Expect the HRC courts to have multi year back logs to accommodate to hear all of the stories of woe and violated rights of the overly-sensitive generation
and over at Weakling University...
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I guess it would explain why 95% of the 20 year olds in my class were overwhelmed and offended by my social energy and presence..... They were a sensitive lot, i will admit....
You should take a therapy dog where ever you go in order to offer relief to those poor wee, offended lambs
Nope, no lawn darts Cap. Grew up on a farm in Sask. Six girls - no boys. Helped with all the farm work and not one of us was ever injured. Learned about responsibility, pulling together to get the job done and that hard work has its own rewards.
Naw they have bigger problems in another sense. They type EVERYTHING and don't retain it as well as if you were to write it out on paper. Copy and paste is a huge thing whereas i would re-write things..
I was the best note taker in class during lectures, id write down everything the teacher said like a scribe and they thought i was stupid.... Until test time
The best way to develop a strong work ethic and appreciation for a dollar.
All the same, I will go out on a limb and state that you probably had, and fired, a rifle on many occasion as a kid.... You need a therapy dog even more than if you had played with lawn darts
That's heavy. I had it similar but instead of the farm i was put to work in a machine shop when i turned 10, and then when i started working regular kid jobs at 16 i could out work just about everyone and keep talking. Ive never been fired from a job in my life even if i annoyed the hell out of my boss
Oh you betcha and we had our own dogs as Dad raised Lab retrievers for one of my uncles and his friends who were avid duck/geese hunters. Often went hunting with them.
Are Educators Enemies of the People
Our educators, based and trained in our universities, have adopted an ideology, a faith, contrary to the values and will of the general public, the citizens who pay their salaries and give jobs to their graduates. This ideology shapes the thoughts of everyone who successfully completes university: teachers, social workers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, journalists, government bureaucrats, politicians, and, increasingly, scientists and engineers. These graduates then go on to impose this ideology on the institutions they control, irrespective of what the public believes and wishes.
This ideology is called “social justice,” and divides up our society into “privileged oppressors,” such as whites and Asians, men, heterosexuals, Christians and Jews, and “oppressed victims,” such as people of colour (except East Asians), females, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals, and Muslims. In this scheme, we are no longer individuals with wishes and hopes, qualities and achievements, but ciphers in a category, and to be treated according to that category.
Allegedly, the “privileged oppressors” have unfairly taken away status and material benefits from the “oppressed victims,” enjoying their ill-gotten gains. This injustice is to be corrected by “social justice,” which involves reducing the “privileged oppressors” and raising the “oppressed victims.” To implement “social justice,” members of the “oppressed victim” categories are to be given special favours and benefits, special preferences, while members of the “privileged oppressors” categories are to be denied benefits, viewed with antipathy and aversion, and rejected. These measures are often taken under the guise of “diversity,” admitting and supporting members of preferred “underrepresented minorities,” while blocking and rejecting others. The majority of people, supposedly given weight and respect in a democracy, are cast in the “social justice” scheme as villains who deserve no consideration.
The rationale for racial and gender preferences is that certain minorities face bigotry and discrimination, and that is why they are underrepresented in universities and elsewhere in relation to their percentage of the general population. But this is assumed, and never demonstrated with evidence. There are many reasons to question this explanation for underrepresentation, not least the fact that other unpopular minorities are overrepresented in universities and professions in relation to their percentage of the population.
The result is that universalistic principles which require the same rules, criteria, and standards for all are rejected and revoked.
Potential, merit, and achievement as criteria for recruitment and promotion have been rejected by universities in favour of race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. The idea of “fairness” is no longer based on treating all individuals the same; instead, people are treated differently according to the category they belong to.
This philosophy and strategy has been implemented in the U.S. for many decades under the label “affirmative action,” which in practice has meant official preferences for black and Hispanics. (Ironically, President Kennedy’s declaration of “affirmative action” required that race not be taken into account in hiring.) In Canada, such preferences are mandated for “visible minorities” and members of “First Nations” Indigenes.
Gender equality mandates always require an increase in the number of females when females are fewer than 50%, but gender balance requirements are deemed null and void when females make up a majority or large majority and men are in the minority. Homo-, bi-, and transsexuals are also preferred, and offered special benefits. Initiatives are currently in the works to privilege the homeless, illiterate, and mentally ill in university admissions and hiring. Universities in North America are the institutions most “woke” to social injustice, as they define it. They have vigorously and relentlessly engaged in “reverse” discrimination, discrimination in favour of preferred minorities and genders.
Even where racial preferences have been forbidden by public referendum, as in California, where a State Constitutional Amendment to this effect was passed, universities have worked around the rules, using characteristics correlated with race, to insure reverse discrimination “social justice” admissions and hiring. Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are currently in court defending themselves against accusations of discrimination against high-achieving Asians and whites.
What does the public think of racial and gender preferences? The American public, of all races and genders, strongly opposes it. According to a 2019 Pew poll, 73% of American adults say that race should not be a factor in university admissions; 81% said that gender should not be a factor in university admissions. A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree that race and gender should not be a factor considered. (There is no comparable data on Canadian opinion.)
So, universities, and some government policies dictating “diversity,” fly in the face of the public will. But it is much worse than rejecting what the public wishes, because universities go on indoctrinating its students, and selecting its professors and administrators only among the sufficiently “woke” to the paramount importance of “social justice.” Our school teachers, having been formed almost entirely by radical schools of education, now orient their teaching with “social justice” ideology, indoctrinating the children under their care with the ideology.
Canadian and American children are taught that the histories of their racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and Islamophobic countries consist of unending sequences of atrocities committed against minorities, that evil capitalism has brought nothing but greed, exploitation, and inequality, that whites and men have never done anything good, and have stolen everything they have from others, and that their countries have no redeeming features.
Canadian children are taught that the evil founders of their country were no more than murderers of Indigenous natives, and that their statues should be torn down. American children are taught that slavery was invented in America (never mind that it has existed throughout history all around the world), that the slave-holding founding fathers were criminals, that America is uniquely evil, and that the Constitution is invalid because it was composed by slave owners.
It is highly unfortunate, and counter-productive, that schools and universities have become the enemies of Canadian and American values. Our “educators” spew poison, tricked out in long words and displays of “virtue.” They have abandoned their mandated purpose, rejecting the quest for knowledge in favour of neo-marxist ideology and propaganda.
https://fcpp.org/wp-content/uploads/EF55AreEducatorsEnemiesofthePeopleSalzman.pdf
Our educators, based and trained in our universities, have adopted an ideology, a faith, contrary to the values and will of the general public, the citizens who pay their salaries and give jobs to their graduates. This ideology shapes the thoughts of everyone who successfully completes university: teachers, social workers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, journalists, government bureaucrats, politicians, and, increasingly, scientists and engineers. These graduates then go on to impose this ideology on the institutions they control, irrespective of what the public believes and wishes.
This ideology is called “social justice,” and divides up our society into “privileged oppressors,” such as whites and Asians, men, heterosexuals, Christians and Jews, and “oppressed victims,” such as people of colour (except East Asians), females, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals, and Muslims. In this scheme, we are no longer individuals with wishes and hopes, qualities and achievements, but ciphers in a category, and to be treated according to that category.
Allegedly, the “privileged oppressors” have unfairly taken away status and material benefits from the “oppressed victims,” enjoying their ill-gotten gains. This injustice is to be corrected by “social justice,” which involves reducing the “privileged oppressors” and raising the “oppressed victims.” To implement “social justice,” members of the “oppressed victim” categories are to be given special favours and benefits, special preferences, while members of the “privileged oppressors” categories are to be denied benefits, viewed with antipathy and aversion, and rejected. These measures are often taken under the guise of “diversity,” admitting and supporting members of preferred “underrepresented minorities,” while blocking and rejecting others. The majority of people, supposedly given weight and respect in a democracy, are cast in the “social justice” scheme as villains who deserve no consideration.
The rationale for racial and gender preferences is that certain minorities face bigotry and discrimination, and that is why they are underrepresented in universities and elsewhere in relation to their percentage of the general population. But this is assumed, and never demonstrated with evidence. There are many reasons to question this explanation for underrepresentation, not least the fact that other unpopular minorities are overrepresented in universities and professions in relation to their percentage of the population.
The result is that universalistic principles which require the same rules, criteria, and standards for all are rejected and revoked.
Potential, merit, and achievement as criteria for recruitment and promotion have been rejected by universities in favour of race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. The idea of “fairness” is no longer based on treating all individuals the same; instead, people are treated differently according to the category they belong to.
This philosophy and strategy has been implemented in the U.S. for many decades under the label “affirmative action,” which in practice has meant official preferences for black and Hispanics. (Ironically, President Kennedy’s declaration of “affirmative action” required that race not be taken into account in hiring.) In Canada, such preferences are mandated for “visible minorities” and members of “First Nations” Indigenes.
Gender equality mandates always require an increase in the number of females when females are fewer than 50%, but gender balance requirements are deemed null and void when females make up a majority or large majority and men are in the minority. Homo-, bi-, and transsexuals are also preferred, and offered special benefits. Initiatives are currently in the works to privilege the homeless, illiterate, and mentally ill in university admissions and hiring. Universities in North America are the institutions most “woke” to social injustice, as they define it. They have vigorously and relentlessly engaged in “reverse” discrimination, discrimination in favour of preferred minorities and genders.
Even where racial preferences have been forbidden by public referendum, as in California, where a State Constitutional Amendment to this effect was passed, universities have worked around the rules, using characteristics correlated with race, to insure reverse discrimination “social justice” admissions and hiring. Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are currently in court defending themselves against accusations of discrimination against high-achieving Asians and whites.
What does the public think of racial and gender preferences? The American public, of all races and genders, strongly opposes it. According to a 2019 Pew poll, 73% of American adults say that race should not be a factor in university admissions; 81% said that gender should not be a factor in university admissions. A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree that race and gender should not be a factor considered. (There is no comparable data on Canadian opinion.)
So, universities, and some government policies dictating “diversity,” fly in the face of the public will. But it is much worse than rejecting what the public wishes, because universities go on indoctrinating its students, and selecting its professors and administrators only among the sufficiently “woke” to the paramount importance of “social justice.” Our school teachers, having been formed almost entirely by radical schools of education, now orient their teaching with “social justice” ideology, indoctrinating the children under their care with the ideology.
Canadian and American children are taught that the histories of their racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and Islamophobic countries consist of unending sequences of atrocities committed against minorities, that evil capitalism has brought nothing but greed, exploitation, and inequality, that whites and men have never done anything good, and have stolen everything they have from others, and that their countries have no redeeming features.
Canadian children are taught that the evil founders of their country were no more than murderers of Indigenous natives, and that their statues should be torn down. American children are taught that slavery was invented in America (never mind that it has existed throughout history all around the world), that the slave-holding founding fathers were criminals, that America is uniquely evil, and that the Constitution is invalid because it was composed by slave owners.
It is highly unfortunate, and counter-productive, that schools and universities have become the enemies of Canadian and American values. Our “educators” spew poison, tricked out in long words and displays of “virtue.” They have abandoned their mandated purpose, rejecting the quest for knowledge in favour of neo-marxist ideology and propaganda.
https://fcpp.org/wp-content/uploads/EF55AreEducatorsEnemiesofthePeopleSalzman.pdf
This is absolutely correct! It is essential that we teach our children and young folk that neither America nor Canada has ever done any harm to anybody, but have been sources of unending blessings to all, and that the unstinting gratitude of blacks, browns, yellows, reds, and pinks is our just reward for our f*cking awesomeness!
It would be helpful if our children were taught the truth, part of which should be that decisions made 150 years ago also be put in the context of the times. It would be wonderful if everything fell into two categories right or wrong but the fact is that there are a lot of grey areas that need to also be brought to light.
I heard someone say recently that "diversity is not our strength" but that we need to oppose said diversity. Diversity in and of itself is divisive and we should strongly oppose it. Obviously, Trudeau has done a good job of dividing this country so the mantra has meaning for him.
Rather, as JFK said, be judged by the "content of our character" and our actions. Mowich was absolutely correct in saying that history needs to be taught in 'context to the times'; not by Marxist ideology and revisionist history (my words btw).
JMHO
Rather, as JFK said, be judged by the "content of our character" and our actions. Mowich was absolutely correct in saying that history needs to be taught in 'context to the times'; not by Marxist ideology and revisionist history (my words btw).
JMHO
Fair, to a point.
The thing is teaching things in context of the time lets us as the following generations realize that the 'time' was 'bad' for whatever reasons, and thus try to repair the damage that was done to make things better. Which isn't bad, in and of itself.
It's when people go overboard/crazed with it that things get so out of control.
And then the judgment by the 'content of character': take Trump for example.
Will history show him as a total and absolute failure of a person and president, or will it show him the champion of the little guy? Either way, how he's seen will lead to the following generations looking for ways to stop or promote what he did from happening again.
But in that case, what will be the "Truth"?
What was the "Truth" 150 years ago? Hard to say since, as always, truth is written by the victors.
Personally I'd settle for teaching the gray areas and hope that the kids of the future understand that being gray is better than black or white.
I'd like kids taught how to show up at work on time and properly dressed for the job. Being able to fill out their own time sheet would also be an asset.
But I think he had a point. What does JT mean by diversity? Does he mean that it's a confluence of many cultures, races, religions all living together and respecting and accepting each others' beliefs OR does he mean that some are better than others and needn't have to accept what others may believe and, more importantly, do not tolerate differences of view/opinions? I believe that JT is encouraging and is accepting of the latte
JMHO
JMHO