• Be cool and Register to set your username and display picture get the full features of the site. Talk Bulldogs NRL News, match reviews, live score, ladder, injuries, player signings and team performance.

The Real Outcomes of BLM

ASSASSIN

The Bearded Barbarian
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
57,764
Reaction score
15,435
The problem still lies in the timing and context. The BLM movement started as a response to black people being shot and/or oppressed. Trying to replace BLM movement with Black Lives Matter Too or All Lives Matter is like trying to tell Breast Cancer Australia that they're sexist for not also including Prostate Cancer.
I get you, people with half a brain understand the statement but what they have to realise is there are more dumb people than educated people, by making it BLMT, it shuts down the snowflakes off the bat.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
7,370
Reaction score
4,602
I get you, people with half a brain understand the statement but what they have to realise is there are more dumb people than educated people, by making it BLMT, it shuts down the snowflakes off the bat.
In all fairness those people will continue to find anything to complain about to hide their inner racist traits. Just look at this thread, Hacky has made it pretty clear what the insinuations are and yet one individual in this thread refuses to change course and continue on the same lies and propaganda.
 

ASSASSIN

The Bearded Barbarian
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
57,764
Reaction score
15,435
In all fairness those people will continue to find anything to complain about to hide their inner racist traits. Just look at this thread, Hacky has made it pretty clear what the insinuations are and yet one individual in this thread refuses to change course and continue on the same lies and propaganda.
That's fkn humans for you, there is always something that can be used to divide and conquer.

Also it's the dumb/evil/trouble making minority that gets the attention, fueling the hate and justifying blanket statements.

Good example were the fuckwits looting and shit which turned people off the genuine BLM protesters.
 
Last edited:

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
1,098
In all fairness those people will continue to find anything to complain about to hide their inner racist traits. Just look at this thread, Hacky has made it pretty clear what the insinuations are and yet one individual in this thread refuses to change course and continue on the same lies and propaganda.
Hacky said it so it must be true lol.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
1,098
I think the main reason all this BLM nonsense has happened in 2020 is that western societies have largely gifted responsibility for schools and universities/colleges to left wing activists who have taught kids sillyness like this:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/p...t/news-story/2d0b32a9accf8645cf103a8139913641

Children were given a quiz with one question asking whether "non-white people can be racist".

Students were marked incorrect if they suggested that non-white people can also be racist. i.e. the writer of the quiz says that only white people can be racist.

Children at the same Lewisham school were also invited to a 'kneel-in' for 4 minutes and 32 seconds in June to recognise the 432 aboriginals who died in prison.

I used to always wonder why kids were so indoctrinated when it came to Climate Change and the protests they would do in the city last year and it all stacks up now. The kids don't know any better - it's just what the teachers have been filling their heads with.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
20,723
Reaction score
5,191
I think the main reason all this BLM nonsense has happened in 2020 is that western societies have largely gifted responsibility for schools and universities/colleges to left wing activists who have taught kids sillyness like this:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/p...t/news-story/2d0b32a9accf8645cf103a8139913641

Children were given a quiz with one question asking whether "non-white people can be racist".

Students were marked incorrect if they suggested that non-white people can also be racist. i.e. the writer of the quiz says that only white people can be racist.

Children at the same Lewisham school were also invited to a 'kneel-in' for 4 minutes and 32 seconds in June to recognise the 432 aboriginals who died in prison.

I used to always wonder why kids were so indoctrinated when it came to Climate Change and the protests they would do in the city last year and it all stacks up now. The kids don't know any better - it's just what the teachers have been filling their heads with.
Being a Catholic school, that's not the strangest thing they taught the children.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
20,723
Reaction score
5,191
Then again, you criticised people for teaching climate change even though it's an accepted scientific fact.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
1,098
Then again, you criticised people for teaching climate change even though it's an accepted scientific fact.
I didn't criticize anyone for teaching climate change. The climate has always changed and it continue to change.

What I disagree with is teachers turning kids into political activists which they clearly have with BLM and climate change.

Can you be specific about which specific teachings in catholic curriculum is weird? I don't want to trawl through the syllabus and guess which ones you do or don't agree with.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
20,723
Reaction score
5,191
I didn't criticize anyone for teaching climate change. The climate has always changed and it continue to change.

What I disagree with is teachers turning kids into political activists which they clearly have with BLM and climate change.

Can you be specific about which specific teachings in catholic curriculum is weird? I don't want to trawl through the syllabus and guess which ones you do or don't agree with.
I agree that teachers encouraging political activism is a bit off. But it is hard to teach about humans influence on the climate without accidentally encouraging activism.

I will avoid the curriculum discussion as I will likely be flagged for being anti-religious.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
1,098
I agree that teachers encouraging political activism is a bit off. But it is hard to teach about humans influence on the climate without accidentally encouraging activism.

I will avoid the curriculum discussion as I will likely be flagged for being anti-religious.
This forum is a joke if you can't speak openly. I'm enormously against anyone being unable to voice their opinion (yes even if the opinion is the opposite one to what I believe).

I think you can teach kids without turning them into political activists. If kids were taught a rounded issue of climate change I truly don't think we would see so many of them all with the same ideas and going out to political protests and skipping school.

I was at school from 1989 - 2001 and can't recall a single protest where kids skipped school (in large numbers) to go and protest about something.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
20,723
Reaction score
5,191
This forum is a joke if you can't speak openly. I'm enormously against anyone being unable to voice their opinion (yes even if the opinion is the opposite one to what I believe).

I think you can teach kids without turning them into political activists. If kids were taught a rounded issue of climate change I truly don't think we would see so many of them all with the same ideas and going out to political protests and skipping school.

I was at school from 1989 - 2001 and can't recall a single protest where kids skipped school (in large numbers) to go and protest about something.
I know that there were teachers pushing activism and personally I'm against that as it's a political drive. But I also know that many accused teachers of pushing activism when all they did was to teach the school set material which is based on the currently accepted science.

It becomes tricky to teach a balanced approach though as it has become a big political thing. And many consider "balanced" to be teaching both sides of the political stance on the issue, which would be wrong. The balance needs to be in teaching what we know, "the current climate change is strongly impacted by human activity and the results could potentially be catastrophic" and also teaching what we don't know, "How bad the long term impact will be, what effect certain feedback systems will have, and how technological advances will mitigate the damage"

I'm fairly old and when I was at school greenhouse gas effects were taught, including the effects CO2 has. But at that time we didn't know how bad the impact was so that wasn't taught. But even then I had teachers encouraging certain political activism. Didn't really agree with it then. I prefer they teach the facts and let the kids decide for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
1,098
I'd almost guarantee that no Australian school kid has been taught that time and time again catastrophic climate change forecasts have been made, and all of them have always fallen flat.

Seas will rise by X date and coasts will be innundated
Dams won't fill with water because it won't rain enough and the ground will be so dry that the water will not pool into dams
Australian ski resorts will not operate by X date because it won't snow anymore

I personally think the climate changes. I think humans have had some impact. But I don't think the extent of that impact is measureable to any scientific degree and I also don't believe in the catastrophic predictions which have come and gone year after year despite life going on, despite there being no issue with our coasts, despite islands failing to disappear in the south pacific (and in fact despite there being research that some islands are INCREASING and not decreasing in size).

If I was designing the curriculum climate change would be a very small component. It would tell kids that:

The Earth and the environment is fragile and critical to humans and all life
We should constantly look for ways to have less impact on the environment through technology and finding smarter ways of doing business
There is a debate about the climate. Lots of people have lots of different views to various degrees such as:

- Some people believe climate change only exists due to humans
- Some people believe climate has always changed but is changing to a larger degree because of humans and they believe that degree is entirely measurable
- Some people believe climate has always changed but is changing and is continuing to change at the same rate
- Some people believe that climate is changing and that humans can not do anything to change this
- Some people believe that climate is changing and that humans are capable of changing this for the better

There is so much nuance to the debate that based on what I hear and read, simply isn't taught.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
20,723
Reaction score
5,191
I'd almost guarantee that no Australian school kid has been taught that time and time again catastrophic climate change forecasts have been made, and all of them have always fallen flat.

Seas will rise by X date and coasts will be innundated
Dams won't fill with water because it won't rain enough and the ground will be so dry that the water will not pool into dams
Australian ski resorts will not operate by X date because it won't snow anymore


I personally think the climate changes. I think humans have had some impact. But I don't think the extent of that impact is measureable to any scientific degree and I also don't believe in the catastrophic predictions which have come and gone year after year despite life going on, despite there being no issue with our coasts, despite islands failing to disappear in the south pacific (and in fact despite there being research that some islands are INCREASING and not decreasing in size).

If I was designing the curriculum climate change would be a very small component. It would tell kids that:

The Earth and the environment is fragile and critical to humans and all life
We should constantly look for ways to have less impact on the environment through technology and finding smarter ways of doing business
There is a debate about the climate. Lots of people have lots of different views to various degrees such as:

- Some people believe climate change only exists due to humans
- Some people believe climate has always changed but is changing to a larger degree because of humans and they believe that degree is entirely measurable
- Some people believe climate has always changed but is changing and is continuing to change at the same rate
- Some people believe that climate is changing and that humans can not do anything to change this
- Some people believe that climate is changing and that humans are capable of changing this for the better

There is so much nuance to the debate that based on what I hear and read, simply isn't taught.
The problem with the debate is the problem I highlighted above. The predictions. Check where those predictions came from. Some were from celebrities and ex-Presidents, some were from climate experts, but there's one key factor. None of them came from scientific research.

The school curriculum should never be based on who believes what. It should only ever be based on the facts that we know, and it should be clearly explained the things that we don't know.

This is an issue I have had with school curriculum for a long time. Rather than teaching kids what is known, they teach them a version of it that they believe children can get their heads around while avoiding anything they may find confusing. I understand why they do it but the result is that you have all these children finishing school armed with inaccurate knowledge.

We have a plethora of climate research of things we know. Just look at the scientific journals for the facts that we know. We can just teach the children those facts. Take belief out of it. Take debate out of it. Just teach what we know to be true.

This is the key problem with the climate change debate. It's always based on belief rather than what the data says. And in the end, the data is all that matters.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
20,723
Reaction score
5,191
Here's an example of one of the curriculum problems. My nephew is studying science in high school and the teaching he receives is that nothing is smaller than an atom. I told him to ask his teacher about quarks. He did and his teacher said, "we don't talk about quarks as they are beyond your level of understanding. You'll learn about them in year 12 physics but for now, they don't exist"

Why not just avoid saying that atoms are the smallest thing?
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
1,098
Here's an example of one of the curriculum problems. My nephew is studying science in high school and the teaching he receives is that nothing is smaller than an atom. I told him to ask his teacher about quarks. He did and his teacher said, "we don't talk about quarks as they are beyond your level of understanding. You'll learn about them in year 12 physics but for now, they don't exist"

Why not just avoid saying that atoms are the smallest thing?
That probably leads into the bigger discussion of how easy it is to become a teacher (going back in history it was the job you did if you received a really 5hit HSC mark).
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
20,723
Reaction score
5,191
Here's an even bigger, and more fun one. The fun of teaching physics. You need to teach relativity but teachers won't mention that relativity is wrong. It's just the best explanation we have for the way physics happens in the macroverse. But I'm about facts so I would teach relativity for a year then mention, "BTW, everything I taught you is inaccurate. But it's the best we have"
 
Top