|
raditts posted:There's a reason that "truth in the middle" opinions are so widely mocked, the least of which being that it demonstrates an astounding lack of understanding nuance mixed with smugness that you're somehow above it all and have all the real answers. I certainly hope I'm not presuming to state I have the real answer here. I totally don't! I've just got my opinion. dont even fink about it posted:You could just say "I dislike Moore's tone" rather than making tortured equivalency arguments. We're all still waiting on why Coulter is in any way equivalent to Moore other than that your sensibilities are offended. Clever editing! What a fiend. I'm gonna put them in the same bucket as loudmouthed jerkoffs that insult my intelligence with their presentations, there's nothing more to it, no matter how much you want me to quantify it. You can continue to be incredibly angry and write me off as a hand-wringing South Park idiot that can't figure out the right answer because you've got the right one, but whatever man, if it makes you feel a bit better by trying to insult me that's fine. Of course there's plenty of cases where there's a clear cut answer. But there's plenty of times where you should have all perspectives to make an intelligent, educated decision. Neither of those dildos want to do the latter and assume their perspective is the former.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:All of the mainstream media is remarkably biased against single payer healthcare, so it's super easy to find poo poo denouncing Moore's position on the issue, but most of that poo poo is exactly that, poo poo. Please present your favourite piece of poo poo that denounces Moore's Sicko documentary. I feel like you're trying to ensnare me in an argument that I already said I wasn't going to start: tarlibone posted:And no, I don't want to get into an argument about healthcare--I'm using this as an example. I mean, it'd be easier to understand why you're doing this if I didn't already say that I agree with most of his points. And that begs the question--why in the world would you think that if I did disagree with Moore completely, that I'd engage with someone who is already saying that all of my arguments were based on poo poo? I stopped stepping into those traps after my 2nd month on the Internets. Speaking of how I actually said that I agree with most of his positions.... dont even fink about it posted:That's too bad, because your standards for a documentary describe something that is non-existent and absurd. Let's aside that you don't understand the purpose, nature, or history of documentaries, though. To repeat: Please demonstrate the line of statistical evidence that sheds any serious doubt on the thesis of Sicko. As in, please demonstrate that Sicko is actually wrong. OK... go and watch nearly any of Ken Burns' documentaries. Like the Civil War, or Baseball, or better yet, Prohibition. (Well, you seem to think that these kinds of documentaries are absurd and non-existent, but trust me, they're real, they're not absurd, and the first two are super-long but worth the watch.) That's my standard. I expect a documentary to spend more time informing and less time trying to persuade. If you've made your documentary properly, then most of your audience will either agree with or at least appreciate your stand on the issue, assuming you're making one in the first place. And now, I must ask, why do you think I disagree with Sicko? I call Moore out on his bullshit methods, therefore I must disagree with his conclusions? No, please, don't answer that question--you'll only get it wrong: tarlibone posted:The most I will say about it is this: I don't disagree with all of Moore's positions on the issue. Or most of them, really. I can both agree with most of his stance on this issue and disagree with the method in which he frames his argument. He presents a complex issue in which all possible solutions have advantages, trade-offs, and disadvantages as a simple issue in which there is only one answer that has no downsides and is incredibly obvious. Such an approach makes the people who agree with that position feel warm and fuzzy (and smug) while making the opposition dig in their heels. And when the opposition digs in their heels, progress on any subject becomes more difficult. raditts posted:There's a reason that "truth in the middle" opinions are so widely mocked, the least of which being that it demonstrates an astounding lack of understanding nuance mixed with smugness that you're somehow above it all and have all the real answers. ... do you mean, "not the least of which being..."? Because something about that isn't parsing. At any rate, I find that the smugness you describe is rampant, both for the people who insist that both sides of an argument (because there are only ever 2 sides!) have valid points about every issue, and from the people who are clearly adhering to one side or the other. And for the record, Canadian Bacon is embarrassingly bad. The only good thing about it that I can say is that it didn't completely sully John Candy's legacy. (That honor went to Wagons East.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Guys, everything is fake. For example, the moon landing was all faked, google it. It's true. Not going to argue with you jerks about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Guys, everything is fake. For example, the moon landing was all faked, google it. It's true. Not going to argue with you jerks about it. Why should I believe you? You're fake!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:As for Moore being the liberal equivalent of Ann Coulter... mmmm, I don't know. Moore may cherry-pick data to make his points, but he's at least using actual data. Ann Coulter simply automatically gainsays anything the Democrats (or Liberals in general) say. If a Republican said the sky was blue, Moore would tentatively agree, but then cut to a scene showing a coal plant spewing smoke into the sky, then another smash cut to a dirty diesel engine blowing massive amounts of black smoke into the air, saying, "gray and black are sort-of blue, right?" If a Democrat said the sky was blue, Coulter would either argue that it was, in fact, red, or that it's only blue because the Islamoliberalcrat agenda has been liberaling the books and crayon industry to change what used to be called red into what we now call blue. Also, Coulter would claim that 'the sky is red' was proven in a Harvard study, reference that study in an end note, and said study would be titled 'Sky Is Blue' and the point of the article would be that, well, the sky is blue. Also, she'd demonstrate that the sky is blue by challenging readers to type into Lexus Nexus 'proof that sky is blue and not red democrat lie December 32nd' and tout the lack of results as important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Guys, everything is fake. For example, the moon landing was all faked, google it. It's true. Not going to argue with you jerks about it. The moon landing was real, but it wasn't on Earth's moon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:This just demonstrates what has been going on with Moore's detractors since Bowling for Columbine: When you attempt to pin them down, you get mealy-mouthed false equivalence and the sob story of how they suffered to look at nakedly political material. It's easy to point at things Moore does that are questionable: Implying that Matt Parker and Trey Stone made a cartoon that they didn't, or implying that the NRA gave a speech in Denver right after Columbine when it actually happened a year later, or splicing audio different parts of a speech, or even different speeches, and implying that it's one speech. Example: http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html The problem with Moore is, that in order to draw attention to his ideas, he sometimes goes into shady, or outright dishonest, tactics. And it's a problem because it gives people something to argue about. BfC's basic assertion, that America has a gun control problem, should be irrefutable and obvious to anybody. But now, it's easy to argue 'Moore faked NRA speeches!' and it's not about the base assertion anymore, and the point gets lost in the whargarble. Same thing with Sicko. America's health system *is* hosed. But again, he gives people things to argue about in how he presents that idea, and the conversation about the idea itself gets drowned out. Last Week Tonight gets into that territory itself sometimes. It's at it's best when it simply presents unaltered video or audio of somebody saying or doing something stupid and indefensible. Sometimes, though, I think they get into Mooreisms, take something out of context, or purposefully miss the point, and run with it, and it detracts from the base idea. I seem to recall, for example, something about a Danish zoo murdering animals in front of children for fun, when actually they were performing perfectly valid and medically indicated euthanizations, then trying to be as ethical as possible and get as much use out of the remains as possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
raditts posted:Why should I believe you? You're fake! gently caress you, that's why. Not gonna get snared into this whole arguing game. I made that mistake once and someone convinced me my opinion was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Hey guys, remember the whole "truth is in the middle" arguments during the Iraq War? Fun times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
quote:OK... go and watch nearly any of Ken Burns' documentaries. Like the Civil War, or Baseball, or better yet, Prohibition. (Well, you seem to think that these kinds of documentaries are absurd and non-existent, but trust me, they're real, they're not absurd, and the first two are super-long but worth the watch.) That's my standard. Look at this guy who thinks Ken Burns documentaries are objective and not pushing a narrative. The Civil War in particular. TheCenturion posted:It's easy to point at things Moore does that are questionable: Implying that Matt Parker and Trey Stone made a cartoon that they didn't, or implying that the NRA gave a speech in Denver right after Columbine when it actually happened a year later, or splicing audio different parts of a speech, or even different speeches, and implying that it's one speech. You have to have the mental fortitude to see through pedantic and unimportant nonsense brought up to distract you from the message, that's all. Name Change fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Documentaries pushing a narrative is literally a cornerstone of the genre. They're not entirely objective because that's not the point. This is the weirdest discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
The first documentary ever made, Nanook of the North, wasn't even impartial and truthful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Psst! There is no such thing as neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
Even when people have the purest intentions to be neutral, their subconscious bias will still affect their work in many ways. You can only be objective yourself, you can't possibly expect it from every piece of media you consume.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
I'll be pretty disappointed if Sunday's episode doesn't cover at least in some part the utter insanity of the Oregon standoff verdict.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
spooky like this! posted:I'll be pretty disappointed if Sunday's episode doesn't cover at least in some part the utter insanity of the Oregon standoff verdict. Maybe it was jury nullification. I mean, it seemed pretty cut-and-dry. The jury us basically saying that just because these guys took over federal buildings and property, and guarded their acquisition of that property with armed guards, well, by golly, that doesn't mean that federal wildlife officials should have felt too intimidated to go in and do their jobs as if there were no armed occupation on the property. Maybe Oregon is tired of nobody giving two fucks about Oregon, so they're trying to become the new Texas. "Hey, remember all the attention those yokels got when they thought that Jade Helm was an attempt at a military coup occupation martial law one world order Islama-Obama takeover? We want that!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
There's also the shenanigans with changing out Juror 11. They took a week to deliberate, Juror 4 sends a note saying Juror 11 told them they were biased, Juror 11 is replaced and they get Not Guilty verdicts within the same day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Didn't one of them get shot during the standoff? I mean that's something.tarlibone posted:Maybe it was jury nullification. I mean, it seemed pretty cut-and-dry. The jury us basically saying that just because these guys took over federal buildings and property, and guarded their acquisition of that property with armed guards, well, by golly, that doesn't mean that federal wildlife officials should have felt too intimidated to go in and do their jobs as if there were no armed occupation on the property. Honestly it doesn't seem surprising. I mean look at how they were treated by the media during the occupation; nobody wanted to call them "terrorists" so of course the jury is just going to pick up on that narrative. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
raditts posted:well, I watched "Team America World Police" one time, and
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Look at this guy who thinks Ken Burns documentaries are objective and not pushing a narrative. The Civil War in particular. Moore has been pumping up Trump for months (I wish I can find that odious tweet he sent about congratulating himself for spotting Trump's effect a couple of months ago, trust me it was awful) until the inevitable happened. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/791648893725450240 He's the worst, and no one should be listening to him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Moore has been pumping up Trump for months (I wish I can find that odious tweet he sent about congratulating himself for spotting Trump's effect a couple of months ago, trust me it was awful) until the inevitable happened. If you watched the movie you'd see how this clip grab is misleading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
override367 posted:Yep, if Trump had just invested the money his family gave him in a diverse fashion he'd be an actual billionaire I was going to post this. Honestly, though...what pisses me off most is that Trump will make the history books for this, and that someone, somewhere is watching this clusterfuck and writing a battle plan for how to do things *right* the next time. How to make "hate" cross the aisle and truly unite the public, and once things that were formerly taken for granted become scarcer or too expensive, "hate" will play for conservative and liberal alike. A peek from the 2024 Debates: "My opponent says that we have to focus our attentions on more sustainable food products or we're ~doomed~. What he/she isn't saying is that that includes insects! Now I don't know about you, but I believe one of the cornerstones of being an American is the right of every good, law-abiding citizen to have a nice, juicy steak or burger on their plate when they want it. It's one of the great joys in life, and I think we're all entitled to that luxury. Let the rest of the world eat crickets...we here in America are proud of our meat! Now let's listen to a rebuttal from Dr. Buzzkill about how I'm wrong and how exercising your freedom of choice to eat red meat makes you a bad person who's going to kill us all." The Trump campaign is an unintentional beta test of the viability of an openly fascist American political movement, and it's horrifying. In an ideal world, Trump would lose by so much that it would discourage anyone from following in his footsteps, but every single one of his supporters is now convinced that "what Washington needs is less career politicians," which sounds decent on the surface until you realize their idea of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is David Duke and not a Rhodes Scholar or successful small business owner in good standing in his district or state. We will meet America's Hitler inside of the next 20 years because of this vain shitstain of a man who's paved the way for it. And thanks to his stupidity, said person will know exactly where the lines are and will navigate them expertly. Just gonna leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w3E3eFMsLg&t=49s (stop @ 1:34) BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
I really do worry about how this election will change the atmosphere for the future. So many people and resources have found Trump abhorrent enough to throw their hats into the ring and act politically where previously they maintained neutrality and impartiality. I don't think that sort of thing can be put back into the bottle once the election has passed. Trump led off his campaign by accusing the media of being in a conspiracy against him, and regardless of whether it was true then, he has made it true now. The republican party is also going to suffer a lot from having thrown so much of its political capital and credibility behind this guy, but they've been a horribly fractured mess since they lost 2008. Maybe this will make them reform enough to unite behind something more than not being democrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:
Remember when we thought the same thing in 2009, when we thought the idea of Vice President Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh becoming the de facto GOP leader was rock bottom? And yet, here we are. Get ready for the same unfounded hatefulness and fumbling for reasons to stage an impeachment for the next 4-8 years as there was for the last 8, just that this time it will be built on a foundation of sexism instead of racism. raditts fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I was going to post this. Honestly, though...what pisses me off most is that Trump will make the history books for this, and that someone, somewhere is watching this clusterfuck and writing a battle plan for how to do things *right* the next time. How to make "hate" cross the aisle and truly unite the public, and once things that were formerly taken for granted become scarcer or too expensive, "hate" will play for conservative and liberal alike. I've said this before, and I'll say this again. Trump will likely go down in history to the general public as a man who lost the election for being "too extreme". A modern "Barry Goldwater" as you will. In reality, this isn't accurate. Prior to the first debate, Trump was neck and neck against Hillary with a 50/50 chance of taking the White House. If Trump was an actual good debater he very well could have won the presidency along with the house, senate, AND supreme court to back him up. Hell, Trump was arguably winning the first debate until the topic of Obama's birth certificate was brought up. This is unfortunately how a lot of history, especially political history, is written. It is written by the victor's. Similar to how Republicans and especially establishment Democrats state that the left's move to full on centrism in the '90s was mandatory. But in reality, Dukakis had a double digit lead over H.W. Bush until he was attacked over his lenient criminal justice policies. Which may have demonstrated that Democrats had to move to the right crime (to which degree could be argued), but didn't really have to on much else. Yet, if you would argue otherwise with many establishment Democrats they would call you naive. History is written by the victors. That said, it does make me frightened that someone could take his place and correct Trump's errors. I imagine they'd have to branch off of full on white identity politics and take on something a little more inclusive toward the United State's suburban and rural minorities. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
I think its funny that Trump is actually less racist and sexist than the core elite of the Republican party but he's just worse at hiding it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
I don't really see Trump as some pandora's box of evil in terms of future presidential candidates. It might be indicative that if anything, the republicans need to reform to attract people that don't agree with democrat policy/philosophy. As much of a shithead as he's been revealed to be he appeals to people that want something other than a career politician to better their lives. But he's undeniably shown a pretty ugly side of people that I think if anything, folks are gonna reject it rather than embrace it. I mean it's undeniable you're gonna have racism and sexism in some form in this country, sad as it is. But I think we're on an upwards swing in terms of becoming a more progressive and accepting people. It also depends on how Clinton runs things. If I had to voice some kinda concern for our future it's the stigmatizing of differing opinions and dismissal of someone's worth because they're not on the same side as you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Servaetes posted:If I had to voice some kinda concern for our future it's the stigmatizing of differing opinions and dismissal of someone's worth because they're not on the same side as you. I absolutely agree with this. The whole "theres only two sides gotta pick one" thing is really just a pile of poo poo I hope we move past as a people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This is unfortunately how a lot of history, especially political history, is written. It is written by the victor's. Similar to how Republicans and especially establishment Democrats state that the left's move to full on centrism in the '90s was mandatory. But in reality, Dukakis had a double digit lead over H.W. Bush until he was attacked over his lenient criminal justice policies. Which may have demonstrated that Democrats had to move to the right crime (to which degree could be argued), but didn't really have to on much else. Yet, if you would argue otherwise with many establishment Democrats they would call you naive. History is written by the victors. Jimmy Carter kind of started the process of shifting the Democratic Party's power base away from the unions. Dukakis along with many other Democrats of his generation continued moving the Democrats to the neoliberal center, and promoted policies to grow the "professional" base of Democratic supporters. The ideological shift within the Democratic Party and American liberalism was happening for a generation before Bill Clinton took office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Clinton shouldn't get all the blame for moving the Democrats to the right. I agree. Carter absolutely began the process. And Clinton or no Clinton (hell even no Reagan), the Democrats were going to move to the right regardless. However the length of the final leap the Democrats took in cementing their position as a centrist party could easily be questioned as unnecessarily far. Again when people question policies such as welfare reform, repealing Glass Steagall, or the crime bill, establishment Democrats state that these policies in their existing forms weren't just necessary at the time but in fact mandatory to keep the party from collapsing. I agree that there are few sane people out there who would say that the Democrats didn't have to shift to the right on some key issues to stay relevant after the Reagan Revolution. But the degree the Democrats moved ignite the controversy. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Remember a few weeks back, when Oliver first claimed we had hit rock bottom? I hope he has a few words about Comey's behavior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Remember a few weeks back, when Oliver first claimed we had hit rock bottom? I hope he has a few words about Comey's behavior. As well as mentioning that the man is 6'8" tall:  Servaetes posted:I'm gonna put them in the same bucket as loudmouthed jerkoffs that insult my intelligence with their presentations, there's nothing more to it, no matter how much you want me to quantify it. You can continue to be incredibly angry and write me off as a hand-wringing South Park idiot that can't figure out the right answer because you've got the right one, but whatever man, if it makes you feel a bit better by trying to insult me that's fine. Of course there's plenty of cases where there's a clear cut answer. But there's plenty of times where you should have all perspectives to make an intelligent, educated decision. Neither of those dildos want to do the latter and assume their perspective is the former. Coulter and Moore are the same in the sense that they're both cheerleaders for their respective sides. Neither's antics or labors amount to a damned thing nowadays except to figuratively blow on the 'crazy glue' that's sticking everyone in their respective mindsets. Ayn Rand has surreptitiously turned more people into Libertarians/Republicans than any modern ideologue or pundit. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Coulter and Moore are the same in the sense that they're both cheerleaders for their respective sides. Neither's antics or labors amount to a damned thing nowadays except to figuratively blow on the 'crazy glue' that's sticking everyone in their respective mindsets. Ayn Rand has surreptitiously turned more people into Libertarians/Republicans than any modern ideologue or pundit. This is more or less what I was trying to say with less words but the guy that voraciously wants to kiss his rear end and screech about documentaries wouldn't shut the gently caress up about it
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I was going to post this. Honestly, though...what pisses me off most is that Trump will make the history books for this, and that someone, somewhere is watching this clusterfuck and writing a battle plan for how to do things *right* the next time. How to make "hate" cross the aisle and truly unite the public, and once things that were formerly taken for granted become scarcer or too expensive, "hate" will play for conservative and liberal alike. As a lifelong socialist/communist who believes that the second amendment only provides the right to bears arms to members of "a well regulated militia," ie only active duty military, if I can't have a steak I will rise up and take up arms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Carlos Danger returns!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:The first documentary ever made, Nanook of the North, wasn't even impartial and truthful. Quoting for Documentary Now!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Servaetes posted:This is more or less what I was trying to say with less words but the guy that voraciously wants to kiss his rear end and screech about documentaries wouldn't shut the gently caress up about it raditts posted:There's a reason that "truth in the middle" opinions are so widely mocked, the least of which being that it demonstrates an astounding lack of understanding nuance mixed with smugness that you're somehow above it all and have all the real answers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Carlos Danger returns! It's been a long time coming. Much like Weiner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
So thrilled that John covered school segregation. Disgusting how politicians rarely talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So thrilled that John covered school segregation. Disgusting how politicians rarely talk about it. Depends on where you are. In my neck of the woods (St. Louis), there was a lawsuit long ago regarding the exact kind of segregation that John was talking about--whites fled the city proper into the county, which was more of a big deal here than in other urban areas because not only are the suburbs not part of the main city, St. Louis is not a part of its own county thanks to the Great Divorce, in which the city left the county because they were tired of using their tax base to support the rural area surrounding them, because how could that ever backfire, the big cities at the center of every major urban center will always be where everyone wants to live, no way will the whites and anyone else who can afford to move to the 'burbs. This separation meant that it wasn't so simple to have school districts develop any kind of deseg program. End result: many of the city's and county's schools became increasingly black in many areas, to the point of de facto segregation. So, the lawsuit. Which the plaintiffs won. Busing began, and only ended fairly recently when the judgement finally expired. And that clip you saw of the angry St. Louis area parents worried about their precious white kids getting stabbed and drugged by the... let's call them "urban" savages? That was a real thing that most of us ended up being really embarrassed about. (Thankfully, I'm in Illinois, in a suburb whose main high school is diverse because other than the Catholic school, it's the only one in town.) I think the bigger thing, though, is that it's easy (nowadays, at any rate) to criticize de jure segregation. How come it's illegal for black kids to go to Shiny Happy People Holding Hands High? That's wrong. But it's very easy to shrug off segregation that exists because Area A is 100% black and Area B is 100% white, and so the schools in those districts just happen to reflect the racial makeup of their locales. After all, in a small rural school in a tiny town in Iowa where there are no black kids, you don't expect to see black kids in school, do you? When a ready and coldly logical justification is at hand, people can justify drat near anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:32
|
|