kryptonianCodeMonkey
What sort of asinine take is “Boat hit bridge? DIVERSITYYYYYYYYYY!” shaking fists
What happened? Classic radicalization happened.
He was presented with a new viewpoint on gender. He said “no thanks” to considering that viewpoint, which is honestly fine (we’re allowed to have different opinions). But instead of just holding his opinion on that viewpoint personally, he used his considerable platform to make a huge deal out of rejecting that viewpoint. He then faced the predictable backlash for doing so as a public figure.
Instead of apologizing or just avoiding the subject on his platform in future, he reacted to that backlash by doubling down and repeatedly employing his platform to attack the viewpoint. Thus, he began earning the ire of more people that support trans rights and the admiration of those who opposed them.
He then immersed himself in his new right-wing support group, rubbed elbows with those who share his viewpoint on gender, found a new more conservative fanbase, and had those views reinforced and enhanced by the echo chamber around him. As a result, he has slowly become more radicalized and made this issue a huge part of his worldview and public persona.
My prediction is that this influence will continue to radicalize him and steer him further to the right, not only on this issue but on other issues as well. His new peer group will reward him for his views on the trans people. They will use that as a jumping point into other right-wing ideas that will start to make “a lot of sense” to him. And as a public figure, they will encourage him to use his notoriety to voice more and more of these views and use his platform to support their causes. I bet money he will be a semi-regular on Fox News or some other conservative voice box in the next 5 years and will be publically endorsing Republican candidates for office. Bet.
Inflation is a thing. If she was born in 1946, she would have gone to college around 1964. Which means that her tuition would have been about 7600 dollars today. That’s still lower than the average in-state tuition by about 2000 dollars, but just putting that into context. However, minimum wage in 1964 was 1.15/hr, which means it would have taken about 16 weeks at full time minimum wage to pay for one semester tuition vs the 33 weeks it takes today. That’s a much better metric of comparison. It would take over a year to pay for a year of school now vs half a bit over half year before.
People getting covid vaccines and wearing face masks were living in fear. Man standing behind bullet proof glass? Brave. Strong. Manly.
Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government.
“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm;
Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.
only state-enforced segregation is.
And what would you call racial Gerrymandering if not state-enforced segregation, Clarence? I mean, apart from voter manipulation and disenfranchisement, that is.
After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks.
No, the idea that separation is harmful doesn’t presuppose the reason being that black people are inferior. It is harmful because black people are often treated as inferior and are not given equal treatment, resources, and opportunity. Black schools in the Jim Crow south weren’t worse because they were full of and run by black people. They were worse because they were fucking broke. Schools are largely funded by property taxes. And black home ownership has always been lower than white home ownership, and the value of those homes (and thus their property taxes) has always been lower on average. That means less money going to black schools per capita. Less money means fewer resources and opportunities. It’s pretty fucking simple, Clarence.
I’m sure your next question is why black families owned fewer and cheaper homes. Well, the first and most obvious reason is that black families started with a handicap. They came from poor slaves who had nothing and had to start completely from scratch. White Americans had control of industry, agriculture, commerce, and government. Black Americans had to play catch up once freed.
Then, when the GI benefits of the returning soldiers of WWII helped millions of white families buy their first homes, those benefit weren’t honored for black soldiers. When new valuable homes and nice schools were being built in the suburbs, those neighborhoods were red-lined, preventing black families from buying these valuable properties even when they had the finances to do so. When new highways and industrial works were being put in, things that bring pollution and drop property values, those things were intentionally built in and around black neighborhoods, robbing the existing black home owners of long term wealth. Do those things still happen now? Mostly no, and never explicitly racially biased. But this is not ancient history. This is in your life time, Clarence. It’s effects are still seen today and black people are still poorer, own fewer homes and less expensive homes as a result of generations of oppressive and unequal treatment. It’s absurd to equate acknowledging black poverty with deeming blacks inferior. This state was inflicted in them, not their fault.
Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,” he said in 2004.
If black people had been left to their own, they wouldn’t have been slaves, wouldn’t have been screwed out of their benefits they earned fighting for this country that hated them, wouldn’t have been forbidden from moving into white neighborhoods, and wouldn’t have had their homes tainted against their will by industry and transport that enriched white people. Let’s also not discount the effects of unequal treatment under the law, unequal enforcement of the law, and unequal justice for crimes against them. Let’s also not forget that at the time the Brown decision was made, black people were still being FUCKING LYNCHED, CLARENCE. This fallacy of “separate but equal” has no legs to stand on. It never existed. Fuck all the way off, Clarence, you fucking sell out self-hating prick.
Dude went to see Barbie a second time to seethe about feminism. Entirely missed Openheimer. “Too long, too sciency.”
Who ever thought punk was not progressive? At minimum it was blatantly anti-authoritarian and counter to the conservative culture in Thatcher’s UK and Reagan’s US. Why would anyone be shocked to find out that it was also pro-choice, feminist, and anti-discriminatory?
Let it be know that if you take office while actively committing fraud, embezzlement, and lying through your teeth about nearly every single detail of your life and accomplishments, the rest of Congress will ONLY let that slide for 11 months! You’ve been warned!