Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

Brian?

Screwthebeast wrote: »

I contrasted a free choice with not a free choice

The idea was to highlight the sense of entitlement of people expecting preferential treatment because of a free choice they have made.

The parents should demonstrate maturity and teach their able bodied children how to navigate life, not that life will be adapted for them.

People choose to be parents

You don't choose your skin colour

What a load of nonsense. The spaces are for the parents, not the children. They are wider to allow you to open doors fully and take kids out of seats.

It’s absolutely nothing to do with a sense of entitlement and everything to do with common courtesy. It’s difficult going shopping with young kids, supermarkets try and ease some of the pain. It’s purely a marketing tool.

I’ve a bit of shock here for you. Life will be adapted for our kids and they their kids to suit their needs. That’s how consumerism drives innovation. “Life” isn’t static. The environment you live in constantly adapts to your consumption. I would say the current generation of 20 somethings have the greatest ability ever to adapt life for themselves. The next generation will beat them and the next and so on.

Esho

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you would have to prise my hotmail account from my cold dead hands. I've had it since before Microsoft bought the company.

Note to self - post this isn the Signs you are getting old thread!

Jequ0n

Poor eating manners are a clear give away sign of the lowest classes. Also, people who eat noisily or chew with an open mouth should be thrown out of restaurants until they learn how to eat like a civilised person.

JimmyVik

People always think that out of all the opinions in any thread that theirs is the correct one.

sydthebeat

JimmyVik wrote: »

People always think that out of all the opinions in any thread that theirs is the correct one.

i think you are right in saying that.......

JimmyVik

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think you are right in saying that.......

Me too

I would far more likely pay for McDonald's Gift Vouchers to give my Dad instead of buying him Ryanair Gift Vouchers as they are promoting for fathers day.

wtf

freshpopcorn

I saw an article about it this morning.
I hope the guy is a success who set up the healthy fast food place chopped.

To me tough it’s just a massive bowel of lettuce and dried out chicken and is nothing special and is very over hyped.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I saw an article about it this morning.
I hope the guy is a success who set up the healthy fast food place choppedZ
To me tough it’s just a massive bowel of lettuce and dried out chicken.

This isn't clear sorry.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I'm seeing a lot (tons) of counterprogramming in my social media feed about critical race theory but no real salient arguments against it stick out to me - they are usually drowned out by more loud and esoteric signals like "They're teaching kids to hate Murica!" and, they're trying to pass all these bans in a hurry to stop schools from teaching that... racism is a thing that exists, I guess? Both sides of the issue through all the hay seem to be aligned that they don't want to teach kids how to be racist little sh* heads, and the moderates all agree that these horrific truths need to be taught through a historical lens. Progressives are strongly against any sort of ban that restricts a teachers freedom of speech in the classroom (ha! on this issue - LGBTQ+), and I think free speech in the classroom is an issue many can relate to whether you want to debate evolution or creationism or reproductive rights, sex education, or even how civics and in this case, history are taught.

For that reason I side with the teachers and I think recent pol would say the same, like the teacher who was just reinstated after saying heck no he wouldn't be saying boys can be girls etc.; for the same reason I was expecting a very high standard of sound argument from the crowd warring against teaching CRT. I've looked around a good bit, I thought at least, but I haven't found one. DAE have strong views against CRT?

My fundamental issue with critical race theory being taught to young children is rooted in the praxis of it. CRT holds (according to Robin Di'Angelo, of White Fragility fame) that the question is never "did racism occur in this interaction (between people of different skin tones)" but "how did racism occur in this interaction". Being "not racist" or "colour blind" is seen as racism by people who believe that it is impossible for any interaction between people of different races to interact free of racism.

Anecdotally, adults who have been through such trainings have been affected by it, and it has caused issues in work environments. Black people have ended up feeling incredibly uncomfortable by their white colleagues' sudden enthusiasm to proclaim themselves racist. White people who are not racist have felt bullied into accepting that they are. If it affects adults in this way, I can only imagine how it will affect children.

I think such collectivist theories severely limit the empathy of their strongest adherents to an almost pathological degree in practice, particularly when they tear free of the careful and considered environment of academic navel gazing and start to wend their way through institutions. A person whose entire education in the theory consists of a half-day training session and they now see the homeless white man as "privileged" (which often seems to be synonymous with "bad" in context), even when compared to the black CEO.

According to the theory that racism MUST occur in every situation between people of different races, and the fact that racism is defined academically as "privilege plus power" (meaning that only a white person can be racist), if that white homeless man begs the black CEO for a few coins, and the black CEO decides to kick him in the face for getting dust on her business suit, it cannot merely be the case that a stuck-up, ill-tempered bitch of a woman did a bad thing. It must be a racist interaction and the white person must be the aggressor. I cannot think of a worse framework for teaching children to interact with "other" people, if we want to build a harmonious society that affords everyone equal opportunity. (But please don't mistake me for someone who believes that we'd have a harmonious society that affords everyone equal opportunity if we could just hold back the CRT, because... ya know. We wouldn't.)

This will hold particularly true if the pedagogical framework for teaching about race issues in schools hits impoverished areas. I don't have any official insight into how the mind of an 8-year-old poor white kid who goes to school with a growling belly every morning will be affected by being told he is privileged and carries the original sin of his ancestors, but I don't imagine that that is an experiment we wish to conduct on a nation-wide level. Similar thing with black children who may end up being convinced that 1: White people are all racist whether they want to be or not, 2: The society they live in is not for them, or 3: They can never make it in a "white" society because of their skin colour, so why bother trying?

This is the same theory that brings you the idea that, eg. Thomas Sowell is "not black" because he has the wrong ideas, or allows Joe Biden to say with a straight face that "you ain't black" if you don't vote for him. And, YMMV, but I think that's disgustingly racist.

I definitely think that history education needs to be more balanced and needs to include the horrors and triumphs of the past in equal measure, especially around colonialism, slavery and so on. I just think that doing it through a critical constructionist lens is a Very Bad Idea that could potentially have some devastating and far-reaching consequences. And I'm not here for it.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My fundamental issue with critical race theory being taught to young children is rooted in the praxis of it. CRT holds (according to Robin Di'Angelo, of White Fragility fame) that the question is never "did racism occur in this interaction (between people of different skin tones)" but "how did racism occur in this interaction". Being "not racist" or "colour blind" is seen as racism by people who believe that it is impossible for any interaction between people of different races to interact free of racism.

Anecdotally, adults who have been through such trainings have been affected by it, and it has caused issues in work environments. Black people have ended up feeling incredibly uncomfortable by their white colleagues' sudden enthusiasm to proclaim themselves racist. White people who are not racist have felt bullied into accepting that they are. If it affects adults in this way, I can only imagine how it will affect children.

I think such collectivist theories severely limit the empathy of their strongest adherents to an almost pathological degree in practice, particularly when they tear free of the careful and considered environment of academic navel gazing and start to wend their way through institutions. A person whose entire education in the theory consists of a half-day training session and they now see the homeless white man as "privileged" (which often seems to be synonymous with "bad" in context), even when compared to the black CEO.

According to the theory that racism MUST occur in every situation between people of different races, and the fact that racism is defined academically as "privilege plus power" (meaning that only a white person can be racist), if that white homeless man begs the black CEO for a few coins, and the black CEO decides to kick him in the face for getting dust on her business suit, it cannot merely be the case that a stuck-up, ill-tempered bitch of a woman did a bad thing. It must be a racist interaction and the white person must be the aggressor. I cannot think of a worse framework for teaching children to interact with "other" people, if we want to build a harmonious society that affords everyone equal opportunity. (But please don't mistake me for someone who believes that we'd have a harmonious society that affords everyone equal opportunity if we could just hold back the CRT, because... ya know. We wouldn't.)

This will hold particularly true if the pedagogical framework for teaching about race issues in schools hits impoverished areas. I don't have any official insight into how the mind of an 8-year-old poor white kid who goes to school with a growling belly every morning will be affected by being told he is privileged and carries the original sin of his ancestors, but I don't imagine that that is an experiment we wish to conduct on a nation-wide level. Similar thing with black children who may end up being convinced that 1: White people are all racist whether they want to be or not, 2: The society they live in is not for them, or 3: They can never make it in a "white" society because of their skin colour, so why bother trying?

This is the same theory that brings you the idea that, eg. Thomas Sowell is "not black" because he has the wrong ideas, or allows Joe Biden to say with a straight face that "you ain't black" if you don't vote for him. And, YMMV, but I think that's disgustingly racist.

I definitely think that history education needs to be more balanced and needs to include the horrors and triumphs of the past in equal measure, especially around colonialism, slavery and so on. I just think that doing it through a critical constructionist lens is a Very Bad Idea that could potentially have some devastating and far-reaching consequences. And I'm not here for it.

I really don't think that's what critical race theory is. It's a way of analysing history through by asking if racism influenced the outcomes and decisions made.

It is not about saying every interaction between different races is inherently racist.

How I've seen it applied to US history is 99.999% correct.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

I really don't think that's what critical race theory is. It's a way of analysing history through by asking if racism influenced the outcomes and decisions made.

It is not about saying every interaction between different races is inherently racist.

How I've seen it applied to US history is 99.999% correct.

Okay. Well the ideas I've mentioned above are from reading Professor (Center for Antiracist research, Boston University) Ibram X. Kendi's bestseller How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo's bestseller White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.

Both of these people are considered top-tier experts in critical race theory, both have books that became bestsellers after the death of George Floyd, and both hold to the theory that all inter-racial interactions contain racism, as does every white-majority society, that all white people are racist, etc. In DiAngelo's case, she believes that white people who deny they're racist are racist and fragile, hence the book's name.

My suspicion is that many people don't understand CRT, have not read any of the academic theory or the popular books that have come out of it, and therefore mistakenly believe that it's "just teaching about race in history"—which is why they have trouble understanding the resistance to it.

Could you maybe direct me to the critical race theory material you've read that disagrees with Kendi and DiAngelo?

85603

repartition of NI is as good an option as any other, and probably better in many ways.

Overheal

'One nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aIHIm7H8zU

Tilden Katz

Screwthebeast wrote: »

The essence of it is based in discrimination.

One group is being given preferential treatment over another.

If the spaces were "whites only" they'd be uproar

How about just make all spaces a decent size and then everyone is treated with equity

Fewer parking spaces! What a great idea. :rolleyes: Most people need little room to get out of a car* so it makes sense to just make a handful of spaces wider (parent spaces and disabled spaces) than widening all of them, which makes the kind of sense that doesn’t. Unless you are okay with there being fewer spaces.

*I have mobility issues and a regular space is still fine for me. I’ll only apply for a disabled parking badge if I really need to even though I’ve been told I’ll qualify for one now. So if I, somebody with mobility issues, can use a regular space, that tells you that just making a handful of spaces in a car park wider is more than sufficient rather than making them all wider and reducing the number of parking spots available.

Cordell

Overheal wrote: »

'One nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aIHIm7H8zU

Freedom in the land of the free and all that, but saying that she was just calling god by his arabic name is BS.
She was making a point that she is a proud unapologetic muslim.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Okay. Well the ideas I've mentioned above are from reading Professor (Center for Antiracist research, Boston University) Ibram X. Kendi's bestseller How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo's bestseller White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.

Both of these people are considered top-tier experts in critical race theory, both have books that became bestsellers after the death of George Floyd, and both hold to the theory that all inter-racial interactions contain racism, as does every white-majority society, that all white people are racist, etc. In DiAngelo's case, she believes that white people who deny they're racist are racist and fragile, hence the book's name.

My suspicion is that many people don't understand CRT, have not read any of the academic theory or the popular books that have come out of it, and therefore mistakenly believe that it's "just teaching about race in history"—which is why they have trouble understanding the resistance to it.

Could you maybe direct me to the critical race theory material you've read that disagrees with Kendi and DiAngelo?

You read their books in their entirety or you read someone surmising what their work said? Because I don't think they say what you think they say

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

You read their books in their entirety or you read someone surmising what their work said? Because I don't think they say what you think they say

I read both of the books, along with a few others (and some very boring academic material). I like to understand things as much as possible before I disagree (or agree, tbh) with them.

Did you have info on the critical race theory material you've read that disagrees with Kendi and DiAngelo?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I read both of the books, along with a few others (and some very boring academic material). I like to understand things as much as possible before I disagree (or agree, tbh) with them.

Did you have info on the critical race theory material you've read that disagrees with Kendi and DiAngelo?

Actually, no. Definitely nothing to disagree with them. But what you’re saying is definitely not what they say.

Potential-Monke

Ye're talking about Critical Race Theory and teaching it to kids... really? Kids don't need that level of deep understanding. Let them be kids ffs! Introduce it in the final years of secondary school, maybe as an elective or a very basic introduction to it. And we definitely don't need someone telling white kids how racist they are just for being white.

Brian?

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ye're talking about Critical Race Theory and teaching it to kids... really? Kids don't need that level of deep understanding. Let them be kids ffs! Introduce it in the final years of secondary school, maybe as an elective or a very basic introduction to it.And we definitely don't need someone telling white kids how racist they are just for being white.

But that’s not what anyone should be telling them, that’s not what critical race theory is about.

Kids are actually the least likely to be racist because they haven’t soaked up the ideas around them yet.

Critical race theory is about teaching kids that decisions were often made based on discrimination. Sometimes against people in the US. Which they were. It’s important kids know that so society can move on.

suicide_circus

CRT is a grift and a very transparent one at that.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

But that’s not what anyone should be telling them, that’s not what critical race theory is about.

Kids are actually the least likely to be racist because they haven’t soaked up the ideas around them yet.

Critical race theory is about teaching kids that decisions were often made based on discrimination. Sometimes against people in the US. Which they were. It’s important kids know that so society can move on.

I very, very strongly recommend the source materials of the theories you are defending here. They absolutely do say the things you insist they don’t, and it’s not some sneaky message they’re trying to smuggle in disguised as reasonable race history. They are very, very explicit about it.

Screwthebeast

Brian? wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. The spaces are for the parents, not the children. They are wider to allow you to open doors fully and take kids out of seats.

It’s absolutely nothing to do with a sense of entitlement and everything to do with common courtesy. It’s difficult going shopping with young kids, supermarkets try and ease some of the pain. It’s purely a marketing tool.

I’ve a bit of shock here for you. Life will be adapted for our kids and they their kids to suit their needs. That’s how consumerism drives innovation. “Life” isn’t static. The environment you live in constantly adapts to your consumption. I would say the current generation of 20 somethings have the greatest ability ever to adapt life for themselves. The next generation will beat them and the next and so on.

You don't need wider doors, you need a different vehicle ya know those ones with sliding doors designed for familes, so suck it up, be an adult, take responsibility for your actions and teach your children how to navigate life.

The entire consumerism paragraph is a strawman argument everyone is a consumer.

Screwthebeast

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Fewer parking spaces! What a great idea. :rolleyes: Most people need little room to get out of a car* so it makes sense to just make a handful of spaces wider (parent spaces and disabled spaces) than widening all of them, which makes the kind of sense that doesn’t. Unless you are okay with there being fewer spaces.

*I have mobility issues and a regular space is still fine for me. I’ll only apply for a disabled parking badge if I really need to even though I’ve been told I’ll qualify for one now. So if I, somebody with mobility issues, can use a regular space, that tells you that just making a handful of spaces in a car park wider is more than sufficient rather than making them all wider and reducing the number of parking spots available.

I was providing a scenario in which everyone could be treated equally, however I don't believe that actually results in equity, I do believe there should be spaces for people with physical limitations. Which is why I object to able bodied adults receiving or expecting preferential treatment.

Brian?

Screwthebeast wrote: »

You don't need wider doors, you need a different vehicle ya know those ones with sliding doors designed for familes, so suck it up, be an adult, take responsibility for your actions and teach your children how to navigate life.

I teach my kids to navigate life just fine, thanks. I think you need to lay off the Jordan Peterson books man/woman.

The world is malleable. It isn’t static. The world changes based on the people within it.

And no, parents don’t need a different type of car. Because supermarkets provide family spaces to lure them in.

The entire consumerism paragraph is a strawman argument everyone is a consumer.

Wow, you’ve parroted my point back to me while somehow disagreeing with me. Everyone is a consumer, that’s exactly my point. The world changes to meet consumer demand. It’s not rocket surgery.

iamwhoiam

Screwthebeast wrote: »

You don't need wider doors, you need a different vehicle ya know those ones with sliding doors designed for familes, so suck it up, be an adult, take responsibility for your actions and teach your children how to navigate life.

The entire consumerism paragraph is a strawman argument everyone is a consumer.

How do you teach a baby in a car seat how to navigate getting out of a car ? You need a wider space to open the door fully so you can get the child in and out without scratching the car beside you
Do you not realise the wider space is to protect the car parked beside you !!

Brian?

iamwhoiam wrote: »

How do you teach a baby in a car seat how to navigate getting out of a car ? You need a wider space to open the door fully so you can get the child in and out without scratching the car beside you
Do you not realise the wider space is to protect the car parked beside you !!

It’s not the child you need to teach apparently. It’s yourself, anyone of us who had kids need to accept all inconvenience that comes with it or our kids will grow up unable to cop with adversity.

Absolute pony.

I literally only had children so I could park in the parent & child spaces and piss off the childfrees.

When the kids are 18 I'm going to pull into those spaces and look at them and say "you're still my child", and they'll laugh, and I'll laugh, and then we'll get out still laughing and look around for childfree people to make sure they've seen us executing our evil, long-term plan.

85603

Deleted User wrote: »

I literally only had children so I could park in the parent & child spaces and piss off the childfrees.

When the kids are 18 I'm going to pull into those spaces and look at them and say "you're still my child", and they'll laugh, and I'll laugh, and then we'll get out still laughing and look around for childfree people to make sure they've seen us executing our evil, long-term plan.

ive no kids and use them like any other space.

Between 5-6 no special spaces should apply. Kid, handicapped, whatever. Workers coming through. Youve had all day.