Lord Ratner

Can you define CRT? I ask because I find that the people quickest to defend it are either A) the propagators or B) liberals who have no idea what it is. You are the latter. A Marxist plot... Yes. Yes that's correct, because the people who created it, as well as the biggest propagators (e.g., BLM) are open Marxists. Critical Race Theory is a race-based evolution of Critical Theory. Critical Theory is literally Marxist. From Wiki: "it argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors." Conversely, "CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” Sound familiar? So yeah. It's a real thing, with a real definition, with real proponents pushing it in real life. Your ignorance, which is evidently substantial, does not change that. Take a step back from your bubble, which *exactly* like the republican bubble has trained you to reflexively dismiss anything you hear from the other side, and realize that just like there are factions within the conservative side of America, there are factions within liberal America. One of those factions is very powerful in politics, media, and academia despite having nearly zero presence in middle America. Yet they are whispering in the President's ear, and he is dutifully repeating their garbage.

I completely agree with what you said (creationism is inoffensive compared to CRT), but then again, I wasn't responding to you. However the claim that creationism has more scientific support than evolution is lunacy. And since the big bang was bought up as well, there's zero evidence for the seven day creation story, and a decent (though by no means conclusive) set of evidence for the big bang. I'm familiar with the mental gymnastics some do to reconcile the literal word of the bible with science. And I'm quite happy to discuss/debate it if you want, but let's move it to a new thread. Creationism is almost entirely harmless historical storytelling (IMO). CRT is a terrible threat if it blossoms. Both are religion, and not all religions are equal.

No, that argument has no logical continuity. What about being born with smarter parents? What about being born with genes that will make you taller? Should we force "equity" of height and parental intelligence too, since we have scientifically validated evidence that they provide advantages? It's created with equal rights, not equal surroundings. The founders weren't obtuse.

And yet, mountains of evidence more than their is for any story of creationism. Religious people do much better using a faith-based argument than a science-based one. And they really shouldn't push for teaching their religion in public school, because CRT is becoming the religion of the progressives. And it's got about the same level of scientific support.

Sort of. FedEx allows you to "deviate" from a planned deadhead. If you get a trip that starts with a deadhead (riding in the back), they will switch the starting airport from your hub/domicile to wherever you want, as long as the cost is equal to or less. But they also have a "bank" I believe where you can store up the cost difference of cheaper deviated deadheads for when the deviated leg is more expensive than the original deadhead. With AA, if your trip starts or ends with a deadhead, you can switch it to a deadhead from/to your home city. Cost doesn't matter, but unlike FDX, it has to be on AA metal. Very common tactic for commuters.

You were saying? https://www.manhattan-institute.org/embracing-critical-theory-teachers-union-says-they-control-what-kids-learn At what point do you guys realize that you have no idea what you're talking about? Further, will you recognize that your ignorance is part of the strategy employed by the very movement you seem to believe doesn't exist?

Why don't you describe it for us?

Most of the "Marxists" knew nothing about Marx, they just wanted to belong to the intellectual class, which has *always* been infatuated with Marx for the same reason Marx wrote what he did. If only people did what I think is best, we'd live in a Utopia. So no, the dear general is likely not a Marxist. He's either what is historically called a "useful idiot," or a habitual yes-man. As a general, the latter is most probable. But when you are espousing and promoting the theories of proud Marxists, you shouldn't be shocked if you get lumped in with them.

Bro... Given his entire adult life? Have you seen what the AF is like once you make colonel? Being busy is not a sacrifice, especially with the attendant rewards of being a general officer. I know plenty of corporate executives who work every bit as much as the O-6+ class, and more. They miss family events, work on vacation, and also very little sleep. Like the generals, they do it for the pay, power, and prestige. And they aren't bad people for it. They also aren't martyrs. There are good ones and bad ones. But an undying passion for the flag gets you through boot camp, not War College.

He's a tool, like all of them, and he makes bullshit arguments like the best politicians in the world. Why isn't Marx or Lenin on the reading list? First inconsistency. Second, if he's comparing the reading of Marx and Lenin to Kendi (for understanding alternate views), is he acknowledging that all three are morally bankrupt? I assure you he would not claim that about Kendi lest his career be put in jeopardy. Third, if you read Marx and Lenin to learn about communism, wouldn't you read Duke or Jared Taylor to learn about white supremacy? Where are those recommendations? Once again liberal voters are being taken for a ride. CRT, just like anti-racism, has existing literature. You can read it. It's crazy at best, *overtly* racist at worst. But the people who wrote the books and the hacks who promote them lie on TV about the very content they created. It's wild. If you haven't read "How to be an Antiracist" or "White Fragility," maybe don't be so quick to defend them.

Exactly. We have the first amendment because the first thing authoritarians do with discourse they don't like is deem it "misinformation." Yet even now as the same players who fought *hard* to silence anyone who voiced the lab-leak theory admit there is something valid there, they are curiously silent on the idea that silencing voices you believe to be incorrect was a bad idea. I can't wait for the same awkward shuffling and changing of subject over global warming. An entire industry of "experts" addicted to government grants told us the world would be literally doomed if we didn't follow their edicts within a few years, and for decades their models and predictions failed while the theory adapted to the very data that disproved it. You should trust experts for an explanation of what something *is* But there is no such thing as an expert on what you (we) should *do*

You have to define Hoax. The final numbers show COVID-19 as somewhere around 3x as fatal as the flu. And if you're not a senior citizen, pretty much the same threat as the flu. But once upon a time, against the evidence, 3.6% fatality rate was floated. Then there was the transition from reporting fatalities pre-race-riots to new cases post-race-riots. Or the sudden lack of concern for outside congregation when the protests kicked off in June, but don't you dare go to the beach, even though we already knew that outdoor spread was not a threat. Or the masks on masks off debacles. Wear a bandana over your mouth or you hate grandma, even though opening windows would be way more effective. How many times did a random 20-something year old die of COVID make national news, but with no presentation of the statistical likelihood of dying from COVID at that age (virtually zero)? Or what about the whole "you're vaccinated but still need to social distance" nonsense. So yeah, hoax has many applications. I don't recall many serious voices on either side calling the virus fake.

Your fallacy here is that Trump was the original suppositor of the lab leak theory. He was not. If your measure for believing something is your political opposition to someone who repeats it, your filter is broken. Grown ups in media, politics, and science should be able to think about something even though someone they despise said it. And I'm tired of people (you, sure, but lots and lots of people) saying that the problem with Trump is that he lied all the time. No. The problem is that he was a bitter narcissist. He treated people around him poorly. He was ill informed on things he should have known. Trump did not lie more than the rest of the politicians. To say so is to demonstrate an almost unfathomable ignorance or bias... Or both. You probably can't even come up with a Trump lie that was unique to him as a president. Lying is not their job, it's just how they get it.

I dunno man, the prune juice crowd might be holding the total down... 🤣😂

Wait, Biden gets credit for the vaccine rollout that he literally walked into? Remember when he set a goal of 1 million shits per day that had already been met? Trump did a lot of things wrong, but the vaccine rollout was not one of them.

I love ERB. Some of the most clever lyrics in rap outside of Bo Burnham.

Them specifically? No. People at Delta who know them? Yes. Like I said, it was only a few guys qualified on a new plane with a totally FUBAR training process. So every month they started by having their entire schedules bought back by the company for training. At Delta you can double dip, so if you have your schedule bought, then pick up a bunch of green slip trips (200%) to replace it, that's 300% of a normal schedule. At the highest pay rate. At AA there's always a debate over getting contractual provisions that some feel the company would never use. For example, I'd love to see a 300% emergency premium option. The company (especially AA) would *hate* using that. But cancel a full flight instead? No way. It's better to have things in the contract that are highly unlikely to be needed. They are cheap to negotiate for, and chances are you won't see them used. But if they are...

It's funny, in a way. After decades of progressive action to de-shame sexuality, we are now right back to the pre-1960's mindset of hiding any and all evidence of a functional libido. So sex and sexuality, the only thing we have in common with 99.9999% of the other humans out there, is once again taboo. Strange. Be careful when seeking to change the world. You might just succeed.

It's true, but it was an issue with the A350 training capacity that allowed a few (I think 3?) Captains to make a killing. Once they finally fixed the glitch, their incomes returned to "normal."

Crazy isn't what it used to be. I had a serious conversation 2 days ago with my dad about aliens influencing the building of the pyramids. I've flown with captains who believe the Epstein demonic bloodletting conspiracy. It turns out that in the age of information is not difficult or unusual to believe something absurd, even if you are otherwise intelligent and coherent.

The reason: to further their careers and enrich their families. I'm no socialist, far from it, but the AOCs of the world are not entirely wrong. Something is broken. They think it's rich people. I'm more inclined to believe it's politicians. But either way, "we the people" are being Punk'd.

Actually, it protects you from consequences from the government.

What happened?

Yes, exactly. You talked about lacking the moral courage in having an honest discussion. I quoted what you said and gave another example of the phenomenon, since comparison is valuable when discussing such things. It also demonstrates that the phenomenon is not limited to the abortion debate, or the political left. Good talk.

What? Condemning them it's easy. Admitting that your stance on firearms *enables* a higher death count in violent events, yet you support it anyways, is not.