Hodad

No, you are a shameless liar. Literally anyone can see that they were not banned, yet you persist. And, you've told us all about your reliable sources, like Pinterest posts, and Red State- the latter of which is actively lying to you. Click your own link. Then click through to the actual article that Red State is blogging about. Not banned. Not proposed to be banned by that curriculum change. You are absolutely full of "it."

Yes, really, you hapless troll. It's about numbers, not opinion. -- Hang on, maybe I can find a Pinterest post to meet your high standards.

And it sure seems like some of the folks in this thread would be front row at the auction. After all, if other people commit evil acts it excuses what you do!

You are not playing with a full deck to begin with, but when you ingest nothing but garbage media you compound the problem.=. You cited a disreputable source and, of course, they lied to you and you don't have the capacity to critically evaluate information. A. This is an article from 2012, nearly a decade old. B. Your garbage source is basically re-blogging an article from an actual newspaper--and adding lies to rile up the gullible and easily manipulated. They completely made up the notion that these books are "banned" -- and you swallowed it down without question. Ugh. C. If you were to actually click the link in your citation and view the original source - they link to it there - you'd get to The Telegraph. Or, you could read the excerpts on the page of your linked article. D. As any literate person can see, those books WERE NOT BANNED. Nor was banning proposed in that curricular shift. They were listed in the article as examples of what might be lost in the curriculum in a shift to 70% nonfiction. Those books are still available in libraries and are still being taught in classrooms across the country--even in backwaters like Florida. E. Should go without saying that books that are not included in a curriculum are not "banned." F. The push for nonfiction books comes from in pursuit of STEM education and workplace readiness. Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea, as I would prefer well-rounded humans as a priority, but there's no need to lie about it.

You just cannot restrain yourself from saying obviously stupid, obviously wrong things, can you, Trump Jr.? California on track to become the fourth largest economy in the world Golden State poised to pass Germany and sit behind only US, China and Japan

He says, after rationalizing evil two posts in a row. Jeebus. How morally bankrupt must someone be to "whatabout" farking slavery? What, those aren't in your library of stupid memes? I assure you, they are as terrifying as Biden kissing his grandaughter or some state-level candidate dancing on a beach. That is to say, not at all. This is the level of substance you are bringing to the conversation. Ugh. Do better.

I had never heard of Joy Reid before this thread, but she's not wrong. Children can learn a version of history in which we're always the good guys, or they can learn the truth about how and why we have what we have. Being thankful for what we have today is not incompatible with understanding that our "good fortune" came at an enormous cost other people. Rather, remembering that cost should be a powerful reminder of how we should navigate the world today.

I'm sorry that you're not familiar with the name for annoying debate tactic that you so often deploy--and apparently don't want to look up. A Gish gallop is when, instead of focusing on debate topics, a person just starts throwing piles of unrelated crap into the conversation. A type of deflection. Like how you reply to a discussion about slavery and somehow end up re-posting a pile of stupid memes (that weren't clever the first time) related to general political grievances and yet completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Now, you can get back to telling us how building a nation on the bleeding backs of black slaves is totally cool, because other nations have done the same in the past, or something. And when you get tired of rationalizing and excusing the evils of our past you can get your gallop on with some photos of Obama's tan suit or AOC dancing or something else substantive and scintillating. That will be fun for everyone.

Have you considered an evaluation for ADHD? The Gish gallops are out of control. I mean after you finished making excuses for and minimizing the evil of American slavery and misstating demographic trends you go all the way off the rails with your regular schtick.

Yes, trending toward a makeup that reflects the general population. Not with quotas, but with an active interest. It's difficult to define "the best person for the job." It's not like a 40 yard dash where you know is fastest. Interviews have always been a soft, nebulous process, and because of it they are particularly prone to bias. People get a "better vibe" from people with whom they have more in common. Same interests, same school, some common point in their backgrounds. In that way it's a lot like making small talk at a cocktail party with relative strangers. This is called affinity bias. It's sort of an inescapable part of human nature--and there are a dozen or so other biases like that to be aware of. And if people aren't aware of their biases and actively course correcting, then they won't be hiring the "best candidate" but rather the most comfortable conversation. "This person is like me, so they will be a good fit." Of course, the problem is that a bunch of people "like me" won't be the best team. There's ample research that shows that diverse--and deliberately diverse--teams and organizations outperform those without a diversity agenda. Part of the reason is obvious, in that a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds results in a diversity of ideas. And that bears real fruit rather quickly. Imagine designing something as simple as scissors. What's the perfect design? It's just math/science/research, right? But add a left-handed person on the team and you probably get a better answer that will perform better in the marketplace simply because they bring a different experience. The other is, perhaps, subtler. When leadership is more homogenous those biases creep in again. White men, for example, are more likely to have more in common with other white men, and that trickles down to them being more likely to promote white men. And the bias plays the other way as well, if employees (even, and perhaps especially, superstar employees) who are outside of the leadership demographic won't relate as well to the leadership team. If they don't see themselves represented then they see themselves as excluded. And it ends up creating a sort of brain drain, particularly among high performers nearing a social ceiling. They are looking for greener pastures in more diverse organizations where they feel like they have a fair shot. Organic means based on not a purely individual evaluation, but the evaluation of how a given candidate can benefit the whole team. To turn to a sports metaphor, the best athlete is not always the best fit for a team. You don't want 5 point guards on the court, regardless of how talented they are individually. You want to look at the strengths and weaknesses of your current team and identify a candidate that will best compliment and enhance the talent you already have. Diversity can be a factor in building the strongest team. The thinking goes, "If you can't see it, you can't hire it." There's nothing wrong with asking recruiters to provide a diverse candidate pool. They are as susceptible to bias as any other human, and bias costs $. By asking for a diverse pool you not only put positive pressure on the recruiter to look beyond first impressions, but also give yourself a chance to consider a broader range of talend and to hire "the best" candidate based on a more holistic perspective.

There's nothing racist about it. People used to coasting on privilege are going to have to get skilled and compete or be left behind. Instead of spending time at Trump rallies and waiting for him to restore their "divine right to rule" they should be out getting a cybersecurity credential or figuring out some other way to make themselves useful.

Boy, those those are serious accusations. If a person were to be found guilty of misusing charitable funds, what should happen to them? Should they go to jail? Should they be disqualified from holding public office? Or are you cool with it?

Do you have anything even close to a lucid point to make? It's not remotely strange to ask other foreign leaders to take action to benefit American interests--like resolving trade disruption. That's normal international relations. Whereas, it's wildly corrupt to threaten to withhold aid to other countries unless they publicly attack your election opponent.

Yeah, that's basically true. I mean quotas aren't a thing anymore, but there is definitely an effort for better representation, diversity and inclusion of marginalized groups. Both for a sense of fairness and for, on the business side, enhanced performance. And to pursue that objective there is a conscious effort to shift some of the "benefit of the doubt" from the group that used to have exclusive access to groups that have not. Of course, that's just a bridge. If our society, institutions and offices are representative, the built-in advantages disappear. ETA: more on quotas. It's much more organic than that now. Nobody says, "We're short on X, go hire one." Instead, for example, when I'm hiring I'm asking HR/recruiting for a diverse slate of candidatesv and then hire the best candidate. If you only interview five white guys from ivy league schools, that's who gets hired. If you see a diversity of talent you naturally end up with a more diverse team.

Wait, I thought that facts don't care about your feelings? It's a fact, contrary to your assertion, that Democrats are better educated. Now, because you're a dishonest troll, you want to move the goalpost to say that Republicans are more educated in subjects that you, personally, find valuable. The reality of the marketplace though laughs at you. Unless you've been asleep (or deluded) for the last 40 years, rust-belt industries and other unskilled or semi-skilled jobs have given way to new economy jobs in tech, science, research, medicine etc. Knowledge workers, educated people skewing heavily Democrat. America builds less and creates more. And in this transition, there's a big population of uneducated workers who have been left behind. Unlike substitute teaching in Florida, a warm body and a GED won't cut it in the new economy. You can't get by anymore without an education--or at a minimum some specialized training. That's the gateway to the middle class now. Everyone knows that. Even the a Republicans. Ironically, I worked with the Trump administration on their skills and training campaign trying to make that very point. (I held my nose and did the right thing because it was right.) As educated people increasingly choose Democratic policies, Republicans will increasingly have to tailor their platform to the "left behind" crowd. They need to make up the numbers somehow. And *those* Republicans, the uneducated, angry, fearful white men are no longer essential to the economy. They don't have skills that are in demand. They will be replaced by automation or by less entitled, more competitive minorities and women.

As usual, you've confidentially stated as fact the exact opposite of reality. Lol Democrats, as a group, are substantially better educated than Republicans. A college degree is now becoming a significant predictor is party affiliation. And the gap is even greater among people with graduate degrees. Republicans are increasingly becoming the party of white people without a college education--particularly men. Those are facts. As for what's driving those trends, I believe it's the erosion of white- and male privilege. For most of the history of this country being white and male was a leg up within any given social strata. Whether factories and farming or banking and business, white men were more likely to be hired, more likely to be promoted and to earn higher wages then minorities and women. All else being equal, white men could get ahead without trying as hard. Now though, as the playing field begins to level a bit, that privelege isn't what it used to be. They have to actually compete with women and minorities. And those without education are the least prepared to compete. They see it as a loss, this erosion of privelege -- and it truthfully is. Losing white, male privelege makes life harder for that demographic. It doesn't matter whether the privelege is right or wrong, they still feel the loss, and they'll fight it. So of course they'll turn away from the party that is more aligned to equality and embrace the party that works to keep women and minorities "in their place."

I do believe you've thoroughly undermined your premise.

Yeah, we're pretty sure the world revolves around us. Unless there's a war or other major event international news is a footnote.

You have identified potential types of voter fraud. And they're is no evidence that any of them have been used to rig an election. To the contrary, every major study has found that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and had no effect on election outcomes. As president, Trump even chartered a commission on the subject that also turned up nothing. Much the same way his baseless claims about 2020 were laughed out of court some 60-ish times. Our elections aren't rigged through any illegal method, and there's not any evidence to support the claim that they are. Doesn't seem to stop certain loudmouthed sore losers from whining about it though.

Posts an opinion piece and then a meme about facts. Can't make this stuff up. Lol

Oh, great. Another crazy-street-corner-prophet rant with no connection to reality. Are the straw men your only friends? Is that why you cant leave them at home and have an honest discussion? We are not comparing one vaccine to another more effective vaccine, and if we were no one would choose the less effective vaccine. We are choosing between a vaccine that, for a given individual, significantly reduces the likelihood of contracting COVID, reduces the likelihood of spreading COVID, and dramatically reduces the likelihood of dying from COVID should you contract it. And we are contrasting that against being unvaccinated--which apparently increases the likelihood of dying from COVID while nursing a misplaced sense of smug superiority. And speaking of two countries comparing outcomes, the US data is as crystal clear as the Canadian data that the vaccinated are significantly less likely to contact COVID and dramatically less likely to die if you do. There is no way that a rational person can look at the outcomes-per-incident data and come to the conclusion that the vaccines are not effective. There is no evidence to support that claim. Zero. Instead, you have to make up wild-ass nonsense scenarios to deflect from actual data, turning yourself into a pretzel to even h speculatively sustain such a counterevidential narrative. It's stupid. It's delusional. It's infectious, lethal ignorance that is literally killing people. Dawkins and the survival advantage in the memeplex playing out right before our eyes.

Lol. You offered an opinion piece. I suppose that's an upgrade from your proof-by-Pinterest, but it's still pretty alarming that you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

No, being stupid is indeed an accident of birth for which you can't be blamed. But ignorance is a choice and you've elected to wallow in it. Instead of shouting to the rafters that white privilege doesn't exist, you could spend some time learning what it is and why it persists. Listen to the experiences of people of different backgrounds. You might learn something.

I don't think the author understands the concept of white privilege much better than you do- which is too say, not much. But he is, at least, fairly honest about his indifference to racial inequity, concluding that even if white privilege does exist (it does) then we shouldn't think too much about it, because it's no different than the social advantage of being attractive or tall. Holy crap. He said the quiet parts out loud!

Coward. You will throw insults, but can't be honest enough to say how you would calculate the efficacy of seatbelts, because you KNOW your argument is broken. You just stick with your counting toe tags--but I don't know what'll happen when you run out of fingers and toes.