John McWhorter appearing on MSNBC to promote the message of his new book

    Comments

    More from Dr. Shellenberger including photo of a chart in the book and photos of other excerpts,  a bonus clip of McWhorter on MSNBC and full segment

    John's best-selling new book, Woke Racism, is brilliant. I couldn't put it down.

    It's worth it just for its list of wokeism's contradictions (e.g., "Show interest in multiculturalism/Do not culturally appropriate"). pic.twitter.com/05nANqPwCd

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021


    "Why do so many wise people elevate these tenants as wisdom? The reason cannot be logic, because there is none. The reason is because these tenets serve a purpose other than the one they are purported to serve. Namely, each component by itself serves to condemn whites as racist."

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    Therapists call this "crazy-making"

    "To apologize shows your racism; to be refused the apology, too, shows your racism. To not be interested in black culture shows your racism; to get into black culture & decide that, you too want to rap, or wear dreadlocks, shows your racism."

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    I have known John since 2005 when I sought him out to advise me on how to survive as a heterodoxical intellectual.

    I had read and was blown away by his brilliant books, Losing the Race (2001) and Winning the Race (2006)https://t.co/ryBrIeL9EV

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    John was on my mind a lot while writing San Fransicko. I was inspired by his critique of victim ideology 20 years ago (!) and by his more recent identification of wokeism as a religion. pic.twitter.com/j86JGs9lWR

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021


    I was delighted to share the stage with John late last month, and to be reminded of how kind, generous, and hilarious he is in person, none of which takes away from the devastatingly serious nature of his critique of the racist religion known as wokeism.https://t.co/984KxH1fGa

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    While John is concerned by the impact that woke religion is having on all of us, he is particularly concerned by its impact on black people, hence the book's subtitle, "How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America."

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    In San Fransicko I note that while 69% of San Francisco’s white students are proficient in math, just 14% of its black students are.

    But rather than improve schooling, progressives are lowering standards for all students and eliminating merit-based admissions & algebra pic.twitter.com/UNwM1rtMza

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    While progressives actively deny that Critical Race Theory even exists, the doctrine is being used to introduce woke racism into California's math classes. https://t.co/v84127fOoj

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    The quantity of gas-lighting that exists around denying the impact of CRT on schools is matched only by the straw-manning of the tenets of wokeism.

    Just witness the gross misdescription of wokeism offered by WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart on PBS last night

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    “It’s not wokeness to want to be treated fairly by the police. It’s not wokeness to not want law enforcement to view you as a criminal. It’s not wokeness to demand that our nation’s history be taught accurately. That’s not wokeness! That’s asking for dignity & respect.” pic.twitter.com/HC415uyEbl

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    Well, of course its not.

    Wokeness is demanding that we *lower* standards for, & not enforce certain laws against, people because of their race, or victim status.

    Wokeness is demanding that we teach history *inaccurately* (e.g., war of independence was a defense of slavery)

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    The contrast between McWhorter & Capehart is striking. McWhorter honestly characterizes his opponents arguments, and criticizes them. Capehart totally misrepresents both his opponents & the issue in question, and dismisses them.

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    The fact that Woke Racism is a best-seller is one more sign that we are in a healthy backlash against wokeism.

    Both John's book and mine rest on the idea that, once people understand what woke religion is actually saying, and demanding, it will lose its cultural power

    /end

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    Okay, here’s a bonus clip

    So satisfying pic.twitter.com/ArybJlQzm6

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    Full segment https://t.co/rQ9CLtwQO3

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    Woke Racism is very satisfying. Honorable, erudite, and funny. I can see why it’s a bestseller pic.twitter.com/1qM2yIhFw3

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    Every few sentences I find myself shouting to myself, “Yes!! That’s it!!!” pic.twitter.com/DWFzgDczBf

    — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 6, 2021

    Amazed: just looked up his book's Amazon rating: their #4 most sold nonfiction book for the week ending Oct. 31. After all, he's a linguistics professor, not Katie Couric (#1)


    One contrarian congratulating another MD are Sellenberger's initials, he is not an MD

    Michael Shellenberger (born 1971) is a journalist and author. He has co-edited and written a number of books, including Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (2007), An Ecomodernist Manifesto (2015), and Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (2020).[2][3][4] Time considered him, jointly with Ted Nordhaus, one of the "Heroes of the Environment" in 2008.[5]

    A former public relations professional, Shellenberger's writing has focused on the intersection of climate change, nuclear energy, and politics. A self-described ecomodernist, he argues for an embrace of modernization, and technological development usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization.[6][7][8][9] A controversial and polarizing figure, Shellenberger sharply disagrees with other environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them.[10] Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger

    If you read the book, McWhorter freely insults Christians

    He compares the Woke to a grasshopper that has been infected by a species of worm that invades the brain and causes the grasshopper to jump in the water and drown.

    McWhorter says this and complains about the Woke not being nice to him

    He also complained about the Woke chasing Bari Weiss away from the NYT, yet has no problem writing a weekly column from the NYT.


    Nope, not an MD, but good relationship to science, evaluating evidence and frameworks, balancing ideas and tempering the overreach of issue enthusiasts.

    https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/planetary-boundaries

    https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/conservation/beyond-planetary-boundaries


    Facts not in evidence. Schellenberger is not a trained scientist.

    A review of his latest book on environmental science done by a Carl Sagan Award winner finds a ton of flaws

    Shellenberger self-describes as an environmentalist activist and a bringer of facts and science to counter “exaggeration, alarmism, and extremism that are the enemy of a positive, humanistic, and rational environmentalism.” He decided to write this book because he believes “the conversation about climate change and the environment has, in the last few years, spiraled out of control.”

    Voices of reason and clear analyses in the contentious debates about how to tackle our global problems are welcome. Unfortunately, the book is deeply and fatally flawed. At the simplest level, it is a polemic based on a strawman argument: To Shellenberger, scientists, “educated elite,” “activist journalists,” and high-profile environmental activists believe incorrectly that the end of the world is coming and yet refuse to support the only solutions that he thinks will work – nuclear energy and uninhibited economic growth.

    https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/review-bad-science-and-bad-arguments-abound-in-apocalypse-never/

     

     


    Seems like a good & valid takedown review.


    Thanks for that

    Shellenberger may be a good journalist, but he is not a scientist. McWhorter may be an expert linguist, but in "Woke Racism", he comes across as a spoiled teenager. The Woke are a new religion that has to be crushed, according to McWhorter. The Woke are a religion because he says so. If you disagree with him, you are in league with the Woke. It is very clear that he is an atheist who feels he can say the most awful things about Christians. He then whines when he is attacked.

    Ta Nehisi Coates made an off the cuff remark about McWhorter that upset the linguist. Coates apologized. McWhorter still finds a way to bring it into the discussion  Watch his vidcasts with Glenn Loury, you actually see McWhorter pout like a spoiled teen when he laments that not enough people listen to him.

    I have no problem reading McWhorter, Loury, Chatterton Williams, and even Candace Owens, I just wish that they had something useful to say. Telling law-abiding people that it their responsibility to change the behavior of criminals is not a rational strategy.

    The Woke, along with the threat of Sharia law,and now Critical Race Theory, are examples of red meat thrown out to a gullible public The strategy works because states write laws banning Shiria law and Critical Race Theory.

    The public will do what the public will do. I will object to any attempt to tell me that police reform and access to the ballot have to be tabled because dark-skinned criminals are committing crime.


    I am reminded now that I saw that before, that those were his initials but I forgot BECAUSE WTF does that have to do with what he has tweeted about McWhorter's book?

    Especially the MSNBC clips of McWhorter interviews and page photos?

    In this particular case, it's just honest enthusiasm to share McWhorter's book and ideas. It's about: McWhorter, not Shellenberger

    Following McWhorter's twitter feed for quite some time, I don't think he's misrepresenting anything about McWhorter here! It's quite the astounding fallacy to attack Shellenberger in this case as if doing that hurts or helps McWhorter. Especially when the book is rising on the charts. To me, he's just a guy who wants to recommend the book

    Actually, makes me realize that when someone is an M.D. I tend to be a little more prejudiced about them on things other than medicine, because I know how specialized their education is and that it leaves little time for studying anything else.


    Shellenberger is not an MD nor a scientist.

    His credentials are important

    You repeated provide links to random people like Shellenberger and James Lindsay 


    Conor also doing one one of McWhorter's main topics:

    McWhorter basically saying the same thing in a column for his relatively new gig as a twice-weekly columnist at The New York Times

    BTW, he has also been using that column for linguistics topics...


    Yeah, I always take Ross Douthat as Gospel.

    McWhorter's major focus is on "What Blacks are doing wrong."

     


    Wonder if and how he is going to respond to this new discussion point going around with people that have been known to be simpatico with him ESPECIALLY SINCE after all, HE IS A LINGUIST:

    ETC.


    They're calling Rachel Maddow a "Karen" - that's rich.


    Who is calling Rachel Maddow a Karen?


     

    N/A

    @NA25989631

    Nov 3

    Rachel Maddow was keen “I want to hear from Eric Adams” But cut away when the bongo drums of “The champ is here” and Eric’s unique victory speech didn’t satisfy her Maddow is the true white Karen using Eric Adams as a prop

    Dr. [email protected] DrArmageddon7

    ·Nov 6

    Replying to @mtaibbi and @bambikino9

    I thought it was funny when someone else said that Rachel Maddow is the Alex Jones for the Karens.

     

    SCjeepGal Flag of United StatesPirate flag @SCjeepGal

    Nov 3 Replying to @Cernovich

    If Karen and Brandon had a baby it would be Rachel Maddow


    I noticed a few requoting that line about "the Alex Jones for the Karens" meme. I got the impression that was mostly a reaction on how she handled the story you were arguing with Hal about? Not sure.

    Anyhew, what I did notice more strongly, from clips people tweeted, that in recent days (weeks maybe, I wasn't paying attention then) she clearly took a pretty strong pro-Biden approach on the Congressional bills, and anti-Progressive caucus and anti-squad; i.e. support the Prez, it's wonderful, a miracle, what he's managed to do so far.

    And when I think back to the past, she's pro-military tho not pro war, and all that entails, etc., and a NASA-type science geek,too, and was anti-jihadi, interested in past terrorism. 

    Everyone maybe was deluded by the constant conservative drumbeat for years that she's the epitome of an evil librul, when actually, she's more of a centrist in many ways? So I guess in actuality it's maybe not that much of a stretch to label her a Karen? laugh (She's like a Hillary and as we agreed in the past, Hillary's a Karen, hah!)

    In any case, thinking along those lines, I went searching yesterday to see if I could find any far lefties/Bernie Bros/socialist types/Squad types denigrating Maddow for being so pro Biden, and I really did didn't find very much! Not many attacks from the left, at least not yet.

    edit in correction


    We agreed on that? Kind of skipped my mind ;-)

    Anyway, Maddow may have mellowed a bit, or she's just pragmatic or... that's who she is. I'm guessing she may count the audience as well.


    T.C.W. added this tweet today which got a lot of "likes"


    (I think that cultural decline point about miscommunication is an important one! not that it's the only reason that happens. I.E. Trump knows EXACTLY the words his fans want to hear. As do anarchist rabble rousers with graffitti and protest chants. But that's within a tribe. Adequate communication between tribes is the only way a multiculti society can work?!)

    ^ super point!


    Michael Harriot at The Root has it all figured out, what's going on here. He's been hunting and cherry picking and now he's got the plot all worked out. Forget all that stuff and listen to him. In a short amount of time, he knows more about linguistics than all you groveling Uncle Tom supposed linguistics professors

    Weaponizing 'Woke': A Brief History of White Definitions

    History is filled with examples of how language is repurposed for the advancement of whiteness.

    By Michael Harriot Yesterday 12:00PM



    Princeton historian Sean Wilentz suggests we watch a live lecture on anti-racism's connections to the Lost Cause and the "Solid South" by political scientist Adolph Reed:

     

    It is intriguing that the lecture is titled "The Farce This Time".  I looked him up - besides being a distinguished political science professor emeritus, Adolph Reed is a founding member of the U.S. Labor party.


    You put Adolph Reed on the table, I raise with Thomas Chatterton Williams on anti-CRT laws

    These initiatives have been marketed as “anti-critical race theory” laws. We, the authors of this essay, have wide ideological divergences on the explicit targets of this legislation. Some of us are deeply influenced by the academic discipline of critical race theory and its critique of racist structures and admire the 1619 Project. Some of us are skeptical of structural racist explanations and racial identity itself and disagree with the mission and methodology of the 1619 Project. We span the ideological spectrum: a progressive, a moderate, a libertarian and a conservative.

    It is because of these differences that we here join, as we are united in one overarching concern: the danger posed by these laws to liberal education.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/05/opinion/we-disagree-on-a-lot-of-things-except-the-danger-of-anti-critical-race-theory-laws.html


    Reed's difference with other activists is that he believes a focus on race chases away whites.

    “Adolph Reed and his ilk believe that if we talk about race too much we will alienate too many, and that will keep us from building a movement,” said Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a professor of African-American studies at Princeton University in New Jersey and a socialist who has given talks to D.S.A. chapters and is familiar with these debates. “We don’t want that — we want to win white people to an understanding of how their racism has fundamentally distorted the lives of Black people.”

    A contrary view is offered by Professor Reed and some prominent scholars and activists, many of whom are Black. They see the current emphasis in the culture on race-based politics as a dead-end. They include Dr. West; the historians Barbara Fields of Columbia University and Toure Reed — Adolph’s son — of Illinois State; and Bhaskar Sunkara, founder of Jacobin, a Socialist magazine.

    They readily accept the brute reality of America’s racial history and of racism’s toll. They argue, however, that the problems now bedeviling America — such as wealth inequality, police brutality and mass incarceration — affect Black and brown Americans, but also large numbers of working-class and poor white Americans.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/us/adolph-reed-controversy.html

    The end goals are the same. The debate is about tactics. Reed was rejected as a speaker for not focusing on race. Hannah-Jones was denied tenure and a speaking slot for focusing on race.

    BTW today is the glorious day that the 1619 Project book is released.


    DOH. Are our elite classes really learnin'? I mean really learnin'. How many decades, how many advanced degrees do they need? 

    What @ryangrim said https://t.co/EZdMY0QOGt pic.twitter.com/FSC4uNFqdl

    — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 15, 2021

    The GOP will definitely win this 2022 thing if more don't smarten up fast. With the help of more working class and small business non-white voters, who can't take their elite white woke-i-fied overlords much longer (Ok, I'll give that some minority woke have a little power, like Kendi.  But the co-option of woke by big corporate America using it in ubiquitous advertising could be the straw that breaks the back. "They" know who those ads are trying to "get", and it isn't them.)


    More--the winning political formula: America is not a villain


    At the Constitutional Convention 1787, they reached a compromise of 20 years to shut down the import of slaves, which the US met (end of 1807), while Brazil and Cuba continued slave shipping into the 1860s.

    Had the improved cotton gin not been invented in 1793 to make cotton processing economic, the heavy expansion of slavery into the new southern territories/states likely wouldn't have happened, so the southern economy wouldn't have been so reliant on the continuation of slavery - still much more from 1820-30 on after expansion south/southwest than the first 50 years, belying the idea that the American Revolution was to bolster slaveholding.

    Good animated maps/timelines:

    Cotton: https://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-01.html

    Slaves: https://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-02.html


    Nathaniel Gordon (February 6, 1826 – February 21, 1862) was the only slave trader in the U.S. to be tried, convicted, and executed for having "engaged in the slave trade," under the Piracy Law of 1820.[2]

    The slave trade was so profitable that fortunes were made in it up until the Civil War.

    America's "deep and powerful tradition" of profit $$$ prevailed over "universalistic egalitarian ideals of the Declaration of Independence".

    NYT Editorial, Feb. 22, 1862 .. on the execution of the above, Mr. Gordon .. Note 1862

    (  ...the nation finally 'woke' enough to act against the slave trade):

    ....The "cursed greed of gain" had caused them to shut their eyes, had deadened their consciences when the Slave-trade was in question. This City has exerted a terrible influence in that direction. She might well send petitions signed by twenty-five thousand names in GORDON's favor, for his blood lies partly upon her skirts. New-York has been most deeply engaged in the traffic. Her merchants have largely profited by its bloodstained gains; and worse, New-York divines have argued upon the curse of Ham in a way to help on that greed which was urging the merchants and shipmasters into the trade. Religious societies of our City have refused to lend their aid to resist this constantly increasing debauchery of public sentiment,

    While we live under a Government of law, every man must govern his actions by the assumption that the law will be carried out.

    We are sorry for his family and friends, but we cannot but rejoice that the Slave-trade has received so heavy a blow. Our City has been disgraced by it long enough. Our whole country has shared that disgrace. We rejoice in the belief that the prospects are brighter for the future, and that the sternness with which the law has been carried out in this instance will be effectual for the destruction of so enormous a crime within the borders not only of this City, but of the whole land.

     




    I don't understand - in the modern era it's largely something that happened to black folks. Sure, you can compare it with serfdom and Chinese servitude, but it's not really the same thing. Though it might be useful to teach that 90% of slavery went on outside the US. So we're up to 1, maybe 2 classes. Now onto the Industrial Revolution...


    If the class is United States history, the sources used will be about slavery in the USA. 


    Is it a good comprehensive education to only teach US history? I remember studying about the Roman empire in 7th grade and don't recall a single word about slavery there. Nor do I recall a single word about slavery in South America, especially Brazil, where slavery was more common and brutal than in the US. If all we teach is slavery in America doesn't that give a very lopsided and incorrect view of America as uniquely evil in regards to the issue of slavery?


    Yes, it is useful to know that only 1/10th of New World slavery was in the colonies/US, that the Caribbean and Brazil were much bigger, and that the US put a 20-year deadline on slave imports that ended them at end of 1807, that while the UK also ended their import business around 1810, Brazil and Cuba were still importing in 1866, etc. Yes the North made much money off Southern cotton, though I'm still not sure what made the North willing to end that boondoggle, since it was huge up to 1861 (and I'm not sure how far human morals go vs upholding rich people's interests -especially since we didn't seem very humanitarian in How the West Was Won - which aside from a couple gold rushes was mostly scratching a living out of dirt vs huge textile factories back east)


    I like the parent's point even more - he's thinking that if all they learn about is the slave trade of Africans in the U.S. rather than as a wider phenomenon, it gives Afro-American kids an impression that being enslaved losers is genetic or something and that whites must be smarter. That it's bad for their own confidence unless they learn it in the context that it happened to other people in other ways.


    AA adores existence in the right wing echo chamber. "What we need to do with Blacks."

    At least Thomas Sowell had many cogent points, McWhorter is just ----:


    that wasn't McWhorter and has nothing to do with him, that was

    @A_Allen_Jr

    I am a Black parent learning the method of literacy instruction used in classical education, the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric).

    Atlanta…idetoclassicaleducation.wordpress.com 

    his blog header:

    Black Parent's Guide To Classical Education

     trivium – a group of studies consisting of grammar, rhetoric, and logic and forming the lower division of the seven liberal arts in medieval universities.


    It's a damn shame that your fine brain has been so delusion-arily warped by the lowest common denominator of pro-sports type brains of political partisanship. that they have reduced you to the point of calling John McWhorter, a liberal, an uncle tom. If you ever went to college, it's obvious you threw your diploma away in preference for bottom of the barrel pea-brained ("yur either with us or agin us") partisan warfare. You're like the poster boy for Andrew Yang's arguments about what two parties have done to the potential of this country, dragged it down to Hatfield's vs. McCoy's level. The icing on the cake, you're doing it with your identity protected under a pseudonym on a site that few people read, indicating you have a need and desire to act this stupid no matter what, that it's not something you just do for show in the real world. No wonder you understood the Trump persona so well, it all becomes clear!


    You attack NCD in a fashion identical to the slurs McWhorter uses against the "Woke" in his new book.

    McWhorter makes it very clear that he considers the battle the Hatfields vs. the McCoys.


    Who's got a need and desire? Puts up 98% of posts here? Monopolizing the site? 

    Goes ballistic like clockwork when different views expressed?

    Ignores facts that contradict vapid twitter reposts, while self righteously claiming to be 'presenting analysis.'


    During Black History Month, rmrd put up 200 items. Was that "monopolizing the site"? Hal used to pop into any and every discussion to push the Convo towards his particular brand of class liberalism - was that "monopolizing the site"? No one's writing long heartfelt missives anymore, including me - Trump largely flattened our ability to back up and write about the wide view - Danny was the last to try though he had his own agenda - it all became reacting to the 5 daily outrages. Orion's prolly the best right now in giving his own personal taste, though still a lot of cut and paste. AA took special interest in the continuing Crime epidemic after the defund nonsense and BLM failures//vandalism. I've set up my own long threads on Trump scandals and COVID issues. If you want to post something useful rather than just showing up to hold hands with rmrd, do it. 


    Not to mention: this is MY BLOG THREAD, MINE to collect articles and tweets that interest me and to work out my thoughts

    And I'm letting you guys criticize them and me as if I am trying to persuade someone politically and as if I agree with everything I'm posting. As if this is DKos or something with a huge politically active audience, THAT'S ABSURD., PARTISAN FERVOR HERE STRIKES ABSURD.

    Then you hijack it with arguments about Ivermectin and other shit. Do I complain? No! I'm pretty flexible actually. If the discussion is not totally stupid and not the same thing over and over and over, I don't mind.

    Still, I'd love grownup input on the actual items on the thread. That's what I appreciate.

    But because there is not a huge audience, that's why I'm here. I'm actually doing this precisely because there is not a huge audience here, so I don't have to contend with lowest common denominator dopey mass market partisanship of the type bedeviling our country right now. 

    I'm using an site abandoned and maintained by the owner, to post collated news, with the owner's knowledge and approval, and hopefully have some participation with a few other GROWNUP minds to analyze it. And then I collect my bigger thoughts and articles on blog entries.

    IF YOU WANT TO PLAY PRETEND PARTISAN ADVOCACY to influence a mythical audience GO AHEAD BUT JUST FUCKING START YOUR OWN BLOG.  This thread is not about that. It's collecting articles and tweets from the anti-woke movement in our culture coming from intellectual elites. Because I think that's interesting! Not because I am under the impression that I am going to influence the vote, OK? I don't know why anyone is crazy enough to think like they can influence the vote by arguing with someone on dagblog, but if you do, have at it on your own blog.

    I especially don't get why one would think smearing me as if I am a right winger is going to accomplish anything. No one is listening! They either already have their own opinion of me, or they are not there. Who exactly does NCD think he is warning with his role play smear? There's no there there.


    "Some...embrace metaphors that naturalize racism. When racism is described as our nation’s 'original sin' or 'part of our DNA,' ideological attachments take on a life of their own. If racism is ingrained, there’s nothing we can do about it."

    —Touré Reedhttps://t.co/5u8wgC3o87 pic.twitter.com/bWa1d72jeV

    — Free Black Thought (@FreeBlckThought) November 18, 2021


    Valdary says, that in her opinion, the US in general practices "racecraft"

    She has no solution to the problem other than corporations purchasing her $700 program to address diversity.

    From a practical standpoint, she says diversity programs offered by DiAngelo and Kendi are flawed.

    Buy her perfect program instead.

    Edit to add:

    The man complaining about the pushback he gets for expressing his views should take a look at the abuse handed out to Hannah-Jones and Kendi.

    Valdary has no problem criticizing Blow.

    Perhaps the gentleman should grow up

    Again, I urge you to read "Woke Racism" and see how easily McWhorter atttacks the intellect of those he puts in the "Woke" category.



    I do see that prices for her anti racism products have changed

    https://theory-of-enchantment.teachable.com/


    BTW, skimming Reddit for opinions on Valdary, I came across this hypothesis (backed with research analysis) about Ivermectin, that it's more effective in 3rd world countries where worm infestation is common than it is in 1st world countries (and effects of the disease are worsened by that infestation) - which might be why 1st world validation hasn't worked so well.

    Interesting at least to consider that not everything is black and white - many things have a sphere where they're more true or false than others.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/qw76n6/ivermectin_...

    https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted

     


    Looked at the astralcodex link.

    Take a course in statistics and get back to me.


    I've had a course in statistics (several) - was there a point?


    The obvious point........how many studies reached statistical significance?

    Edit to add:

    Let's put this in a real world consideration

    If you are in a third world situation and we're offered access to the Merck and Pfizer oral meds, would you choose one of them or Ivermectin?


    Let's put this in a real world consideration - you show someone a paper where the author is brutally honest with how he works with the data and its problems but useful interpretation,, and some asshat acts all smug by pointing out the paper doesn't do what the author said the paper/studies didn't do. *AND* the asshat compares 2 drugs that are likely coming on the market a year or more after the drug these papers are talking about was already being given experimentally to patients. THESE OTHER DRUGS ARENT EVEN AVAILABLE YET, MUCH LESS IN QUANTITY, MUCH LESS AFFORDABLE IN 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES. (do these drugs have real problems in real world applications that don't show up in its studies, just as the Pfizer vaccine fades quite a bit faster than believed at the start? well, JUST TRUST THEM) If you're in a 3rd world country, you won't be offered these meds for 6 months or more, so why do you even bother with your hypothetical? What I said from the begininning is this debate from Western liberals ignores real people elsewhere suffering with *NO FUCKING VACCINES NOR THERAPIES* with a deadly disease that was killing 4000 a day in India alone, half that amount in Brazil, many many more elsewhere, a lot of which went unreported. But snicker snicker snicker, let's own the conservatives!!!

    So what did the author say?

    Now it’s p = 0.04, seemingly significant, but I had to make some unprincipled decisions to get there. I don’t think I specifically replaced negative findings with positive ones, but I can’t prove that even to myself, let alone to you.

    (how come I’m finding a bunch of things on the edge of significance, but the original ivmmeta site found a lot of extremely significant things? Because they combined ratios, such that “one death in placebo, zero in ivermectin” looked like a nigh-infinite benefit for ivermectin, whereas I’m combining raw numbers. Possibly my way is statistically illegitimate for some reason, but I’m just trying to get a rough estimate of how convinced to be)

    So we are stuck somewhere between “nonsignificant trend in favor” and “maybe-significant trend in favor, after throwing out some best practices”.

    This is normally where I would compare my results to those of other meta-analyses made by real professionals. But when I look at them, they all include studies later found to be fake, like Elgazzar, and unsurprisingly come up with wildly positive conclusions. There are about six in this category. One of them later revised their results to exclude Elgazzar and still found strong efficacy for ivermectin, but they still included Niaee and some other dubious studies.

    The only meta-analysis that doesn’t make these mistakes is Popp (a Cochrane review), which is from before Elgazzar was found to be fraudulent, but coincidentally excludes it for other reasons. It also excludes a lot of good studies like Mahmud and Ravakirti because they give patients other things like HCQ and azithromycin - I chose to include them, because I don’t think they either work or have especially bad side effects, so they’re basically placebo - but Cochrane is always harsh like this. They end up with a point estimate where ivermectin cuts mortality by 40% - but say the confidence intervals are too wide to draw any conclusion.

    I think this basically agrees with my analyses above - the trends really are in ivermectin’s favor, but once you eliminate all the questionable studies there are too few studies left to have enough statistical power to reach significance.

    Except that everyone is still focusing on deaths and hospitalizations just because they’re flashy. Mahmud et al, which everyone agrees is a great study, found that ivermectin decreased days until clinical recovery, p = 0.003?

    So what do you do?

    This is one of the toughest questions in medicine. It comes up again and again. You have some drug. You read some studies. Again and again, more people are surviving (or avoiding complications) when they get the drug. It’s a pattern strong enough to common-sensically notice. But there isn’t an undeniable, unbreachable fortress of evidence. The drug is really safe and doesn’t have a lot of side effects. So do you give it to your patients? Do you take it yourself?

    Here this question is especially tough, because, uh, if you say anything in favor of ivermectin you will be cast out of civilization and thrown into the circle of social hell reserved for Klan members and 1/6 insurrectionists. All the health officials in the world will shout “horse dewormer!” at you and compare you to Josef Mengele. But good doctors aren’t supposed to care about such things. Your only goal is to save your patient. Nothing else matters.

    I am telling you that Mahmud et al is a good study and it got p = 0.003 in favor of ivermectin. You can take the blue pill, and stay a decent respectable member of society. Or you can take the horse dewormer pill, and see where you end up.

    In a second, I’ll tell you my answer. But you won’t always have me to answer questions like this, and it might be morally edifying to observe your thought process in situations like this. So take a second, and meet me on the other side of the next section heading.


    You create a strawman 

    But snicker snicker snicker, let's own the conservatives!!!

    Then you blather on.

    Here this question is especially tough, because, uh, if you say anything in favor of ivermectin you will be cast out of civilization and thrown into the circle of social hell reserved for Klan members and 1/6 insurrectionists.

    All of this nonsense is happening in your own head.

     

    The Merck drug is for those with mild to moderate COVID

    The Pfizer drug is for non-hospitalized high risk COVID patients 

    Ivermectin studies were a mixed bag

     


    You quote something from the author & then say it's made up in my head. Do you hear voices?

    Ivermectin studies were sometimes trying to identify the right place where it could be effective.(early, late, oxygenated or not...). Now you're saying both of the drugs you're touting are for early stage patients when most of the time doctors are only getting late stage patients when symptoms are insufferable. This is gonna work well. But hey, science.


    I will stick with the Cochrane conclusion 

    Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.

    https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full


    You're repeating the author's conclusion out if a certain setting, but

    We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies.

    Thats a lot of studies they hadn't been able to check 5-6 months ago. What's current status?

    Oh, and your Cochrane site says Ivermectin's good rosacea in humans - i thought you said it was only a horse de-wormer?


    Other drugs are moving forward.

    Ivermectin is not recommended for COVID

    Let me know when there is an update


    You miss the fucking point because you're a narrow bigoted asshole who's uninterest in learning anything, only in grinding things down to your pre-conceived viewpoints - a waste of space. I give you a review of studies that provides an very interesting take on how studies work in real life, basically says Ivermectin doesn't work & believers have fooled themselves, *yet* there seems to be a connection between positive results and worm infestation (primarily outside the 1st world:

    • Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when honest and methodologically sound: 50% confidence

    Which is a pretty major discovery if true, and throws a real interesting twist into the story, which you don't care, cuz you stopped with "tastes great/less filling". But others trudge on...

    and looking for forests despite trees (and Twitter fights),


    Your last retweet from healrh nerd comes with a preprint warning posted at medrxiv.org:

    Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.


    Wow, that's so incredible to know that a guesstimate in a journal article isn't hard coded fact - i almost jumped off a bridge. Especially when noted that underreporting is a huge problem with the implication that maybe we can try to discover how big it is vs "here it is already pre-measured".

    Though might I suggest this guy seems to know what he's doing even if not peer reviewed...

    Abstract

    Introduction The infection-fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 has been carefully measured and analyzed in high-income countries, whereas there has been no systematic analysis of age-specific seroprevalence or IFR for developing countries. Indeed, it has been suggested that the death rate in developing countries may be far lower than in high-income countries—an outcome that would be starkly different from the typical pattern for many other infectious diseases.

    Methods We systematically reviewed the literature to identify all serology studies in developing countries that were conducted using representative samples of specimens collected by early 2021. For each of the antibody assays used in these serology studies, we identified data on assay characteristics, including the extent of seroreversion over time. We analyzed the serology data using a Bayesian model that incorporates conventional sampling uncertainty as well as uncertainties about assay sensitivity and specificity. We then calculated IFRs using individual case reports or aggregated public health updates, including age-specific estimates whenever feasible.

    Results Seroprevalence in many developing country locations was markedly higher than in high-income countries but still far short of herd immunity. In most locations, seroprevalence among older adults was similar to that of younger age-groups. Age-specific IFRs were 1.3-2.5x higher than in high-income countries. The median value of population IFR was 0.5% among developing countries with satisfactory death reporting as of 2016, compared to a median of 0.05% for other developing countries.

    Conclusion The burden of COVID-19 is far higher in developing countries than in high-income countries, reflecting a combination of elevated transmission to middle-aged and older adults as well as limited access to adequate healthcare. These results underscore the critical need to accelerate the provision of vaccine doses to vulnerable populations in developing countries.

    Key Points

    • - Age-specific prevalence and infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 for developing countries has not been well assessed.

    • - Seroprevalence in developing countries (as measured by antibodies against SARS-CoV-2) is markedly higher than in high-income countries but still far short of herd immunity.

    • - Seroprevalence among older adults is broadly similar to that of younger age-groups.

    • - Age-specific IFRs in developing countries are roughly twice those of high-income countries.

    • - Population IFR in developing countries with satisfactory death reporting (based on Global Burden of Disease data as of 2019) is ten times higher than in other developing countries.

    • - These results underscore the urgency of disseminating vaccines to vulnerable people in developing countries.

    Poor people in Africa need more vaccines? I think we need a peer review to jump on that right away.


    Are you on the Yale peer review committee? 

    Get back when it's published and put into clinical action on the ground, and whatever benefits are claimed are duplicated and confirmed by others than health nerd.


    sorry sir, this is a Wendy's


    Ivermectin #Skepticon2021, eh?


    Seems like the talk will say that there is no reliable data to suggest Ivermectin is useful in COVID


    The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Seems the talk pitches accuracy via meta-analysis instead of just summary data for *any* drug or safety analysis - you're stuck trying to be right on 1 single drug, and you don't register that much of the results are faked and fucked on parts of whatever drug trial or mask evaluation or other medical procedure. You're bothered by systemic racism? This is systemic flawed scientific/medical evaluation. You know the 6 foot rule on Covid? It's an arbitrary and flawed rule pulled out of someone's ass 70 years ago for a different disease  with different behavior and physics based on a completely unrelated set of circumstances, yet it's been used to misleadingly tell people what's safe for the current pandemic. But I'm sure flawed studies helped perpetrate the myth.

    Specifically, we propose that clinical research should be seen as a contribution of data toward a larger omnibus question rather than an assemblage of summary statistics. Most, if not all, of the flaws described above would have been immediately detected if meta-analyses were performed on an individual patient data (IPD) basis.


    So the Ivermectin data is not trustworthy.


    FFS, can you read the motherfucking article and stop typing with your dick? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted


    1. School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

      Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz

    Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses2,3. We described several irregularities in the data that could not be consistent with them being experimentally derived4. That study has now been withdrawn by the preprint server5 on which it was hosted. We also raised concerns about unexpected stratification across baseline variables in another randomized controlled trial for ivermectin6, which were highly suggestive of randomization failure. We have requested data from the authors but, as of 6 September 2021, have not yet received a response. This second ivermectin study has now been published6, and there is still no response from the authors in a request for data.

    The authors of one recently published meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-193 have publicly stated that they will now reanalyze and republish their now-retracted meta-analysis and will no longer include either of the two papers just mentioned. As these two papers1,6 were the only studies included in that meta-analysis to demonstrate an independently significant reduction in mortality, the revision will probably show no mortality benefit for ivermectin.

    Several other studies that claim a clinical benefit for ivermectin are similarly fraught, and contain impossible numbers in their results, unexplainable mismatches between trial registry updates and published patient demographics, purported timelines that are not consistent with the veracity of the data collection, and substantial methodological weaknesses. We expect further studies supporting ivermectin to be withdrawn over the coming months

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y#citeas

     


    Still fapping on what your tribe told you to fap on.

    The more important point is that these same systemic errors

    will be present for reviews of all the vaccines, your new fave Pfizer and Merck therapies, and whatever else. Ivermectin

    studies are just a sample of what can go wrong.

    We know that half the studies out there are crap, but even

    aggregating, filtering, culling them we still may end up withcrao w/o new procedures.

    We believe that this situation requires

    immediate remediation. The most salient

    change required is a change in perspective

    on the part of both primary researchers

    and those who bring together the results

    of individual studies to draw wider

    conclusions. Specifically, we propose

    that clinical research should be seen as

    a contribution of data toward a larger

    omnibus question rather than an assemblage

    of summary statistics. Most, if not all, of

    the flaws described above would have been

    immediately detected if meta-analyses were

    performed on an individual patient data

    (IPD) basis. In particular, irregularities

    such as extreme terminal digit bias and

    the duplication of blocks of patient

    records would have been both obvious and

    immediately interrogable from raw data

    if provided.

    We recommend that meta-analysts

    who study interventions for COVID-19

    should request and personally review

    IPD in all cases, even if IPD synthesis

    techniques are not used. In a similar

    vein, all clinical trials published on

    COVID-19 should immediately follow

    best-practice guidelines and upload

    anonymized IPD so that this type of

    analysis can occur. Any study for

    which authors are not able or not

    willing to provide suitably anonymized

    IPD should be considered at high risk

    of bias for incomplete reporting

    and/or excluded entirely from

    meta-syntheses.

    Hurdles to the release of IPD from

    clinical trials are well described, and

    generally addressable with careful

    anonymization and integration of data

    sharing plans at the ethical approval stage of

    trial planning.

    We recognize that this is a change

    to long-accepted practice and is substantially

    more rigorous than the standards

    that are typically currently applied, but we

    believe that what has happened in

    the case of ivermectin justifies our proposal:

    a poorly scrutinized evidence base

    supported the administration of millions

    of doses of a potentially ineffective drug

    globally, and yet when this evidence was

    subjected to a very basic numerical scrutiny

    it collapsed in a matter of weeks. This

    research has created undue confidence in

    the use of ivermectin as a prophylactic or

    treatment for COVID-19, has usurped other

    research agendas, and probably resulted in

    inappropriate treatment or substandard care

    of patients.

    We recognize that by recommending

    IPD review by default for meta-analysis of

    potential therapeutic agents in COVID-

    19 we are calling for change to nearly

    universally accepted practice over many

    decades, but the consequent potential for

    patient harm on a global scale demands

    nothing less.


    Peer review, eh?


    WaPo's Jennifer Rubin with a great take on our current situation 

    You know the argument: America is divided into warring camps. The center has collapsed. Compromise is impossible. We have become uncivil and angry.

    While it’s true that the country is more deeply divided along partisan lines than it has been in the past, it is wrong to suggest a symmetrical devolution into irrational hatred. The polarization argument too often treats both sides as equally worthy of blame, characterizing the problem as a sort of free-floating affliction (e.g., “lack of trust”). This blurs the distinction between a Democratic Party that is marginally more progressive in policy positions than it was a decade ago, and a Republican Party that routinely lies, courts violence and seeks to define America as a White Christian nation.

    The Republican Party’s tolerance of violence is not matched by Democrats. Nor is the Republican Party’s refusal to recognize the sanctity of elections. Democrats did not call the elections they lost in 2020 and 2021 “rigged,” nor are they seeking to replace nonpartisan election officials with partisan lawmakers. Republicans’ determination to change voting laws based on their insistence that Donald Trump won the 2020 election is without historical precedent.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/18/its-not-polarization-we-suffer-republican-radicalization/


    New McWhorter op-ed at the NYTimes:



     Many French see "wokisme" as pernicious infiltration from American universities "aimed at spreading racial and gender discord over French universalism":

     


    MLK on being Woke

    Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution

    I'm sure that you have read that arresting little story from the pen of Washington Irving entitled Rip Van Winkle. The thing that we usually remember about this story is that Rip Van Winkle slept 20 years. But there is another point in that story that is almost always completely overlooked: it was a sign on the inn in the little town on the Hudson from which Rip went up into the mountain for his long sleep. When he went up, the sign had a picture of King George III of England. When he came down, years later, the sign had a picture of George Washington, the first president of the United States. When Rip looked up at the picture of George Washington, he was completely lost; he knew not who he was. This reveals to us that the most striking fact about the story of Rip Van Winkle is not that he slept 20 years, but that he slept through a revolution. While he was peacefully snoring up on the mountain, a great revolution was taking place in the world - indeed, a revolution which would, at points, change the course of history. And Rip Van Winkle knew nothing about it; he was asleep.

    There are all too many people who, in some great period of social change, fail to achieve the new mental outlooks that the new situation demands. There is nothing more tragic than to sleep through a revolution. There can be no gainsaying of the fact that a great revolution is taking place in our world today. It is a social revolution, sweeping away the old order of colonialism. And in our own nation it is sweeping away the old order of slavery and racial segregation. The wind of change is blowing, and we see in our day and our age a significant development. Victor Hugo said on one occasion that there is nothing more powerful in all the world than an idea whose time has come. In a real sense, the idea whose time has come today is the idea of freedom and human dignity. Wherever men are assembled today, the cry is always the same, "We want to be free." And so we see in our own world a revolution of rising expectations. The great challenge facing every individual graduating today is to remain awake through this social revolution.

    https://www2.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/BlackHistoryMonth/MLK/CommAddress.html

    Edit to add:

    MLK noted that there were people who wanted you to wait for a more convenient time

    Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext)

    By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963

    "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." 

    Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html

    Nothing new is happening.


    MLK sez go out and do whatever fool stupid thing you got planned cuz the world can't ever wait for the right time - you gotta always rush in right now whether you does good or fucks it up.

    I just love dragging Martin Luther King's ass through every little moralists take on current events. I imagine he thought he'd get to rest in the grave, but a lot of travel to do supporting harebrained ideas and impulsive ADD thinking by tooting out that quote for any occasion.

    PS - my momma agrees, she says make every day count, or carpe diem. But seize *which* day? They all look pretty much the same.


    Normally I'm not a big fan of pop psychologists, but this which I just read is really hitting the spot you're getting at

    Our society seems to really give a lot of positive attention to people who present themselves as victims, why do you think this happens so much?

    Who doesn't love a good guy defeating the bad guy story? We love underdogs because they can be more relatable than the ambitious, go getters who don't let life's challenges stop them from pursuing their dreams. It's easier to see ourselves as the victim or saviour than to consider we could ever be in the villain/persecutor role. I speak of the three roles that re-enact the disempowering Dreaded Drama Triad described by Dr. Stephen Karpman. When there's a victim, there's also a clear villain, be it another person, institution, system, ideology or life itself, yet never any of us! When there's a clear victim and a villain, then the observer or witness can more easily work out their role as saviour, ally or condemner of the villain. People need something to blame because it's a lot easier to point fingers and expect others to change than to consider how we might each need to change something about ourselves or take responsibility for how any of us might contribute directly or indirectly to someone else's or societal problems, that might place any of us in the persecutor role.

    from


    The Arbery case is a clear example where people did not except victimhood.

    The parents and activists did not accept a DA who refused to prosecute the case

    They did not accept when a second DA recused himself, but felt the need to prosecute the men who murdered Arbery

    They pushed on

    Now we have three convictions and the initial DA indicted for intentionally mishandling the case.

    They snatched victory from defeat.

     


    Doh, no kidding. I am answering you against my better judgment - I'd really prefer you stay off this thread - because it's become so very clear you don't even get the basics of the divisive nature of "wokeness" and playing the race card, but here goes

    Did you even read about the trial or just read what your favorite "activists" said about it. I put this on the Arbery thread, did you read it? Lawyers left racism out of the trial over Ahmaud Arbery’s death. Here’s why.

    Did you see Arbery's father say "ALL LIVES MATTER" not "Black Lives Matter"?

    For the dense: he did that on purpose. Though a lot of people don't know he's changed, even Al Sharpton does the same thing, why can't you?

    What is your problem continually defending the woke segregationist crap? Back to  McWhorter, it's exactly what he's pointing out: woke is a narrative of playing hapless victim of supposed white supremacy. Things have changed, you're not slaves anymore. Quit reinforcing racism by being racist. Stop stoking racism, just stop. You can win over juries of southern white people that way. You can win elections that way, too, stop stoking racism with the race card. Stop defending libertarian woke racists who want to abolish police and prisons.

    Why don't you get it? It's not 1965 any more, sorry, you seem to like to pretend you're living there, so you can be a 1965 style victim of Jim Crow, and stay segregated, but you're not. It's impossible to time travel.

    Another tip: hate for "the other" is not going away.  People do that. The way to live together in a multicultural society is tolerance of the other you hate. That's why we allow hate speech in this country - to let off the steam and even to let the virulent haters self-identify and be ostracized -but it's against the law to act on it.

    This thread is about ostracizing you "woke" haters and the woke who insist there's no end to the evilness of this supposedly white supremacist country. It's simply not true anymore. Pretty soon they'll have to take the race question off the census because too many can't pick a single race. What tribe you gonna go with then, the "victim" tribe? The one where people have 1/8 ADOS blood?


    Most Americans say the declining share of White people in the U.S. is neither good nor bad for society

    BY JENS MANUEL KROGSTADAMINA DUNN AND JEFFREY S. PASSEL @ PewResearch.org, August 23, 2021

    A majority of U.S. adults say the decreasing share of Americans who identify their race as White is neither good nor bad for society, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

    About six-in-ten adults (61%) say the declining proportion of Americans who identify as White – a trend documented this month in new data from the Census Bureau about Americans who identify as solely White and not Hispanic – is neither good nor bad for society. About two-in-ten (22%) say it is bad, including 9% who say it is very bad. Slightly fewer (15%) say it is good for society, including 7% who say it is very good, according to the survey of 10,221 adults, conducted July 8-18, 2021.

    Majorities across demographic and political groups have neutral views about the changing racial makeup of the U.S. population. But there are substantial differences in the shares who have a positive or negative opinion about the declining proportion of White people in the country.

    Differences by age are especially pronounced. Among those ages 18 to 29, around three-in-ten (29%) say the fact that White people are declining as a share of the U.S. population is good for society, compared with 13% who say it is bad. By contrast, 32% of Americans ages 65 and older say this demographic shift is bad for society and only 6% say it is good.

    Views also differ sharply by partisanship and ideology, even as nearly identical majorities of Republicans and Democrats (61% vs. 62%) say it is neither good nor bad for society that White people are declining as a share of the population [....]


    Guess what: no one actually believes in CRT except for academics and diversity consultants who get paid to push this propaganda. You talk to any ordinary American - they want colorblindness. They want meritocracy. They don't want to see others by their race. That is America.

    — Kenny Xu (@kennymxu) November 30, 2021

    the following is simplistic but the principle is sound, basically that many things like this are the work of "outside agitators"

    This tag and many others are created on the daily by bots in China that go around twitter to continue promoting racial divide in American communities to make this country grow weaker. The sad part is most of our society now falls for the bait everytime. #whitepeopleoverstepping

    — (@TheSherryBadger) November 29, 2021

    hence you see reactions like this

    The Left is so racist. Every day with this dumb bullshit. #whitepeopleoverstepping

    — Sarah (@BooBooNyc) November 29, 2021

     


    Let it be known to all loud and clear that Detroit's superintendent of schools says DETROIT IS USING "CRITICAL RACE THEORY" in it's curriculum, he uses THOSE ACTUAL WORDS.. And denial is not a river in Egypt, enough with the denial, okay? It just makes the deniers look silly:

    Why is any school district where only 12% and 16% of kids are proficient in reading and math, respectively, doing anything but working with parents to give students a foundation in the 3 Rs? These ideologues think school is for “liberation”, not education. https://t.co/kiGfUUlCVa

    — Delano Squires (@DelanoSquires) December 1, 2021

    Those who don't like him using those words, have a talk with him, quit trying to gaslight everyone else who know wassup in a lot of public school curriculum.


    Wes Yang making a point using Squire's tweet:

    Mho, he's opining about a kind of grift that's related to this kind of grift. 

    Then I am reminded of Obama in "Dreams from My Father" writing about Kenyan society and how so much of it is dependent on one member of a large extended family living off the income of one man with a social service job.



    Believe It or Not, I Like Some Things in Our Progressive Era

    Op-ed by John McWhorter @ NYTimes.com, Dec. 3, 2021

    Whether you think of me as a contrarian, as I’m often labeled, or a cranky liberal, as I sometimes refer to myself, I do a lot of complaining about our supposedly brave new world: Cancel culture is real, and out of hand; wokeness frequently oversimplifies and infantilizes us; the term “woke” is broke. But believe it or not, there are things I like about our current era, including, as you know, cheering on “they” as a singular pronoun. So, after the Thanksgiving holiday seems a good time to point out some other things I appreciate about our times.

    One of them is land acknowledgments. There is an increasingly common practice, especially in academic circles, of prefacing public presentations or events with a ritual acknowledgment that the land the event is taking place on was originally occupied and cared for by Native Americans, with a specification of the particular Indigenous nation of that land. [....]

    I like what I see on television. Particularly children’s television. I look over my daughters’ shoulders and see a heartening multiplicity of Black stars and characters on their favorite shows that just wasn’t there a few years ago. One that comes to mind: Netflix’s delightful baking show, “Nailed It!” is hosted to perfection by Nicole Byer, a young Black woman. No, I haven’t forgotten that the wonderfully diverse “Sesame Street” has been with us since 1969. But the sheer frequency with which today’s children’s shows (and not just the stuff of public television) are, yes, centering people of color, feels different. “Sesame Street” once felt like a televised utopia; today’s fare, especially animated, commercial programming, often presents diversity as something blissfully unremarkable.

    The hit Nickelodeon series “The Loud House” follows a cartoon family in which the main character, a boy named Lincoln, lives with 10 sisters. They’re white, but the show makes an effort to depict a multihued world everywhere beyond the house: Lincoln’s best friend, Clyde, is Black (and over the course of several seasons, has been voiced by two Black actors), with nothing made of it beyond the simple fact. One of the sisters’ boyfriends is Latino (voiced by a Latino actor), and one of the supporting characters is of South Asian descent (voiced by a South Asian actress). The “Loud House” spinoff, “The Casagrandes,” is about the boyfriend’s Mexican American extended family. We’re a long way from “The Flintstones.”

    Interestingly, the same thing is happening on popular animated shows for adults: On the long-running “Family Guy,” Blackness has often been played for comedy; but on a recent episode, the main character, Peter, gets a new boss, a Black guy, whose race is incidental. He stood out not for being Black but for trying to squeeze the fun out of at-work birthday parties — you know, like a stereotypical boss. A recent episode of the also long-running “Bob’s Burgers” introduced a character as the game master of a Dungeons & Dragons-style game who was nerdy, charmingly awkward and a Black woman — i.e. a full spectrum of a human being. The hit “Ted Lasso” portrays today’s United Kingdom, where whiteness is hardly default as Black and brown people are part of the warp and woof of all levels of society. A recent “Archer” episode even jokes about today’s Britain, when Lana (voiced, as it happens, by the Black actress Aisha Tyler, who had a recurring role as Ross’s girlfriend on “Friends” back when there was a mild uproar about that show’s lack of Black friends!) wrongly assumes a Black man will stand out in a London crowd.

    No doubt, some of you will think these pop-cultural examples are superficial. But imagine a ’50s-era segregationist sitting down to watch TV now and realizing that these shows are there for the watching in just about every American home — they’d be apoplectic. That represents genuine change, reflecting transformations in attitude and perception, which younger people, especially, see not as “oh, wow!” but “of course!” — as it should be.

    Another good thing about our moment is that we’re gradually shedding the idea that racism is about only individual feelings, nasty words and overt acts of bigotry. The idea of systemic racism — societal inequities rooted in racism of the past or present that represent barriers, in many instances, for people of color — is now common coin to a greater extent.

    Sure, I have documented my issues with the way we are taught to think about systemic racism, and to say that opinions about how to address it differ is putting it mildly. The argument for reparations, for instance, is not the utterly settled question some suppose. And controversy will continue over whether the take on systemic racism originating in, and taking a cue from, critical race theory is a useful one.

    However, I welcome the increased awareness of the notion of systemic racism. Despite my alarm at the excesses of today’s progressive politics, I’ve never argued the simplistic notion that racism boils down to cross-burnings and white people saying the N-word [....]

    Of course, her perspective, then, is alive and well now. Yet an undergrad today would be much less likely to see race matters only that far. The racial reckoning of recent years; the cultural decentering of whiteness; and the airing of what is meant by systemic racism have brought about that positive evolution. The other day I heard some white kids — upper-middle-class New Yorkers — casually referring in passing to systemic racism while walking down the street from school, clearly thinking of it as an assumed concept. I was hearing no such thing in my grad student days. Gallup polling asking “Are Black people in your community treated less fairly than White people?” in situations involving the workplace, shopping, dining out, interactions with police and access to health care, shows that from 1997 until 2021, white Americans and Americans overall became more aware of racial disparities.

    A meaningful approach to getting past race — and that should be the goal — must acknowledge progress, which is evident in a variety of ways. We should also acknowledge the past, as long as we do so with a view toward improving the present. It’s OK to look back, as long as you don’t stare.


    The identitarian monomania that started appearing in https://t.co/IM04JXYRfe in 2011 was like Audrey II in Little Shop of Horrors at the start pic.twitter.com/d4fu3lbCQ3

    — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) November 20, 2021

    2019 was the year "responsible" entities chose to start feeding it the large infusions of blood it craved https://t.co/iWtBqhLWP9 pic.twitter.com/sLIly6Vxe3

    — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) November 20, 2021


    Now there is some concern among the hardcore partisans that the monster they've been feeding for a half-decade may consume things other they intended https://t.co/a615sHyDhQ

    — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) November 20, 2021

    Including, of course, and above all, their own political power. Choosing to pivot toward more palatable messaging or to double down on lies and smears is tactical question; Sargent makes the case for the former.

    — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) November 20, 2021

    But whichever way they go (and they are likely to do an unstable mixture of both, often in the same statement), it will all be in service of a in which a well-funded coalition of those who rent-seek off identitarian monomamia constitute an Iron Triangle

    — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) November 20, 2021

    Change the message to increase voter appeal or stave off electoral defeat, sure. But unless they actually dismantle this apparatus within their ranks, it will be merely cosmetic.

    — Wesley Yang (@wesyang) November 20, 2021

    The WP uses that picture as if identifying as American is a bad thing.

    — Ran Track (@RanTrack3) November 20, 2021

     

     


    excerpt from Greg Sargent's WaPo article cited by Yang above:

    The discussions of structural racism imply a vaguely Marxist desire to smash and overturn societal structures to build a new world atop the rubble. The state must correct for racial inequities by cutting down the successful and enforcing “equality of outcomes.”

    Official BLM has lately been unashamedly running with a very strong Marxist line, no excuses, with stuff like this and more:

    Capitalism doesn’t love Black people.

    — Black Lives Matter (@Blklivesmatter) December 2, 2021


    Renouncing monarchical rule and acknowledging the harm which colonialism has done to the new republic are just the beginning. As Bajans build their new future, we look forward to seeing how the UK delivers reparations to the people of Barbados.

    — Black Lives Matter (@Blklivesmatter) December 3, 2021

    A new era is here: Barbados is free from the shackles of nearly 400 years of colonial rule.

    — Black Lives Matter (@Blklivesmatter) December 4, 2021

    (if you haven't read any news about the above, they are spinning absurd! it was a very celebratory turnover ceremony, with Prince Charles in attendance with cheerful demeanor, nothing but good wishes and good will for their future, happy for them )

    Don’t “uncritically believe the police in Jussie’s case.” — #AngelaDavis, who went live with @marclamonthill #JussieIsInnocent #JussieSmollett pic.twitter.com/954pw8GF9n

    — Coalition for Jussie (@CoalitionJussie) December 1, 2021

    um Jussie Smollet is the best Angela can do now?! and BLM is, of all things they could talk about, is promoting it?!

    edit to add: it really does seem at times that they have an anarchist desire to destroy the Democratic party and the country and start over from scratch


    Latest Comments