Anti-Asian Hate Crimes

[YogaJeni]

Newsflash, everyone gets to decide which sources they find credible. They even get to state their opinion.

Everyone gets to decide for themselves, the creeps here want to make that decision for everyone.

 

[TylerW]

You creep me out.

I'm good with that.

 

[NSR500]

Everyone gets to decide for themselves, the creeps here want to make that decision for everyone.

Agreed.

Anything posted here that comes from a news source the peanut gallery don't agree with is labeled; "Debunked", Shitty, "Uncle T*m", etc.
You post something from CNN, NPR, or other MSM outlet that supports your POV and then they claim you've taken it out of context.

 

[MysterYvil]

This is as clear a example of gaslighting I have ever seen. Just using the "antiracism" term when referring to Critical Race Theory tells me you know exactly what you are doing. Anyone that spend 10min trying to understand CRT can see what a diabolical racist evil thing it is. You creep me out.

What do you find to be "diabolical racist evil" about antiracism? What is its threat to you and your children?

If you do opt to homeschool your children what are you going to teach them about race? I'm genuinely curious because I have four kids in my life at the moment.

.

 

[Holeshot]

Newsflash, everyone gets to decide which sources they find credible. They even get to state their opinion.

I think you and YJ are saying the same thing.

 

[TylerW]

Everyone gets to decide for themselves, the creeps here want to make that decision for everyone.

People can decide for themselves what sources THEY find are credible. However credibility is not subjective. Some media sources are provably more factual than others.

I'm going to ask you one more time: do you trust BIPOC folks to tell their own truths when it comes to teaching history?

 

[UDRider]

You and your other creepy friends here really want to control what and how discussion is held. What articles can be posted and what sources are credible. Newsflash, you don't get to decide Tucker Carlson isn't a credible source, you don't get to be a hall monitor for what articles can be posted.

Of course I can decide what I find credible and state my opinion on it. You seem to conflate that with me telling you what to post. I didn't. Feel free to quote me where you think I did it.

Everyone gets to decide for themselves, the creeps here want to make that decision for everyone.

Few pages back, if I remember correctly, one of your excuses not to go in to details about your opinion on CRT was because you thought people will call you racist because you disagree with them. Now you are going around calling people "creeps" because they are disagreeing with you. Me thinks before you were projecting a tad. Why am I creepy? For expressing my opinion that your sources are not good?

I think you and YJ are saying the same thing.

Not really. See the last part where YJ equates someone expressing their opinion on sources to somehow "want to make that decision for everyone". That's the difference.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

Everyone gets to decide for themselves, the creeps here want to make that decision for everyone.

Showing a distinct lack of respect for other posters, and name calling. Classy.

 

[Climber]

You and your other creepy friends here really want to control what and how discussion is held. What articles can be posted and what sources are credible. Newsflash, you don't get to decide Tucker Carlson isn't a credible source, you don't get to be a hall monitor for what articles can be posted.

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

In other words, he's a lying sack of shit, stated by his own lawyers.

How much more proof do you need that he isn't a good source?

The fact that you're so rigorously defending him as a factual source does not give you a very good look.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

Defend him telling people to call the police if they see kids with masks because it's child abuse.

Go.

 

[SFMCjohn]

I'm thinking that, like the homeless industry, if the problem were to be solved, there'd be no convincing others of a need to fund the industry. Isn't it then logical (I know, I know, logical is for vulcans and white supremacists.) that these industries don't actually want to solve the problem since that would make them irrelevant?

think one of the quickest routes to a lifetime of grinding poverty is still to become a young single mother ... so the homelessness industry has that going for us.

ime, it is always logical to hook one’s craven avarice to a biological imperative—whenever possible—in order to avoid irrelevance for as long as one can ...

arty

 

[TylerW]

Few pages back, if I remember correctly, one of your excuses not to go in to details about your opinion on CRT was because you thought people will call you racist because you disagree with them.

I'm Trying to think of reasons someone might do this that aren't the obvious reason.

 

[jt2]

Well there wasn't any points raised either. Just some fear based posts about taking children out of school and YouTube links. One to an entertainment talking head, and another to some conspiracy looking channel.

Circular argument. Links were posted to both text and video that raised or addressed several points. They were waved off, or simply ignored because of the source, therefore no points were raised. Right.

Anything posted here that comes from a news source the peanut gallery don't agree with is labeled; "Debunked", Shitty, "Uncle T*m", etc.
You post something from CNN, NPR, or other MSM outlet that supports your POV and then they claim you've taken it out of context.

SOP around here, unfortunately.

Showing a distinct lack of respect for other posters, and name calling. Classy.

There's been plenty of that directed toward YJ in this thread and it is telling that you just now seem to be calling it out when some goes the other direction.

The fact that you're so rigorously defending him as a factual source does not give you a very good look.

Ad Hominem, backed up by Ad Hominem. A twofer.

 

[YogaJeni]

What do you find to be "diabolical racist evil" about antiracism? What is its threat to you and your children?

If you do opt to homeschool your children what are you going to teach them about race? I'm genuinely curious because I have four kids in my life at the moment.

.

At this point I cant keep track of all the gaslighting creeps around here so I am going to assume that is a honest question and answer it honestly.
I am going to teach my children exactly the opposite of what Critical Race Theory teaches [or "antiracism" as all the gaslighting wokistani creeps here call it] I am going to teach my children that they are individuals and they should evaluate every person they met on their own merit. That skin pigmentation does not define who one is or its values or its beliefs. That in America we are all equal. That seeing oneself as a victim in this society based on group identity is cowardly and manipulative. That the whole oppressor/appressed mindset that CRT is based on is on the surface about empathy but about manipulation and power in reality.

Of course I can decide what I find credible and state my opinion on it. You seem to conflate that with me telling you what to post. I didn't. Feel free to quote me where you think I did it.

Few pages back, if I remember correctly, one of your excuses not to go in to details about your opinion on CRT was because you thought people will call you racist because you disagree with them. Now you are going around calling people "creeps" because they are disagreeing with you. Me thinks before you were projecting a tad. Why am I creepy? For expressing my opinion that your sources are not good?

Not really. See the last part where YJ equates someone expressing their opinion on sources to somehow "want to make that decision for everyone". That's the difference.

I've always found the "male feminist" type woke guys give me the creeps. Especially ones devious enough to try and gaslight you with a straight face.

People can decide for themselves what sources THEY find are credible. However credibility is not subjective. Some media sources are provably more factual than others.

I'm going to ask you one more time: do you trust BIPOC folks to tell their own truths when it comes to teaching history?

I reject you evil manipulative nonsense. Terms like "BIPOC" and "own truth" is CRT jargon. I will never teach my boys that they are "bipoc" because their father is Mexican-American. They are Americans, no lesser or more than any other American.

 

[Climber]

Ad Hominem, backed up by Ad Hominem. A twofer.

You disagree that using Carlson as a Factual Source is not an endorsement of your credibility?

 

[TylerW]

I reject you evil manipulative nonsense. Terms like "BIPOC" and "own truth" is CRT jargon. I will never teach my boys that they are "bipoc" because their father is Mexican-American. They are Americans, no lesser or more than any other American.

Ok, let me ask you in a different way in hopes that you don't feel the need to police my language. Who would you trust to teach a more honest account of the history of American Colonialism? A white person or an indigenous person? Or maybe a combination of both?

 

[YogaJeni]

Ok, let me ask you in a different way in hopes that you don't feel the need to police my language. Who would you trust to teach a more honest account of the history of American Colonialism? A white person or an indigenous person? Or maybe a combination of both?

Nobody is policing your language you manipulative creep. I reject your racist worldview that skin color makes a difference. I would trust a teacher to teach any subject that he or she is qualified by how well he or she studied the subject and understands it and is able to make others understand it. Skin color or ethnicity makes no difference to me because I'm not racist.

 

[JesasaurusRex]

do you do yoga?

 

[TylerW]

How am I manipulating you?

 

[Eldritch]

Nobody is policing your language you manipulative creep. I reject your racist worldview that skin color makes a difference. I would trust a teacher to teach any subject that he or she is qualified by how well he or she studied the subject and understands it and is able to make others understand it. Skin color or ethnicity makes no difference to me because I'm not racist.

You really don't need to call names, I support some of your position, but resorting to name calling hurts your argument.