4 of the top 5. He did say the 'most' dangerous cities.
So, he's right.
Why stop at 10? Why not check the Top 25? 50?
Book banning that suspiciously looks like what all the snowflakes are worried about
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
So, he's right.
Why stop at 10? Why not check the Top 25? 50?
So 4 of the top 5 most dangerous cities and last time I looked Chicago leads the country in homicides, also with a black prosecutor. Blacks make up 13% of the population. Why is that glib? I'm obviously right. I clearly said most dangerous cities.
And remember these are the urban cores and where crime is the highest. Who cares about the 80,000 rural prosecutors in Mayberrys where the worst thing to happen is expired tags.
So we're to believe there's systemic racism in the courts, in cities where blacks predominantly reside, urban cores, that are run by black prosecutors who are responsible for proffering recommendations for dispositions involving their own race. I think it's in keeping with believing that unarmed blacks are shot at a disproportionate rate by cops. Just not true.
Then we have this woman. People care about crime and they care about inflation. She doesn't seem to get it.
Nation’s Largest Police Advocacy Org Accuses Psaki of ‘Laughing Off’ Americans’ Crime Concerns
The National Fraternal Order of Police accused White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki of mocking Americans' concerns about the rising crime rate.
Last edited:
But surely you are smart enough to recognize that the salient counties are those with the highest black populations and crime - if systemic racism is the charge. And again 4 out of the top 5 most dangerous cities and the city with the most murders have black prosecutors. Hell that's 5/6. If systemic racism occurs that's the germane situs. That's the locus of the issue.
The term "bogeyman" is routinely thrown around here. In truth whether it's systemic racism, BLM alleging the cops are killing unarmed blacks - it's all illusory; it's the left's bogeyman that is supporting a fallacy. It's all foam no beer. Some of you just want there to be racism so badly. You're just so desperate to find it where it doesn't exist, or not to the extent you purport. I do not understand that mentality. It's not helping anyone or anything.
Last edited:
And you’re smart enough to know there’s systemic racism and other issues that lead to those locales having such high crime rates.
The prosecutor counterpoint was simply refuting your comment about all of the prosecutors are black and they clearly are not by a longshot. You provided 2-3 examples from your own experience and then extrapolated that as the rule across the country.
No.
No.
You said the legal system. And I pointed out the majority of prosecutors in the most dangerous/high crime areas with the largest black populations are black. But keep on searching for that systemic racism. If you have specific examples of it i am all ears. Otherwise it's just unsubstantiated feelings devoid of evidence. In other words, just talk.
So everyone is equal and has equal shots at success when they pop out of the womb (assuming they survive the womb)? Is that your position?
Btw, no you didn’t. You said they’re all black. Period. I showed you that’s not true and then you changed your position based on research someone else did and changed your argument to ‘only the top five most dangerous’ which is still probably less than 5% of the total population.
Learn to read. I said The Who's is Who of the most dangerous cities. What's more those are the cities that are relevant for reasons I've already belabored the shit out of. 4/5 and the city with the most murders. If you take issue with that I can't help you. I'm done here
Last edited:
You should definitely take your ball and go home. It's not pretty when you get shitty and petulant like this.
Banning the book is stupid. Is it different than the left canceling people when they disagree with their opinions?
Thank you. Starting the day with a blessing is always a...well, a blessing.
Bless you, too!.
😇
If he was good, he’d be in the league playing. He seems to be doing fine white hating and cop hating. Maybe he and Nike can make money selling these?
LOVERRO: Kaepernick’s pig socks missing from Nike ad
I wonder if Nike will be marketing Colin Kaepernick socks? You know, the ones he wore two years ago — the socks that depicted police officers as pigs?
amp.washingtontimes.com
Last edited:
Man this kindness going around this morning is great.
Well, yes, it is different. Very different. Not all stupid things are identical.
Banning books, thought, opinions all the same to me.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
More examples:
Incident - Willow Creek Elementary School
I am an elementary teacher in Cherry Creek School District #5 in Centennial, CO not at Willow Creek but another elementary school in the district. I didn’t want that school to be the one I listed in order to protect my identity. I received the attached files from our union representative on...
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I guess what I don't get is why some people think teaching anti-racism is somehow being anti-white or somehow appalling. Being for equality isn't anti-white, anti-Semitic or anti-any other groups of people.
While to my understanding the gist of BLM was never WLDM, I don't think having a wear your BLM shirt to school day(s) is the right way to go about it, especially given how politicized it has become despite it not being a political movement. I think using that as part of the anti-racism lesson does more harm than good and would probably reach more people by staying away from that.
While to my understanding the gist of BLM was never WLDM, I don't think having a wear your BLM shirt to school day(s) is the right way to go about it, especially given how politicized it has become despite it not being a political movement. I think using that as part of the anti-racism lesson does more harm than good and would probably reach more people by staying away from that.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Hilarious that anyone who voted for Trump would try to accuse that of another group.
He just makes shit up ... like he did above.
This guy is the most full of shit person on this board.
BLM is most certainly a political movement. That’s according to the founders themselves.
“We are trained marxists” ring a bell?
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Yea, that is why BLM was also protesting vaccine mandates that were enacted by dems.
lmao. It was a race movement. not a political movement.
what dem politician led the blm movement pray tell?
Who said it’s a democrat movement? Seems like you made that link yourself.
I’m just going by what their founders said.
There's a difference between FOS and Wing nut.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Back to the original post, I've almost finished Maus. It's very good. There are a few "shits" and an early discussion of premarital sex. Nothing I'd have a problem with for a 13-14 year old, but I know people who would.
But late in the book, there are two pages that cover the killing of children. One panel depicts a Nazi soldier swinging a 2-3 year old child by the leg, and bashing him into a wall. Its' black and white, but blood is everywhere. A few panels on the next page describe a mother who, rather than have her children taken to a concentration camp, poisons them. One of the children poisoned is the narrator's son, who we've grown attached to in the story.
I think it's reasonable to object to making that required reading for 13-14 year olds (remember THAT is what this debate is about, not banning the book). It's certainly worthy of a discussion. I don't know where I come down on that for my kids; I'd be fine with them reading it at 17-18, no doubt. My soon-to-be 12 year old son would be severely affected by it, though, in a way I wouldn't want him to experience now. My 14 year-old daughter--I'm not sure.
As a corollary, I don't think teachers or administrators have any more expert credentials or insight than any parent does over what their child is prepared to handle on an emotional level regarding that type of violence and horror.
But late in the book, there are two pages that cover the killing of children. One panel depicts a Nazi soldier swinging a 2-3 year old child by the leg, and bashing him into a wall. Its' black and white, but blood is everywhere. A few panels on the next page describe a mother who, rather than have her children taken to a concentration camp, poisons them. One of the children poisoned is the narrator's son, who we've grown attached to in the story.
I think it's reasonable to object to making that required reading for 13-14 year olds (remember THAT is what this debate is about, not banning the book). It's certainly worthy of a discussion. I don't know where I come down on that for my kids; I'd be fine with them reading it at 17-18, no doubt. My soon-to-be 12 year old son would be severely affected by it, though, in a way I wouldn't want him to experience now. My 14 year-old daughter--I'm not sure.
As a corollary, I don't think teachers or administrators have any more expert credentials or insight than any parent does over what their child is prepared to handle on an emotional level regarding that type of violence and horror.
Defendants in urban areas, whatever their race, are going to get better deals for like crimes than those in less densely populated areas.....because of the #s involved.
That's a really fair and thoughtful look at the book and the situation. Appreciate that and can appreciate the idea that it may be on the cusp of what is too intense for some 13-14 year olds. I would suspect that this kind of impact is part of what's important about teaching the Holocaust. What that suggests to me though is that maybe 13-14 is too young to be teaching the Holocaust and genocides across the board. Unfortunately, there are a lot of 13-14 year olds playing video games and watching movies where they are already becoming desensitized to violence, so it's a challenging age to navigate for sure.
Kudos for reading it. That is the important part. Even basing an opinion on your description is ill-informed at best. Maybe everyone who complained and everyone on the school board read it before complaining and making the decision. My experience is that at least some and probably most have not but honestly that may not be fair.
Here is a question, in a class of 20, if one complains, do you use the book? If 2? 3? It is a tougher decision than most of us admit.
I'm glad you took this to the content of the book, instead of where most of the thread started (probably my fault for giving it the title I did). The truth is, I was really just primarily offended by removing a classic piece of literature from the curriculum. I'm pretty universally opposed to book-banning (regardless of the form it comes in), especially if the reason is that we think the book will be too difficult for kids. I don't think we give kids enough credit. I was younger than 12 when I read Centennial. It includes a recounting of the fictional version of the Sand Creek Massacre, which contains some descriptions that I suspect you'd be hesitant to let your son read. In my case, I had no problem handling it.
With the obvious proviso that all children are different, I think more often than not, we err on the side of caution, and I'd generally prefer to err on the side of challenging our kids.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I agree with all that. The point, though, is even more thorny, and one Marvin touched on and I’ve been trying to focus the attention on: how do you handle content decisions in public schools where kids must be there, there are varying levels of maturity, various emotional triggers, and various parents with different values?
Given that the number of good books you can teach is very high, it makes it understandable to adopt a “least offensive is best” attitude. But while reasonable, it sits wrong with me probably for the same reasons it does you.
