Zone1 California school divides students by "privileged" and "oppressed"

[LibertyKid]

I answered all your questions but then I deleted them. Let's focus on your last question first. Or, let me flip the question on you and see how you respond.

Do you believe that even with affirmative action, if you put in enough effort you can succeed doing whatever endeavor you wish to do?

Yes, with or without AA as well. The caveat to your question though is "Whatever endeavor you wish to do". Some endeavors will be harder to accomplish than others and will require more effort. But, with enough time, effort and the physical capability, one can do whatever they want.

What matters is when you wake up in the morning, what decisions and choices are you going to make to better yourself and maybe the world around you. As I tell my kids "Make good choices".

 

[sealybobo]

LOL on atheists keeping their opinions to themselves.

The WBC people are idiots, but they have a right to speech. That is the difference between me and you, I support all speech, you only support speech you like, which translates to only supporting views you like.

That's the crux of collective liberty support vs. individual liberty support.

Good to point out when I'm being a hypocrite. Yes, I support the freedom to say what you want but I can't say what the reprocussions will be. Look at Kathy Griffin. Look at Louis CK. Look at Dilbert. He just fucked himself.

And for the record, I don't think he said anything wrong. In fact I've said exactly what dilbert has said here on usmb. Almost exactly. LOL But you can't say that out loud in public. You might lose your job if your employer finds out.

Now I see where you are going with this. Should Dilbert be able to say what he said and keep his job?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/media/dilbert-distributor-scott-adams/index.html

“If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people – according to this poll, not according to me, according to th is poll – that’s a hate group,” Adams said Wednesday on his YouTube show “Real Coffee with Scott Adams.”

“I don’t want to have anything to do with them,” Adams added. “And I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people, just get the f**k away … because there is no fixing this.”

 

[martybegan]

Good to point out when I'm being a hypocrite. Yes, I support the freedom to say what you want but I can't say what the reprocussions will be. Look at Kathy Griffin. Look at Louis CK. Look at Dilbert. He just fucked himself.

And for the record, I don't think he said anything wrong. In fact I've said exactly what dilbert has said here on usmb. Almost exactly. LOL But you can't say that out loud in public. You might lose your job if your employer finds out.

Now I see where you are going with this. Should Dilbert be able to say what he said and keep his job?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/media/dilbert-distributor-scott-adams/index.html

“If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people – according to this poll, not according to me, according to th is poll – that’s a hate group,” Adams said Wednesday on his YouTube show “Real Coffee with Scott Adams.”

“I don’t want to have anything to do with them,” Adams added. “And I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people, just get the f**k away … because there is no fixing this.”

There shouldn't be life ending/changing repercussions for speech things like that, it's a sign we have gone way too far in ruining people over nothing more than hurt feelings.

I am still going to read Dilbert. 90% of the reaction to him is from people who didn't read what he wrote, and 90% of the cancellations were by people who did it out of reflex of the CHANCE of a boycott, or nasty letters, or a smear campaign.

If you can't speak freely due to fear, you don't have free speech. Government doesn't have to be the only censoring group to ruin free expression.

What he said was pretty stupid, but not racist stupid, it was more resigned to disgust at current groupthink mentalities that happen to result from a poll of one race's views on another.

 

[sealybobo]

There shouldn't be life ending/changing repercussions for speech things like that, it's a sign we have gone way too far in ruining people over nothing more than hurt feelings.

I am still going to read Dilbert. 90% of the reaction to him is from people who didn't read what he wrote, and 90% of the cancellations were by people who did it out of reflex of the CHANCE of a boycott, or nasty letters, or a smear campaign.

If you can't speak freely due to fear, you don't have free speech. Government doesn't have to be the only censoring group to ruin free expression.

What he said was pretty stupid, but not racist stupid, it was more resigned to disgust at current groupthink mentalities that happen to result from a poll of one race's views on another.

Especially when you agree with what he said.

“If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with white people—according to this poll, not according to me,” he said, “that’s a hate group.” He added that white people should “get the hell away from Black people.”

I don't disagree with him. I've seen what blacks moving in does to a neighborhood. Before I used to blame whites for white flight. Now I blame blacks for driving us away. Because we were cool with the blacks who moved in. Then the next. Then the next. Nice people. But then blacks started stealing our cars and breaking into our homes. We used to keep the doors unlocked. Our keys in our cars. No more.

 

[martybegan]

Especially when you agree with what he said.

“If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with white people—according to this poll, not according to me,” he said, “that’s a hate group.” He added that white people should “get the hell away from Black people.”

I don't disagree with him. I've seen what blacks moving in does to a neighborhood. Before I used to blame whites for white flight. Now I blame blacks for driving us away. Because we were cool with the blacks who moved in. Then the next. Then the next. Nice people. But then blacks started stealing our cars and breaking into our homes. We used to keep the doors unlocked. Our keys in our cars. No more.

I don't have to agree with anything to support it. I agree with your sides right to spout your idiocy, vote on your idiocy, and propose your idiocy as policy. What I don't support is you trying to silence the other side, be it via government action, shaming, or other more shady methods.

I don't see them as "blacks", I see them as assholes, which crosses all creeds, colors and other balkanizing grouping attempts. The 2nd time I got mugged it was Hispanic kids, my downstairs neighbors were robbed by two strung out white meth heads.

The 1st time it was a bunch of black kids, but they were punks, another class/status crossing term.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes, with or without AA as well. The caveat to your question though is "Whatever endeavor you wish to do". Some endeavors will be harder to accomplish than others and will require more effort. But, with enough time, effort and the physical capability, one can do whatever they want.

What matters is when you wake up in the morning, what decisions and choices are you going to make to better yourself and maybe the world around you. As I tell my kids "Make good choices".

I would make one correction: people cannot necessarily do whatever they want with enough time, effort, and physical capability. It takes mental ability as well. An average-intelligence person will NOT be able to get a post-graduate degree in physics or engineering and become a rocket scientist.

I think we need to move away from all “everyone is equal” and can become anything they want. There is such a thing as innate ability as well.

 

[LibertyKid]

Especially when you agree with what he said.

“If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with white people—according to this poll, not according to me,” he said, “that’s a hate group.” He added that white people should “get the hell away from Black people.”

I don't disagree with him. I've seen what blacks moving in does to a neighborhood. Before I used to blame whites for white flight. Now I blame blacks for driving us away. Because we were cool with the blacks who moved in. Then the next. Then the next. Nice people. But then blacks started stealing our cars and breaking into our homes. We used to keep the doors unlocked. Our keys in our cars. No more.

How and the words he chose to say what he meant I think was poorly done. There is truth however in what he's saying.

I will not confront black people who are behaving badly in a social situation. As a white male, it won't go well for me. Even though the actions maybe causing harm, illegal, just rude, the perception will be that it won't matter because I am white. Period. Critiquing Blacks in America can only be done by a very select few, and I'm not sure who they even are. If you stand against the current social narratives as a Black person, you're an Uncle Tom, or white washed, or some other term to discredit the same race.

But the same goes for many other social groups. As someone pointed out earlier, a religion can state that homosexuality is a sin. If you adhere to that belief, you are "phobic". That's not true. But that is the narrative that is espoused by the vast majority (at least how I perceive it). So, in a public situation, you stay away from the topic and discussions.

 

[LibertyKid]

I would make one correction: people cannot necessarily do whatever they want with enough time, effort, and physical capability. It takes mental ability as well. An average-intelligence person will NOT be able to get a post-graduate degree in physics or engineering and become a rocket scientist.

I think we need to move away from all “everyone is equal” and can become anything they want. There is such a thing as innate ability as well.

I don't disagree with that. Sure there are some variables not accounted for. However, if a black, latino, poor white trash person, born in a poor inner city ghetto or a backwoods hillbilly squaller, with no familial support or mentor ship, if they choose to, can find their way out and succeed in this country. Of course, "being successful" is a very broad term and is weighed differently be each person.

 

[Lisa558]

I don't disagree with that. Sure there are some variables not accounted for. However, if a black, latino, poor white trash person, born in a poor inner city ghetto or a backwoods hillbilly squaller, with no familial support or mentor ship, if they choose to, can find their way out and succeed in this country. Of course, "being successful" is a very broad term and is weighed differently be each person.

Oh absolutely. Of course a Black or white person born into squalor can succeed. I was just pointing out that certain endeavors are out of reach for many people because they don’t have the innate ability required - be it a rocket scientist or an NFL player.

But can anyone succeed if we are to define “success” as living in safe and comfortable conditions, with enough food? Of course. The problem is that people’s entitlement is too high. To me, moving from abject poverty to a clean apartment or modest house with air-conditioning and taking the bus to a job every day is to have succeeded.

 

[Slade3200]

It's all there in print. You just refuse to see it or acknowledge it.

Then show it to me and explain yourself. Why are you playing guessing games. Make an intelligent argument and be direct. Why does the worksheet attack whites for racism but not the young for ageism?

 

[braalian]

These “oppressed” kids get a shit ton of scholarships, free meals, and academic leeway that the “privileged” kids do not.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes.

Ageism is thrown in there as a bone to the AARP.

Ageism is there because it is a form of oppression and bigotry which is what the sheet is going over. Why are you ok with one and not the other? Do you think ageism exists and racism doesn’t?

 

[Slade3200]

I took the time. So instead of replying, you critic my post and its length as cause to not reply.

Yes because if I were to address all of your questions it would be a novel I’d be writing and it is far too much for a healthy back and forth. Pick a point or two to discuss and it’s an easier back and forth

 

[Slade3200]

These “oppressed” kids get a shit ton of scholarships, free meals, and academic leeway that the “privileged” kids do not.

Good. What’s your point?

 

[LibertyKid]

Yes because if I were to address all of your questions it would be a novel I’d be writing and it is far too much for a healthy back and forth. Pick a point or two to discuss and it’s an easier back and forth

Pick a card, any card.

 

[martybegan]

Then show it to me and explain yourself. Why are you playing guessing games. Make an intelligent argument and be direct. Why does the worksheet attack whites for racism but not the young for ageism?

Figure it out yourself. I am making an intelligent argument, you just prefer attempted gotchas and willful ignorance of points you don't like.

 

[martybegan]

Ageism is there because it is a form of oppression and bigotry which is what the sheet is going over. Why are you ok with one and not the other? Do you think ageism exists and racism doesn’t?

Again, if someone is oppressed there has to be an oppressor, and next to each oppressed is a "privileged" group which all but is called out as the oppressor.

I don't care either way about the argument itself, what I care about is it being presented to kids as "one group is the good guys, one group is the bad guys, and the groups aren't based on what you did but on what you are"

It's no different than blood libel.

 

[Slade3200]

Figure it out yourself. I am making an intelligent argument, you just prefer attempted gotchas and willful ignorance of points you don't like.

Debates aren’t won by making ambiguous generalized references and then telling your opponent to figure it out for themselves.

My arguments are specific: I quote the text of the work sheet. I’ve shown there to be nothing factually wrong in the worksheet, I’ve shown that you’re ok with one section and not another… and now you’re dodging and not explaining why. Sorry but you’re losing this one.

 

[Slade3200]

Figure it out yourself. I am making an intelligent argument, you just prefer attempted gotchas and willful ignorance of points you don't like.

Gotchyas only exist if your gotten. Which you are. That’s why you’re avoiding direct and specific answers. And why your not referencing the worksheet

 

[Slade3200]

Again, if someone is oppressed there has to be an oppressor, and next to each oppressed is a "privileged" group which all but is called out as the oppressor.

I don't care either way about the argument itself, what I care about is it being presented to kids as "one group is the good guys, one group is the bad guys, and the groups aren't based on what you did but on what you are"

It's no different than blood libel.

Ageism. Targets = old people : Non-targets = young people

Is that attacking young people and calling them oppressors?