metalslug

Now there's this , and if you think the Australian Energy Regulator is a right-wing think-tank, think again. Make no mistake, I don't oppose renewables outright, I want them to work, but they need to deliver what they promise if we're pushing emissions agendas to the timelines being proposed. If not, some of us will be sitting in the dark as we offer congratulations on achieving net zero.

If you're equating maths & science with CRT, as to the degree of accuracy in how each can be defined (in Crenshaw's own wording), then we should agree to disagree on that. I would agree that history is taught differently today, although it remains my opinion that's less attributable to new discoveries of fact and more attributable to politics as the sheer volume of recorded history requires a selection regarding what should be included. The education syllabus is indeed decided, or at least approved, by the ruling members of government in most countries. If you think the teaching of utterly fabricated 'history' cannot be initiated by woke politics, then you might acquaint yourself with Dark Emu , a publication permitted in Australian schools yet roundly debunked by actual historians and criticized by at least one prominent Aboriginal human rights advocate as “misleading and offensive to Aboriginal people and culture”.

Acceptable as optional curriculum, I'd be OK with that. Heck, I think my school had a Dungeon's & Dragons social club, each to their own in how they spend their time there. ..and then there's this; (Kimberlé) "Crenshaw —who coined the term “CRT”— notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice." Is there no way that could be a potential problem ? ..as it appears to invite any activist to jump on the bandwagon and add their own politics, thereby substantially diverging it from formal academia. If anything utterly false, absurd or libellous emerges from CRT, then I expect some forum members here will again use the Jedi mind-trick defence; "This is not the CRT you're looking for. Move along..." , regardless of whether it was real to those who were taught that syllabus. Yeah, that book-burning thing is catching on ..

Don't they already believe it's round ? coin-shaped ?

Not accurate IMO; the Covid vaccinated are effectively a new class for compliance within proposed new laws. The unvaccinated have abstained from a transition to that new order, they didn't put themselves into anything.

That wording is curious. As the vaccine is not a physical barrier, the vaccinated can surely acquire the virus for a transient period before fighting it off ? Is there no evidence of transmissibility during that period ? I'm sure many of us have heard of incidents in which fully vaccinated people were denied travel & access to family members (allegedly in dire need) due to various lockdown rules. Would incidents such as those contradict the science ? ..if the future goal now is to allow the vaccinated to get on with normal life someday soon.

Please refer to the post directly above yours with regard understanding the term. By not receiving the vaccine, antivaxxers are deemed socially inferior by some people and, quite probably, by some laws coming into effect, which is something I'm not yet comfortable with. I'm keen to know how much more infectious (as a danger to others) the vaccinated are vs the unvaccinated. There are no implied parallels here to medical experiments on holocaust victims.

That's fair comment, although it may be argued that religion and antivaxxers have some parallels.

I take your points, but it has been argued by some that receiving a vaccination is a medical procedure that some regard as invasive. Personally I was fine with getting jabbed, and I won't presume to know how anti-vaxxer logic works in a context of medical phobias vs not wearing shoes. I totally get that the vaccines reduce the susceptibility of the recipient, but that's not what I was asking. How much are the unvaccinated more likely to transmit to others ? If you already included that somewhere above then forgive me, but I didn't see it.

All true, and to ride a motorcycle in most US states you need a licence, but not necessarily wear a helmet. Would there be a fuss if that changed tomorrow to mandate helmets for all ? Would we hear arguments about 'my body, my choice' ? This is largely why I'm keen to know the outcome of studies into the relative infectiousness of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated and the relative danger to others. In fairness to your comment; perhaps there are no actual documented rights to eat at a restaurant, go to a concert, or visit a gym. I lived in South Africa for many years before 1990 so I know all about "right of admission", but I wasn't entirely comfortable with it.

Do you have a citation for that ? I've been struggling to find published consensus on how much more infectious such people are. To be clear; I agree that vaccination is wise and necessary, I was amongst the first 14% in my country to be twice-vacc'ed. I also agree that the unvaccinated place an unnecessary burden on healthcare resources. All good points. With that being said; some parts of the toxic vitriol being directed to the unvaccinated includes denial of rights (venue admission, employment, public care & services, etc.). Critics who are advocating, in effect, a two-tiered society; those with rights and those without, depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch . That fundamentally gives me a sense of unease in democratic countries. Ultimately I believe the greater good of society does trump individual freedoms, as I expect most forum members here do, but it's a bitter choice to have to make.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9899709/Academic-sacked-calling-right-wing-commentator-house-n-o-sues-discrimination.html A fair bit to be dismayed about here; for me the gemstone is quoted from this other article; I never imagined anyone from the left would make that argument.

I'm feeling a bit conflicted over this. I agree with the decision to pull out troops, for the reasons that Biden, and some others, have said. However, this is probably not good news for Taiwan if the 'world police' are standing down from foreign engagements. I wouldn't be totally surprised if China takes them within a year.

Then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread. The world is a little larger than just 'merica. FWIW; I'm no longer an SA citizen, but my remaining contacts there report the situation is mostly under control again, but will take a fair while to repair and recover the damages.

Using that spin; food charities can feed three squares daily, over 30 days, to 100 people, and claim to have fed 9000 people. In an innocuous mistake and, yes, Trump has done worse, but this wasn't merely 'misread' twice; The leader of the free world doesn't seem to be aware of the population of his own country. For what it's worth; I'm not entirely anti-Dem; I have huge respect for both Clinton and Obama, but this man's health status is becoming more obvious.

According to Biden; 350 million Americans have now been vaccinated. (He said it twice so it must be correct). That's 106% of the population. Well done

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

If you're not following yet, there's little more I can say that will clarify this for you.

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 ?

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.

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.