hysteria meant to provoke entirely unrelated social and political changes.
Some people believe all kinds of bullshit.
Teaching that the United States is built on racism shouldn't be so threatening to you.
The PR campaigns can be quite uplifting, but the reality is not really. Even the shining moment of the US, defeating Nazism, was mostly accomplished by the Soviets.
There is absolutely no reason it shouldn't. And notice how you switched from each day to at all.
Why exactly are we taking the opinion of a journalist / PR drone so seriously in the first place?
Did they also teach how ol' George would exploit loopholes so he wouldn't have to free his own slaves? Or that just sitting on the subject of slavery would eventually force America in a bloody civil war.
No, that's not true. Shellenberger explicitly claims "Climate change is not making natural disasters worse". Yes, that's practically equivalent to claiming it is playing no role.
No, he says in his thirties he advocated for renewables. It's presented quite clearly as a position he used to hold. Literally the only other mention of renewables in the article is decrying how much land they (supposedly) take up, whilst also advocating nuclear.
You presented an article by a self-absorbed PR professional trying to sell a book, which has been broadly rejected by actual researchers and scientists in the field. The way to counter exaggeration or inaccurate hyperbole about the climate crisis is not to just downplay and dismiss the severity of what's happening, and especially not using shoddy science.
A very good question.
Except that it isn't, and now you're denying reality because you want to make an argument against me politically. See?