Murder suspect, who previously attacked his lawyer and told the judge to 'shut up... I'm not your B-tch", breaks free of restraints, stabs two attorneys w pen, one in the face.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/california-murder-suspect-stabs-attorney-pen-charging-prosecutor.amp

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

Sacramento has approved a plan to give low-income Black and Native American families $725 a month, no strings attached

Caucasian poor need not apply.

---

It was approved by Sacramento COUNTY Board of Supervisors.

Duh.

---

And WHAT is YOUR point?

Duh.

---

I'm not surprised that it went over your head.
Shocker.

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

You're talking about a pilot program for just 200 families across like 4 zip codes for 1 year? I'm sure that white fragility is causing some opposition and misleading information, but this seems like a good pilot program and will be interesting to see how it performs. Of course, the fragile whites complaining are probably the same people who say that people of color have bad culture and suffer from a breakdown in nuclear families. I guess shouting "bootstraps" is their only plan.

Quote:

---

Michelle Callejas, director of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services with Sacramento County, said during the board meeting this program is meant to promote family stability and self-sufficiency.

Callejas says it aims at helping African American and Native American families with children between zero to five years old living in 95823 (Valley High) and 95828 (Florin), 95815 (North Sacramento), 95838 (Del Paso Heights), and 95821 (Arden Arcade) areas, as well as the Wilton Rancheria tribe.

"These are families that are living within high rates of poverty across all the zip codes," said Callejas during Tuesday's board meeting. "In this case, African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system."

The county says the program is funded through state money and in partnership with the United Way California Capital Region.

"When families have increased income and income instability, many things happen for families and the kids," said Dr. Steve Wirtz, a Development Psychologist and Commissioner with First 5 Sacramento.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

You're talking about a pilot program for just 200 families across like 4 zip codes for 1 year? I'm sure that white fragility is causing some opposition and misleading information, but this seems like a good pilot program and will be interesting to see how it performs. Of course, the fragile whites complaining are probably the same people who say that people of color have bad culture and suffer from a breakdown in nuclear families. I guess shouting "bootstraps" is their only plan.

Quote:

---

Michelle Callejas, director of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services with Sacramento County, said during the board meeting this program is meant to promote family stability and self-sufficiency.

Callejas says it aims at helping African American and Native American families with children between zero to five years old living in 95823 (Valley High) and 95828 (Florin), 95815 (North Sacramento), 95838 (Del Paso Heights), and 95821 (Arden Arcade) areas, as well as the Wilton Rancheria tribe.

"These are families that are living within high rates of poverty across all the zip codes," said Callejas during Tuesday's board meeting. "In this case, African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system."

The county says the program is funded through state money and in partnership with the United Way California Capital Region.

"When families have increased income and income instability, many things happen for families and the kids," said Dr. Steve Wirtz, a Development Psychologist and Commissioner with First 5 Sacramento.

---

---

If the plan is limited to people of color then it is racist. Even in the current world of DEI some sane people somewhere must see this.

---

You are essentially saying that any attempt to blunt the impact of racism on a population is categorically racist.

You may not agree with the motivations of this program, but they do state "African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system." If that were true, would you still maintain that this pilot program of 200 families was racist?

This is the white fragility I'm talking about. What has convinced you that there can't be any possible justification for making the distinction Sacramento has made? Why is it that white people, who have benefited from preferential treatment for centuries, can call something "racist" the minute they are excluded from the beneficiary group?

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

You're talking about a pilot program for just 200 families across like 4 zip codes for 1 year? I'm sure that white fragility is causing some opposition and misleading information, but this seems like a good pilot program and will be interesting to see how it performs. Of course, the fragile whites complaining are probably the same people who say that people of color have bad culture and suffer from a breakdown in nuclear families. I guess shouting "bootstraps" is their only plan.

Quote:

---

Michelle Callejas, director of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services with Sacramento County, said during the board meeting this program is meant to promote family stability and self-sufficiency.

Callejas says it aims at helping African American and Native American families with children between zero to five years old living in 95823 (Valley High) and 95828 (Florin), 95815 (North Sacramento), 95838 (Del Paso Heights), and 95821 (Arden Arcade) areas, as well as the Wilton Rancheria tribe.

"These are families that are living within high rates of poverty across all the zip codes," said Callejas during Tuesday's board meeting. "In this case, African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system."

The county says the program is funded through state money and in partnership with the United Way California Capital Region.

"When families have increased income and income instability, many things happen for families and the kids," said Dr. Steve Wirtz, a Development Psychologist and Commissioner with First 5 Sacramento.

---

---

If the plan is limited to people of color then it is racist. Even in the current world of DEI some sane people somewhere must see this.

---

All they need to do to fix that is open it up to descendants of all slaves, regardless of race!

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

Sacramento has approved a plan to give low-income Black and Native American families $725 a month, no strings attached

Caucasian poor need not apply.

---

It was approved by Sacramento COUNTY Board of Supervisors.

Duh.

---

And WHAT is YOUR point?

Duh.

---

I'm not surprised that it went over your head.
Shocker.

---

It didn't go over my head. YOU just THINK YOU are smarter than everyone.

Shocker. Duh.

* You could have just said, "This is for the county of Sacramento. This isn't the state government doing something for all of California" instead of being a pompous *****.

---

The big new personality-trait-of-value now is "authenticity". I feel like you're asking him to be an inauthentic version of himself. (there, i threw in another stupid new thing with that "version of oneself" bs)

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

You're talking about a pilot program for just 200 families across like 4 zip codes for 1 year? I'm sure that white fragility is causing some opposition and misleading information, but this seems like a good pilot program and will be interesting to see how it performs. Of course, the fragile whites complaining are probably the same people who say that people of color have bad culture and suffer from a breakdown in nuclear families. I guess shouting "bootstraps" is their only plan.

Quote:

---

Michelle Callejas, director of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services with Sacramento County, said during the board meeting this program is meant to promote family stability and self-sufficiency.

Callejas says it aims at helping African American and Native American families with children between zero to five years old living in 95823 (Valley High) and 95828 (Florin), 95815 (North Sacramento), 95838 (Del Paso Heights), and 95821 (Arden Arcade) areas, as well as the Wilton Rancheria tribe.

"These are families that are living within high rates of poverty across all the zip codes," said Callejas during Tuesday's board meeting. "In this case, African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system."

The county says the program is funded through state money and in partnership with the United Way California Capital Region.

"When families have increased income and income instability, many things happen for families and the kids," said Dr. Steve Wirtz, a Development Psychologist and Commissioner with First 5 Sacramento.

---

---

If the plan is limited to people of color then it is racist. Even in the current world of DEI some sane people somewhere must see this.

---

You are essentially saying that any attempt to blunt the impact of racism on a population is categorically racist.

You may not agree with the motivations of this program, but they do state "African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system." If that were true, would you still maintain that this pilot program of 200 families was racist?

This is the white fragility I'm talking about. What has convinced you that there can't be any possible justification for making the distinction Sacramento has made? Why is it that white people, who have benefited from preferential treatment for centuries, can call something "racist" the minute they are excluded from the beneficiary group?

---

I think what they need to do is base it on race neutral factors such as economic hardship. If what you say is true about the economic impact of prior racism, there will be more people of color who are in this economic situation such that it will overwhelmingly help those racial groups. I assume it would make more sense to help those even within that group who are in greater financial need. That would be the safest way of not allowing a program that is viewed as needed not getting stricken for violation of the equal protection clause.

It doesn't have to be about white fragility or any other default terms to address any racial group. It has to do with the current interpretation or at least the current trend in the interpretation of the equal protection clause.

Milley says all those claims about the US leaving the Taliban with eleventy billions in American military equipment were lies.

They’ve left $83 billion worth of equipment behind, including brand new Apache helicopters, thousands of Humvee vehicles with armor guard, equipment that nobody has ever even seen before, it was so sophisticated,” Trump said at a rally in Alabama on Aug. 22.

— Bryan (@BryanLaine7) March 26, 2023

I don't know who to believe - the MAGAts who lie about everything or literally anyone else.

I also wonder why Trump never takes credit for one of his most amazing deals: releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners including the current leader of Afghanistan, in exchange for nothing at all in return. That was a great deal (for the Taliban).

Surprised Trump keeps bringing up Afghanistan after he negotiated the release 5,000 Taliban prisoners there.

— Fascist Trust Fund Baby (@joe_c_giles) March 19, 2024

Remember when Trump had 5,000 Taliban terrorists released, including Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar?
The Taliban has since carried out attacks, including an assault on an Afghan military base in the eastern province of Logar on March 3 that killed at least 5 soldiers #TrumpIsATraitor https://t.co/d3SMV2XOuL

— Marina Zimmerman political feral cat (@Marina4Colorado) March 17, 2024

Big C said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

You're talking about a pilot program for just 200 families across like 4 zip codes for 1 year? I'm sure that white fragility is causing some opposition and misleading information, but this seems like a good pilot program and will be interesting to see how it performs. Of course, the fragile whites complaining are probably the same people who say that people of color have bad culture and suffer from a breakdown in nuclear families. I guess shouting "bootstraps" is their only plan.

Quote:

---

Michelle Callejas, director of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services with Sacramento County, said during the board meeting this program is meant to promote family stability and self-sufficiency.

Callejas says it aims at helping African American and Native American families with children between zero to five years old living in 95823 (Valley High) and 95828 (Florin), 95815 (North Sacramento), 95838 (Del Paso Heights), and 95821 (Arden Arcade) areas, as well as the Wilton Rancheria tribe.

"These are families that are living within high rates of poverty across all the zip codes," said Callejas during Tuesday's board meeting. "In this case, African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system."

The county says the program is funded through state money and in partnership with the United Way California Capital Region.

"When families have increased income and income instability, many things happen for families and the kids," said Dr. Steve Wirtz, a Development Psychologist and Commissioner with First 5 Sacramento.

---

---

If the plan is limited to people of color then it is racist. Even in the current world of DEI some sane people somewhere must see this.

---

All they need to do to fix that is open it up to descendants of all slaves, regardless of race!

---

I know you were joking, and it's clever, but I am going to go boring on you. Every single race was once subject to slavery. If you limit it to those whose ancestors were subject to slavery in the US, you may now face federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

I ALREADY asked you to EXPLAIN it. Duh. Please do.
SHOCKER. Ha Ha Ha!

calbear93 said:

---

I think what they need to do is base it on race neutral factors such as economic hardship. If what you say is true about the economic impact of prior racism, there will be more people of color who are in this economic situation such that it will overwhelmingly help those racial groups.

---

That's how I would go about it, for purely pragmatic reasons. If you include racial language then you open yourselves up for political attacks that will damage the policy.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

You're talking about a pilot program for just 200 families across like 4 zip codes for 1 year? I'm sure that white fragility is causing some opposition and misleading information, but this seems like a good pilot program and will be interesting to see how it performs. Of course, the fragile whites complaining are probably the same people who say that people of color have bad culture and suffer from a breakdown in nuclear families. I guess shouting "bootstraps" is their only plan.

Quote:

---

Michelle Callejas, director of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services with Sacramento County, said during the board meeting this program is meant to promote family stability and self-sufficiency.

Callejas says it aims at helping African American and Native American families with children between zero to five years old living in 95823 (Valley High) and 95828 (Florin), 95815 (North Sacramento), 95838 (Del Paso Heights), and 95821 (Arden Arcade) areas, as well as the Wilton Rancheria tribe.

"These are families that are living within high rates of poverty across all the zip codes," said Callejas during Tuesday's board meeting. "In this case, African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system."

The county says the program is funded through state money and in partnership with the United Way California Capital Region.

"When families have increased income and income instability, many things happen for families and the kids," said Dr. Steve Wirtz, a Development Psychologist and Commissioner with First 5 Sacramento.

---

---

If the plan is limited to people of color then it is racist. Even in the current world of DEI some sane people somewhere must see this.

---

You are essentially saying that any attempt to blunt the impact of racism on a population is categorically racist.

You may not agree with the motivations of this program, but they do state "African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system." If that were true, would you still maintain that this pilot program of 200 families was racist?

This is the white fragility I'm talking about. What has convinced you that there can't be any possible justification for making the distinction Sacramento has made? Why is it that white people, who have benefited from preferential treatment for centuries, can call something "racist" the minute they are excluded from the beneficiary group?

---

I think what they need to do is base it on race neutral factors such as economic hardship. If what you say is true about the economic impact of prior racism, there will be more people of color who are in this economic situation such that it will overwhelmingly help those racial groups. I assume it would make more sense to help those even within that group who are in greater financial need. That would be the safest way of not allowing a program that is viewed as needed not getting stricken for violation of the equal protection clause.

It doesn't have to be about white fragility or any other default terms to address any racial group. It has to do with the current interpretation or at least the current trend in the interpretation of the equal protection clause.

---

I want to set aside how the law is interpreted because I'm more interested in this notion that any limitation of any benefit based on race is de facto racism (which I think is t4k's claim). There are other interesting discussions to be had and I don't want to discourage those, but I'm laser-focused on this one point for now.

I don't know whether this pilot program is well-crafted or not, but the stated reason for limiting it to those two specific communities is rooted in a claim that those two specific communities were most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system. If that claim is actually true (and I have no idea whether it is), would you still call this program racist?

We had an overtly racist society for centuries. Then there was a short period (call it 3-4 decades) where a number of institutions attempted to unwind some of the nasty impacts of that centuries of oppression through let's call it preferential treatment. It appears now we are moving toward policies that de facto may harm people of color (though "race-blind" programs like gerry mandering that are really intended to help white people) but can never explicitly help them - because white people say that's racism.

I am also coming at this from a different place than most conservatives. I limit my use of the term "racism" to mean discrimination against a marginalized racial or ethnic group. I don't focus my energy on every single situation where white people are not advantaged, the way many conservatives seem to. I don't think white people have been marginalized in our country nor am I concerned about their lacking access to some programs that marginalized groups have access to.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

You're talking about a pilot program for just 200 families across like 4 zip codes for 1 year? I'm sure that white fragility is causing some opposition and misleading information, but this seems like a good pilot program and will be interesting to see how it performs. Of course, the fragile whites complaining are probably the same people who say that people of color have bad culture and suffer from a breakdown in nuclear families. I guess shouting "bootstraps" is their only plan.

Quote:

---

Michelle Callejas, director of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services with Sacramento County, said during the board meeting this program is meant to promote family stability and self-sufficiency.

Callejas says it aims at helping African American and Native American families with children between zero to five years old living in 95823 (Valley High) and 95828 (Florin), 95815 (North Sacramento), 95838 (Del Paso Heights), and 95821 (Arden Arcade) areas, as well as the Wilton Rancheria tribe.

"These are families that are living within high rates of poverty across all the zip codes," said Callejas during Tuesday's board meeting. "In this case, African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system."

The county says the program is funded through state money and in partnership with the United Way California Capital Region.

"When families have increased income and income instability, many things happen for families and the kids," said Dr. Steve Wirtz, a Development Psychologist and Commissioner with First 5 Sacramento.

---

---

If the plan is limited to people of color then it is racist. Even in the current world of DEI some sane people somewhere must see this.

---

You are essentially saying that any attempt to blunt the impact of racism on a population is categorically racist.

You may not agree with the motivations of this program, but they do state "African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system." If that were true, would you still maintain that this pilot program of 200 families was racist?

This is the white fragility I'm talking about. What has convinced you that there can't be any possible justification for making the distinction Sacramento has made? Why is it that white people, who have benefited from preferential treatment for centuries, can call something "racist" the minute they are excluded from the beneficiary group?

---

I think what they need to do is base it on race neutral factors such as economic hardship. If what you say is true about the economic impact of prior racism, there will be more people of color who are in this economic situation such that it will overwhelmingly help those racial groups. I assume it would make more sense to help those even within that group who are in greater financial need. That would be the safest way of not allowing a program that is viewed as needed not getting stricken for violation of the equal protection clause.

It doesn't have to be about white fragility or any other default terms to address any racial group. It has to do with the current interpretation or at least the current trend in the interpretation of the equal protection clause.

---

I want to set aside how the law is interpreted because I'm more interested in this notion that any limitation of any benefit based on race is de facto racism (which I think is t4k's claim). There are other interesting discussions to be had and I don't want to discourage those, but I'm laser-focused on this one point for now.

I don't know whether this pilot program is well-crafted or not, but the stated reason for limiting it to those two specific communities is rooted in a claim that those two specific communities were most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system. If that claim is actually true (and I have no idea whether it is), would you still call this program racist?

We had an overtly racist society for centuries. Then there was a short period (call it 3-4 decades) where a number of institutions attempted to unwind some of the nasty impacts of that centuries of oppression through let's call it preferential treatment. It appears now we are moving toward policies that de facto may harm people of color (though "race-blind" programs like gerry mandering that are really intended to help white people) but can never explicitly help them - because white people say that's racism.

I am also coming at this from a different place than most conservatives. I limit my use of the term "racism" to mean discrimination against a marginalized racial or ethnic group. I don't focus my energy on every single situation where white people are not advantaged, the way many conservatives seem to. I don't think white people have been marginalized in our country nor am I concerned about their lacking access to some programs that marginalized groups have access to.

---

I didn't use the term racist because it's an emotionally charged word that means different things to different people. People get very tribal when that word is used. My point was limited to just how I would navigate a likely equal protection challenge. Heaven knows there have been too many discussions among whites and people of color on the scope of white fragility and privilege that another round of the same or taking sides one more time adds no value. What interests me is how laws need to be navigated in this climate.

Quote:

---

You are essentially saying that any attempt to blunt the impact of racism on a population is categorically racist.

Quote:

---

You may not agree with the motivations of this program, but they do state "African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system." If that were true, would you still maintain that this pilot program of 200 families was racist?

This is the white fragility I'm talking about. What has convinced you that there can't be any possible justification for making the distinction Sacramento has made? Why is it that white people, who have benefited from preferential treatment for centuries, can call something "racist" the minute they are excluded from the beneficiary group?

---

I think what they need to do is base it on race neutral factors such as economic hardship. If what you say is true about the economic impact of prior racism, there will be more people of color who are in this economic situation such that it will overwhelmingly help those racial groups. I assume it would make more sense to help those even within that group who are in greater financial need. That would be the safest way of not allowing a program that is viewed as needed not getting stricken for violation of the equal protection clause.

It doesn't have to be about white fragility or any other default terms to address any racial group. It has to do with the current interpretation or at least the current trend in the interpretation of the equal protection clause.

---

I thought this was so patently obvious that it didn't need explaining. I was wrong.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I even CAPITALIZED the word COUNTY and you still missed the point.

Duh.

---

You're talking about a pilot program for just 200 families across like 4 zip codes for 1 year? I'm sure that white fragility is causing some opposition and misleading information, but this seems like a good pilot program and will be interesting to see how it performs. Of course, the fragile whites complaining are probably the same people who say that people of color have bad culture and suffer from a breakdown in nuclear families. I guess shouting "bootstraps" is their only plan.

Quote:

---

Michelle Callejas, director of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services with Sacramento County, said during the board meeting this program is meant to promote family stability and self-sufficiency.

Callejas says it aims at helping African American and Native American families with children between zero to five years old living in 95823 (Valley High) and 95828 (Florin), 95815 (North Sacramento), 95838 (Del Paso Heights), and 95821 (Arden Arcade) areas, as well as the Wilton Rancheria tribe.

"These are families that are living within high rates of poverty across all the zip codes," said Callejas during Tuesday's board meeting. "In this case, African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system."

The county says the program is funded through state money and in partnership with the United Way California Capital Region.

"When families have increased income and income instability, many things happen for families and the kids," said Dr. Steve Wirtz, a Development Psychologist and Commissioner with First 5 Sacramento.

---

---

If the plan is limited to people of color then it is racist. Even in the current world of DEI some sane people somewhere must see this.

---

You are essentially saying that any attempt to blunt the impact of racism on a population is categorically racist.

You may not agree with the motivations of this program, but they do state "African American and Native American children zero to five and their families are most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system." If that were true, would you still maintain that this pilot program of 200 families was racist?

This is the white fragility I'm talking about. What has convinced you that there can't be any possible justification for making the distinction Sacramento has made? Why is it that white people, who have benefited from preferential treatment for centuries, can call something "racist" the minute they are excluded from the beneficiary group?

---

I think what they need to do is base it on race neutral factors such as economic hardship. If what you say is true about the economic impact of prior racism, there will be more people of color who are in this economic situation such that it will overwhelmingly help those racial groups. I assume it would make more sense to help those even within that group who are in greater financial need. That would be the safest way of not allowing a program that is viewed as needed not getting stricken for violation of the equal protection clause.

It doesn't have to be about white fragility or any other default terms to address any racial group. It has to do with the current interpretation or at least the current trend in the interpretation of the equal protection clause.

---

I want to set aside how the law is interpreted because I'm more interested in this notion that any limitation of any benefit based on race is de facto racism (which I think is t4k's claim). There are other interesting discussions to be had and I don't want to discourage those, but I'm laser-focused on this one point for now.

I don't know whether this pilot program is well-crafted or not, but the stated reason for limiting it to those two specific communities is rooted in a claim that those two specific communities were most disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system. If that claim is actually true (and I have no idea whether it is), would you still call this program racist?

We had an overtly racist society for centuries. Then there was a short period (call it 3-4 decades) where a number of institutions attempted to unwind some of the nasty impacts of that centuries of oppression through let's call it preferential treatment. It appears now we are moving toward policies that de facto may harm people of color (though "race-blind" programs like gerry mandering that are really intended to help white people) but can never explicitly help them - because white people say that's racism.

I am also coming at this from a different place than most conservatives. I limit my use of the term "racism" to mean discrimination against a marginalized racial or ethnic group. I don't focus my energy on every single situation where white people are not advantaged, the way many conservatives seem to. I don't think white people have been marginalized in our country nor am I concerned about their lacking access to some programs that marginalized groups have access to.

---

DEI and CRT determines "disproportionate impact" by looking at the number of people from each racial group and drawing conclusions. The causal link is race and race alone. That is racist. DEI and CRT effectively eliminate the concept of race neutrality and simply insist that results = racism. So if - as a purely hypothetical example - people of color disproportionately spent their welfare benefits on extraneous stuff instead of food, shelter and clothes and that led to predictably worse results it isn't their fault. The system is racist because blacks measured as doing worse in the program.

The difference between modern times and those 3-4 decades where institutions attempted to unwind effects is rooted in causality. I have no substantive problem with the former but believe the latter to be racism.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I doubt General Milley knows how much equipment was left in Afghanistan since apparently he spent most of his time informing the Chinese of our military movements.

---

Right. I'm sure The Alex Jones Show, RT, or wherever else you get your "information" from has the real figures.

This seems hard to believe but it's interesting. Could 1/6th of the population really be this different from everyone else?

Yale researcher Dan Kahan studied the personality and cultural differences of Americans and found a fascinating distinct cluster: white hierarchical individualistic men

Making up around 1/6th of the population, this cluster has markedly different views about risk, guns,… pic.twitter.com/zwDqNRtRWV

— Jeremy Kauffman 🦔 (@jeremykauffman) March 21, 2024

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

This seems hard to believe but it's interesting. Could 1/6th of the population really be this different from everyone else?

Yale researcher Dan Kahan studied the personality and cultural differences of Americans and found a fascinating distinct cluster: white hierarchical individualistic men

Making up around 1/6th of the population, this cluster has markedly different views about risk, guns,… pic.twitter.com/zwDqNRtRWV

— Jeremy Kauffman 🦔 (@jeremykauffman) March 21, 2024

---

You need to get out more. I don't even have that many friends but those that I do have have vastly different life experiences and views than me...on almost everything. My wife and I see the same things very differently. Incredibly differently. It's taken me a long time to stop thinking they are idiots but rather that humans experience life in vastly different ways and at different paces. I've actually come to be amazed by this in a great way.

---

If you look at the graphs - it's a grouping of 1/6 of the population that is like extremely far removed from a very tight grouping consisting of 5/6 of the population. We're not talking about a few jokers who think differently, we're talking about an entirely distinct worldview across a number of dimensions.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

This seems hard to believe but it's interesting. Could 1/6th of the population really be this different from everyone else?

Yale researcher Dan Kahan studied the personality and cultural differences of Americans and found a fascinating distinct cluster: white hierarchical individualistic men

Making up around 1/6th of the population, this cluster has markedly different views about risk, guns,… pic.twitter.com/zwDqNRtRWV

— Jeremy Kauffman 🦔 (@jeremykauffman) March 21, 2024

---

You need to get out more. I don't even have that many friends but those that I do have have vastly different life experiences and views than me...on almost everything. My wife and I see the same things very differently. Incredibly differently. It's taken me a long time to stop thinking they are idiots but rather that humans experience life in vastly different ways and at different paces. I've actually come to be amazed by this in a great way.

---

If you look at the graphs - it's a grouping of 1/6 of the population that is like extremely far removed from a very tight grouping consisting of 5/6 of the population. We're not talking about a few jokers who think differently, we're talking about an entirely distinct worldview across a number of dimensions.

---

They separate out white folks (and not other races) into those who want less government intervention and then act surprised when specific views that tie into less government intervention diverge from those who either want more intervention or are merged together. <yawn>.

AunBear89 said:

---

---

Hmmmm
Watching this tells me I shouldn't run for office.



Lol, they chased her down at a parking lot. She initially tried to avoid and get to her car but the takes the bait by getting fired up and talks. Meanwhile, the gal who tries to interrupt and walk between to stop the questions ends up fleeing her friend.
Ha!!!

Wouldn't it be funny if everyone on OT suddenly had this happen to us???
Pick each of our 'worst takes' and have them wallpapered.

The only thing is, "wasn't January 6 ACTUALLY treason?"