Israel and its supporters did a GREAT job of linking anti-israel sentiment to antisemitism. That alone made reporting of its messed up actions and history taboo. Certainly does not help that neonazis are also frequently anti-israel.
But… Shit… I mean Israel was founded on white jewish supremacy. Real hard to have a state founded on racial supremacy not turn into a fucking nightmare.
It’s ok, just think of all the 4 year old hamas terrorists they killed!
They never did. Every “net zero” pledge was accomplished through carbon credits. Which is basically Hollywood accounting meets the environment.
A real carbon credit would be expensive to purchase and increasingly expensive as other companies bought them. For example, building out renewables would only offset carbon so much, eventually you get to the point where the grid is green which means buying more renewable deployments does nothing.
That’s true of any reasonable carbon credit yet somehow the price has basically been unchanged.
Unfortunately, they’ll be looking at things like rebel moon as an excuse not to try new things.
Why can’t you do like the rest of the winners and buy a business with mom and dad’s money?
Just not trying hard enough I guess.
No problem. It’s such a mellow concept that it’s hard not to overstate what it’s about. The fact that racists took it to mean “stuff that makes white people feel bad” and the stuff that makes them feel bad is rather telling. But then that’s the power of propaganda.
If you’re interested, here’s a pretty good podcast episode that sat down with Dr. Janale Schmidt, a history professor who ultimately got the Robert e Lee statue melted down.
[It Could Happen Here] Melting Charlottesville’s Robert E Lee Statue #itCouldHappenHere https://podcastaddict.com/it-could-happen-here/episode/171742565 via @PodcastAddict
What I find fascinating about the whole story is she did not start with the goal of melting down the statue. In fact, this whole controversy was kicked off because the city of Charlottesville wanted to move the statue to a less prominent park, rather than having it in the center of the city.
She talks about the journey of the statue and why ultimately they came to the conclusion that destruction was the right decision (including the fact that they observed these statues turning into racist shrines after the initial incident).
But hey, he called you an asshole and said you need a come to Jesus moment. So that makes him cool right?
I believe that we should take the statues and move them into museums dedicated to history. We can’t change what happened before we got here, but we can clean up leftover shit and make the future a better place to live.
Let me share 2 practical real reasons why that’s a bad idea.
there are a LOT of these statues and these things are HEAVY. A responsible museum won’t accept this stuff because there’s simply not the room for it.
The people that will accept it end up being the last people that should. Like stone mountain Park, which enshrines and worships these racist assholes.
The very real problem is by having and concentrating this “artwork”, you create meeting spaces for white supremacists. Because ask yourself, WHO is going to and wants to experience the confederacy memorials?
“Stop turning museums into the attic for your aunt’s racist junk”
deleted by creator
Anyone interested in this, I suggest listening to the “Data over dogma” podcast.
The Bible is a book with multiple authors that had completely different conceptions of God and that borrowed local traditions for their own.
For example, the belief in one god is believed by scholars to be a later change to the Bible. In that region, it would be more common for the belief to be that there’s a God of a land or nation with their power bound to that land. The world was viewed as one with a battle of the gods rather than being one with a supreme ruler.
This is why the Bible so often disagrees with itself. Because each author had their own motives and were sometimes responding to each other in their writings.
Are you saying that systematic generational poverty imposed on black people via discriminatory policy and law is not a component of CRT
As far as I understand, no. Related for sure but not really what CRT is about.
The important thing about CRT, in my understanding, is that it takes a view that even with non-racist intent, racist laws are setup due to the lack of participation.
For example, let’s say a city wants to build out a mass transit system, however, nobody on the board lives in neighborhoods where POC live. As a result, when placing the lines they don’t consider the problems with running them through those neighborhoods or not having enough stops in those neighborhoods. A racist outcome even though the people making the decisions may have never considered race while making those decisions. It’s simply the fact that nobody affected by those decisions had representation.
The critical in CRT refers to critical theory, which posits that problems in society can generally be attributed to social structures more than anything else.
Another example would be in policing. Consider what may seem to be a good policy “Let’s send police to areas with high rates of crime.” The issue is, crime rates are a result of policing so a natural consequence of sending police to where crimes are found is police will find more crimes which creates a feedback loop. Add in just a few cops with racial biases (even unconscious) and now this seemingly benign policy has racist enforcement.
What CRT would posit is that getting more POC into positions of power would ultimately limit the effects of legal racism. A failure of the CRT notion is that while race is related, so is socioeconomic status. The issue with just seating a black person is black people like Clarence Thomas exist. Further, the black people you would seat are highly likely to have participated in the education and social situations that have caused the issues of systemic racism in the first place. You can’t just pick the person from the same neighborhood as the rest of the board that has melanin and think “This solves racism”.
In otherwords, America is broken on more than just race, class is a major issue. Which is what you touch on. People of color have by and large historically been forced into a lower class and that’s where a lot (not all) of the racism problems stem.
Hope that makes sense. This is mostly just my understanding though so feel free to correct it if you’ve got good resources on it. I’m not an expert, just interested in the rantings of my political enemies.
So much!
A real neat trick to this is so long as you add something substantive (peas, carrots, potatoes, chicken breast, rice and beans, mushrooms, whatever) and something acidic (tomatoes, vinegar, wine, lime juice at the end) you’ll end up with something palatable.
Garlic and onions are the basis for a LOT of classic recipes. So many of them are literally just roasting a protein with garlic and onions.
It’s that simple. Brown the onions, cook the garlic until it releases a nice smell (30 seconds ish), add what you want to eat and continue cooking until it’s not raw, throw in a splash of acid for good measure (I really like lime or lemon juice for this).m
Do you drink coffee? That can kinda fuck with your bitterometer.
What, I have horrible vision and get headaches fairly frequently and… Oh my God!
To be blunt, even this isn’t CRT.
CRT is more generally “for the longest time, non-white people have been excluded from civic participation which has led to laws and structures that implicitly benefit white people”.
That is, it’s a concept about political and legal power in the US.
And what’s more disturbing is what the right ACTUALLY means by CRT. They are mad about civil rights AND the historical facts about racism BEING TAUGHT AT ALL. Literally “we don’t want kids taught that slavery and segregation existed and/or that it was morally wrong”.
I think correctly defining CRT somewhat misses the more disturbing problem of “wait, what DO you mean by CRT”.
The cost has already been paid. Even small farming communities have rail line access that’s mostly been abandoned because the line owners switched business models.
As for flexibility, again, that’s mostly an issue with how rail line management has evolved. From shorter more frequent trains to ultra long infrequent trains. Mostly to cut the cost of staffing.
The solution is simple, nationalize the rail service. Put it under the USPS and have them figure out scheduling to optimize the speed of goods shipping.
The current state of the rail system is entirely due to the monopolistic nature of ownership. The incentive is to increase prices as much as possible while shipping to the fewest stops possible. Profit motives are in direct conflict with generalized shipping.
The reason trunking works today is the public nature of roads. Well, why shouldn’t rail lines be equally public? We practically gave the property away to the current rail owners with the notion it was for the public good… They’ve failed that.
And frankly, I’m really ok with this.
Trains should be the backbone for shipping. They are WAY more fuel efficient, like 3 to 4x more efficient than shipping by truck. Rail requires far less maintenance. And there’s always the option install a 3rd rail and use electricity instead of fossil fuels to ship.
The only solution is a bigger truck.
We need to get rid of the commie laws requiring special licensing (CDL, Communist driver’s license) for freedom trucks.
I sort of wonder how much longer 2A idiocy will last in the US. The NRA has gone bankrupt and since they aren’t able to funnel Russian money to politicians like they used to be able to, their influence is basically zero at this point.
With them out of the picture, there’s really not a powerful gun lobby getting right wing media to talk about Democrats as gun grabbers.
If you peruse conservative spaces like I do, you’ll notice that talking point has evaporated.