Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

chuckdawg1999 wrote:I've been following this thread for a while and I think it's gotten off the point. I've seen a few videos with the Hasbro employee as well as a few Coke employees who are going through the same thing. If Hasbro is telling white employees that they're inherently evil because they're white, that's wrong. If this means we'll see more children of different races and nationalities in their advertising that's fine and it's a long time coming.

I don't think any company legally could, and because of that, would tell any employee that they are "evil". I think the OP has inferred that, by simply discussing, or teaching about CRT, that this implies "all white people are evil". CRT really teaches us that "da man" (in the USA) has mainly been rich, white American (men), who, by abuse or neglect of the various official systems, have shaped a country that empowers and enables them/their culture, at the expense of others, which includes all other people, and/or specifically blacks. By relation, those that share similar socio-economic, cultural, ethnic and cultural traits with those in power, can benefit (possibly via a "trickle-down" effect?), usually at the expense of the other aformentioned groups.

The other part to this is that "Evil occurs when good/white people do nothing", meaning that it's up to all of us, including those who can't see/feel these negative effects, to do something about it and be comfortable with the disruption it will inevitably cause to their own lives.

primalxconvoy wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:I've been following this thread for a while and I think it's gotten off the point. I've seen a few videos with the Hasbro employee as well as a few Coke employees who are going through the same thing. If Hasbro is telling white employees that they're inherently evil because they're white, that's wrong. If this means we'll see more children of different races and nationalities in their advertising that's fine and it's a long time coming.

I don't think any company legally could, and because of that, would tell any employee that they are "evil". I think the OP has inferred that, by simply discussing, or teaching about CRT, that this implies "all white people are evil". CRT really teaches us that "da man" (in the USA) has mainly been rich, white American (men), who, by abuse or neglect of the various official systems, have shaped a country that empowers and enables them/their culture, at the expense of others, which includes all other people, and/or specifically blacks. By relation, those that share similar socio-economic, cultural, ethnic and cultural traits with those in power, can benefit (possibly via a "trickle-down" effect?), usually at the expense of the other aformentioned groups.

The other part to this is that "Evil occurs when good/white people do nothing", meaning that it's up to all of us, including those who can't see/feel these negative effects, to do something about it and be comfortable with the disruption it will inevitably cause to their own lives.

Well, we do know from Coke and the Hasbro employee that this new training is targeting White employees and telling them that they're evil, regardless if that's what CRT is about or not.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:

primalxconvoy wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:I've been following this thread for a while and I think it's gotten off the point. I've seen a few videos with the Hasbro employee as well as a few Coke employees who are going through the same thing. If Hasbro is telling white employees that they're inherently evil because they're white, that's wrong. If this means we'll see more children of different races and nationalities in their advertising that's fine and it's a long time coming.

I don't think any company legally could, and because of that, would tell any employee that they are "evil". I think the OP has inferred that, by simply discussing, or teaching about CRT, that this implies "all white people are evil". CRT really teaches us that "da man" (in the USA) has mainly been rich, white American (men), who, by abuse or neglect of the various official systems, have shaped a country that empowers and enables them/their culture, at the expense of others, which includes all other people, and/or specifically blacks. By relation, those that share similar socio-economic, cultural, ethnic and cultural traits with those in power, can benefit (possibly via a "trickle-down" effect?), usually at the expense of the other aformentioned groups.

The other part to this is that "Evil occurs when good/white people do nothing", meaning that it's up to all of us, including those who can't see/feel these negative effects, to do something about it and be comfortable with the disruption it will inevitably cause to their own lives.

Well, we do know from Coke and the Hasbro employee that this new training is targeting White employees and telling them that they're evil, regardless if that's what CRT is about or not.

Could you provide some evidence to highlight that please? It's the first I've heard about it. A quick online search for "Hasbro CRT" yielded only alt/far-right and conservative/republican-affiliated sites as covering it. That alone causes me to be skeptical.

Edit

I found this link: - https://www.newsweek.com/hasbro-insider ... ts-1611105

One worker has given (circumstantial?) evidence relating to CRT/racial awareness being promoted at Hasbro as an aspect of toy design. From what I've gathered, social issues, either via promotion of those issues, or by avoiding them, have been a long-standing part of designing products for kids ( https://www.psychologicalscience.org/ob ... oy-stories ). Also, I could find no evidence to your claim that "Hasbro was telling white kids that they're racist" from the article. There was also no evidence, in the article, that suggested Hasbro told its employees that they themselves were racist:

-

"...In a training video Johnson leaked to Project Veritas, Katie Ishizuka-Stephens, a co-founder of The Conscious Kid, cited similar research on how perceptions of race at a young age affect how children interact with others.

"Children as young as two are already using race to reason about people's behaviors, and we may see this play out in daycare or on the playground and how kids are starting to choose or exclude playmates and friends," she said in the video.

Also, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence to back up your claim that Coca-Cola acted in a similar manner:

-

"...Screenshots shared widely in February 2021 were authentic snapshots of a real online course on LinkedIn, featuring Robin DiAngelo and entitled "Confronting Racism."

However, the presence of a Coca-Cola logo in a screenshot taken from LinkedIn does not prove that the video course featuring DiAngelo was required viewing for Coca-Cola employees. Coca-Cola has explicitly denied that the course, which included a section entitled "Try to be less white," was part of the curriculum for its mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training...

...However, we cannot rule out the possibility that, despite Coca-Cola’s clear denials, the existence of a coherent alternative explanation, and despite the complete absence of evidence so far, “Confronting Racism” was in fact listed on the curriculum."

(Source: - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca- ... ess-white/ )

Regardless, it reminds me of advice I had, from a black family. In Japan, some Japanese customers/students/colleagues complained that I was "scary", which seemed to be linked to my height, "foreigneness", male gender, English language use and volume of speech. The black family told me that they, or (tall, black, male colleagues) faced similar problems, even through they weren't being aggressive. They gave me the similar advice that they gave to their colleagues; "speak in a "cuter" or more "effeminate" way" (essentially, "don't be white/foreign") I later learnt that this is called "code switching" (which is related to "style shifting", etc), and an issue of contention amongst (non-whites) living and working with whites (in America, for example) :

- https://youtu.be/QNbdn0yuUw8

If those articles are accurate, I think that's perhaps just your interpretation, rather than the facts at hand?

However, if you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share it.

PragerU was sharing screenshots sent to them from Coke employees that were showing the new training that they were having to go through and they were very critical of white employees. I trust PragerU as I find them to be very honest and balanced, but you might not. I never said that Hasbro was calling white kids racist. All I said was that the public-facing aspect of their new training if it is true, will be seeing more children of color and other nationalities represented in advertising, which isn't a bad thing.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:PragerU was sharing screenshots sent to them from Coke employees that were showing the new training that they were having to go through and they were very critical of white employees. I trust PragerU as I find them to be very honest and balanced, but you might not. I never said that Hasbro was calling white kids racist. All I said was that the public-facing aspect of their new training if it is true, will be seeing more children of color and other nationalities represented in advertising, which isn't a bad thing.

Thank you for the clarification.

primalxconvoy wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:PragerU was sharing screenshots sent to them from Coke employees that were showing the new training that they were having to go through and they were very critical of white employees. I trust PragerU as I find them to be very honest and balanced, but you might not. I never said that Hasbro was calling white kids racist. All I said was that the public-facing aspect of their new training if it is true, will be seeing more children of color and other nationalities represented in advertising, which isn't a bad thing.

Thank you for the clarification.

I highly recommend watching some PragerU videos, they're relatively short and very informative. I wish these were around when I was in school.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:

primalxconvoy wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:PragerU was sharing screenshots sent to them from Coke employees that were showing the new training that they were having to go through and they were very critical of white employees. I trust PragerU as I find them to be very honest and balanced, but you might not. I never said that Hasbro was calling white kids racist. All I said was that the public-facing aspect of their new training if it is true, will be seeing more children of color and other nationalities represented in advertising, which isn't a bad thing.

Thank you for the clarification.

I highly recommend watching some PragerU videos, they're relatively short and very informative. I wish these were around when I was in school.

Thanks for the advice, but I don't think PragerU is a valid source, or relevant to my needs for factual information. A quick search yielded this information about them:

-

"PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501 non-profit media company that creates videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics from an American conservative perspective...

...Historian Paul Gottfried, who has written extensively on the subject of fascism, harshly criticized a PragerU video hosted by Dinesh D'Souza which stated that fascism was a leftist ideology. D'Souza maintained that Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who influenced Italian fascism, was a leftist, to which Gottfried noted that this contradicted the research by almost all scholars of Gentile's work who view him as a distinguished intellectual of the revolutionary right.

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute criticized a 2018 PragerU video by Michelle Malkin that argued for stricter restrictions on immigration. Nowrasteh wrote that the video was full of errors and half-truths and omitted relevant information.

In 2018, the PragerU video "The Suicide of Europe" by Douglas Murray argued that Europe is "committing suicide" by allowing mass immigration. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right". Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League described it as "filled with anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric". "Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?" is another video that the SPLC says contains such dog whistles. In this video, Vanderbilt University professor Carol M. Swain argues that the Southern strategy, the political strategy which saw the Republican Party exploit racial tensions to appeal to white Southerners, was false revisionism. History professor Kevin M. Kruse said that the video presented a "distortion" of history, "cherry-picked" its evidence, and was an "exercise in attacking a straw man".

In June 2020, Snopes criticized the video "How To End White Privilege", which argued that white privilege is a myth because a black police officer's race did not provide a barrier to his success. According to Snopes, recent history and statistics indicate that white privilege still exists.

In October 2020, Gita Jackson of Vice noted that "There's already a cottage industry of YouTubers trying to debunk PragerU...


...Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, does not grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body. PragerU's videos, which cover a range of topics including climate change, racial issues, and opposition to immigration have been criticized for misleading or factually incorrect content..."

(Source: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU )

I prefer sources that I feel are more credible, such as Vox, BBC, Snopes, The Daily Show, Al Jazeera, etc.

primalxconvoy wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:

primalxconvoy wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:PragerU was sharing screenshots sent to them from Coke employees that were showing the new training that they were having to go through and they were very critical of white employees. I trust PragerU as I find them to be very honest and balanced, but you might not. I never said that Hasbro was calling white kids racist. All I said was that the public-facing aspect of their new training if it is true, will be seeing more children of color and other nationalities represented in advertising, which isn't a bad thing.

Thank you for the clarification.

I highly recommend watching some PragerU videos, they're relatively short and very informative. I wish these were around when I was in school.

Thanks for the advice, but I don't think PragerU is a valid source, or relevant to my needs for factual information. A quick search yielded this information about them:

-

"PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501 non-profit media company that creates videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics from an American conservative perspective...

...Historian Paul Gottfried, who has written extensively on the subject of fascism, harshly criticized a PragerU video hosted by Dinesh D'Souza which stated that fascism was a leftist ideology. D'Souza maintained that Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who influenced Italian fascism, was a leftist, to which Gottfried noted that this contradicted the research by almost all scholars of Gentile's work who view him as a distinguished intellectual of the revolutionary right.

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute criticized a 2018 PragerU video by Michelle Malkin that argued for stricter restrictions on immigration. Nowrasteh wrote that the video was full of errors and half-truths and omitted relevant information.

In 2018, the PragerU video "The Suicide of Europe" by Douglas Murray argued that Europe is "committing suicide" by allowing mass immigration. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right". Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League described it as "filled with anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric". "Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?" is another video that the SPLC says contains such dog whistles. In this video, Vanderbilt University professor Carol M. Swain argues that the Southern strategy, the political strategy which saw the Republican Party exploit racial tensions to appeal to white Southerners, was false revisionism. History professor Kevin M. Kruse said that the video presented a "distortion" of history, "cherry-picked" its evidence, and was an "exercise in attacking a straw man".

In June 2020, Snopes criticized the video "How To End White Privilege", which argued that white privilege is a myth because a black police officer's race did not provide a barrier to his success. According to Snopes, recent history and statistics indicate that white privilege still exists.

In October 2020, Gita Jackson of Vice noted that "There's already a cottage industry of YouTubers trying to debunk PragerU...


...Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, does not grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body. PragerU's videos, which cover a range of topics including climate change, racial issues, and opposition to immigration have been criticized for misleading or factually incorrect content..."

(Source: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU )

I prefer sources that I feel are more credible, such as Vox, BBC, Snopes, The Daily Show, Al Jazeera, etc.

If you think an outlet like Al Jazeera is credible then there's a lot that needs to be discussed. I've always found PragerU to be Conservative but they always discuss both sides of the story. All those sources you cited that are critical to them are all left-leaning, not something I'd consider fair and balanced.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:

primalxconvoy wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:

primalxconvoy wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:PragerU was sharing screenshots sent to them from Coke employees that were showing the new training that they were having to go through and they were very critical of white employees. I trust PragerU as I find them to be very honest and balanced, but you might not. I never said that Hasbro was calling white kids racist. All I said was that the public-facing aspect of their new training if it is true, will be seeing more children of color and other nationalities represented in advertising, which isn't a bad thing.

Thank you for the clarification.

I highly recommend watching some PragerU videos, they're relatively short and very informative. I wish these were around when I was in school.

Thanks for the advice, but I don't think PragerU is a valid source, or relevant to my needs for factual information. A quick search yielded this information about them:

-

"PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501 non-profit media company that creates videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics from an American conservative perspective...

...Historian Paul Gottfried, who has written extensively on the subject of fascism, harshly criticized a PragerU video hosted by Dinesh D'Souza which stated that fascism was a leftist ideology. D'Souza maintained that Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who influenced Italian fascism, was a leftist, to which Gottfried noted that this contradicted the research by almost all scholars of Gentile's work who view him as a distinguished intellectual of the revolutionary right.

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute criticized a 2018 PragerU video by Michelle Malkin that argued for stricter restrictions on immigration. Nowrasteh wrote that the video was full of errors and half-truths and omitted relevant information.

In 2018, the PragerU video "The Suicide of Europe" by Douglas Murray argued that Europe is "committing suicide" by allowing mass immigration. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right". Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League described it as "filled with anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric". "Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?" is another video that the SPLC says contains such dog whistles. In this video, Vanderbilt University professor Carol M. Swain argues that the Southern strategy, the political strategy which saw the Republican Party exploit racial tensions to appeal to white Southerners, was false revisionism. History professor Kevin M. Kruse said that the video presented a "distortion" of history, "cherry-picked" its evidence, and was an "exercise in attacking a straw man".

In June 2020, Snopes criticized the video "How To End White Privilege", which argued that white privilege is a myth because a black police officer's race did not provide a barrier to his success. According to Snopes, recent history and statistics indicate that white privilege still exists.

In October 2020, Gita Jackson of Vice noted that "There's already a cottage industry of YouTubers trying to debunk PragerU...


...Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, does not grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body. PragerU's videos, which cover a range of topics including climate change, racial issues, and opposition to immigration have been criticized for misleading or factually incorrect content..."

(Source: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU )

I prefer sources that I feel are more credible, such as Vox, BBC, Snopes, The Daily Show, Al Jazeera, etc.

If you think an outlet like Al Jazeera is credible then there's a lot that needs to be discussed. I've always found PragerU to be Conservative but they always discuss both sides of the story. All those sources you cited that are critical to them are all left-leaning, not something I'd consider fair and balanced.

Although I can agree that Al Jazeera has indeed been (perhaps fairly) criticised for its bias, the other news sources I've mentioned are fine. Again, they've had their fair share of criticism, but overall, they've offered fair and balanced news/factual coverage.

Your offering, however, seems to me to be an alt-right mouthpiece, offering little in the way of facts or reputable opinions, as cited by the information I've suppliec above. As such, it is not relevant to my needs as a credible news or information source, but I again, to thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Oh no, I assure you PragerU is NOT Alt-Right. The Alt-Right movement is more left than anything. PragerU is very balanced, give them a shot, you might enjoy a vid or two. I can recommend vids on the 10 commandments, and wage gaps, very informative.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:Oh no, I assure you PragerU is NOT Alt-Right. The Alt-Right movement is more left than anything. PragerU is very balanced, give them a shot, you might enjoy a vid or two. I can recommend vids on the 10 commandments, and wage gaps, very informative.

I'm sorry, but I disagree:

- Videos From Right-Wing Site That Preaches ‘The Left Ruins Everything’ Assigned In Ohio School (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f88 ... e76fbb6db8 )

- Right-Wing Watch Articles on PragerU ( https://www.rightwingwatch.org/organizations/prageru/ )

- Right-Wing PragerU Triples Revenue in Two Years ( https://www.prwatch.org/comment/49112 )

Here is a basic synopsis for PragerU at "Media Bias/Fact Check"* :

-

Reasoning: Extreme Right Propaganda, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Checks, False Claims
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Overall, we rate PragerU Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda, the use of poor sources who have failed fact checks, and the publication of misleading information regarding immigration and climate change.

(Source: - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/prageru/ )

This site can be used for any source, such as Al Jazeera, which you also (quite rightly) stated was biased:

-

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Qatar (125/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

Overall, we rate Al Jazeera Left-Center biased, based on story selection that slightly favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar.

(Source: - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/ )

I've included the links above to only illustrate my two main points about PragerU:

- That it is a right-wing organisation.
- That it has a history of providing inaccurate or false information.
- That, due to these factors, they are not relevant to my needs.

*As due diligence, here's the Wiki entry on MBFC:

-

"Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is an American website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news media sources based on factual accuracy and political bias.

Sites are rated on a 0–10 scale by Van Zandt and his team using categories such as biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, and story choices.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst". The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

The site has been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of "fake news" and questionable sources on social media."

(Source: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check )

Most of those fact-checking sites, including the one you cited, are left-biased, some are even funded by left-leaning groups. I urge you to not just rely on those sites but make your own decisions from your own findings. I've disagreed with some ideas PragerU has shared, but I've never found them to be not factual. Like I said, watch a vid or two and decide on your own.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:Most of those fact-checking sites, including the one you cited, are left-biased, some are even funded by left-leaning groups. I urge you to not just rely on those sites but make your own decisions from your own findings. I've disagreed with some ideas PragerU has shared, but I've never found them to be not factual. Like I said, watch a vid or two and decide on your own.

Thank you. I believe that I've done enough research from the sites I've mentioned, which I believe to be trustworthy. As such, I have made up my own mind to not use PragerU as a source for facts and information.

However, I thank you for your contribution to the conversation.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:Most of those fact-checking sites, including the one you cited, are left-biased, some are even funded by left-leaning groups. I urge you to not just rely on those sites but make your own decisions from your own findings. I've disagreed with some ideas PragerU has shared, but I've never found them to be not factual. Like I said, watch a vid or two and decide on your own.

PragerU is not an educational organization, it is a partisan media organization. The fact that you dismiss any criticism of the site as being leftist without arguing the merits at all shows that you're not interested in thoughtful debate but advocating for a particular biased worldview.

Nearly all conservative culture war arguments are made in bad faith. I commend those who rebut them with facts, especially because that can appeal to those who are curious but undecided. For my sanity, I block and move on.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:Most of those fact-checking sites, including the one you cited, are left-biased, some are even funded by left-leaning groups. I urge you to not just rely on those sites but make your own decisions from your own findings. I've disagreed with some ideas PragerU has shared, but I've never found them to be not factual. Like I said, watch a vid or two and decide on your own.

Don't bother. These people will dismiss any source of facts that contravenes the official narrative as "in bad faith"- they're completely brainwashed by the hopelessly corrupt mainstream media and their feedback loop of confirmation bias ("The media can be trusted because the media says that it can!"). Anything that questions the incestuous cycle of the media """confirming""" its own reporting is quickly shut down or slandered; it's why social media platforms that don't try and erase any dissenting opinion get throttled by payment processors and hosting providers, why media outlets that publish statements contrary to the narrative are quickly deplatformed, and why any facts that get circulated that aren't to these people's likings are smeared as "misinformation". A dear friend of mine once said the media is the enemy of the people, and boy was he right.

Attempting to argue with these sorts of people is futile- they've made their minds up. I posted this thread to at least make people aware that this is something that is happening so that those on the fence can draw their own conclusions. If people want to try and scream that there's nothing wrong with ingraining guilt in children for the colour of their skin, then let them. They've nailed their colours to the mast, so to speak.

Evil Eye wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:Most of those fact-checking sites, including the one you cited, are left-biased, some are even funded by left-leaning groups. I urge you to not just rely on those sites but make your own decisions from your own findings. I've disagreed with some ideas PragerU has shared, but I've never found them to be not factual. Like I said, watch a vid or two and decide on your own.

Don't bother. These people will dismiss any source of facts that contravenes the official narrative as "in bad faith"- they're completely brainwashed by the hopelessly corrupt mainstream media and their feedback loop of confirmation bias ("The media can be trusted because the media says that it can!"). Anything that questions the incestuous cycle of the media """confirming""" its own reporting is quickly shut down or slandered; it's why social media platforms that don't try and erase any dissenting opinion get throttled by payment processors and hosting providers, why media outlets that publish statements contrary to the narrative are quickly deplatformed, and why any facts that get circulated that aren't to these people's likings are smeared as "misinformation". A dear friend of mine once said the media is the enemy of the people, and boy was he right.

Attempting to argue with these sorts of people is futile- they've made their minds up. I posted this thread to at least make people aware that this is something that is happening so that those on the fence can draw their own conclusions. If people want to try and scream that there's nothing wrong with ingraining guilt in children for the colour of their skin, then let them. They've nailed their colours to the mast, so to speak.

Sadly you're right. I was just trying to bring people to an alternate point of view to have a wider understanding and base of the issue.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:

Evil Eye wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:Most of those fact-checking sites, including the one you cited, are left-biased, some are even funded by left-leaning groups. I urge you to not just rely on those sites but make your own decisions from your own findings. I've disagreed with some ideas PragerU has shared, but I've never found them to be not factual. Like I said, watch a vid or two and decide on your own.

Don't bother...

Sadly you're right. I was just trying to bring people to an alternate point of view to have a wider understanding and base of the issue.

Chuck, although we might disagree upon certain things, I still hold you in higher regard than the poster you replied to. They resorted to name-calling and to denigrating others that hold a different view to them, with generalising statements that are not true, rather than providing links or evidence to back up their opinions or contributing to the discussion constructively.

For example, they stated that people (like myself) only go to mainstream media. Al Jazeera, regardless of its popularity in certain territories, is not, I would guess, as popular or "mainstream" in the USA. Its views also do not fully reflect those of CNN, Fox, etc at all times either. I also occasionally get news from Reuters, NHK (itself a conservative, Japan-centric mouthpiece of an arguably nationalistic and conservative Japanese government), France 24, Euronews, etc. These are news channels from several different countries, each with their own agendas (rightly or wrongly).

However, there is nothing wrong with going to established media channels, as these usually cite their sources and/or are accountable to either external or accountable "watchdogs" (such as the BBC, which has been called out and/or regulated due to its many failings in the past). I have taken the time to read about the subjects in the sources that I have chosen and routinely use critical thinking skills to discern for myself the validity of what media I consume. The fact that I have chosen, at any one time, to believe media, scientific and goverental institutions, or websites, etc that provide sources and are, generally, considered in high regard, over the likes of pundits (left or right-leaning) is an example of those critical thinking skills, not the opposite.

The poster you replied to has provided no facts to back up their personal opinions (that certain media organisations are "corrupt", or that certain people are "brainwashed"), which is the main reason they have been blocked by both myself, and I suspect, others here. I have continued to reply to you as you have not stooped to such low levels of discourse. I can accept that you are interested in a right-wing media channel (which has been praised for its slick presentation and less agressive tone, but also criticised for its political/social themes and lack of consistent fact-checking) and that you have, in a perfectly polite and mature way, discussed and/or promoted it here.

I hope we can continue to share ideas and the like at this site, without acting like the person above. In fact, I am curious as to your claims about the fact-checking sites, such as Snopes and MBFC:

-

"Most of those fact-checking sites, including the one you cited, are left-biased, some are even funded by left-leaning groups.

.
If you could provide any evidence for those claims, that would be most helpful.

Thanks for your time and keep up the great TF reviews!