Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,382
484
88
I you believe that anybody is actually, literally saying that 2+2=5 in any and all literal mathematical circumstances, then you are the least credulous person on Al Gore's internet

One year is not "quite a while". Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent study that stuck around for a over decade, causing a massive surge in vaccine denial that's killed quite a huge number of people. Does that mean we should dismantle vaccine study as a medical discipline?

Debate is good, generally speaking. Gotta examine your existing biases and beliefs to see if they still hold up.

If the starting line is not equal, you cannot have a meritocracy. The less equal the starting line is, the less meritocratic it is.

You and I disagree on several of those "objective truths". Far as I can tell, we are both rational. Objective truth does not exist.

Any basic reading of history would tell me that there were several centuries where Western Europe was running roughshod over other cultures, destroying their cultures and advances so that Western Europeans could snort dead people.
"The best theory we have" is not objective truth and to say otherwise is pure hubris

False Dichotomy.
Um some people were saying 2+2=5 and it's just because people aren't enlightened enough to truly see it. That's how this nonsense started.
It's part of a wider and dumber effort to push back against the idea of objective truth which is deemed a western modernity standard and instead to embrace a holistic approach of personal truth thus if a person says 2+2=5 then it must be accepted as true and you cannot deny their claim because it's their personal truth you can only assert your personal truth is 2+2=4.

The Grievance studies thing stuck round long enough and blew up big enough and only died when it was revealed as a fake and honestly shouldn't have died as such but evolved into introspection from there for said field but it didn't and instead evolved into attempts to punish them responsible one way or another. Andrew Wakefield never confessed his study was fake hence it stuck round longer.

As for objective truth. Well you're right there is no objective truth I may not exist you may be hallucinating my replies while in a coma because you nearly died in an alien invasion attack on Mars and it's really the year 2525. We can only observe things from our own perception. The problem is without some level of accepting things as an objective truth or as far as we are able to determine it is truth based on perception by many and pushback by few society falls into chaos and madness. E.G. You can't object to any quack peddling fake cures because their truth is drinking Turpentine is totally a cure (I shouldn't have to say this but don't drink Turpentine) or eating basically cyanide capsules can cure cancer (I don't think I really need to say don't do this one). Thing is you might laugh at my examples but these happened, these were real claims made by people.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,260
1,892
118
Country
United Kingdom
((Just in case anyone was wondering, I've given up on that long-running argument I was having with you-know-who, because it was boring)).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avnger and BrawlMan

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,296
1,499
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I guarantee you his knowledge of MLK begins and ends with a couple of excerpts from the I Have a Dream speech. The rest of us know that King was a radical who fucked up conservatives' shit so bad they had to assassinate him.
I could never understand how something like the 1776 report could ever get printed. Incredibly selective reading of a very limited amount of people in America twisted away from American ideals to generate their own story. But, like with this MLK example, they just straight up steal people identities, twist them to mean the opposite of what they were saying and dump it out expecting people not to notice. Or who US evangelicals live the opposite of what Jesus' asked them.

Like, I could say that most historians do this somewhat, to some level. And definitely including CRT. You can see it in Ken Burns doco. So, you can somewhat blame the industry. But also, it's such a leap worse than it doesn't seem related. See also: the MSM and 'Fake News.'
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,296
1,499
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Maybe you're not asking for CRT classes, but let's use the above example. You're debating as to who's included in history. That sounds like a history debate, not a debate as to include CRT or not.

I have no way of knowing how much US education goes into those things, and I imagine it varies by school, but the question of what and who to include in history is a question of, well, history. Not social science.
As far as I understand, the teachers who were fired were just talking about what sometimes called 'black history.' They were doing it because they were followers of CRT and thought it would be appropriate to teach something not so.. propagandistic.

As far as I understand, what CRT is doing with history is to show what whites were doing it back then to use as evidence for their agenda. AND pointing out that this history is NOT being taught in schools. Im not so interested in the first, but more interested in the latter. But this is feeding into a greater historian fight going on at the moment that is far too drowned in politics. See John Birch Society and Heritage Foundation. I'm actually fine with removing political activists from history.... I'm just not pretending that CRT is the only one doing it. OR rather, either everyone is in, or everyone is out.

Third, doesn't change the weird sequence of events that led from FNAF to here, but sure, I mean, I got on the roller coaster, somehow I've stayed on, so that's partly on me.
I've been deliberately pointing out different groups/ideas that were being cancelled/censored since the start of the thread. I was regularly providing NEWS (i,e. times they did it during the creation of this thread) updates of GOP etc doing cancelling/censorship and pointing out how these instances weren't being labelled as censorship/cancelling. Because some people in the thread were pretending it was a solely Left problem. Thus, you can blame me for some of this roller coaster.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Who on earth told you that racism is the same thing as in group bias.
Not 1:1, but absolutely related, and it develops early on. Babies will generally develop a preference for people who look like them at 6 months of age.

Because You have fallen for some propaganda here. Racial biases are absolutely not in-group biases. In fact, they can explicitly run counter to in-group biases.
How can racial biases not in-group biases? I can imagine them running counter to other in-group biases (e.g. in the US, you might be racist against people who look like you, but also have a bias for people of the same nationality, so your racial bias is coming up against your national bias), but to say that racial biases aren't based on an in-group is absurd.

This idea that racism, and by extension all forms of prejudice, are just based on natural preferences towards those who are similar to us is intentionally blind to the actual reality of racism. Racism is not just a series of in groups of equal power not liking each other because of inherent in group bias. Racism is the remnants of a historical, hierarchical system of thought based on white supremacy and enforced across multiple societies around the world through education, laws and violence. The legacy of racism includes colonialism and a long history of material inequality which persists to this day.

It is not even remotely comparable to people simply disliking people who are different, even if that were a general historical truth (which, incidentally, it is not).

If you're not able to face the reality of racism actually is, then you don't really belong in this discussion.
Y'know, I've seen this argument before. It really doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny. But to deal with it:

-Of course not all forms of prejudice are racism. Sexism, homophobia, etc. "Prejudice" can cover any number of, well, prejudices.

-You mention "racism is not just a series of in groups of equal power not liking each other because of inherent in group bias." Basically, R=P+P. I'm not entirely adverse to that argument, but absolutely two groups of equal power can be racist to each other, in principle.

-To claim that "racism is a symptom of white supremacy" would mean that apparently white supremacy went back in time and got everyone to be racist. Even if we restrict racism to simply a power game, then that still doesn't hold up. You'd have to explain the racism of the ancient world, with Greeks regarding others as barbarians. You'd have to explain why the same attitude in China goes at least as far back as the 1st century BCE. You'd have to explain why, staying in China for a bit, why interracial marriages were banned in the 9th century by Lu Chun. You'd have to explain why the Mongols enforced a caste system, which started to fall apart when intermarriage made it impossible to enforce (incidentally, I have two Chinese colleagues at work who can recognise each other for having Han ethnicity and Han-Mongol ethnicity simply by looking at each other - differences I wouldn't be able to pick up by myself)

If you think I'm singling out China, then let's go west again, with the Arabs. The Arabs absolutely were racist against Africans and the Nordics, even if the latter wasn't too much of a power relation, though there was a strain of thought in what's now modern day Turkey that different ethnic groups had different inherent traits that led to them being suited for specific tasks (e.g. Africans were believed to be inherently strong, Slavs were believed to make better sex slaves, etc.) It's actually been argued (though I'm not convinced) that racism in the Arab world is the source of racism in Europe, at least as far as anti-African racism goes. Or to go south, the treatment of pygmies in Africa, by other Africans (usually Bantu) would, even under the proviso that racism requires power, be recognised as racism, because one group has power over the other, one group is discriminated against, and it's discrimination that has roots as far back as the 1st millennium BCE.

I can go even further back and cast anti-semitism in there (which goes at least as far back as the 3rd millennium BCE), and some have even argued that the Indian caste system is a form of racism, arguing that it evolved through waves of invaders so that over time, different groups ended up on top of others. I can't speak for that too much, but the idea that racism suddenly popped into existence half a millennium ago is absurd, ahistorical, and arguably even dangerous. If you want to argue that all racism is due to white supremacy, then it lets the majority of societies off the hook for racism. "Oh, it's not OUR fault we're racist, WE'RE not racist, there was no racism here until Europeans showed up" It's part of the bollocks that China has utilized to disuade criticism of anti-African racism, conveniently forgetting its own role in the slave trade on Africa's east coast from the 9th to 11th century, and the idea of them (the Chinese) being inherently superior (it's been theorized that this was an out-growth of Confucinism, which stressed hierarchy, so of course your slaves are going to be on the bottom of that hierarchy).

Also, one last point, because this is arguably personal. I have a friend who's Chinese-Indonesian. He and his family had to flee Indonesia because of anti-Chinese sentiment (the type of sentiment that involved burnt buildings and killings). When he arrived in Australia, he experienced similar racism from what we'd call white people (specifically Yugoslavians - why them in particular, he didn't know, and yes, he's about ten years older than me). If you're correct about racism, then I'd apparently be in my rights to tell him that the racism he experienced in Indonesia wasn't racism (or if it was, it was all down to white supremacy), but the racism he experienced in Australia WAS racism, despite the fact that the former had deadly consequences and the latter didn't.

-Let's say, for argument's sake, that all racism is down to white supremacy. I really don't know how you can have any understanding of history and culture and make that claim, but then let's say that. Even if you're making that argument, you'd have to explain why racism in Europe was endemic well before the start of what we call the colonial era. Speaking of which:

-"The legacy of racism includes colonialism and a long history of material inequality which persists to this day."

Again, this doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

First, colonialism is as old as civilization, but I'll throw you a bone and confine it purely to European colonialism. Again, that doesn't explain the proliferation of racism well before the colonial period. Second, absolutely colonialism explains some of the wealth inequalities in the world, but you're acting like there was no inequality before then. This isn't a defence of European colonialism, or European racism, but to claim that this is the source of racism? Really? I don't know how you could possibly look at world history and culture and arrive at that conclusion.

Do you personally believe that people actually believe that 2+2 = 5 and want to teach it in schools?
I do know that there's multiple pushes to focus less on maths and more on mathamatical history, and "alternative ways of knowing," and everything else that seems to be anything but actually doing math.

I mean, I actually think it's a good idea to teach mathamatical history and at least be aware of other math systems to some extent, but not to the exclusion of actual math work. STEM proficiency has been dropping here for quite awhile, and I don't think you'll solve that by "alternative ways of knowing."

Noone is actually saying that 2+2 = 5. I'm curious where you got that from, and/or why you invented it.
Because I've literally seen people claim that 2+2=5.

No. I'm referring to the internalization of racial biases based on prevailing societal attitudes and norms.
And you don't think those internal biases explain why people tend to group together?

Around where I work, I can literally go from one suburb to the next and find a completely different group. In Station A (these are real examples, if not real names), I'll find a high concentration of South Korean migrants. In literally the next train station, I find a high concentration of Arabic migrants, along with a few Iranians and Chinese. I can then go a few stops on and find a high concentration of Indian migrants. Not to say that there's no 'cross-pollination,' but you can easily tell where groups of people are gathered, and the library collections are adjusted accordingly.

There's nothing wrong with this, because people tend to group together based on factors like ethnicity, language, and/or culture. Even in where I live, there's a high concentration of French migrants.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
...which raises the question of why it's causing a moral panic, and why it's being lumped in with "critical race theory".
Well for starters, CRT is being taught. A number of teachers have outright stated that. There's even a push from Biden to have CRT introduced from K-12.

As for the moral panic, absolutely there'd be some who are overreacting, but considering what CRT has resulted in, both for students and teachers, maybe this isnt' the best thing to be taught? Y'know, a subject that was, apparently, meant for law school?

Is it actually the same though?

Are the reasons the same?

Do you understand the argument, or are you just having a knee jerk reaction to someone saying something that feels wrong to you?
Here's such an example:


No, the reasons aren't the same, but it's absolutely a form of racial determinism - that certain groups are inherently suited to different styles of learning than others.

The reasons may not be the same, but the mentality is almost identical. Call it wokeism, call it neo-racism, it's a racialization of education that would be called racist from most sources. You yourself have used Stefan Molyneux as an example of this (who's argued that different groups are inherently suited to different tasks), but change the messenger, and suddenly, the message becomes acceptable. In fact:


I knew it, the Mongol Empire was the real cancel culture.
...what does the Mongol Empire have to do with any of what I just said in that post?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I you believe that anybody is actually, literally saying that 2+2=5 in any and all literal mathematical circumstances, then you are the least credulous person on Al Gore's internet
I just gave you the context of what it was said in. Literally not all mathematical circumstances, because the majority of people aren't as stupid as the people who started the controversy.

Again, what does that prove?

I'm aware that liberal and conservative brains have differences, but it's not like we're born conservative or liberal, it's that we're born with inbuilt biases that might steer us to one of those options. But that has nothing to do with the idea that different ethnic groups are inherently suited for different styles of learning.

I mean, do you literally think that that's the case, or are there other factors?

One year is not "quite a while".
One year to detect a hoax? Yeah, that's "quite awhile in my book."

Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent study that stuck around for a over decade, causing a massive surge in vaccine denial that's killed quite a huge number of people. Does that mean we should dismantle vaccine study as a medical discipline?
Where did I say we should dismantle any discipline?

Debate is good, generally speaking. Gotta examine your existing biases and beliefs to see if they still hold up.
You'll forgive me if I'm not enthused about the prospect of debating whether magic can direct lightning.

If the starting line is not equal, you cannot have a meritocracy. The less equal the starting line is, the less meritocratic it is.
You know, in the very post I'm responding to, you asked whether we should scrap medical discipline because of flaws. Now, you seem to want to disband meritocracy because of flaws.

Yes, not everyone is going to start at the same position in life, but that's no excuse to disband the idea of merit altogether.

You and I disagree on several of those "objective truths". Far as I can tell, we are both rational. Objective truth does not exist.
The Earth orbits round the sun.

The Earth has a moon.

The Earth is round.

Are these objective truths, or not?

Any basic reading of history would tell me that there were several centuries where Western Europe was running roughshod over other cultures, destroying their cultures and advances so that Western Europeans could snort dead people.
The same basic reading of history would demonstrate that this was a pretty universal practice, even if Europeans came up on top for a period of it.

Also, what conquest has to do with the scientific method I'm not sure. Are you saying that you can't develop a scientific method without resorting to conquest?

"The best theory we have" is not objective truth and to say otherwise is pure hubris
Then what's the counter-theory? Which counter-theory should you want told?

Fine, we can never be 100% sure of a lot of things, but are you saying that because we can't be 100% sure, that all theories have equal merit?

False Dichotomy.
How?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
As far as I understand, the teachers who were fired were just talking about what sometimes called 'black history.' They were doing it because they were followers of CRT and thought it would be appropriate to teach something not so.. propagandistic.
I'm sorry, who got fired?

Like, I'll be perfectly clear, no-one should be fired for the criteria you described. That is, to use a phrase, "cancelling."

As far as I understand, what CRT is doing with history is to show what whites were doing it back then to use as evidence for their agenda. AND pointing out that this history is NOT being taught in schools. Im not so interested in the first, but more interested in the latter. But this is feeding into a greater historian fight going on at the moment that is far too drowned in politics. See John Birch Society and Heritage Foundation. I'm actually fine with removing political activists from history.... I'm just not pretending that CRT is the only one doing it. OR rather, either everyone is in, or everyone is out.
There's likely always going to be political activists with history, and a debate about what history is taught, and how, and in what quantities. But if your brand of activism involves segregating students, teachers, and parents, and forwarding racialist ideas (you can see the videos up above), maybe not all political activism is equal?

Like, to use your own example, there's the 1770 Project, and 1770 Unites. Both were in opposition to the 1619 Project. Both have the same counter-argument, but is it fair to say that one is operating in good faith, and the other not?

I've been deliberately pointing out different groups/ideas that were being cancelled/censored since the start of the thread. I was regularly providing NEWS (i,e. times they did it during the creation of this thread) updates of GOP etc doing cancelling/censorship and pointing out how these instances weren't being labelled as censorship/cancelling. Because some people in the thread were pretending it was a solely Left problem. Thus, you can blame me for some of this roller coaster.
Y'know, I'd make a joke about the roller coaster being fun, but...well, it isn't. :(

Anyway, absolutely the right/GOP/conservatives/whatever engage in cancel culture. Let's at least be clear on that.

(Or not, as there's been arguments that cancel culture doesn't exist.)
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,296
1,499
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
There's likely always going to be political activists with history, and a debate about what history is taught, and how, and in what quantities. But if your brand of activism involves segregating students, teachers, and parents, and forwarding racialist ideas (you can see the videos up above), maybe not all political activism is equal?

Like, to use your own example, there's the 1770 Project, and 1770 Unites. Both were in opposition to the 1619 Project. Both have the same counter-argument, but is it fair to say that one is operating in good faith, and the other not?
CRT doesn't promote segregation. There is definitely a few people who say they are CRT who do want segregation.

Good faith? I would call them propaganda but one way more than another. Also, because one was attached, by executive order, to a new 'patriot learning program' that was meant to be introduced to schools countrywide... maybe I'm more worried about that then what CRT has to 'offer'.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
CRT doesn't promote segregation. There is definitely a few people who say they are CRT who do want segregation.
It kind of feels like this is playing at semantics. We see this with religion for instance. If you say "the religion doesn't say this," but people carry out acts in the name of religion, then how much of the onus lies on the messanger vs. the message?

But even if we're focusing on just what CRT has to say, CRT does explicitly oppose colour-blindness. And to be clear, I'm not going down the route that dwarf is - MLK did say and write a lot more than his "I Have a Dream" speech - but at least until fairly recently, I was under the understanding that everyone agreed that colour-blindness was the end goal, both on the individual level (where people wouldn't treat others differently) and on the society-wide level (i.e. we wouldn't have to worry about racial groups being disadvantaged, because there'd be no more disadvantage. CRT explicitly rejects this as both a means and a goal. So is it fair to say that there's a train of logic between that rejection, and segregation?

Good faith? I would call them propaganda but one way more than another. Also, because one was attached, by executive order, to a new 'patriot learning program' that was meant to be introduced to schools countrywide... maybe I'm more worried about that then what CRT has to 'offer'.
If 1776 Unites is propaganda, then so is the 1619 Project. People were criticizing the latter for outright eroneous claims that the project ended up retracting, long before there was any 'counter project.'

To be clear, I don't think either of them is propaganda. It's history, or rather, history wars. Trump's version was definitely propaganda, but but ground-up projects from people who push a version of history? Not really. People who got involved in the 1776 Unites project were people I was aware of long before the project was formed (off the top of my head, John McWhorter, Glenn Lourey, and Coleman Hughs), it's not as if they crawled out of the woodwork.

As for being worried about the patriot learning program, well, if it was actually implemented, maybe, but it hasn't. CRT has. And it's led to outcomes and ideas that we'd probably reject under most circumstances, such as racialization of education and segregation.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,630
1,997
118
Country
United States of America
It kind of feels like this is playing at semantics. We see this with religion for instance. If you say "the religion doesn't say this," but people carry out acts in the name of religion, then how much of the onus lies on the messanger vs. the message?
You can just say you still somehow don't know what CRT is, it's OK. Isaac Newton believed in Deism, so Deism is a part of calculus.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
984
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
You can just say you still somehow don't know what CRT is, it's OK.
I've laid out the principles of CRT multiple times.

Isaac Newton believed in Deism, so Deism is a part of calculus.
Did Deism lead him to Calculus?

Did Calculus increase his faith in Deism?

When someone does Calculus, is it done in the name of Deism?

At least get your analogies right.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,296
1,499
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I said initially there's no way to know without checking stories etc or unless they actually have official documents with them which those wanting to claim asylum when they don't actually have ground to tend to like to destroy.




From the council of foreign relation


Next to 0 of the UK ones were.
You know how I know?
The UK was heavily criticised at the time because the UK went sent people out to Syrian Refugee camps to offer people there residence in the UK. The thought behind it being those with money were better able to flee and pay people traffickers etc. Those at most risk and in most need would not be able to. The criticism was that the UK was "Picking and choosing" because it was refusing to take a portion of the groups of mixed migrants and refugees that had been crossing Europe and instead wen directly to Syrian Refugee camp on the edges of the conflict zones

Well they have to be processed and the issue I'd imagine Australia has is one many places have of if they're rejected from their asylum status they get deported but those who are faking it will use the time while they're case is looked into the prepare to disappear for a while meaning immigration services have to chase them down to deport them. Add in things like certain human rights laws and all the person has to do is find some-one to marry and start a family and then they can claim human rights violations if they're then attempted to be deported.

It's actually not made up but due to the sheer numbers the EU were more open to sharing them round to a little more to try and ease the burdens on some countries.


Because we're also paying the bills for some of the stuff going on


How has it not learned again? Because it won't operate an open door policy that would likely not be good for anyone?
Thanks for proving my point

Did you forget about how he dreamed of people being judged on their character not skin colour and that was his ultimate aim?
Did you forgot that he was pointing out that he current world was no where near like that
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,191
1,439
118
Country
USA
CRT does explicitly oppose colour-blindness.
Why is that bad? Color-blindness is just white privilege showing. It's admitting that you don't give a shit about other people's problems to the point where you don't even acknowledge there are problems.
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,308
591
118
Country
The Netherlands
I could never understand how something like the 1776 report could ever get printed
Oh that's simple. The alt right was in power at the time and knew that publishing their junk at such a high level would give it credibility. Even if professors and researches tore it to shred then their report even reaching those heights would already get it some legitimacy.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,715
610
118
Country
USA
How can racial biases not in-group biases?
Because if you treat race as a physical attribute, they will treat it as a social class. And if you treat race as a social class, you'll be called racist for judging a person's social class by their skin color. And if you point out that they are the one's doing that, they'll go "we're anti-racist, what are you talking about?" It's a rigged shell game.

TB is currently doing the "race is a social class" part of the formula.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,382
484
88
Thanks for proving my point

Did you forgot that he was pointing out that he current world was no where near like that
It's not the world he lived in, you could argue the world now isn't the world he lived in either and has changed much and while yes we should work towards dealing with inequality the way to solve it isn't hyper focus on race all the time and it's not bringing back segregation as some of the "woke" talking heads have suggested in the past (and please don't make me provide the evidence for this one a I can provide it but I'd rather not have to post the nonsense here)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,382
484
88
Why is that bad? Color-blindness is just white privilege showing. It's admitting that you don't give a shit about other people's problems to the point where you don't even acknowledge there are problems.
This reminds me of when I was training as a teacher in a small out the way town and at the main staff after school meeting they were discussing what things we needed to cover. One of the things brought up was the schools policy and plans to address issues of racism in the school. That quickly was shot down on the grounds that in a school of 2,000+ kids there was only 1 student who was black and in said students entire history at the school no-one had said anything and in the words of one of the staff members "I don't think the other kids even see her as black, she's just one of them". It got funnier because they decision was made just to keep an eye out in case things changed and I asked one of the other staff who she was so I knew just to keep a special eye out, only to find out she was in one of the classes I taught and I'd been teaching her for over a month at that point.

If you focus on race with say quota based hiring then it creates more issues and the perception of diversity hires and low expectations rascism. You can maybe acknowledge race in the inviting to interview by having quotas on people to be interviewed over say a year or so as then it comes down to the candidates you get as to who gets hired but as Hawki pointed out you're better off looking to change things based on economic circumstances not race as it would mean some white kid who went to the same school, got the same grades and everything else as a black kid from the same school applying to the same college in some parts of the USA would actually be discriminated against because of lower expectations and lower entry requirements for the black kid because of their race.
 

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
386
259
68
Country
United States
But, like with this MLK example, they just straight up steal people identities, twist them to mean the opposite of what they were saying and dump it out expecting people not to notice.
You think it's bad with MLK? You should see what they do to George Orwell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler