Dear readers, please note. Corbic is a habitual Gish galloper who regurgitates talking points with no basis in reality or fact. Because of the quantity of falsehoods, I cannot delve into all of them with any sort of depth.
If you're interested in the topics discussed, you may want to read various publications by the UCLA School of Law Williams Institute:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbic
That's literally the basis of fucking CRT bro.
|
It isn't, though. CRT is advanced stuff, not grade-schooler shit. It covers the idea that systemic racism doesn't need the active participation of racists. Bigotry builds into systems both consciously and unconsciously and CRT tries to build better systems by attempting to circumvent this most human of failings.
Quote:
|
How about instead of bellying aching about perceived historic injustices, highlighting the historic mile stones of human freedom and progress... And building off that to encourage kids to improve themselves and do better.
|
It's not bellyaching if it helps build a foundation from which a new perspective is created. Knowledge of the racist past creates a desire for a brighter, more equitable future. To pretend it keeps us all in the knuckle-dragging us-versus-them mentality is childish.
Nope. That's a comparison. If politicians are ill-informed in one area, why are they properly informed in another? Is it because they align with your biases?
Quote:
It seems to be...because it is.
Teaching kids about having two daddies, boys wearing dresses and picking pronouns is literally indoctrination into sexual deviant lifestyles. It's not education.
|
How is it deviant to teach facts? Some children have two male parental figures, otherwise known colloquially as fathers or dads. That's a literal fact, and to simply tell kids, "hey, this isn't abnormal" isn't grooming.
Men have worn dresses for millennia. It's modern Western civilization and Twitter/YouTube/Fox News pundits that made it all fuckin' weird. Shit's breezy.
How does asking a kid how they'd like to be referred to constitute grooming? How does trying not to misgender someone as their mind is forming constitute anything other than trying not to make growing up harder than it is?
Quote:
|
Should people who support, preform or propose gender affirming surgery be thrown from buildings rooftops?Yeah, maybe. I'm not a rocket surgeon, I cannot speak authoritatively on the subject.
|
Adults should be able to make a decision about which gender they present as.
People whose brains are still developing and who are not quite sure as to the full extent of their actions are a gray area that I'm simply not well-versed enough to answer for. I haven't read any peer-reviewed academic data about the subject, either. That's not to say that their feelings are less valuable, it's just to say that the human mind is a computer we haven't quite cracked yet.
Quote:
|
Sounds good. Let's start by collecting data. First data points should be banning all grooming behavior for the next 100 years. 3 generations should give us a good data points to determine if it should be banned for another 100 years or permanently.
|
That's not how it works and you know it. You're being intentionally obtuse.
You're bordering on bigotry here, which is no surprise. The entire line of thought is devoid of scientific reasoning and still comes full circle to the theological idea that being gay is a moral deviance.
You have to understand that this is a statistically invalid argument, right? Yes, some LGBTQIA+ are pedophiles, just as some straight men and straight women are pedophiles.
If you do the research, which is not hard and does not involve Facebook, you'll find that there are absolutely no peer-reviewed studies that prove LGBTQIA+ people are more likely to molest children.