• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

4 Neutral

1 Follower


Jump Profile

  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
  • Freefall Photographer

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating
  • Wingsuit Instructor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I accept that's the most common (and definitely the historical) definition for CRT, although on the same Wiki page that has been referenced a few times in this thread there is also a mention; "More recently, CRT has been taught internationally, including in the United Kingdom and Australia". The CRT being taught or proposed in those countries is not the US version; it's reshaped for the circumstances and history of those respective countries. This is either evidence that the definition or scope of CRT is dynamic ...or grounds for an argument that these countries should not be calling it CRT, that perhaps they should formulate a more nationally distinctive name for their own studies. If the scope of CRT is dynamic and expandable, then what authority gets to define what CRT is, to avert it from becoming whatever influencers want it to be including the 'scaremonger' version ? Political parties might not control that definition but if the proposed content is seen as negative or divisive then it's voted out of the state or national curriculum. I have already compared CRT to the study of religious scripture; a theory better suited as a separate and optional curriculum subject. In any place where CRT is optional curriculum (student's choice) and still banned, I would agree that's unfair.
  2. Have an broad-brush opinion about South Africans, do you ? ...or ex-SA's ? I'm sure the founder and administrator of this site and forum would be thrilled to hear it.
  3. I do; as a caucasian in post-apartheid sub-Saharan Africa for 20 years. If one doesn't like the perceived systemic slights against oneself in one's country of residence, and if there is no realistic prospect to change that, then one may work hard to go someplace else. I did, by emigrating. It's not an entirely invalid argument. As an ex-South African even I would say that article is stretching. The riots were a blend of ethnic-specific protest (Zuma is Zulu - most riots were in KZN area) , increased economic stresses of Covid lockdowns and standard criminal elements under a guise of political protest. Not much that can be attributed to CRT on this one.
  4. And so it begins again... Nah, I feel trolling may include a pattern of asking questions with an advance awareness that the answer cannot reasonably be known to the question recipient, for the sake of "Aha, gotcha !", or someone incessantly repeating questions because they cannot be bothered to read and/or comprehend pre-existing statements. That's shitty.
  5. Has anyone perhaps been aware of this published a few days ago ? A REPORT ON THE FIGHTING CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY SURFACE FLEET Now, before someone jumps on the obvious; Yes, I'm aware that all four names under "Conducted at the Direction of..." are Republicans (yeah, I looked those guys up because I'm aware that politics loves to drive reports). If forum members choose to dismiss it out of hand on that alone though, then we might as well apply the same bias to dismiss any report the left conducts. In the event that some forum members decide to troll me on this; I'll state in advance that I cannot effectively debate this particular report as I have no significant knowledge of the modern US Navy or the veracity of statements in this report, and without better knowledge I expect it would be tricky for any forum member to shoot meaningful flak at this unless , heaven forbid, "it's perfectly OK for combat training to take a back seat...". If you happen to be a senior and current naval officer who can debunk this then, by all means; have at it ! It's a long report and it's not all anti-woke sentiments throughout; but for relevance to this thread topic you may ready your fully-woke battleship cannons because, for what it's worth, here are some excerpts; ----------------- A recently retired senior enlisted leader suggested that this dynamic was more a lack of proper prioritization. “I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training.” “Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we’ll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,” lamented one lieutenant currently on active duty. “It’s criminal. They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we’ll all bleed the same colour.” ...destroyer captain lamented that, “where someone puts their time shows what their priorities are. And we've got so many messages about X, Y, Z appreciation month, or sexual assault prevention, or you name it. We don't even have close to that same level of emphasis on actual warfighting.”
  6. If you're not following yet, there's little more I can say that will clarify this for you.
  7. My (public) school syllabus many years ago included Christian religion studies. Of course most of us knew it was horseshyte and I'm not aware of anyone who converted during that time, but knowledge of scripture was regarded as educational, if not actual faith. My preference would certainly be to not have CRT taught at all, but I'm willing to make some compromises so long as CRT studies can honestly be considered as actual academia and not activist nonsense. "This is what you should know", as opposed to "This is what you should do (or believe)". I had also inferred in my earlier post that I'm not yet willing to dismiss all of CRT in it's entirety, some aspects of it (such as redlining and zoning laws, some legal precedents) may have some merit. I would be a bit curious why CRT is considered a separate subject; If it's factual academia then it could probably be folded into civics or history ?
  8. Your post had thoughtful and rational comments. Thank you. If the parent in the video is not speaking accurately as to the true definition of CRT, then we can at least infer that he is speaking in response to how CRT was, is, or will be, (mis)applied at his daughter's school. A scope-creep to include things in CRT that were never intended and ultimately distort the original definition over time. Who polices that ? Which authorities will regulate the correct training of CRT ? As with most schooling; do it right or don't do it at all. Even if we consider the very mildest definition of CRT, it would be difficult to dismiss every comment made by either video speaker as being irrelevant to the topic. I don't doubt that it's a complex combination, but being 'colour-sensitive' is a very slippery slope as it opens the door of hypocrisy and subjective bias; Racial profiling is OK for 'this' but not for 'that'. The lefts will take it left and the rights will take it right. 'Colour-blind', if not perfect, appears to be the only objective neutral.
  9. Then by all means take the full two minutes into account; he speaks as much in the present tense as he does in the future, you're cherry-picking the specific parts that suit your narrative of what was said. I'm gobsmacked that you're being obtuse about a recorded event for sake of a cheap slur.
  10. Although, if you had actually watched the clip in the first link , you would know that person is speaking against what his child's school actually did, not what they said or 'scaremongered'.
  11. As with many topics; it appears that there are several aspects to CRT: from potentially valid concerns such as redlining and zoning laws (which I don't know enough about to have an opinion) , and yet also some absurdities that damage CRT or it's intended purpose. Two samples here and here are people of colour speaking out against CRT, and it would be curious if members of this forum were to argue that the opinions of these two people are 'wrong'. Neither of these videos include redlining and zoning laws, but that may be because redlining and zoning laws are not at the forefront of the school policies and fallacies that the speakers in these videos are speaking out against.
  12. The squeaky wheel gets the grease ? If the ethnicity aspect of crime statistics (Floyd's fate was a crime, I agree) should be used to determine a preferred remedial action then.... if law enforcement were to disproportionately stop, search, detain specific groups based on statistical data indicating a crime trend within such groups, or within an area having a demographic majority of such a group, then that's OK too ? ..or does it not cut both ways ?
  13. I don't think that's an accurate metaphor. Consider perhaps if my friend was with 8 other people in a bus, which suffers an impact by some random event killing those 8. My friend survives the initial event, severely injured, but another driver subsequently crashes into the accident scene, killing him as his health is already compromised. I'd feel a bit sour about that for sure, because it's a subjective interest, but is my friend's life necessarily more valuable than the other 8 lives in the bus ? Objectively it's not.
  14. There's an online link somewhere (I'll find it if needed) mentioning research by U.C. Berkeley and U Washinton that places the average temperature difference between the two hemispheres at around 3°F since climate change. If the Northern hemisphere is impacted 5 to 10 degrees (per billvon estimate?), and the difference between hemispheres is 3 degrees (placing the Southern hemisphere at 2 to 7 degrees increase if applying the Berkeley difference number), and the average of both together is 1-2 degrees higher, then I'm not seeing how that math works. It's not a trick question, I'm genuinely keen to know. There seems to be a fair bit of 'spitballing', even by experts, around climate estimates and this is very unfortunate considering the impacts of this topic and, in some cases, extraordinary grandstanding. billvon has stated that warm weather that kills people is a combination of heat wave, geographical features, and the climate change. So, when heat waves killed people several decades ago there was nothing to talk about, but when they kill people now then we have a soapbox to stand on. It's sounding as though we can now assign blame for every death and the entire event to a single cause. I would however like to thank (genuinely, not sarcastically) the replies to my questions. I have been swayed and enlightened on a few things, specifically a better understanding of relative economic cost, which were largely my original questions. I reserve some skepticism on other aspects of the topic which I don't think can be effectively debated here.
  15. It's an extraordinary claim to assert that a full 115 degrees lies squarely at the feet of global warming. Hypothetically, if the world was net-zero tomorrow, and/or a full degree lower on average, would the 115 degrees reduce to a more survivable 95 degrees ? , with no chance of seeing even 114 degrees ? Forgive me, but I doubt that. The very gradual loss of Manhattan Island; would you regard that as "destroying people's lives" or "reducing the earnings on their 401ks" ? Sure, I don't have the personal budget to relocate it, or any other place, but neither do I have a budget for the wide river of lithium batteries as one of several things that would need be recycled or responsibly disposed. A poster replied that, yes, they can be recycled, but apparently not for much profit, some cursory reading suggests we're barely recycling 20% of them globally at the moment, so who will fund the incentive to recycle more ? If one properly relocates an island, that's once in several thousand years, and some of that would be construction 'attrition'. Thunberg-predictions aside; how much time does Manhattan currently have ? I seem to be reading an estimated 50% loss by 2060. Based on that; I have to also believe that property prices in Manhattan are currently in freefall, and that the attrition of that area as old buildings are demolished and new buildings are constructed, are not being constructed on Manhattan Island anymore ? nobody would add new infrastructure to a doomed island ? Is that what is actually happening there now ? Again; hypothetically, if we were net-zero tomorrow, would that save Manhattan in time by instantly stopping ocean rise or, indeed, reversing it ? Is the effect that fast ? It might not be a stretch to say the island is doomed already, if assuming that it was ever at that level of danger. At what point does one cut and run ?