I bet that a much higher percentage of black (than of white or Asian) students have to provide financial support for their family. And that’s what you missed in your wokeness training – the blacks had been financially oppressed (redlining, etc), which led to more poverty and less generational wealth.
The financial state of blacks has more to do with the dissolution of the black family than it does to any financial oppression. Children who grow up in homes without fathers have much poorer outcomes in terms of education, health, involvement with police.
Currently, 55.1% of all black children, 31.1% of all Hispanic children, and 20.7% of all white children are living in single-parent homes . Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
4 Likes
But that’s just white priviledge! Its not like a black guy can, ya know, decide to provide a stable home to his children. We see it all the time when the poor black guy gets shot while attacking cops - the lesson conveyed to their kids isnt to not attack cops, it’s that cops are evil and you should attack them too.
If you want things to change for the better, you need to adopt the habits and behaviors that facilitate those better results. Not point fingers while continuing to perpetuate the self destruction.
5 Likes
Are you sure it was just that poor people were oppressed via redlining, including many poor whites as well as poor blacks?
2 Likes
Did you miss the part about how how the black kids had scholarships. Was the fact that a higher percentage of black students have scholarships something that our wokeness trainer missed? /sarcasm
For real though, I didn’t miss anything. I understand this history of racism in this country. I’m not denying it. The specific experience the guy in my seminar relayed was an example of what people in certain socioeconomic classes have to deal with. It wasn’t an example of what black people have to deal with. It wasn’t an example of racism. And the white guy not having to worry about that in college wasn’t an example of white privilege. It was an example of class privilege. You can argue all day long that everyone in the story ended up where they did because of race, but we all know that there is more than one factor that determines where you end up in life. Was race a factor? No doubt. What about height? What about IQ? What about their parents’ age when they had kids? What about the efforts of their 3rd grade teacher? Their middle school football coach? Their religious background? See where I’m going with this? Breaking people’s lives down to the most superficial level (race) is probably one of the least nuanced ways of explaining how things got where they are. If we really want to be superficial, lets do it across the board. Let’s look at how people with above average looks and height do compared to ugly and short people? Be honest. All else equal, in 2022 in the USA, would you rather be born a tall good looking black guy or a short ugly white guy? I’d rather be the tall good looking one.
6 Likes
Decades before your parents were born black Americans existed in laudable family units: mom, dad, kids. Too many were dirt poor; I give you that. But their families were intact and traditional, with no room whatsoever for criticism.
It was not until more recently, following liberal welfare excesses, when black mothers became “baby mommas”, and too many black men became more focused on multiple sexual experiences and less on family life.
There is nothing whatsoever inherently wrong with black attitudes where family is concerned. It is instead liberal do goodism which has brought them to the sad state of affairs which exists today. While these policies have been a tragedy for too many black Americans, they have fostered exactly the outcomes sought by the liberals in the first place: dependence and submission.
5 Likes
This pundit and economist is really annoyed at Musk buying Twitter, since maybe he’ll make it less censorious and (God forbid) make them let Trump back on it.
Suddenly he’s not ok when a company might do things he doesn’t like. Guess his tweets didn’t age well.
2 Likes
so the fun continues, LOL
3 Likes
“If the libs are mad about Elon buying Twitter they should just make their own Twitter. It is a private company, after all."
Lol
Well this is awkward: TWTR board hired Goldman to “advise” it that the @elonmusk $54.20 offer is too low. Only problem: Goldman has a SELL rating with a $30 price target. Oops.
2 Likes
will the hilarity never end?
2 Likes
Musk gave an interview midday today, touching on Tesla, Twitter, crude jokes, etc.
Elon Musk talks Twitter, Tesla and how his brain works — live at TED2022 - YouTube (around 1:15, linked I think)
That was an opinion derived before the TWTR board hired Goldman. They will “circle back” to it soon with confirmation of that opinion … or possibly an “enhanced” review. 
Now, hold your horses up. I thought the media LOVED twitter, and it was a great replacement for the “man on the street” opinion.
Why in the world would they now oppose more freedom. Are they afraid that the Chicoms would possibly create bots that influenced opinion? Maybe they’re afraid that TASS or the Chicoms would find another way to influence opinions of the “less than aware” crowd. I can’t imagine why they would think that, unless they’re just unhinged by covid and have lost their minds.
1 Like
I think the media loves twitter for the moronic slideshow of celebrities that it boils down to.
Personally, I think that Twitter already is a runaway dumpster truck on fire that’s best approached with an 11+ ft pole (or not at all). With less content moderation, it’ll become closer to 4chan meets textnow. Maybe I have a very low opinion of humanity but Musk staking the future of civilization on his takeover and revamp of Twitter is either incredibly depressing/frightening or extremely misguided in my opinion. Maybe because I don’t see how to reconcile maximum trust with lack of moderation for sources of information.
2 Likes
How about allowing a free market of ideas? Let the reader decide for himself what to believe after researching and considering alternate points of view. Otherwise, who is the one that’s going to decide what is true and what is not? It seems that you want that you or people who think like you to be the “moderator” that’s going to decide what is allowable speech. and anyone who disagrees with you has to be silenced.
3 Likes
Readers are not equipped to discern the truth. First, most are not willing to do the appropriate research. They want to be fed something that conforms to their current beliefs. But even for those willing and intellectually equipped to do the necessary research and question the reporting, it’s in practice very hard to do this exercise on an individual basis for every bit of news you’d encounter daily. It’s costly, time consuming and requires resources most do not have.
Truth is objective. Take some of the Ukraine stuff that’s happened. Someone did something. The fact that there are competing versions of what happened and our ability to determine the factual truth does not negate the fact that only one set of events actually happened. We’re not in quantum mechanics here.
And I don’t want a specific set of moderators who think like me. I want an objective fact/science-based set of moderators that can be trusted, who have the resources to investigate reports, who are unbiased by financial nor political interests, and all that combined with profitability. If you think Musk’s version of Twitter is gonna achieve this, good for you. I doubt I’ll see this in my lifetime or that of my kids honestly.
In other words, free speech or not, I don’t think he will succeed in having a platform for universally verifiable truth. All he’ll achieve is a different flawed paradigm but one which lets him manipulate people more freely. If that’s the future of civilization to be manipulated more readily by the rich and influential, who can buy their way to the loudest megaphone, count me out.
To be clear, I’m totally not against his takeover of Twitter. He should be allowed to do with his money what he wants. Nobody complains about Murdock’s ability to control vast amount of the media. Why shouldn’t Musk be allowed to as well. It’s just that as far as I’m concerned the platform will not gained a iota of credibility and usefulness from the takeover but he’s fine to do whatever he wants with it.
1 Like
Yup. The solution to too much free speech is still more free speech. But this is a concept widely abhorred by liberals.
4 Likes
And where do you think we will find these wise angels?
2 Likes
Oh, we will not find any. It’s akin to thrashing in quicksand. Hence why I said I have low opinion of humanity’s ability to solve this any time soon.
What did social media and free speech accomplish in terms of our ability to ascertain truth? With your long perspective on history, do you believe things have gotten better or worse lately? Personally, I’ve only seen the S/N decrease.
2 Likes
There is no free speech on social media . . . . . . . . yet.
1 Like
There are platforms with no moderation though. They’re just not popular.
1 Like