6 6
winsor

Woke is a Joke

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, richravizza said:
I was referring specifically to Robin deAngelo's bullshit, one of your Books of woke and the White fragility argument  you use so often.

Isn’t the white fragility theory that white people often react angrily to the idea that society benefits them because they think it means they personally are accused of being horrible racists? 

I’d be curious to know how you think you are not providing strong support for that theory…

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, richravizza said:
I was referring specifically to Robin deAngelo's bullshit, one of your Books of woke and the White fragility argument  you use so often.

OK.  What is her position on this, and what do you disagree with about it?  No music videos please.

Quote

I suggest you help people with student loan forgiveness  or by demanding complete forgiveness by the  Universities that schemed students into a now useless degree, in an irreverent ideology. Revision that.

1) I don't think loans should be forgiven.  I prefer a government program that transitions them into a zero, or almost zero, interest loan.  That way the government still gets their money back and the debtors have an easier time paying them back.

2) Your definition of a useless degree is probably different than mine.  Andy Warhol got a degree in art.  So did Georgia O'Keeffe.  Dale Chihuly got a degree in interior design art.  Carl Sagan got a Bachelor of Liberal Arts from Chicago University. Madeleine Albright - political science degree.  Michael Eisener got a degree in English and then became CEO of Disney for 30 years.  I'd argue none of those people were "useless" or considered their degrees useless.

Quote

 Of course the percent of ASWM never made a nice list as I asked her,I'll guess less than one, well it wasn't a complete waste of  time, energy and money after all, equity that. 

ASWM?  The Association for the Study of Women and Mythology?  They'd make a very, very small list.

Or the misspelling of SWM, per your question about DEI?  In that case it would make quite a long list, since DEI covers veterans, the disabled, the poor and recent immigrants who don't have access to education.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billvon said:
16 hours ago, richravizza said:
I was referring specifically to Robin deAngelo's bullshit, one of your Books of woke and the White fragility argument  you use so often.

OK.  What is her position on this, and what do you disagree with about it?  No music videos please.

Quote

I suggest you help people with student loan forgiveness  or by demanding complete forgiveness by the  Universities that schemed students into a now useless degree, in an irreverent ideology. Revision that.

1) I don't think loans should be forgiven.  I prefer a government program that transitions them into a zero, or almost zero, interest loan.  That way the government still gets their money back and the debtors have an easier time paying them back.

2) Your definition of a useless degree is probably different than mine.  Andy Warhol got a degree in art.  So did Georgia O'Keeffe.  Dale Chihuly got a degree in interior design art.  Carl Sagan got a Bachelor of Liberal Arts from Chicago University. Madeleine Albright - political science degree.  Michael Eisener got a degree in English and then became CEO of Disney for 30 years.  I'd argue none of those people were "useless" or considered their degrees useless.

Quote

 Of course the percent of ASWM never made a nice list as I asked her,I'll guess less than one, well it wasn't a complete waste of  time, energy and money after all, equity that. 

ASWM?  The Association for the Study of Women and Mythology?  They'd make a very, very small list.

Or the misspelling of SWM, per your question about DEI?  In that case it would make quite a long list, since DEI covers veterans, the disabled, the poor and recent immigrants who don't have access to education.

Isn't it against forum rules to humiliate and embarrass other posters by using facts like torpedoes that sink their entire arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
14 hours ago, jakee said:

Isn’t the white fragility theory that white people often react angrily to the idea that society benefits them because they think it means they personally are accused of being horrible racists? 

I’d be curious to know how you think you are not providing strong support for that theory…

  The author is a fraud and she's a pargrist.John McWhorter describes her work as racist don't let his name fool you.He's a black liberal academic linguist.She's just one of the academics pos that have built careers not only on lies, but teach lies that cause division and resentment She's horseshit. 

Dogyks description of dubious dollars and donations to a David Duke as Thomas Sowell's words echo "not since...,teaching students what to think"

Anyhow, Robins schit would be tossed into the air,only to fall on a certain racial group the guilty. 

It was not really exposing white fragility as it was manipulating any unease.Honest, exposed to a group psychology,uneasiness on racial issues was manipulated and exposes as guilt, guilt and shame,Any critic, critique or apprehension  would be silenced with a get with the program or you're racist, Get it programed, collectively.lol So whenever you here people use guilt in the debate, particularly when you're not...think manipulation and just say in your head "what a tool".

Being a white woman is ironic, as she's about as demeaning as they come.She's no longer in business. IXK  Dr.Woods and a host of other frauds and fakes still hide in within the old dying old paradigms.Clawing to stay alive,where Bbad ideas deserve to die. 

"Questioning what purpose this self flagellation serves"

Wow this could have saved me alot of time and effort and pain. lol

 

John McWhorter, a linguist and professor at Columbia University, has been a prominent and vocal critic of Robin DiAngelo's book White Fragility. He argues that despite the author's good intentions, the book is ultimately racist, infantilizes Black people, and offers no path to genuine change. 
Key points of McWhorter's criticism
The book is racist toward Black people
  • McWhorter argues that the book treats Black people with a "dehumanizing condescension".
  • He says that by suggesting that Black people are so fragile that white people must constantly tiptoe around their feelings, DiAngelo denies Black people the resilience that full human beings possess.
  • He states that this narrative ultimately diminishes and infantilizes Black people by portraying them as perpetually weak or harmed by even minor racial imperfections in daily life. 
It offers an unfalsifiable premise
  • According to McWhorter, DiAngelo has created a "watertight edifice" where any defensive reaction from a white person, even a denial of racism, is framed as proof of their inherent bias.
  • He points out that the book provides a list of things white people are not allowed to say, effectively silencing any disagreement and forcing white people into a state of endless self-accusation. 
It misdiagnoses the path to racial equality
  • McWhorter believes that DiAngelo's focus on white people's internal, lifelong struggle with guilt is an unproductive diversion from the work of creating real, systemic change.
  • He argues that meaningful progress is achieved by changing institutional structures, such as laws governing housing and police conduct, not by mandating an "Orwellian indoctrination program" of emotional soul-searching for white people.
  • McWhorter is not convinced that focusing on white guilt has any practical connection to building a more equitable society. 
The focus on personal guilt is an idle exercise
  • McWhorter calls the practice encouraged by White Fragility an "idle" and self-indulgent exercise for well-meaning white people.
  • He suggests that the main result of this training is that a certain class of white people feels better about themselves for "doing the work," which he considers antithetical to genuine change. 
Cult-like theology
  • McWhorter compares the book to a religious "prayer book for what can only be described as a cult".
  • He describes the process DiAngelo outlines as a form of spiritual mortification, where white people are taught to see themselves as perpetually stained by racism, with no hope of absolution. He questions what purpose this self-flagellation serves. 
  • Peace
Edited by richravizza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Isn't it against forum rules to humiliate and embarrass other posters by using facts like torpedoes that sink their entire arguments?

To  Yamamoto's most famous words...

Not to be confused with his namesake no longer a

2 hours ago, richravizza said:

"watertight edifice"

A Heading of 161.9 ...Sir?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

OK.  What is her position on this, and what do you disagree with about it?  No music videos please.

 It ain't no mystery. I'm all I have left; I'm pushing back running you over, I've been thrown down,Run around. Beaten 'til I hit the ground,I'm telling you right now that it's over. There's no room for mistakes All the parts are in place. Say what you will. Say it to my face. I'll do what I want  I'll never give up. I won't be broken, tortured or beaten down.We have the answer, take the pressure turn it all around.
So Lift me up above this. The flames and the ashes Lift me up and help me to fly away. Above this the empty the broken Lift me up and help me fly away
I'm gonna change history Enlighten the world Teach 'em how to see through my eyes I'm gonna lash back, check that.. fatal as a heart attack Stomp out all the ugliest lies!
You can't convince me to change We ain't on the same page, I've had my fill There's nothing but rage Best get out of my way 'cause there's nothing to say
Is that all you got because I ain't got all day.
So much for No music tonight, bummerl. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, richravizza said:

  The author is a fraud and she's a pargrist. 

You wanna try that one again?

8 hours ago, richravizza said:

  So whenever you here people use guilt in the debate,

When has that been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 9/15/2025 at 2:22 PM, Phil1111 said:

Isn't it against forum rules to humiliate and embarrass other posters by using facts like torpedoes that sink their entire arguments?

Come on Phill this is just a Game,no humiliation is intended or needed, except for Emperors in new cloths. Why not laugh about it. Did you ever play the child's game Battleship.It's advertising slogrum was AWE...YOU SANK MY BATTLESHIP!!! Now that would have me LMAO.

The rights Matt Walsh exterminated that parasites ideas in "Am I Racist.", exactly a year ago ever heard of it,It's the others cult classic. We're still getting a few laughs out of it,today. In ten or twenty,who knows.

 

On 9/16/2025 at 12:53 AM, jakee said:
On 9/15/2025 at 4:12 PM, richravizza said:

So whenever you here people use guilt in the debate,

When has that been?

Boom !!  Oh you're a Blast. XOxo times five.

I'll jump back down the rabbit hole with you.

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/robin-diangelos-alleged-plagiarism-no-coincidence

 

On 9/16/2025 at 12:53 AM, jakee said:
On 9/15/2025 at 4:12 PM, richravizza said:

  The author is a fraud and she's a pargrist. 

You wanna try that one again?

No thanks, I want to find out how and why she was built in the first place.

She's at the bottom of the deep, deep in the nothing.

Edited by richravizza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, richravizza said:

Boom !!  Oh you're a Blast. XOxo times five.

I'll jump back down the rabbit hole with you.

That's not a link to a post on this site. So when did people here use guilt in the debate? Certainly this time around you brought it up outta nowhere.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2025 at 7:17 PM, richravizza said:
 It ain't no mystery. I'm all I have left; I'm pushing back running you over, I've been thrown down,Run around. Beaten 'til I hit the ground,

I read up on her and this seems to be her central thesis:

White Fragility is a state in which even a minimal challenge to the white position becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves including: argumentation, invalidation, silence, withdrawal and claims of being attacked and misunderstood. These moves function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and maintain control.

You gave an excellent example of that very state above.  Yep, you're the victim; you are being attacked.  AND you're gonna run people over because of that.

Quote

John McWhorter describes her work as racist don't let his name fool you.He's a black liberal academic linguist.

I don't think the argument "his name sounds like the name of a regular guy, but he's black" helps your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/18/2025 at 10:04 AM, billvon said:

I read up on her and this seems to be her central thesis:

White Fragility is a state in which even a minimal challenge to the white position becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves including: argumentation, invalidation, silence, withdrawal and claims of being attacked and misunderstood. These moves function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and maintain control.

You gave an excellent example of that very state above.  Yep, you're the victim; you are being attacked.  AND you're gonna run people over because of that.

I don't think the argument "his name sounds like the name of a regular guy, but he's black" helps your position.

It's the lyrics to a song,lol  you didn't want any music. 

Did you read she is a plagiarist and a fraud.She has been excommunicated.Her Ideas are fraudulent and like a gideon your going to use her scripture as an argument against my critique.Did you comprehend John critique there were five,quite arbitrary to race.I mentioned it because of the prejudice or explicit bias liberals have to ideas that differ from them. Everything about her is intellectual dishonesty. An American Academic Laughingstock. How would you discredit her theory other than an inside view of hypocrisy in action in, Am I Racist. I wish you would comment on at least one of John's' five... torpedoes.

 It's Racist

It's an Unfaulsable Premis

Misdiagnosis of race equality 

Personal guilt as an Ideal exercise

Cult like Theology;  an "Orwellian indoctrination program" main result of this training is that a certain class of white people feels better about themselves for "doing the work," which he considers antithetical to genuine change. 

 For the upteenth time Sir; I am no Hero and I refuse and despise the thought of thinking myself the undeserving self proclaimed Victim.

Because the Left is so averse to differing ideas. I gave Johns race a mention in the hopes that someone would read and comprehend it.Ironically,as deangelo would preach but not practice, as I post almost exclusively black Academics... so it's not unusual for me at all.

  In their defence The Leftist express their explicit bias which is above criticism,as the Left's attack of the Rights values are identical to Mao's four olds.

I Question the motive in defending such shiaza.. Perhaps a quote from Marx could put things into perspective.

"That which advances the revolution, is  ethical"

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, richravizza said:

Her Ideas are fraudulent and like a gideon your going to use her scripture as an argument against my critique.

Again - you brought it up. No one else mentioned it.you  are the only person in this thread who has been trying to use her ideas.

I can only imagine as a distraction from a discussion that wasn’t going your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jakee said:

Again - you brought it up. No one else mentioned it.you  are the only person in this thread who has been trying to use her ideas.

I can only imagine as a distraction from a discussion that wasn’t going your way.

LOL... that's ok

If that's the way you see it. In what way would you discret her fraudulent ideas? Be Careful that will out you a heretic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2025 at 7:36 PM, richravizza said:

Did you read she is a plagiarist and a fraud.She has been excommunicated.Her Ideas are fraudulent

I looked into the plagarism claims.  Two of her paragraphs are similar to - NOT the same - as two other authors.  One is her own coauthor.  Several lines within the paragraph she is accused of copying are statements from other people that she DOES credit.

So yes, those two paragraphs are similar.  She probably should have put a footnote in there, something like "derived from XXX."  But plagarism?  Nope.  It's not copied.  And one was her coauthor who she DOES credit in other places.

Johnathan Bailey runs the website "Plagarism Today" where he monitors and reports on plagarism across the US.  His take:

The first allegation deals with just 13 words. Though DiAngelo doesn’t cite the alleged source in that passage, she does elsewhere. Both sources describe a third paper and are likely pulling language from that.

Similarly, in the second allegation, DiAngelo does cite the alleged source. Though some text does overlap, it is only 14 words. While this is poor paraphrasing, it doesn’t sustain the argument that DiAngelo is trying to steal the work of other academics. ..

While I don’t believe the evidence points to a malicious intent to steal others’ work, there was a lack of care and due diligence in places. . . 

The complaints have routinely tried to exaggerate the amount of plagiarism. In my reading of the complaint, 5-7 allegations warranted some response. However, 20 allegations look more impressive, even if most don’t hold up. It’s easier to get headlines with bigger numbers.

During the height of the original scandals, I talked about the weaponization of plagiarism and how it is used to target political and ideological opponents. As someone whose focus is plagiarism, that is deeply worrying to me.

Sounds about right.  She's simply a target for people like yourself, since she is not sufficiently politically correct.

Quote

and like a gideon your going to use her scripture as an argument against my critique.

Nope.  Just going to point out that her description of white fragility fits you very well.  That's not an argument against white fragility - just an indication that you are exhibiting it.

Quote

It's Racist

Literally yes.  So are is your claim that John McWorter is black but has a normal sounding name.  Again, literally racist since you are calling out his race to explain why a normal name doesn't really fit him.  But since you can't talk about relationships between white and black people without using that term, sort of a meaningless claim.

Quote

It's an Unfaulsable Premis

I think you mean "unfalsifiable premise."  Nope.  You can look at an arbitratrily large body of reactions (video, books, academic papers, social media posts etc) and if there are no cases of white fragility, the premise would be falsified.

Quote

Misdiagnosis of race equality 

Do you mean that the races really aren't equal?  That is quite a racist statement.  (Also accurate for very specific purposes, like treatment for heart disease.)

Quote

Personal guilt as an Ideal exercise

I didn't see anything in there about "personal guilt" - just about the ease of becoming offended.  Again, you may feel personal guilt; that's your problem.  You may believe other people feel personal guilt for something they didn't do - that is THEIR problem.

Quote

Because the Left is so averse to differing ideas.

The left in the US is where new and different ideas come from.  It's why black people have rights.  It's why women can vote.  It's why gays can get married.  All new and different ideas.  Conservatives opposed them; they prefer tradition and maintenance of "the old ways."

Quote

In their defence The Leftist express their explicit bias which is above criticism,as the Left's attack of the Rights values are identical to Mao's four olds. I Question the motive in defending such shiaza.. 

Sorry, have no idea what Mao's four olds or shiaza is.  Probably not a reference to Shazza, shiatsu or Shitz Szus.

Quote

"That which advances the revolution, is  ethical"

Yep.  To conservatives, leaders who are rapists, pedophiles and felons are all now ethical, and are defended at all costs.  It sure does advance your cause!

Whatever gets you more power, even if you have to follow Marx to get there.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, billvon said:

I looked into the plagarism claims.  Two of her paragraphs are similar to - NOT the same - as two other authors.  One is her own coauthor.  Several lines within the paragraph she is accused of copying are statements from other people that she DOES credit.

So yes, those two paragraphs are similar.  She probably should have put a footnote in there, something like "derived from XXX."  But plagarism?  Nope.  It's not copied.  And one was her coauthor who she DOES credit in other places.

Johnathan Bailey runs the website "Plagarism Today" where he monitors and reports on plagarism across the US.  His take:

The first allegation deals with just 13 words. Though DiAngelo doesn’t cite the alleged source in that passage, she does elsewhere. Both sources describe a third paper and are likely pulling language from that.

Similarly, in the second allegation, DiAngelo does cite the alleged source. Though some text does overlap, it is only 14 words. While this is poor paraphrasing, it doesn’t sustain the argument that DiAngelo is trying to steal the work of other academics. ..

While I don’t believe the evidence points to a malicious intent to steal others’ work, there was a lack of care and due diligence in places. . . 

The complaints have routinely tried to exaggerate the amount of plagiarism. In my reading of the complaint, 5-7 allegations warranted some response. However, 20 allegations look more impressive, even if most don’t hold up. It’s easier to get headlines with bigger numbers.

During the height of the original scandals, I talked about the weaponization of plagiarism and how it is used to target political and ideological opponents. As someone whose focus is plagiarism, that is deeply worrying to me.

Sounds about right.  She's simply a target for people like yourself, since she is not sufficiently politically correct.

Nope.  Just going to point out that her description of white fragility fits you very well.  That's not an argument against white fragility - just an indication that you are exhibiting it.

Literally yes.  So are is your claim that John McWorter is black but has a normal sounding name.  Again, literally racist since you are calling out his race to explain why a normal name doesn't really fit him.  But since you can't talk about relationships between white and black people without using that term, sort of a meaningless claim.

I think you mean "unfalsifiable premise."  Nope.  You can look at an arbitratrily large body of reactions (video, books, academic papers, social media posts etc) and if there are no cases of white fragility, the premise would be falsified.

Do you mean that the races really aren't equal?  That is quite a racist statement.  (Also accurate for very specific purposes, like treatment for heart disease.)

I didn't see anything in there about "personal guilt" - just about the ease of becoming offended.  Again, you may feel personal guilt; that's your problem.  You may believe other people feel personal guilt for something they didn't do - that is THEIR problem.

The left in the US is where new and different ideas come from.  It's why black people have rights.  It's why women can vote.  It's why gays can get married.  All new and different ideas.  Conservatives opposed them; they prefer tradition and maintenance of "the old ways."

Sorry, have no idea what Mao's four olds or shiaza is.  Probably not a reference to Shazza, shiatsu or Shitz Szus.

Yep.  To conservatives, leaders who are rapists, pedophiles and felons are all now ethical, and are defended at all costs.  It sure does advance your cause!

Whatever gets you more power, even if you have to follow Marx to get there.

 

 

 

OMG you go with that, being hit with three fish you didn't notice a fourth or fifth.

You truly are Orwellian or a disciple perhaps this book it's Ideas are your problem.

We reidiculd those ideas a Year ago where is she Now,On the Corp, or Academic circuit or a Nonperson,lol

She's a  pillar of the fifth column,crumbled.

Shiza is Shit, sorry for the misspell,But it's all on your shoes.

Moes four old are what progressives embrace;Mao's "destruction of the Four Olds" was a campaign during China's Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. The "Four Olds"—old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas—were targeted by Mao Zedong and the Red Guards to erase traditional influences and forge a new socialist society. 

Lastly that was the old paradigm and if you use the Marx Quote as a pair of glasses the whole picture becomes so apparent, to those not in the frame.Think about it..."That which supports the revolution is ethical" I glad we're moving away from that montra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, richravizza said:

OMG you go with that, being hit with three fish you didn't notice a fourth or fifth.You truly are Orwellian or a disciple

I'm not the one literally banning words.  That's you guys.

I'm not the one removing history from museums because it doesn't make whites feel good.  That's you guys.

I'm not the one telling cops they can discriminate against colored people.  That's you guys.

Orwell would be proud of you for following his work so closely.

Quote

perhaps this book it's Ideas are your problem.

You can always just cancel her, outlaw the words she uses and ban the book.  You guys are getting really good at that.

Quote

Lastly that was the old paradigm and if you use the Marx Quote as a pair of glasses the whole picture becomes so apparent, to those not in the frame.Think about it..."That which supports the revolution is ethical"

Yep.  So you've decided that rape, pedophilia, felony etc is ethical - or at least not objectionable.

O brave new world that has such people in it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 9/21/2025 at 7:45 PM, billvon said:

I'm not the one literally banning words.  That's you guys.

I'm not the one removing history from museums because it doesn't make whites feel good.  That's you guys.

I'm not the one telling cops they can discriminate against colored people.  That's you guys.

Orwell would be proud of you for following his work so closely.

You can always just cancel her, outlaw the words she uses and ban the book.  You guys are getting really good at that.

Yep.  So you've decided that rape, pedophilia, felony etc is ethical - or at least not objectionable.

O brave new world that has such people in it.

It's hard to take you guys seriously. So generalized, if you mean pornography in the schools liberabies, You got me.History that only allows for the CRT worldview you, betcha.Cops get to discriminate against all races,when you break the law that's the norm, as is officer diversity.

I didn't cancel her,she cancelled herself in an Exquisite downfall of Claudine Gay, sorta way."Because the Left is so averse to differing ideas. I gave Johns race a mention in the hopes that someone would read and comprehend it.Ironically,as deangelo would preach but not practice, as I post almost exclusively black Academics... so it's not unusual for me at all."

We have arrested and or deported over One Thousand said pedo's ect. Whom were Allowed to come in,no questions asked under the prior Border Czar, But you refuse to credit Mr.Homan for his work updated daily. 

Prior utopians as they do, can also ignore the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors that are simply unaccounted nonpersons. One in particular raped and murdered a young lady and highlighted a need for new legislation.

 When's the last time you've read Orwell,I find it fascinating and the reason I never fell for the Vax the Spell,Mr Huxley as well.

Orwell wasn't afraid of the Authoritarian/Totalitarian obvious "hard cages" as much as the soft ones, the ones we don't even realize we are in. Worse yet,we built those cages. Also in Huxley, I saw truth that it was easier to control people with pleasures pride and ego,than control by force. The most dangerous type of control and force can be the ones that masquerade as freedom.

DEI Diversity equity and inclusion are beautiful words they can and have been romanticized,disguised and weaponized for control. Beautiful words inspire us,they move us,motivate us and that's where the danger lies.The more emotion involved the less we question their true meanings and purpose for power. The Ideologue uses that elegant language not to clarify but to conceal.

The best form of propaganda doesn't seem like propaganda,no it'll seem like sophisticated culture,like the slogan "Trust the science"it will feel like education and safety.

The latest is the propaganda from academia  is that "Speech is Violence" a sluagh-ghairm on the New Left. An academic idea perpetuated in our recent violence, causing some young impressionable minds  to think, actual violence is justified. 

 

Edited by richravizza
trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, richravizza said:

I"Because the Left is so averse to differing ideas. I gave Johns race a mention in the hopes that someone would read and comprehend it.Ironically,as deangelo would preach but not practice, as I post almost exclusively black Academics... so it's not unusual for me at all."

You’re against DEI but you choose who to pay attention to based on their race? Fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, richravizza said:

It's hard to take you guys seriously. So generalized

Oh I have been very specific.  I gave you a list of words the administration is banning.  I gave you the specific pictures and stories removed from museums and websites because they are trying to rewrite history.  I gave you the studies removed from government websites because they were not politically correct.

Quote

Cops get to discriminate against all races,when you break the law that's the norm, as is officer diversity.

So cops get to beat the crap out of black people and jail them when they speed, but they can let all the white people go?

Sad that you would think that is OK.  But not surprising.  Racism is now officially sanctioned.

Quote

We have arrested and or deported over One Thousand said pedo's ect.

But you are protecting YOUR pedos, felons and rapists.  Which is as sad as it gets.

Quote

When's the last time you've read Orwell,I find it fascinating

Oh quite recently.  1984 has a section on how the government literally bans words so "wrong" thoughts can no longer be expressed.

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

The goal is to prevent people like me from having ideas not approved by the government - which is why Trump is banning words.

1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual.  But you guys went and turned it into Project 2025.

Quote

I never fell for the Vax the Spell,Mr Huxley as well.

Ah, so you're an anti-vaxxer too.  Are you afraid of windmill cancer and Tylenol as well?

In 1984 the word "science" was banned because it went contrary to the state's control of the message.  Kudos to you for working towards replacing science with Trump; Big Brother would be proud.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, richravizza said:

We have arrested and or deported over One Thousand said pedo's ect. Whom were Allowed to come in,no questions asked under the prior Border Czar, But you refuse to credit Mr.Homan for his work updated daily. 

Boy there are a lot of assumptions in there. Like, for instance, that just because Trump says someone is a pedophile, they are (conversely, that just because Trump denies he's a pedophile, he isn't). Also, that all of the deported people so far came in under the Biden administration. Since the Republicans have had the presidency for more years than the Democrats during that time, one may think that more people entered during Republican administrations. Especially since Obama was the deporter-in-chief.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Boy there are a lot of assumptions in there. Like, for instance, that just because Trump says someone is a pedophile, they are (conversely, that just because Trump denies he's a pedophile, he isn't). Also, that all of the deported people so far came in under the Biden administration. Since the Republicans have had the presidency for more years than the Democrats during that time, one may think that more people entered during Republican administrations. Especially since Obama was the deporter-in-chief.

Wendy P.

What I don’t get is that it would be possible to crack down on illegal immigration with compassion and understanding. It’s clear the US has an illegal immigrant problem that needs to be addressed and I don’t think anyone is denying it. 

For an administration that touts religion and specifically Christianity the cruelty and celebration of it is awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

What I don’t get is that it would be possible to crack down on illegal immigration with compassion and understanding. It’s clear the US has an illegal immigrant problem that needs to be addressed and I don’t think anyone is denying it. 

For an administration that touts religion and specifically Christianity the cruelty and celebration of it is awful.

Hi Nigel,

Re:   It’s clear the US has an illegal immigrant problem that needs to be addressed

In 1986, our US Congress passed new immigration laws.  Sen. Ted Kennedy told us that these new laws would solve our illegal immigration problems.

They did not.

IMO the problem is that employers want a lot of cheap labor.  The feds look the other way; and, everyone is happy.

I am totally opposed to illegal immigration.  However, EVERYONE deserves due process, even criminals.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Nigel,

Re:   It’s clear the US has an illegal immigrant problem that needs to be addressed

In 1986, our US Congress passed new immigration laws.  Sen. Ted Kennedy told us that these new laws would solve our illegal immigration problems.

They did not.

IMO the problem is that employers want a lot of cheap labor.  The feds look the other way; and, everyone is happy.

I am totally opposed to illegal immigration.  However, EVERYONE deserves due process, even criminals.

Jerry Baumchen

I wholeheartedly agree with people needing due process. 

The need for cheap labour is fairly universal across western countries and there are legitimate ways to do this without compromising our social services. I don’t know if the US has the equivalent but we have a visa that encourages back packers to work for a limited period of time and it is easy to get a visa. I don’t see a problem with the US having a similar visa that would allow people to work on the farms and other jobs that “we” won’t do. 

Those visa don’t need to provide a route to permanent residence (ours don’t). The great thing about facilitating temporary work is that these people help to pay into our tax systems and social security funds effectively subsidising us. For example back packers here don’t get the free healthcare we do, no subsidies on education and no welfare benefits.

I’d honestly take a job as a packer or picking grapes to help subsidise a 6-12 month holiday in the US. I have always wanted to do the Appalachian trail or explore the 29 states I haven’t been to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the time immigration laws are a political football and make no sense wirh respect tp the needs of the country, there will be illegal immigration.  It's structural.

 

You solve the problem by rationalizing the law, not by ill treating people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kallend said:

All the time immigration laws are a political football and make no sense wirh respect tp the needs of the country, there will be illegal immigration.  It's structural.

 

You solve the problem by rationalizing the law, not by ill treating people. 

Hi John,

I agree; if the law were implemented.

As I previously posted:  In 1986, our US Congress passed new immigration laws.  Sen. Ted Kennedy told us that these new laws would solve our illegal immigration problems.

Sounded good; but, went nowhere.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

6 6