Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Wokeism


Bjornebye
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Strontium said:

 

Well, who says you're lying? Maybe you're just mistaken. Unlike you I'm not willing to make claims beyond the known facts. Either way, the article DID NOT say what you said it did, and there's ZERO EVIDENCE it ever said what you say it did.

 

I didn't misrepresent anything. Rico mentioned racist abuse of Jews that happened yesterday, and you brought Corbyn into it, even though he had absolutely nothing to do with it. I made a joke about you mentioning Corbyn, and this was enough for you to go off half-cocked. Again.

 

So yes, you can just fuck right off. You've been trying to provoke me all week, endless little jibes in threads on everything from coronavirus to seagulls, and I've ignored it all week until today. More fool me for responding to it.

I don’t like liars. You lie. I point it out (I’m not alone) and you don’t like it. Stop lying and then we can all carry on with our lives. Pathetic little weasel. Have a nice late one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

I think there's some areas where I roll my eyes, but that's the level of my 'outrage'. 

The 'him/his/he' thing...that's funny, but maybe to a handful of people it actually matters, so let's play this game. 

The odd thing is that it's not really applicable when you talk to the person 'himself', only when referring to them in a conversation with a third person.  

 

I'm more annoyed by other things.  Tattoos.  There's too many tattoos on people now, especially writing.  I should definitely be able to not give a job to someone on the basis of making poor decisions, repeatedly, around their tattoos.  Likewise, I should bover e able to hire someone based on a brilliant tattoo, that shows creativity, decisiveness, and money management.  

Used to go to a gym over the water and they were mad on tattoos over there.

Every fucker was covered in them.

Wools

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

Look at this woke cunt, virtue signalling by kicking the banana instead of picking it up or just dribbling around it. 

If he had any moxy he'd eat it like Gazza ate the Mars Bar. 

0_Football-21st-February-1988-FA-Cup-Fith-Round-Goodison-Park-Everton-0-v-Liverpool-1-Liverpools.jpg

Was re reading that scally book.

The abuse he got in that cup game was off the scale looking back.

Suppose it should be in the racism thread but hey ho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/29/children-aged-seven-taught-not-racially-innocent/

 

Quote

Children aged seven to be taught that they are not ‘racially innocent’
Brighton and Hove City Council accused of ‘indoctrinating’ children through five-year plan for anti-racist education system

Children as young as seven are to be told they are not "racially innocent" because they view "white at the top of the hierarchy" as part of diversity training for teachers.

Brighton and Hove City Council has been accused of "indoctrinating" children through its five-year plan for an anti-racist education system, which endorses critical race theory and white privilege – contentious ideologies that have sparked protests.

The council states that all teachers require the training, which will inform "specific racial literacy-focused lessons" for pupils. The Green-controlled authority is in a row with parents opposed to the classes and one has launched a petition to have the training scrapped, which has attracted 4,000 signatures.

Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, has previously told the Commons that schools teaching white privilege as an uncontested fact are breaking the law.

Quote

One slide tells teachers: "Between the ages of three and five, children learn to attach value to skin colour; white at the top of the hierarchy and black at the bottom." Another document condemns "the widespread view" that young children are "racially innocent", concluding that there is "ample evidence" to the contrary.


Another slide displays a pyramid diagram containing acts that constitute "covert white supremacy", including denying the existence of white privilege, eurocentric curriculums and saying "it is just a joke" when a person of colour becomes offended.

Quote

Under the training, teachers are told pupils should not be taught that "race doesn't mean anything and everyone can work hard and be successful".


This is because "we leave them [pupils] vulnerable to concluding that white people must just be better... in the absence of any explanation for the racial disparity that they see everywhere, we do leave them vulnerable to come to some troubling conclusions".

The consultant delivering the session said Christianity influenced the slave trade and portrayed its heroes as white and that "science upholds the status quo". She also claimed society obsesses over the muscle size of only black sportspeople, not their white rivals.

Quote

The council has set aside an annual budget of £100,000 for the five-year project, sparked by the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the USA.

A race adviser job has been advertised on a salary of £50,000 to £55,000 pro rata for two and a half days a week. Two diversity consultancy firms, Race Matters and Ceruleanblu, are helping train staff across early years, school and college settings. It is expected the training will be passed on through race lessons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Strontium said:

Setting aside the deliberately misleading headline, this whole story rests on one question: what's the evidence that children between the ages of 3 and 5 learn to attach value to skin colour and to value paler skin more highly?

 

If that claim is false, then the anti-woke warriors at the Torygraph have a point in this specific instance. 

 

If that claim is true, then the council are absolutely right to try to change the racist indoctrination of the status quo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Race lesson? Shouldn’t it be covered  in history? Tell the truth about the atrocities, not big it up like we were the good guys running the world.
 

Oh and kids don’t value skin colour at 3-5, what complete and utter horsefuckingshit? 
 

Kids only that learn “value” from parents from a later age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Race lesson? Shouldn’t it be covered  in history? Tell the truth about the atrocities, not big it up like we were the good guys running the world.
 

Oh and kids don’t value skin colour at 3-5, what complete and utter horsefuckingshit? 
 

Kids only that learn “value” from parents from a later age. 

Those lessons aren't for kids: it's a course for teachers, to inform the way they teach history, etc. 

 

As for what kids learn between the ages of 3 and 5, I don't know and - with respect - I'm guessing you don't either. I'm not going to either accept or dismiss the claim without at least seeing what it's based on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Those lessons aren't for kids: it's a course for teachers, to inform the way they teach history, etc. 

 

As for what kids learn between the ages of 3 and 5, I don't know and - with respect - I'm guessing you don't either. I'm not going to either accept or dismiss the claim without at least seeing what it's based on.

There is enough information and documentary’s out there to debunk that bullshit theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

There is enough information and documentary’s out there to debunk that bullshit theory. 

And there's enough information to support the theory. 

 

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/how-do-children-learn-the-concept-race 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

And there's enough information to support the theory. 

 

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/how-do-children-learn-the-concept-race 

“Racial bias in babies aged 6-9 months”.

 

Can’t get my head around that at all. I can only speak as a parent here but it sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, based on my experiences.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skids is right. Ages anywhere up to 10/11 and any racist thoughts will have come from their parents or those close around them. They aren’t going to form an opinion based on the curriculum for infants and juniors. 
As for how history is taught in senior school, it’s always been a load of shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks like anecdotes vs. data.

 

Nobody's claiming that infants are going around shouting "Enoch was right" and "Send the buggers back".  The claim is that they do rate paler skin - on people and dolls - more highly than they rate darker skin.  Presumably, they (the researchers, not the toddlers) have evidence to back this up: i.e. they have tested lots of kids and measured their responses. Nobody here has done that, so none of us can say what the results would be if we did. 

 

I think the point is that parents are not the only influence a small child has. They have books, toys, TV, their friends, etc. Generally speaking, the sum of all those influences is likely to reflect the prevailing attitudes in society and the child learns from that. By the time the kid starts school, they're not a blank slate: for better or worse, they've already learned whatever those influences are teaching.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was/is a series on CH4 that actually

covers how children develop and grow between the ages of 0-5, and it has enough evidence on that show alone to show that kids do not give a fuck about skin colour. 
 

In 43 years of being on this planet, not once have I ever seen a 3-5 year old putting value on skin colour. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

There was/is a series on CH4 that actually

covers how children develop and grow between the ages of 0-5, and it has enough evidence on that show alone to show that kids do not give a fuck about skin colour. 

That OU link Iposted suggests that there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

In 43 years of being on this planet, not once have I ever seen a 3-5 year old putting value on skin colour. 

How many 3-5 year-olds have you studied? 

 

I've never seen a badger, but I'm not going to deny their existence on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Skids is right. Ages anywhere up to 10/11 and any racist thoughts will have come from their parents or those close around them. They aren’t going to form an opinion based on the curriculum for infants and juniors. 
As for how history is taught in senior school, it’s always been a 

1 hour ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

There was/is a series on CH4 that actually

covers how children develop and grow between the ages of 0-5, and it has enough evidence on that show alone to show that kids do not give a fuck about skin colour. 
 

In 43 years of being on this planet, not once have I ever seen a 3-5 year old putting value on skin colour. 

Correct imo. Young kids have no real concept of race differences. That idea, I am 100 percent certain, is put there by adults  telling them   that their skin colour means they are  disadvantaged or that they are privileged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

Skids is right. Ages anywhere up to 10/11 and any racist thoughts will have come from their parents or those close around them. They aren’t going to form an opinion based on the curriculum for infants and juniors. 
As for how history is taught in senior school, it’s always been a 

46 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

There was/is a series on CH4 that actually

covers how children develop and grow between the ages of 0-5, and it has enough evidence on that show alone to show that kids do not give a fuck about skin colour. 
 

In 43 years of being on this planet, not once have I ever seen a 3-5 year old putting value on skin colour. 

Correct imo. I believe young kids have no real concept of race differences. That idea, I am 100 percent certain, is put there by adults  telling them   that their skin colour means they are  disadvantaged or that they are privileged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...