George Floyd dies after police knelt on his neck (MOD NOTE IN POST #1)

Tell me how

2u2me wrote: »

On boards we have posters keeping the moderators civil in the gaming forum. This happens not just on boards but world wide I'm happy to provide examples. I was a gamer long before gamergate and gaming forums were a far better place before then.

What happened to gamers also happened over at the knitting forum; it wasn't toxic incel males there; so the theory disintegrates. The gamers were just the easiest ones to target first as soon as enough SJW's occupied the roles as game journalists, just like the forum mods of ravelry.

It happened again to the atheist community "New Atheism" which was a thriving community before the SJW's took over; rebranding it "Atheism+" Which became a shadow of it's former self.

That's what happened to the grievance courses long ago, they succumbed to social justice activisim. They are no longer a rigorous pursuit of truth but a blind indoctrination looking to force it's ideology on others. Equity. Equality of outcome. Chop the legs off of others to make everything more equal.

I think we can agree, the popularity of gaming has exploded and so is it not reasonable that the experience of a gender who are outnumbered by between 2.5 and 3 times by people of the other gender may highlight a disparity in experience which is worth exploring. I suggested that the course might be warranted for that reason but maybe it would have explored how males felt more under pressure when gaming while females did it for fun, I don't know, the course title was gender in gaming, we don't know what form of discussions were held on it. You're suggesting that an activity which is enjoyed by approx 20% of the population and is different to other activities (sports) which competitors are generally grouped by sex is not worth exploring.

Also, you use the term, 'SJW activism' like it is a derisory term, why is that? Is the very premise of Social Justice Activity not intending that people who heretofore may have felt mistreated or disenfranchised would no longer have to have that experience, and if that is the case, then why is that a bad thing?

Are there some who use it for social media clout? Absolutely, there are some who use 'knocking it' as social media clout (Tomi Lahren for example) but if some one is genuinely trying to create a world where there is greater equality, why is that a derisory act? Very interested in your answer to this.

Tell me how

peddlelies wrote: »

You can search examples if you wish, I can see what's going on for myself and the judgement that I've come to is that some colleges are pampering students like toddlers and certain courses are indoctrinating them. I don't know how widespread it is, what I do know is those who are subjected to it come out of college being pretty much worthless human beings.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/14/trump-liberal-college-campuses-michigan-yale-glenn-reynolds-column/93765568/

The University of Michigan Law School announced a ”post-election self-care” event with “food" and "play,” including “coloring sheets, play dough (sic), positive card-making, Legos and bubbles with your fellow law students.” (Embarrassed by the attention, UM Law scrubbed the announcement from its website, perhaps concerned that people would wonder whether its graduates would require Legos and bubbles in the event of stressful litigation.)

Stanford emailed its students and faculty that psychological counseling was available for those experiencing “uncertainty, anger, anxiety and/or fear” following the election. So did the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.

Meanwhile, even the Ivy League wasn’t immune, with the University of Pennsylvania (Trump’s alma mater) creating a post-election safe space with puppies and coloring books:

At Cornell, The Fix reported, students held a "cry in."

Yale had a ”group scream.”

At Tufts, the university offered arts and crafts, while the University of Kansas reminded students that there were plenty of “therapy dogs” available.

So, all of these seem like they are/were optional events which people could avail of, if they felt that it would be beneficial to them? Is that a bad thing?
I'm not suggesting everywhere should have these, or that everywhere should use them, but, if a colleague of mine benefited from such outlets, how is that a bad thing?

What do you think of punch bags that some companies have in the onsite gym to help relieve stress?
In the US, people also go to gun ranges at lunch some time to help relax. Do you think that that is a bad thing?

peddlelies

Tell me how wrote: »

So, all of these seem like they are/were optional events which people could avail of, if they felt that it would be beneficial to them? Is that a bad thing?
I'm not suggesting everywhere should have these, or that everywhere should use them, but, if a colleague of mine benefited from such outlets, how is that a bad thing?

What do you think of punch bags that some companies have in the onsite gym to help relieve stress?
In the US, people also go to gun ranges at lunch some time to help relax. Do you think that that is a bad thing?

I'm done answering questions, I've stated my opinion on the matter. We can agree to disagree.

Tell me how

peddlelies wrote: »

I'm done answering questions, I've stated my opinion on the matter. We can agree to disagree.

I take it very clearly that you cannot answer why such things which you deride are a bad thing or that they deserve condemnation in a way which is different to some more traditional manners of de-stressing.

peddlelies

Tell me how wrote: »

I take it very clearly that you cannot answer why such things which you deride are a bad thing or that they deserve condemnation in a way which is different to some more traditional manners of de-stressing.

No, I just know every-time I reply you'll come back with more and more questions, because that is what people like you do. I've seen it all before.

If you can't agree to disagree then you are the one with the problem.

Overheal

peddlelies wrote: »

No, I just know every-time I reply you'll come back with more and more questions, because that is what people like you do. I've seen it all before.

If you can't agree to disagree then you are the one with the problem.

All he asked is why you saw those extra curricular events as a bad thing.

peddlelies

Overheal wrote: »

All he asked is why you saw those extra curricular events as a bad thing.

Because life is hard, you can't just hide in a room from opinions that are different than yours or start scribbling in your colouring book everytime something happens which might upset you.

When these students get out of that environment and into real world jobs how do you think they're going to get on in the work place?

Tell me how

peddlelies wrote: »

No, I just know every-time I reply you'll come back with more and more questions, because that is what people like you do. I've seen it all before.

If you can't agree to disagree then you are the one with the problem.

You are aware that this is a discussion forum?

It's simple, you think some courses are wacko and that some activities available in some areas are ridiculous, I believe I gave reasonable arguments which countered those views and asked simply why you differentiate between those and other methods of relaxing people and why you think helping people to relax in a particular way is a bad thing.

I'm not asking questions to specifically try to get you to change your mind, I'm asking you questions here to allows others who read these threads to see that, your views don't make a lot of sense.

2u2me

Tell me how wrote: »

Also, you use the term, 'SJW activism' like it is a derisory term, why is that? Is the very premise of Social Justice Activity not intending that people who heretofore may have felt mistreated or disenfranchised would no longer have to have that experience, and if that is the case, then why is that a bad thing?

Because they don't practise what they preach. They cynically gave up hope of actual equality long ago, because actual equality of opportunity leads to disparate outcomes among groups. They want equality of outcomes.

Are there some who use it for social media clout? Absolutely, there are some who use 'knocking it' as social media clout (Tomi Lahren for example) but if some one is genuinely trying to create a world where there is greater equality, why is that a derisory act? Very interested in your answer to this.

Kind of answered above but I'll try explain my last post a bit better.

I'm trying to say that the social justice activists took over the gaming magazines.
They constantly wrote about how 'toxic' and 'sexist' the community was and how bad it was for women. The examples and arguments made were ridiculous. Look up Anita Sarkeesian's series if you don't believe me.
This has made the gaming communitys toxic ever since. There is a disgusting relationship between developers and magazines that brandishes it's customers as it sees fit. They put up with it because they're kids.

They also took over the knitting forum I spoke of earlier, did you look that up? They completely segregated part of their community because they were toxic, racist, etc.. They were making their community safer. They in fact made it toxic.

They also took over Atheism +. This needs to be seen to be believed. Again they said it was dangerous for women, without any proof. The biggest controversy was 'elevator gate' where Richard Dawkins invited Rebecca Watson up for coffee. How dare he that disgusting sexist pervert. It killed the community; it's toxic now aswell.

Do you see the pattern here? Everything turns toxic if you constantly focus on race/gender/sexual preference. Pack the court with their ideology (intersectionality), find or manufacture event that supports your cause, kick up holy hell, claim victory. Rinse and repeat. Toxicity trails in it's path.

Overheal

peddlelies wrote: »

Because life is hard, you can't just hide in a room from opinions that are different than yours or start scribbling in your colouring book everytime something happens which might upset you.

When these students get out of that environment and into real world jobs how do you think they're going to get on in the work place?

That “real world job” is full of people with mental health issues too? Most work environments even enjoy a “thirsty Thursday” sesh to co-enable their drinking habits. So who are they to condemn students for how they choose to deal with their own ****? Most working class Americans still think the biggest mental health issues are a hoax. Approximately 1 in 4 respondents did not believe depression, anxiety, substance use, eating disorders, or autism were a form of mental illness in a study of American perceptions of mental health. I don’t think most people are in a fair position to deride colleges for adopting approaches that engage young people.

https://www.uhsinc.com/uhs-releases-results-of-poll-examining-americans-perceptions-on-mental-health/

peddlelies

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not asking questions to specifically try to get you to change your mind, I'm asking you questions here to allows others who read these threads to see that, your views don't make a lot of sense.

Well that's your opinion, although I'd prefer if you spoke for yourself instead of trying to get a subtle moral dig in. Good night sir.

markodaly

For black residents of Minneapolis and other American communities, racism is a life-and-death matter. But for more privileged individuals such as Tait, as Glenn Loury told the Quillette podcast recently, the anti-racism movement is now more akin to a performative religion, presenting garment-rending adherents with concepts analogous to original sin (whiteness) and excommunication (cancelation). America and its white inhabitants are presented as having permanently cursed souls, a defect that can be addressed only through elaborate rites of penance, as in recent scenes of white people washing the feet of black community leaders. And it’s notable that the above-described art-house and newsroom controversies always seem to originate in some supposedly sacrilegious text or monologue, whose heretical nature is taken as proof of a contaminated character.

https://quillette.com/2020/06/09/for-journalists-the-new-york-times-social-justice-meltdown-is-a-sign-of-things-to-come/

This. So this!

Tell me how

2u2me wrote: »

Because they don't practise what they preach. They cynically gave up hope of actual equality long ago, because actual equality of opportunity leads to disparate outcomes among groups. They want equality of outcomes.

Can you give me an example where equality of opportunity leads to disparate outcomes which social acttivists are unhappy with. I will ask you to try to make it something in which there still isn't an ingrained bias in how we perceive the role.

2u2me wrote: »

Kind of answered above but I'll try explain my last post a bit better.

I'm trying to say that the social justice activists took over the gaming magazines.
They constantly wrote about how 'toxic' and 'sexist' the community was and how bad it was for women. The examples and arguments made were ridiculous. Look up Anita Sarkeesian's series if you don't believe me.
This has made the gaming communitys toxic ever since. There is a disgusting relationship between developers and magazines that brandishes it's customers as it sees fit. They put up with it because they're kids.

They also took over the knitting forum I spoke of earlier, did you look that up? They completely segregated part of their community because they were toxic, racist, etc.. They were making their community safer. They in fact made it toxic.

They also took over Atheism +. This needs to be seen to be believed. Again they said it was dangerous for women, without any proof. The biggest controversy was 'elevator gate' where Richard Dawkins invited Rebecca Watson up for coffee. How dare he that disgusting sexist pervert. It killed the community; it's toxic now aswell.

Do you see the pattern here? Everything turns toxic if you constantly focus on race/gender/sexual preference. Pack the court with their ideology (intersectionality), find or manufacture event that supports your cause, kick up holy hell, claim victory. Rinse and repeat. Toxicity trails in it's path.

I find it bizarre that you are suggesting that Anita Sarkeesian's expression of what her experience was has made the world of gaming a toxic environment. Are you suggesting that what she experienced did not happen, or that she shouldn't have spoken about it.

I did read the article about knitting. I found it curious that the specifically pointed out that they were not excluding conservative viewpoints, just the expressive support of Trump. Given that Trump would be banned from Twitter if he were not in the office in which he is in (Link) I can somewhat see their view? You say it yourself that they were attempting to make their community safer, why do you think they felt the need to do that and if they did feel that need, what do you think they should have done?

On the atheism story, as much as I can make out, it seems that that escalated from Watson saying that she had had an uncomfortable experience. But, if she had had an uncomfortable experience, (don't think it was Dawkins who had invited her) should she have said nothing? It seems most women, (I am not a woman, I can't speak from experience) have had regular uncomfortable interactions ranging from mildly, to incredibly and so, is it not understandable that someone speaks about that?

In all these cases, your view (I think) is that it was the person who flagged unacceptable behaviour who was responsible for the environment changing as you said it did, but, maybe it was the reaction to them flagging the uncomfortable experience which led to the ultimate outcome.

Say a girl asks her male partner to put the bins out and you respond 'F*ck Off' and they have a blazing row. Is it the guys fault for reacting like that, or her fault for asking him to do it?

One final point, you ask do I see a 'pattern' I think you are focusing on events involving social activists which have developed in to outright conflict. What about the activism which has led to vastly improved societies? Gay rights for example, that very much originated out of the work of social justice activists and who can argue that has led to more acrimony and division? Not to mention the suffragette movement which led to women being allowed to vote.
Hell, the safe pass was introduced in Ireland after protests from trades people in reaction to increased levels of injuries and fatalities on construction sites as the Celtic Tiger was building up speed. Was that not activism by a different name?

Tell me how

markodaly wrote: »

https://quillette.com/2020/06/09/for-journalists-the-new-york-times-social-justice-meltdown-is-a-sign-of-things-to-come/

This. So this!

Hmmm, Quillette, Fox News with a more pleasing font.

One of their contributors Toby Young who also writes for the notoriously balanced outlets, The Daily Mail and The Spectator.

Can't imagine why he would be against changes in what is acceptable and what isn't.

2u2me

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you give me an example where equality of opportunity leads to disparate outcomes which social acttivists are unhappy with. I will ask you to try to make it something in which there still isn't an ingrained bias in how we perceive the role.

I find it bizarre that you are suggesting that Anita Sarkeesian's expression of what her experience was has made the world of gaming a toxic environment. Are you suggesting that what she experienced did not happen, or that she shouldn't have spoken about it.

I did read the article about knitting. I found it curious that the specifically pointed out that they were not excluding conservative viewpoints, just the expressive support of Trump. Given that Trump would be banned from Twitter if he were not in the office in which he is in (Link) I can somewhat see their view? You say it yourself that they were attempting to make their community safer, why do you think they felt the need to do that and if they did feel that need, what do you think they should have done?

On the atheism story, as much as I can make out, it seems that that escalated from Watson saying that she had had an uncomfortable experience. But, if she had had an uncomfortable experience, (don't think it was Dawkins who had invited her) should she have said nothing? It seems most women, (I am not a woman, I can't speak from experience) have had regular uncomfortable interactions ranging from mildly, to incredibly and so, is it not understandable that someone speaks about that?

In all these cases, your view (I think) is that it was the person who flagged unacceptable behaviour who was responsible for the environment changing as you said it did, but, maybe it was the reaction to them flagging the uncomfortable experience which led to the ultimate outcome.

Say a girl asks her male partner to put the bins out and you respond 'F*ck Off' and they have a blazing row. Is it the guys fault for reacting like that, or her fault for asking him to do it?

One final point, you ask do I see a 'pattern' I think you are focusing on events involving social activists which have developed in to outright conflict. What about the activism which has led to vastly improved societies? Gay rights for example, that very much originated out of the work of social justice activists and who can argue that has led to more acrimony and division? Not to mention the suffragette movement which led to women being allowed to vote.
Hell, the safe pass was introduced in Ireland after protests from trades people in reaction to increased levels of injuries and fatalities on construction sites as the Celtic Tiger was building up speed. Was that not activism by a different name?

Well I'm specifically speaking about the social justice activism that has spawned recently in the last few decades from intersectionality.

Obviously there have been good social justice causes in the past...

In countries regarded more equal women steer into careers that tend towards people, men towards things. In less equal societies you actually have more female programmers, more male nurses.
Social justice activists are certainly trying to get more women into STEM. (they are arguing STEM is sexist and it hinders women, the reality is that women are just not choosing it)

To quickly rebut, instead of answering your questions which I think only lead down rabbit holes.

Anita Sarkeesian can say whatever she likes, have whatever opinion she likes. Just like the knitting forum, just like the Atheist community.
It wasn't just about sharing their experiences or 'expressing their existence' or whatever sociology language you like to use, it was about enforcing their ideology on the wider community and silencing other people's opinions, labelling them as trolls, sexist, racist, far-right, right-wing, etc..etc... Creating rules that the atheist community must abide by, creating rules for what the gaming community can say, completely rejecting Trump supporters entirely.

It ended up calling all male gamers sexist.
It called all male atheists sexist.
It called all Trump supporters white supremacists.
Now it's calling all white people racist.

That same ideology. It ruins every movement it touches. It's happening right now to print journalist in the US. I have posted about it numerous times in this thread about what is currrently happening at the NYT and the Washington post among other papers.

Tell me how

I don't see how the experience of the ladies in the gaming world, or the atheism world was enforcing an ideology.
I mean, is saying that sexist commentary towards someone, male or female is wrong, an ideology?

I would agree that the banning of Trump support is divisive. I would take the Twitter approach of flagging the inaccuracies of his tweets but then allowing him to post but I suspect a knitting community forum does not quite have the same resources and I suspect they did not apply the ban without having had cause to think it was necessary.

I disagree that social activist movements are calling all people of a particular identify as possessing the same negative positions but I can still understand if their prevailing experience in some cases is of that negativity.

As I understand the NYT furore, the story emerged that what initially had been a non-interference op-ed emerged as having been requested that it take a particular view by a senior NYT editor and as a consequence the staff reacted. But, as we know, papers have long been involved in the political game. For example the Daily Express in the UK last year having a front page headline about Johnson's 'Oven-Ready' Brexit Deal and this week the same paper saying that Johnson wanted to fix the unfair deal.

2u2me

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't see how the experience of the ladies in the gaming world, or the atheism world was enforcing an ideology.
I mean, is saying that sexist commentary towards someone, male or female is wrong, an ideology?

I would agree that the banning of Trump support is divisive. I would take the Twitter approach of flagging the inaccuracies of his tweets but then allowing him to post but I suspect a knitting community forum does not quite have the same resources and I suspect they did not apply the ban without having had cause to think it was necessary.

I disagree that social activist movements are calling all people of a particular identify as possessing the same negative positions but I can still understand if their prevailing experience in some cases is of that negativity.

As I understand the NYT furore, the story emerged that what initially had been a non-interference op-ed emerged as having been requested that it take a particular view by a senior NYT editor and as a consequence the staff reacted.

Perhaps you didn't live through it like I did. Every moment, every story for years. Perhaps you're just glossing over it now. I've provided plenty of links and videos for you to research if you wish. Perhaps look at Anita's video series to see the types of grievances she had judge for yourself, look at the list of rules Atheism+ adopted for their conferences. Look at the gaming articles from that time that said gamers were sexist; what evidence did they provide? I guess you can only make your own mind up; but it takes a lot of work.

The person who resigned last week after that op-ed at the NYT was the frontrunner to be the future editor. A group of social justice activists went to twitter and demanded that their safety was in question. I bet most of those 160 activists were fresh out of college. It's happening in other papers a bit more quietly; expect more and more people to be called racist, sexist, homophobic etc.. from those outlets from now on.

The conflict exploded in recent days into public protests at The New York Times, ending in the resignation of its top Opinion editor on Sunday; The Philadelphia Inquirer, whose executive editor resigned on Saturday over the headline “Buildings Matter, Too” and the ensuing anger from his staff; and The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. And it has been the subject of quiet agony at The Washington Post,

Inside the revolts erupting at American's big newsrooms

We don’t pretend to be objective about things like human rights and racism.”

-The New York Times.

Tell me how

2u2me wrote: »

Perhaps you didn't live through it like I did. Every moment, every story for years. Perhaps you're just glossing over it now. I've provided plenty of links and videos for you to research if you wish. Perhaps look at Anita's video series to see the types of grievances she had judge for yourself, look at the list of rules Atheism+ adopted for their conferences. Look at the gaming articles from that time that said gamers were sexist; what evidence did they provide? I guess you can only make your own mind up; but it takes a lot of work.

The person who resigned last week after that op-ed at the NYT was the frontrunner to be the future editor. A group of social justice activists went to twitter and demanded that their safety was in question. I bet most of those 160 activists were fresh out of college. It's happening in other papers a bit more quietly; expect more and more people to be called racist, sexist, homophobic etc.. from those outlets from now on.


Inside the revolts erupting at American's big newsrooms
-The New York Times.

Read that first sentence in bold and consider what it is that you are doing to Anita's story.

As for the change in newsroom worldwide, as I already pointed out, they have long been politically motivated, it seems that your concern is now because those involved you imagine are newer graduates? Were you ok with heavily conservative view points being posted in numerous outlets for years?

Anyway, bed time for me. Laters.

markodaly

Tell me how wrote: »

Hmmm, Quillette, Fox News with a more pleasing font.

Well done. Your reward is one of these.

One of their contributors Toby Young who also writes for the notoriously balanced outlets, The Daily Mail and The Spectator.

Did Toby Young write that article? No, no he did not.

weldoninhio

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I learned yesterday that there is no point in trying to be an educator here. It really is a futile exercise as minds are unwilling to be changed and the same old arguments come up again and again.

An educator hahahahahaha

Please don’t quit, you could be our Whoopi Goldberg in Sister Act, or our Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds hahahahaha hahahahaha

Tell me how

There was a poster here who said there was no evidence that there attempts made to prevent black people from voting.

https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1270463218377506816?s=19

https://twitter.com/lbarronlopez/status/1270417632605454340?s=19

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

What’s the delusion?

I suppose you think “serves him right Judge Dredd the fcukin thug for that $20?”

Again, Dylan Roof murdered 9 blacks in Charleston. Charleston, the same city that declared the KKK a terrorist organization,, gave Dylan Roof a bullet proof vest, and Burger King when they arrested him. He wasn’t roughed up. They didn’t bump his head on the way into the car. You mean to tell me that post human degenerate can be treated objectively by police but George Floyd cannot?

Was it the same 4 police officers that arrested Roofe as arrested Floyd??? :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

George Floyd was murdered over $20. Dylan Roof got arrested without being brutalized, and was fed Burger King. Do you need a map?

The underlined bit is just some out your hole rubbish strawman of your own design and not deserving of much more response than that.

John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo were arrested without a shot being fired after killing 17 and wounding 10. Whats your point??

weldoninhio

Cupatae wrote: »

Too many of ye to reply to but ive seen ye offer up page after page of excuses for the black community but never once have I seen ye mention anything negative or attach any sort of responsibility to the black community for there struggles , not once.. to say that some of ye are completely biased would be an absolute understatement

No race is that squeeky clean or that exempt of blame for there struggles... But reading the stuff being posted I'm surprised every man woman and child in the black community isn't sainted at this stage.

As I said before the current mantra is it's always someone else's fault everyone else's but our own!

There's no balance in this discussion what so ever it's all one way traffic vs the cops , the white man , the system ECT ECT

100%. I saw a tweet from a black cop who was saying crash, shooting, accident, assault etc in a black area he's often the first on the scene because of where he's stationed. When he asks for help/witnesses he's given a wall of silence, asked where's his white cop master, called an Uncle Tom etc as if he's the one thats done something wrong.

When the community has a pledge of Omerta towards criminals and their activities, how do they expect the cops to know who is and who isn't dangerous and to help clean up their streets???

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Gender in Gaming for example, gaming has exploded in the last ten years and much of what goes on within it is unregulated in terms of how people interact with each other. On Boards even we have moderators to try to ensure that discussions say somewhat civil but does that exist on gaming platforms? I have read of some experiences which female gamers have had while taking part in their hobby and what has been said to them would not be acceptable in virtually any real world face to face environment so should it be when online? And, why not try to understand this, explore it, research it via a university course.

If the people studying these courses are interested in the topic and have the money to invest in their education in this way, which would be better, that they can do so, or that the courses are shut down?

Well, speaking as a gamer and someone who follows articles/reports quite closely, there has been a massive rise in criticism against gamers over the last decade, mostly coming from woke activists, or feminists.If you look at some articles by actual gamers on youtube, you'll find many examples of attacks on both the gaming industry, and gamers themselves. Cancel culture, "psychologoical" studies, etc all coming back to the around the same time that activation of these kind of courses began.

For feminists, it's an attack on a bastion of male interests. For woke activists it's an attack on racism, or many other claims that have no basis in gaming.

Take a look at the Upper Echelon Gamers or the Quarterling

This is real, and it has it's roots in courses like the above.

Dyr

ricero wrote: »

Saw that the tv show Little Britain has been pulled on netflix and bbc iplayer due to blackface scenes. The world is gone mad and is far too soft and serious. I can only imagine how bad things will be in 20 years from now.

I wonder if the same would be done for the film White Chicks.

I think you're going to see a massive swing in the opposite direction, it's inevitable when you elevate loonies to the status of high priests. People are being told they have to pick a side and they will....

biko

The implementation of "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" shows many rioters aren't really about BLM, they're about a swing in power .

This is one of their "leaders" as pointed out by someone on twitter and some cursory googling

Christy42

peddlelies wrote: »

Because life is hard, you can't just hide in a room from opinions that are different than yours or start scribbling in your colouring book everytime something happens which might upset you.

When these students get out of that environment and into real world jobs how do you think they're going to get on in the work place?

You absolutely can and people have done so for millenia. Do you not have a hobby where you shut off the world for a while? Or watch mindless TV for a bit?

Some people play sports or go for a run or paint but people have had ways of shutting themselves of most of human history.

The world will still be there when the student leaves the room. The only difference is colleges are coming up with oddball methods to generate some pr at the same time.

Also I always love the comparison in the left wing vs right wing complaints. Like this is a thread about police brutality. People's 1st amendment rights rights are broken because the President needs a pr photo vs oh no the students have a slightly weird break room and there are several modules I don't like being thought. Trust me. I know which parts of the above I am more worried about.

biko

Recognise the burning building behind the girl in my post above?

Here it is again
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/espn-nba-reporter-tweets-george-floyd-protests/1eefhr1gpdx791oxlllizoun9i

Rockbeast2

Bambi wrote: »

I think you're going to see a massive swing in the opposite direction, it's inevitable when you elevate loonies to the status of high priests. People are being told they have to pick a side and they will....

Newton's Third Law.

I'm a centrist and can deal with a slight swing to the left or right. This massive social[media?]and political swing to the far left has gone too far and it will incur repercussions. It will only encourage right-wing loons to gather. And they are gathering.

We are in for a bumpy decade.