Elon Musk is a nice chap

[RJSV]

james_s;. This is (one of) my main points, here, is that you can have a side, or personal interest, in these matters, but that can be put aside, temporarily.  That's how you've gotten to the point, of your applied logic, where a question comes up; if it's not happening, then why the fuss, over banning something, that folks profess to 'not being pursued here'.
   That's the thing 'the left' factions hate, blind logic applied, leading to, God forbid, a question, about the banning...of a non-thing.  Of course, I'm being clever, again, with sarcasm (or not so clever, lol).

   Alexandra Cortez, is one democrat being quoted, as saying "Republicans have been trying to ban our 1679 project, in our schools".  Folks dismiss her, as a 'radical' that republicans like to point to,...as if she has 'no influence', on current trends.  Biden listens, or appears to respond to that element.
So can't really make statement,...that that radical element of democratic party doesn't influence anybody.

[tooki]

AOC, by the way, is a perfect example of what counts as “radical” in USA. She’s considered a “radical left” politician for views and positions that fall into completely mainstream left politics in Europe. Nothing she says would be considered extreme or radical here.

[Zero999]

The problem is that CRT is yet another invented bogeyman, another thing the right has invented to get outraged at. (CRT exists, but has nothing to do with what the right has their panties in a twist over). The thing that angers me about the right’s tactics, like with CRT, is the blatant dishonesty. IF CRT actually contained what they claim it does, and if it were actually being taught in schools, I might object to it too. But neither of those things is true, and yet it’s used to vilify liberals wholesale. Like… it’s one thing to debate real issues.

I have read enough CRT articles to know it's an extremist ideology and actually discriminates against black people, just as much as white. I don't need Fox or GB News to find that out.

It might not be taught in schools, under the name CRT, but there definitely appears to be many teachers taken in by the ideology and have introduced CRT-related concepts in the classroom. If it really isn't a problem, then the left wouldn't be complain when the right push for bills prohibiting the teaching of concepts such as white privilege, as a matter of fact, in classroom.

Note I'm not against children learning about CRT, just that it shouldn't be taught as fact, the same as any other ideology, whether it be Nazism, or Marxism. It's how it's being taught by some teaches, which is the problem.

But the right doesn’t debate in good faith, they literally call the left “evil” and then invent things to support their position. I won’t abide that behavior.

And the left are no better.

[RJSV]

What I'm reading, here, and what I see, lately here in California Silicon Valley (nearby), they don't match.
   Critical race theory, I've been 'harassed' by a dept. store security guard, for wearing a ...(wait for it...),
Wearing a BLANK HAT, as that security person mulled over whether he was seeing 'M.A.G.A' on my hat front.
'mm..uh otherwise, we'd be having a problem!" he surmised.  Heck, you can't even wear a BLANK HAT, without getting harassed.

   The school 'murals', ditto, same thing, chip in the shoulder, don't you dare criticize a LGBT mural, or you get shouted down.

[Ed.Kloonk]

AOC, by the way, is a perfect example of what counts as “radical” in USA. She’s considered a “radical left” politician for views and positions that fall into completely mainstream left politics in Europe. Nothing she says would be considered extreme or radical here.

Gee, I hope not. I realize there's been a fair bit of water under the bridge since this..

https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared victory when Amazon announced Thursday that it would not build a second headquarters (known as HQ2) in Queens, New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo called it a “lost economic opportunity” and blamed “a small group [of] politicians [who] put their own narrow political interests above their community.”

Additionally, he said, HQ2 would have brought “at least 25,000-40,000 good paying jobs for our state and nearly $30 billion dollars in new revenue to fund transit improvements, new housing, schools and countless other quality-of-life improvements.”

EU can have her.

[PlainName]

According to the article in the link AOC had a reasonable argument against, and in the end Amazon still hired extra workers in NY. The report she references in her argument seems pukka. Cuomo, OTOH, had just 'grass is greener over there' type benefits, and it's since come out that he's not averse to pulling a fast one on the public.

[james_s]

The problem is that CRT is yet another invented bogeyman, another thing the right has invented to get outraged at. (CRT exists, but has nothing to do with what the right has their panties in a twist over). The thing that angers me about the right’s tactics, like with CRT, is the blatant dishonesty. IF CRT actually contained what they claim it does, and if it were actually being taught in schools, I might object to it too. But neither of those things is true, and yet it’s used to vilify liberals wholesale. Like… it’s one thing to debate real issues. But the right doesn’t debate in good faith, they literally call the left “evil” and then invent things to support their position. I won’t abide that behavior.

But if it's not true and it's not being taught then who cares if teaching it is banned?

What is the actual correct definition of CRT? Is it possible that some of the things that get called CRT should be called something different, but are still something sensible people should be against?

[james_s]

AOC, by the way, is a perfect example of what counts as “radical” in USA. She’s considered a “radical left” politician for views and positions that fall into completely mainstream left politics in Europe. Nothing she says would be considered extreme or radical here.

I find her extreme, and more so than that, extremely naive, childish and annoying. Fortunately most of the media ignores her so she is pretty much irrelevant, it's only my more conservative friends that talk about her.

[PlainName]

But if it's not true and it's not being taught then who cares if teaching it is banned?

It's another rule to pad out the already huge rulebook which isn't needed. There is no sense in adding a rule which has no effect because it just adds noise. However, if it's like any other politically inspired rule it's a gateway to stuff that does have an effect. It's far easier to extend an existing rule than to create a new one (and you'll have noticed that major legislation that is pretty much agreed nearly always has additional amendments added for completely irrelevant stuff). An amendment to some rule that everyone thinks does nothing and has no effect could be a devastating backdoor mechanism.

Which is not to mention the ratcheting of getting something - anything - on the books so more restrictive stuff doesn't look so bad.

You should care about this type of thing, particularly because it seems pointless.

[vk6zgo]

What is the actual correct definition of CRT?

On this forum, it should be Cathode Ray Tube. .
This thread has gone well & truly "off topic", but apparently this is not as terrible as a few postings on the TEA thread about carpentry, etc.

[Ed.Kloonk]

What is the actual correct definition of CRT?

On this forum, it should be Cathode Ray Tube. .
This thread has gone well & truly "off topic", but apparently this is not as terrible as a few postings on the TEA thread about carpentry, etc.

 

Wrong.

Cats R Therapeutic!

[SiliconWizard]

The Twitter/Musk frenzy will pass anyway, he just decided to stop being CEO following the result of a poll, apparently, so I guess people will stop focusing on him and move on.
It was still interesting to witness how polarized our current society has become and how irrational many of the arguments on either sides were. Yeah, even among people that are supposed to be the rational ones.

[vad]

The Twitter/Musk frenzy will pass anyway, he just decided to stop being CEO following the result of a poll, apparently

Did he? Did he find someone “foolish enough” to be his successor and report to him yet? I do not think this is going to happen any time soon. Elon is a clown, and his clownish polls should not be taken seriously.

[RJSV]

My 'theory', only to yet be proven out, is IF Trump gets an indictment, clearly brewing right now; if indictment comes, then all of a sudden...(whup...who woulda guessed): all of a sudden, THIS thread gets the throttle-up.
   Musk becoming 'unhinged' and 'lost his mind' type comments will increase, (here).  Anything, any smear to be utilized.  (Read between the lines, and this whole thread, virtually, revolves around...orange man bad.

Maybe, I read too much in, that's just a sign, I'm not expert, at reading some human motivations.
What's the motivations, here, is it 'Musk is interesting' ?

[PlainName]

What's the motivations, here, is it 'Musk is interesting' ?

It's the usual: someone says something and someone else disagrees, then you get more detailed point disputing whataboutery and before you know it the original thread topic is irrelevant. Actually, this thread is remarkable in that it keeps drifting back to the original topic, so I guess Musk is interesting due to being both current and having a quite large influence on the broad tech world. Hell, he should be interesting just on that basis.

[Zero999]

But if it's not true and it's not being taught then who cares if teaching it is banned?

It's another rule to pad out the already huge rulebook which isn't needed. There is no sense in adding a rule which has no effect because it just adds noise. However, if it's like any other politically inspired rule it's a gateway to stuff that does have an effect. It's far easier to extend an existing rule than to create a new one (and you'll have noticed that major legislation that is pretty much agreed nearly always has additional amendments added for completely irrelevant stuff). An amendment to some rule that everyone thinks does nothing and has no effect could be a devastating backdoor mechanism.

Which is not to mention the ratcheting of getting something - anything - on the books so more restrictive stuff doesn't look so bad.

You should care about this type of thing, particularly because it seems pointless.

I agree there are too many rules which aren't required, but how children are being taught complex, nuanced topics such as racial inequality, sex, climate change and gender, in state schools is important and needs to be regulated. Conservatives rightly complain about left wing teachers indoctrinating children with gender ideology and critical race theory, but the Left are also right to be concerned about religious teachers pushing creationism and intelligent design in science classes.

AOC, by the way, is a perfect example of what counts as “radical” in USA. She’s considered a “radical left” politician for views and positions that fall into completely mainstream left politics in Europe. Nothing she says would be considered extreme or radical here.

I find her extreme, and more so than that, extremely naive, childish and annoying. Fortunately most of the media ignores her so she is pretty much irrelevant, it's only my more conservative friends that talk about her.

I can't speak for the rest of Europe . Not many are aware of her here, but most of those who are, consider her to be a left-wing extremist.

[PlainName]

most of those who are, consider her to be a left-wing extremist

I think that's because they don't look at what she's actually saying but just see the media  repeating her opponents saying she's a left-wing extremist. Case in point is the thing Ed.K posted about - if you bother to go and read the article and the study she references then it makes sense, but if you don't do that then the post just reinforces the view that she's an extremist.

[Zero999]

most of those who are, consider her to be a left-wing extremist

I think that's because they don't look at what she's actually saying but just see the media  repeating her opponents saying she's a left-wing extremist. Case in point is the thing Ed.K posted about - if you bother to go and read the article and the study she references then it makes sense, but if you don't do that then the post just reinforces the view that she's an extremist.

Yes. I suppose the same could be said about Trump.

[PlainName]

most of those who are, consider her to be a left-wing extremist

I think that's because they don't look at what she's actually saying but just see the media  repeating her opponents saying she's a left-wing extremist. Case in point is the thing Ed.K posted about - if you bother to go and read the article and the study she references then it makes sense, but if you don't do that then the post just reinforces the view that she's an extremist.

Yes. I suppose the same could be said about Trump.

I think Trump broadcast without any middlemen, so if anyone's to blame for his position it's surely him

However, I agree that often members of both sides are misquoted or quoted out of context for the headlines, and if you read their actual words it's not so bad (and sometimes completely different). Even Boris suffered that with the £350m for the NHS which he didn't actually say but is now de facto truth.

[TimFox]

With respect to Trump tweets:
A recent book with interviews with Trump insiders mentioned that one said that when Trump first learned how to send his own tweets, it was like the scene from "Jurassic Park" when the dinosaurs figured out how to open doors.

[PlainName]

 

[Wallace Gasiewicz]

I wonder how he did it,  I am at a loss, I even bought a canary and still no tweeting!!!!
 
quote from TinFox
With respect to Trump tweets:
A recent book with interviews with Trump insiders mentioned that one said that when Trump first learned how to send his own tweets, it was like the scene from "Jurassic Park" when the dinosaurs figured out how to open doors.

[Buriedcode]

most of those who are, consider her to be a left-wing extremist

I think that's because they don't look at what she's actually saying but just see the media  repeating her opponents saying she's a left-wing extremist. Case in point is the thing Ed.K posted about - if you bother to go and read the article and the study she references then it makes sense, but if you don't do that then the post just reinforces the view that she's an extremist.

Yes. I suppose the same could be said about Trump.

I think Trump broadcast without any middlemen, so if anyone's to blame for his position it's surely him

However, I agree that often members of both sides are misquoted or quoted out of context for the headlines, and if you read their actual words it's not so bad (and sometimes completely different). Even Boris suffered that with the £350m for the NHS which he didn't actually say but is now de facto truth.

Close!

https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-statistics-authority-misuse/

[james_s]

Did he? Did he find someone “foolish enough” to be his successor and report to him yet? I do not think this is going to happen any time soon. Elon is a clown, and his clownish polls should not be taken seriously.

I don't know squat about being a CEO, I guess I'm qualified, maybe I should apply.

[james_s]

most of those who are, consider her to be a left-wing extremist

I think that's because they don't look at what she's actually saying but just see the media  repeating her opponents saying she's a left-wing extremist. Case in point is the thing Ed.K posted about - if you bother to go and read the article and the study she references then it makes sense, but if you don't do that then the post just reinforces the view that she's an extremist.

Yes. I suppose the same could be said about Trump.

The two are remarkably similar in some ways, I'm not a mental health professional but they both display strong narcissistic traits and they're both obnoxious loudmouths.