At the risk of lowering everyone's IQ by ten or more points, could we suggest social media are actually evil technologies? As a thought experiment, can anyone suggest anything unambiguously good about social media? I think we all know what's bad. Does the former justify the latter?
I wasn't using a computer when social media took off. I'm fairly certain I'm better off for not getting involved until this year with Medium. (High-brow social media.) Was no trouble giving it up.
Thing is, it's DESIGNED to be ADDICTIVE. If You asked just about anybody if they'd turn the greatest asset (their brain) over to a DRUG PUSHER, I believe most would say, "No WAY, Jose." Yet they do.
Besides destroying their attention span, and if they're multi-tasking actually changing their brain circuitry... Besides elevating the most SHALLOW ideas to the top... THe price they pay is the cost of all the shiny baubles social media is selling. That EVERYone just HAS to have, right.
I forgot to mention that Gen-Alpha are getting more comfortable so-called dealing with people over social-media, rather than actual-dealing with people face-to-face. And these kids severely crippled in some cases over-stressing about maintaining their position in their in-group?
And people wonder why depression and suicides are up? Granted, I'm not a psychologist but I just don't believe those are coincidences, do You?
I have been trying very hard to see Persuasion and many of the close in commuinity who write for it as other than monomanical -- to use Haidt's terminology - and I am failing badly. Outside of "how to" pieces about civility, how to engage constructively with the "other", there is a fairly relentless drum beat that concentrates on extremes on the left side of the classroom and other locations, once in a while, an aim at bothsidism ermerges and it is said that the extreme right is just as illiberal or stupid, but the emphaisis is on what to me is an exaggeration of the hard views on the left to left of center.It hurts me when authors I admire, like Haidt seem to hve fallen into that camp while criticizing it. Extreme language dominates and Haidt's fairy tale statues and the description of types of monomania fall into the extreme. Words like dangerous and destructive are used too freely. I am sadly turned off. I thought of taking the extreme action of just canceling my sub. I try however to avoid actions that cut to the quick, close doors, better to quietly withdraw, retain watchfulness, hope for better. You all make it very hard.
I'll start off by saying that I loathe the far right. I think most people on this site do. However, the far left is simply a mirror image and most NPR listening, NYT readers just don't realize it.
I got caught in the crosshairs of the woke three years ago, when the minister of my Unitarian Church changed the entire nature of the religious community. She preached multiple sermons in favor of transgender rights, the positive nature of Islam and the sins of white supremacy but then was absolutely SILENT about the growing, outspoken anti-semitism in the church. The last straw: I was a board member at the time and she told us that logic, reason, being on time, writing well, etc. were all qualities of white supremacy. When I said that my Black and Asian friends would be offended by being told that these were all "white" attitudes, I was called out for my privilege. I left the church and haven't looked back.
See, I can't see this. Apologize. From my study of all this "stuff," M. Haidt is rather mild. I'm afraid You haven't seen the depths, because dangerous and destructive is what's going ON these days in US Institutions. If You can give me a large Institution where this Leftist-extremism ISN"T dangerous and destructive, I'd like to hear about it.
no offence, I guess we live in different spheres and have different experiences. Clearly, how Persuasion sees what is going on matches what some segment, perhaps most subscribers know and fear.
Glad to "hear." But, see, what M. Haidt and Persuasion as well matches is what is going on below the surface. Not VERY below the surface, because the people behind BLM, the 1619 Project and that umbrella term "CRT" certainly don't have any NEED to hide it. Here's one going against the grain that mebbe SHOULD've have hidden his views. Lost a lotta clients, due to those who write "The Narrative."
Thank you Mr. Haidt for a thoughtfully written thought provoking article. I fear too many are barricaded behind their high walls to appreciate it. May I please be wrong.
I use “M.” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Mesdames and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. ALL CAPS are ITALICS. :)
TY (thank You) M. Haidt. Couldn’t agree more. TYTY.
I might add “a couple” points: (Which sometimes turns out to be more than two. ;)
ICBW, but I believe the BIGGER (italics) problem is that the tertiary institutions THEMSELVES are monomaniacal. Firstly, in their beliefs about supposedly “marginalized” people. And, secondly, in their idea that their job is to create il-liberals just like themselves. Again, ICBW, but my impression is that amongst the voices that are heard the LOUDEST, Yours is a very small minority.
I think what You are “speaking” of is a subset of a LARGE (recall, italics) problem. The FACT that there isn’t much of a repository of agreed-upon facts. I believe ONE reason for this is that Critical Race Theorists have managed to place prominence on “lived experience” over hard facts. I believe this was by DESIGN of M. Crenshaw, et al. In fact, hard-facts are now considered to be an aspect of “whiteness.” And who’s in favor of THAT?
IC-definitely-BW about this. But I think Universities took a 540° turn away from liberal views with the shooting of Michael Brown. As SOME people know, the idea that Michael Brown had his hands up and was saying don’t shoot was a bald-faced lie. I think movements based on bald-faced lies, and incapable of acknowledging their errors…
…Well, I think believers in the ONE TRUE FAITH probably WOULD come outta bald-faced lies. Or maybe it was just coincidence.
TYTY again, Sir, for this essay and Your work. ESPECIALLY if You read this. Bought a couple of Your books, but have about 1K, so haven’t gotten to them yet. (PLAN to, but… :)
What it's ACTUALLY about is trying to answer who actually IS running things in the US? Where do they come from? Why is it they are all woke? Implied in the conversation is whether it will ever change, I would say. May be of no interest, granted, but I thought it was interesting enough...
People who use the definition of "liberal" from the Oxford Languages as "2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise." are using the term liberal in the European meaning. Note the "liberal" political party in the UK. This meaning of liberalism translates as "neo liberalism" in the American context.
Prof Haidt, I am an admirer. But to some extent you speak in tongues. And you end before clarifying. If I am correct, your reticence proves the point you were afraid to make openly.
While the polymania you are advocating is a good long term goal, I would argue that some issues are urgent and pressing enough that it is essential to distill them to the simplest definitions and value judgements. If black people are dying at the hands of police every day, if I were black I don't know if I would see the value, or even have the patience to hold a nuanced discussion about all the lenses through with we could examine that death. I think I would frame it in the most basic terms possible to make my wishes clear and give unambiguous actionable instructions.
Leaving aside that "black people are dying at the hands of police every day" seems wildly implausible (though of course I will bow to actual data), there are many "urgent and pressing" problems. Homelessness, drug abuse, "deaths of despair", domestic violence, human trafficking and -- unfortunately -- so forth. Deciding that everything, including not only other problems but nuanced discussion of what would actually ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝, needs to be shunted aside so that we can... I don't know exactly what (maybe the nuanced discussion would have helped with that), seems like precisely the bad effects of monomania that the author is writing about.
The number in 2020 was over 1000 total (on average, that is multiple per day), 244 black (which is less than 1 per day on average). M. Lauer-Coles did not specify unarmed, which is the number I suspect you are quoting based on the WP database.
It's worth arguing the extent to which it's a problem for armed people being killed by the police. To have a decent discussion about that, though, we'd need to assess the extent to which the police *needed* to use deadly force in those circumstances, and it may also be worth looking at things like the extent to which people were badly injured by police but with the benefit of modern medicine they lived.
I provided statistics from a (relatively) reliable source (one of the sources you yourself used). I then suggested a framework that might be useful if we were to have a discussion.
You called this hogwash and pointed out that black people murder children. Last I checked, "Blacks" were not highly trained and charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law and protecting the public. That merits extra scrutiny.
If your point is that improving the outcomes around police violence (reducing the number and severity of murders and injuries) is going to increase the rate of murder of children (or anyone else), I can only suggest that 1) I'm willing to have that conversation, and 2) it would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that we couldn't reduce killings by police without also increasing other killings.
Absolutely have no intention of having that conversation. THIS is the point of my remark. Has absolutely ZERO to do with policing. Or, rather, indirectly. It has to do with PERSPECTIVE.
50. In ONE CITY (Chicago).
You wanna talk about actually HELPING Blacks, or talking statistics?
See, my point is the proper focus on actually HELPING people is so secondary to what people talk about that, really, it's hard for me not to treat all the talk as essentially tangential. That's just me.
Thanks, @jt. I had seen your earlier comment but didn't want to use the number because a) I wasn't motivated to look up the source myself and b) I think the wild implausibility is worth emphasizing in its own right.
Good points both, Sir! Yah, so wildly implausible, yet so overwhelmingly accepted as true.
I've gotten the number from MORE than two independent sources, like journalists USED-ta do. But I'm rarely able to motivate myself to look for the links, sad to say. TYTY for reply.
"If black people are dying at the hands of police every day, if I were black I don't know if I would see the value, or even have the patience to hold a nuanced discussion about all the lenses through with we could examine that death. I think I would frame it in the most basic terms possible to make my wishes clear and give unambiguous actionable instructions."
I think you're asking a good question. I'm sympathetic to the feeling that urgency trumps accuracy, effectiveness, and deliberative processes; I'm not convinced it's an effective way to solve a problem urgent or otherwise. We seem to end up paying for it later (e.g., the war on terror, handling of the 2009 financial crisis, overly simplistic communication about CV19 vaccines, etc.).
I'd agree that at certain points we have to try to boil down our values and choices for expedience; the start of the pandemic was one such time; we didn't have a lot of information, but what we did have suggested very bad stuff was coming very soon and we had to protect our hospitals -- hence the shutdown.
I think adopting that level of urgency to endemic problems -- problems that have existed for decades -- shortcuts more nuanced discussion and understanding that can lead to solutions that actually work, and work with fewer unintended deleterious consequences and greater justice for all.
I would define people being killed regularly by police as an endemic problem that we should address with urgency, but not with undue haste. (Incidentally, white people are killed by police plenty -- do you think that qualifies as an urgent problem in similar terms? If so, my hat's off to you for consistency, though I do wonder why you'd single out blacks and not simply say "people.")
TY (thank You). I would be absolutely FLOORED if whites being murdered by police even came up in the conversation by anyone but You, M. Wurzer. It's actually MORE than Blacks, but so what? Now, OFTEN been said that still, Blacks are killed in DISPROPORTIONATE numbers. But people I trust have said that this is largely DIRECTLY do the the FACT that there's more CRIME in the poorer Black neighborhoods. MORE Police there. MORE difficult and life-or-death situations that come up.
Roland Fryer figured out that, statistically, it was proportionate. Some don't believe M. Fryer. It goes against "The Narrative." My IMPRESSION is that this is the reason he was unceremoniously ousted from Harvard (I think it was) with 30 days notice (I think it was). Lab closed down. Students thrown out. Doesn't PAY to go against The Narrative, Black, white, yellow, red or purple.
When You say "If balck people are dying at the hands of police every day" I wonder if You've heard how many UNARMED Black men were killed by police in 2020. Most liberals guess a thousand. Some 10,000. What's Your guess. Sorry, You're wrong. No where close.
You've bought into "The Narrative" which CANNOT be refuted according to the Woke Religion.
And you have clearly bought into "the antinarrative" which cannot be refuted according the alt-right.
I'm not here to relitigate social justice. I am here for a frank debate about how to address it that doesn't automatically trend toward extremism, hyperbole, and talking points. f you cannot accept that there is inherent inequality in our country that favors a demographic it has always historically favored, I will not debate you. I will not respond again.
Your choice. I've voted Democratic since McGovern in '72. You?
I don't deny that there HAS been inherent inequality in our country. Your implication that white males are the problem is just rather simplistic, is all. And Your inability to back up what You say with any FACTS is rather typical... No actually it's a REQUIREMENT of those stating "The Narrative." Facts still hold the range of where truths are found. Words that don't contain ANY facts. SJWs bread-and-butter.
If You actually wanna debate some FACTS, come back again.
IOW, I'll never see Ya again. Practically guaranteed. Bye, bye.
While I don't necessarily agree with Ibram Kendi's assertion that all action is inherently either/or racist/non-racist, I don't agree with your interpretation either.
Not discussing race in a chemistry class is not automatically racist by his definition, it's just not ambiguous or neutral.
What's going in K - 12 is a direct outcome of Kendi's gibberish. Chemistry? Math? Racist? That's the way people are TALKING (italics) these days. SJWs teaching in high school.
If You see some connection between these, then You haven't studied as much Math and Chemistry as I have, and I mainly studied it in high school. Sorry. Chemistry and Math are MORE neutral than just about ANYTHING.
At the risk of lowering everyone's IQ by ten or more points, could we suggest social media are actually evil technologies? As a thought experiment, can anyone suggest anything unambiguously good about social media? I think we all know what's bad. Does the former justify the latter?
Good question, M. Barrie.
I wasn't using a computer when social media took off. I'm fairly certain I'm better off for not getting involved until this year with Medium. (High-brow social media.) Was no trouble giving it up.
Thing is, it's DESIGNED to be ADDICTIVE. If You asked just about anybody if they'd turn the greatest asset (their brain) over to a DRUG PUSHER, I believe most would say, "No WAY, Jose." Yet they do.
Besides destroying their attention span, and if they're multi-tasking actually changing their brain circuitry... Besides elevating the most SHALLOW ideas to the top... THe price they pay is the cost of all the shiny baubles social media is selling. That EVERYone just HAS to have, right.
I forgot to mention that Gen-Alpha are getting more comfortable so-called dealing with people over social-media, rather than actual-dealing with people face-to-face. And these kids severely crippled in some cases over-stressing about maintaining their position in their in-group?
And people wonder why depression and suicides are up? Granted, I'm not a psychologist but I just don't believe those are coincidences, do You?
I've just been coming out from under the rock in this past year. M. Haidt, himself, answered back in 2019: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/ Only gotten worse since then, AFAIK.
I have been trying very hard to see Persuasion and many of the close in commuinity who write for it as other than monomanical -- to use Haidt's terminology - and I am failing badly. Outside of "how to" pieces about civility, how to engage constructively with the "other", there is a fairly relentless drum beat that concentrates on extremes on the left side of the classroom and other locations, once in a while, an aim at bothsidism ermerges and it is said that the extreme right is just as illiberal or stupid, but the emphaisis is on what to me is an exaggeration of the hard views on the left to left of center.It hurts me when authors I admire, like Haidt seem to hve fallen into that camp while criticizing it. Extreme language dominates and Haidt's fairy tale statues and the description of types of monomania fall into the extreme. Words like dangerous and destructive are used too freely. I am sadly turned off. I thought of taking the extreme action of just canceling my sub. I try however to avoid actions that cut to the quick, close doors, better to quietly withdraw, retain watchfulness, hope for better. You all make it very hard.
I'll start off by saying that I loathe the far right. I think most people on this site do. However, the far left is simply a mirror image and most NPR listening, NYT readers just don't realize it.
I got caught in the crosshairs of the woke three years ago, when the minister of my Unitarian Church changed the entire nature of the religious community. She preached multiple sermons in favor of transgender rights, the positive nature of Islam and the sins of white supremacy but then was absolutely SILENT about the growing, outspoken anti-semitism in the church. The last straw: I was a board member at the time and she told us that logic, reason, being on time, writing well, etc. were all qualities of white supremacy. When I said that my Black and Asian friends would be offended by being told that these were all "white" attitudes, I was called out for my privilege. I left the church and haven't looked back.
There's a book, Used to be UU, The Systemic Attack on UU Liberalism, https://www.amazon.com/Used-Be-UU-Systematic-Liberalism-ebook/dp/B08ZS4CMB5, which details how this has taken over the entire denomination.
All this does not excuse the far right, which is extremely dangerous. It is just to say that the far left is too.
Sorry to "hear" of Your experience with UU. Sad, but You said it True about the Leftists. TYTY.
See, I can't see this. Apologize. From my study of all this "stuff," M. Haidt is rather mild. I'm afraid You haven't seen the depths, because dangerous and destructive is what's going ON these days in US Institutions. If You can give me a large Institution where this Leftist-extremism ISN"T dangerous and destructive, I'd like to hear about it.
Don't MEAN to offend, ma'am. Sorry if I did.
no offence, I guess we live in different spheres and have different experiences. Clearly, how Persuasion sees what is going on matches what some segment, perhaps most subscribers know and fear.
Glad to "hear." But, see, what M. Haidt and Persuasion as well matches is what is going on below the surface. Not VERY below the surface, because the people behind BLM, the 1619 Project and that umbrella term "CRT" certainly don't have any NEED to hide it. Here's one going against the grain that mebbe SHOULD've have hidden his views. Lost a lotta clients, due to those who write "The Narrative."
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/why-i-am-suing-ucla
See, this is what has BEEN going on. Me? I don't actually live in ANYBODY's sphere. I just read a lot, usually 12 -14 hours a day, so no time.
The link below probably requires a subscription to M. Weiss's Substack. Here's another:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/professor-sues-ucla-suspension-allegedly-224100102.html
Thank you Mr. Haidt for a thoughtfully written thought provoking article. I fear too many are barricaded behind their high walls to appreciate it. May I please be wrong.
I use “M.” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Mesdames and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. ALL CAPS are ITALICS. :)
TY (thank You) M. Haidt. Couldn’t agree more. TYTY.
I might add “a couple” points: (Which sometimes turns out to be more than two. ;)
ICBW, but I believe the BIGGER (italics) problem is that the tertiary institutions THEMSELVES are monomaniacal. Firstly, in their beliefs about supposedly “marginalized” people. And, secondly, in their idea that their job is to create il-liberals just like themselves. Again, ICBW, but my impression is that amongst the voices that are heard the LOUDEST, Yours is a very small minority.
I think what You are “speaking” of is a subset of a LARGE (recall, italics) problem. The FACT that there isn’t much of a repository of agreed-upon facts. I believe ONE reason for this is that Critical Race Theorists have managed to place prominence on “lived experience” over hard facts. I believe this was by DESIGN of M. Crenshaw, et al. In fact, hard-facts are now considered to be an aspect of “whiteness.” And who’s in favor of THAT?
IC-definitely-BW about this. But I think Universities took a 540° turn away from liberal views with the shooting of Michael Brown. As SOME people know, the idea that Michael Brown had his hands up and was saying don’t shoot was a bald-faced lie. I think movements based on bald-faced lies, and incapable of acknowledging their errors…
…Well, I think believers in the ONE TRUE FAITH probably WOULD come outta bald-faced lies. Or maybe it was just coincidence.
TYTY again, Sir, for this essay and Your work. ESPECIALLY if You read this. Bought a couple of Your books, but have about 1K, so haven’t gotten to them yet. (PLAN to, but… :)
When US elites allowed prominence of “lived experience” over hard facts, they showed themselves all-but hell bent on burying US culture.
There's no point in trying to interact with such people.
Unless many of these elites change course on this, the only viable courses for sane folks will be akin to secession.
Yah, Sir kaishaku.
I made a hash of it below. I said:
I recommend, if You like to look at the politics of today: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/authority-blob-roundtable
What it's ACTUALLY about is trying to answer who actually IS running things in the US? Where do they come from? Why is it they are all woke? Implied in the conversation is whether it will ever change, I would say. May be of no interest, granted, but I thought it was interesting enough...
People who use the definition of "liberal" from the Oxford Languages as "2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise." are using the term liberal in the European meaning. Note the "liberal" political party in the UK. This meaning of liberalism translates as "neo liberalism" in the American context.
Prof Haidt, I am an admirer. But to some extent you speak in tongues. And you end before clarifying. If I am correct, your reticence proves the point you were afraid to make openly.
While the polymania you are advocating is a good long term goal, I would argue that some issues are urgent and pressing enough that it is essential to distill them to the simplest definitions and value judgements. If black people are dying at the hands of police every day, if I were black I don't know if I would see the value, or even have the patience to hold a nuanced discussion about all the lenses through with we could examine that death. I think I would frame it in the most basic terms possible to make my wishes clear and give unambiguous actionable instructions.
Leaving aside that "black people are dying at the hands of police every day" seems wildly implausible (though of course I will bow to actual data), there are many "urgent and pressing" problems. Homelessness, drug abuse, "deaths of despair", domestic violence, human trafficking and -- unfortunately -- so forth. Deciding that everything, including not only other problems but nuanced discussion of what would actually ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝, needs to be shunted aside so that we can... I don't know exactly what (maybe the nuanced discussion would have helped with that), seems like precisely the bad effects of monomania that the author is writing about.
18
The number in 2020 was over 1000 total (on average, that is multiple per day), 244 black (which is less than 1 per day on average). M. Lauer-Coles did not specify unarmed, which is the number I suspect you are quoting based on the WP database.
It's worth arguing the extent to which it's a problem for armed people being killed by the police. To have a decent discussion about that, though, we'd need to assess the extent to which the police *needed* to use deadly force in those circumstances, and it may also be worth looking at things like the extent to which people were badly injured by police but with the benefit of modern medicine they lived.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
(My numbers came from entering 2020 as the year and Black as the race. If you add unarmed, it comes to 18 black, 60 total.)
Thanks!
Look. All-a that is hogwash. I'm sorry. but it is.
How many CHILDREN, murdered by Blacks? Guess. Come back later. Reading.
I provided statistics from a (relatively) reliable source (one of the sources you yourself used). I then suggested a framework that might be useful if we were to have a discussion.
You called this hogwash and pointed out that black people murder children. Last I checked, "Blacks" were not highly trained and charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law and protecting the public. That merits extra scrutiny.
If your point is that improving the outcomes around police violence (reducing the number and severity of murders and injuries) is going to increase the rate of murder of children (or anyone else), I can only suggest that 1) I'm willing to have that conversation, and 2) it would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that we couldn't reduce killings by police without also increasing other killings.
Done reading. I recommend, if You like to look at the politics of today: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/authority-blob-roundtable
Absolutely have no intention of having that conversation. THIS is the point of my remark. Has absolutely ZERO to do with policing. Or, rather, indirectly. It has to do with PERSPECTIVE.
50. In ONE CITY (Chicago).
You wanna talk about actually HELPING Blacks, or talking statistics?
See, my point is the proper focus on actually HELPING people is so secondary to what people talk about that, really, it's hard for me not to treat all the talk as essentially tangential. That's just me.
Thanks, @jt. I had seen your earlier comment but didn't want to use the number because a) I wasn't motivated to look up the source myself and b) I think the wild implausibility is worth emphasizing in its own right.
Good points both, Sir! Yah, so wildly implausible, yet so overwhelmingly accepted as true.
I've gotten the number from MORE than two independent sources, like journalists USED-ta do. But I'm rarely able to motivate myself to look for the links, sad to say. TYTY for reply.
"If black people are dying at the hands of police every day, if I were black I don't know if I would see the value, or even have the patience to hold a nuanced discussion about all the lenses through with we could examine that death. I think I would frame it in the most basic terms possible to make my wishes clear and give unambiguous actionable instructions."
I think you're asking a good question. I'm sympathetic to the feeling that urgency trumps accuracy, effectiveness, and deliberative processes; I'm not convinced it's an effective way to solve a problem urgent or otherwise. We seem to end up paying for it later (e.g., the war on terror, handling of the 2009 financial crisis, overly simplistic communication about CV19 vaccines, etc.).
I'd agree that at certain points we have to try to boil down our values and choices for expedience; the start of the pandemic was one such time; we didn't have a lot of information, but what we did have suggested very bad stuff was coming very soon and we had to protect our hospitals -- hence the shutdown.
I think adopting that level of urgency to endemic problems -- problems that have existed for decades -- shortcuts more nuanced discussion and understanding that can lead to solutions that actually work, and work with fewer unintended deleterious consequences and greater justice for all.
I would define people being killed regularly by police as an endemic problem that we should address with urgency, but not with undue haste. (Incidentally, white people are killed by police plenty -- do you think that qualifies as an urgent problem in similar terms? If so, my hat's off to you for consistency, though I do wonder why you'd single out blacks and not simply say "people.")
TY (thank You). I would be absolutely FLOORED if whites being murdered by police even came up in the conversation by anyone but You, M. Wurzer. It's actually MORE than Blacks, but so what? Now, OFTEN been said that still, Blacks are killed in DISPROPORTIONATE numbers. But people I trust have said that this is largely DIRECTLY do the the FACT that there's more CRIME in the poorer Black neighborhoods. MORE Police there. MORE difficult and life-or-death situations that come up.
Roland Fryer figured out that, statistically, it was proportionate. Some don't believe M. Fryer. It goes against "The Narrative." My IMPRESSION is that this is the reason he was unceremoniously ousted from Harvard (I think it was) with 30 days notice (I think it was). Lab closed down. Students thrown out. Doesn't PAY to go against The Narrative, Black, white, yellow, red or purple.
When You say "If balck people are dying at the hands of police every day" I wonder if You've heard how many UNARMED Black men were killed by police in 2020. Most liberals guess a thousand. Some 10,000. What's Your guess. Sorry, You're wrong. No where close.
You've bought into "The Narrative" which CANNOT be refuted according to the Woke Religion.
And you have clearly bought into "the antinarrative" which cannot be refuted according the alt-right.
I'm not here to relitigate social justice. I am here for a frank debate about how to address it that doesn't automatically trend toward extremism, hyperbole, and talking points. f you cannot accept that there is inherent inequality in our country that favors a demographic it has always historically favored, I will not debate you. I will not respond again.
Your choice. I've voted Democratic since McGovern in '72. You?
I don't deny that there HAS been inherent inequality in our country. Your implication that white males are the problem is just rather simplistic, is all. And Your inability to back up what You say with any FACTS is rather typical... No actually it's a REQUIREMENT of those stating "The Narrative." Facts still hold the range of where truths are found. Words that don't contain ANY facts. SJWs bread-and-butter.
If You actually wanna debate some FACTS, come back again.
IOW, I'll never see Ya again. Practically guaranteed. Bye, bye.
Oh, BTW: Eighteen (18). Surprise to most.
While I don't necessarily agree with Ibram Kendi's assertion that all action is inherently either/or racist/non-racist, I don't agree with your interpretation either.
Not discussing race in a chemistry class is not automatically racist by his definition, it's just not ambiguous or neutral.
What's going in K - 12 is a direct outcome of Kendi's gibberish. Chemistry? Math? Racist? That's the way people are TALKING (italics) these days. SJWs teaching in high school.
If You see some connection between these, then You haven't studied as much Math and Chemistry as I have, and I mainly studied it in high school. Sorry. Chemistry and Math are MORE neutral than just about ANYTHING.