selflesscentrism
0 Comments
Media Lap Dogs Lap Up Candidate Biden's Pandering to Women's Lib Crowd...Not So Fast
Headline Changed But Story Stays the SameMembers of the US women's soccer team kneeled for the National Anthem while two other players stood in solidarity. All three officials (pictured left) ruled unanimously against kneeling and thus in favor of racial injustice and police brutality against Black people.
Members of the team (which includes Black and brown people) posted a statement on social media before the game. "We protest against the racist infrastructures that do not provide equal opportunity for Black and brown people to fulfill their dreams, including playing on this team.” Fact-Checkers Proven False; Admit Blame in Attempting to Censor Candace Owens on Facebook “Joe Biden is literally and legally not the President-elect." -Candace Owens 11/12/20 TRUE OR FALSE: Candace Owens identifies herself as a woman? Joseph Biden is the 46th President of the United States? Candace Owens is identified as a person of color? PolitiFact was caught blue-handed for censoring a woman of color? Joe Biden is the President-elect of the Associated Press? OJ Simpson is responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman? Accept that you are biased. Your feelings don't care about your facts. Or is it the other way around?. It's immaterial (ie: does not matter) if you believe in OrangeManBad, trunalimunumaprzure or niether. What should matter is that you would refrain from repeating false statements. Look at your bias from both sides (if that is even possible for you): A) You support Biden-Harris and believe they are the best choice. B) You Support Trump-Pence and believe they are the best choice. C) If you don't believe either, you can try to look at it from either side, A or B. If you believe A, should your preferred outcome materialize at ANY cost? In other words, if you were a Biden person, what is the furthest length you and fellow supporters might go to ensure he reaches the White House? Would you lie and cheat if you had to? Would you stand by and let others lie for you and to you? If you believe A, should your preferred outcome materialize at ANY cost? In other words, if you were a Trump person, what is the furthest length you and fellow supporters might go to ensure he remains in the White House? Would you lie and cheat if you had to? Would you stand by and let others lie for you and to you? Serving Justice or Serving Your Biases? Did you believe and that "justice was served" when OJ Simpson was acquitted of 2 counts of murder in 1995?. At the time, almost half (47%) of all people, regardless of race, SAID they did. But did they really think he was innocent? Some of the 12 jurors (who were sequestered for the entire trial) have changed their opinion. This is important NOW because you may be sequestering yourself or having facts sequestered for you in 2020. We are all sometimes guilty of introspectional laziness when it serves us. Now is not a good time for that. No explanation from PolitiFact Attorneys:
Fact Checkers DO INDEED LIE and it takes time money and lawyers to get them to stop. When Candace Owens tried to prove to PolitiFact what was truth versus fiction- a fiction that PolitiFact has itself propagated- the censorship lords would have none of it. Only after Owens' lawyering up did the Gods of tech show their mortality: "Upon first glance, this video from Ms. Owens was labeled false from PolitiFact in error. We already have removed the label from the video and you should now be able to see it unobstructed. As we’re about 25 minutes into this, we still don’t know how or why the post was labeled ‘false.’ We are investigating and hope to share more information with you formally on Monday. Latently Biased 'Authority' Defines you an "Exceptional reader" if you Donate Wikipedia is the self-declared gatekeeper of authoritative information on the Internet and proves they are with these two statements: A) "If you are an exceptional reader who has already donated, we sincerely thank you." So.... If you are an exceptional reader who has NOT already donated, then....What? B) "Show the volunteers who bring you reliable, neutral information that their work matters." Show them what? They are volunteers, correct? What are you showing them when you donate? Let's unpack the part about "reliable, neutral information" and how that relates to "their work". The volunteers are humans and "their work" is to edit and arbitrate what is valid and what sources are qualified as authoritative and noteworthy. FULL AWKWARD MESSAGE HERE To all our readers in the U.S., It might be awkward, but please don't scroll past this. This Saturday, for the 1st time recently, we humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence. 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. If you are an exceptional reader who has already donated, we sincerely thank you. If you donate just $2.75, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years. Most people donate because Wikipedia is useful. If Wikipedia has given you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, take a minute to donate. Show the volunteers who bring you reliable, neutral information that their work matters. Thank you. Wikipedia has come full circle now, just in time for Dystopian New Year. Can you recall the time 15-20 years ago when citing Wikipedia as a source would either get you heckled or an automatic "F"? In the early days, authentic authorities like college professors and legitimate publishers cautioned that due to Wiki's being subject to public edits of any article, the risk of information vandalism (that a Wikipedia article could be altered by anyone) disqualified it as a valid source.
Now, according to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is the most authoritative source for information on the Internet, narrowly out-legitimizing Snopes.com "Wikipedia is neither reliable nor neutral" said your 2001 college professor. To see the raw irony of this story you must look beyond the karmic risk factors of opening your home to strangers for a fee while disguising it as hospitality. The law of diminishing returns applies to this subject both literally and as a well intended pun. As AirBNB prepares to bring shares of its common stock public, this S-1 Registration Statement filed yesterday with the Securities and Exchange Commision lists among its many “risk factors” the dilemma of Google’s algorithm subjecting the home-sharing site to being arbitrarily outranked in organic search results.
"We believe that our SEO results have been adversely affected by the launch of Google Travel and Google Vacation Rental Ads, which reduce the prominence of our platform in organic search results for travel-related terms and placement on Google." Going public is the two-sided sword in which the sharpest side is having to disclose material facts to the public in advance. In this case, the very-woke home sharing platform from San Francisco CA has come to terms with Google optimizing its own search engine quite ironically in the very same way AirBNB optimizes the way you see available listings- that is arbitrarily. It's like being awokened with a splash of ice water in your face and peering into a big mirror. Most grownups think of “search engine optimization” as the practice of websites attempting to outsmart each other- and the various search engines themselves- to win the war of ranking in keyword searches. The ice-cold reality is that the “O” in SEO actually pertains only to the “SE” in question. Plainly, search engines of all types optimize results with their own deliberate intentions, whether for advertising revenue, social causes or public policies- and they do so by blaming an algorithm. If you can momentarily place aside your own view of antitrust laws and try to neutralize your disposition of whether or not Google is monopolistic, you can see that AirBNB just got woke to the irony that they are not special anymore. Diminishing returns speaks to shrinking margins and the reality of a seemingly anti-competitive market. AirBNB thought they had some kind of an advantage and all they got was a participation trophy. Over-performing Asian kids in Washington State were lumped in with white students to tip the scales in favor of overstating white privilege. Is it disgraceful or just ironic humor? You decide.
Randonymous came across this article in Reason.com the gist of which shines vitamin D on North Thurston Public School cheating all 16,000 while pulling major wool over their parents' eyes. After a facing a backlash the school district walked it right back on the same day. One of our district’s Strategic Plan goals is Continuous Growth – All Students, All Subjects. One of the outcomes we are working towards in this goal is to have an “increased growth rate of underperforming groups eliminating achievement and opportunity gaps.” For this reason, in one of our online documents from 2019, titled “Monitoring Student Growth,” we evaluated the achievement data by “Students of Color” and “Students of Poverty.” In the document we grouped White and Asian students together. Upon reflection and response by members of the Asian-American community, we will change how we look at achievement data and appreciate the feedback we received. We apologize for the negative impact we have caused and removed the monitoring report from our website. We feel it is important to continue the practice of disaggregating data, so we make equity-based decisions. When we reviewed our disaggregated data it showed that our district is systemically meeting the instructional needs of both our Asian and White students and not meeting the instructional needs for our Black, Indigenous, Multi-racial, Pacific Islander and Latinx students. The intent was never to ignore Asian students as “students of color” or ignore any systemic disadvantages they too have faced. We continue to learn and grow in our work with equity as a public-school system and we will ensure that we learn from this and do better in the future. We welcome additional feedback and ideas for our district moving forward in this very urgent work. Send to communityrelations@nthurston.k12.wa.us. |
The Question is the AnswerArchives
March 2024
Categories |
Proudly powered by Weebly