Err... CGTN?
> CGTN is a state-run foreign-language news channel based in Beijing, China. It is one of six channels provided by China Global Television Network, owned by the Chinese state broadcaster China Central Television, under the control of the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party
"Regardless, teaching one side of a current controversy as fact in mandatory school is manipulation."
If there were a real controversy, sure, but the sides here are "everyone is a human worthy of rights, protections, and opportunity," versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". One is tolerant, one is not. I am under no compulsion to be tolerant of intolerance. It is proper, ethical, and moral to fight for the rights of all humans, and it is improper, unethical, and immoral to fight against them.
The issue here is 'being intolerant of intolerance' requires you to decide what is and isn't intolerant.
Let's take affirmative action for example. Giving people whose grandparents were negatively impacted by unjust laws more opportunities than other people.
Opposing this is not 'intolerance', it's an opinion in a debate about whether that is actually fair. It's an active debate and one side is trying to shut down opposition to their political goals and force their kids to say they're right
Trying to close all debate and push a narrative isn't democratic, it's authoritarian and one of the most common tools to oppress and control
Note that i'm writing this from the french cultural/political context, but i don't think this is true. Or at least it's not universal. Here even most of the far right would not dare question reproductive/abortion rights. Even Marine Le Pen has proposed to make abortion a constitutional right. The only question on the conservative right here (except for marginal catholic sects such as La Manif Pour Tous) is to oppose extending the incubation period during which abortion is legal.
In the United States the situation is different, mostly due to decades of political lobbying and public disinformation against abortion orchestrated by fascist billionaires associated with various christian churches. But still, i'm guessing some parts of the right wouldn't dare question abortion rights. Despite the democrats being from an outsider's perspective a right-wing party (capitalist and rather conservative), let's pretend for a second the republican party are the entirety of the right, it's still not clear that all democrats stand for abortion and all republicans against:
Still, i think there is truth in what you say. As much as some issues such as gay/trans rights have advanced in the past decades, the political spectrum has shifted massively to the right in the Global North. Anti-immigration doctrines are far more common, and abolition of capitalism and wage slavery has almost become a taboo even on the so-called left. It's always both funny and sad to see people call Mélenchon or Sanders "far-left" when their social program is rather centrist and not more ambitious/communist than historically very right-wing programs (such as De Gaulle's after WWII).
> A very oversimplified pro argument: if it wasn't for slavery, these families would have generational wealth and better social situations. African Americans in the US ARE disproportionately lower wealth/income and this has CLEAR historical origins.
I'm confused by the pro argument. My known lineage was not enslaved, but my grandparents immigrated with 0$, and my family has no generational wealth and we don't receive reparations.
Isn't being freed from slavery the same as being freshly immigrated with 0$?
Furthermore, there are tons of Asian immigrants that come from a third world country with virtually nothing, but become top earners because of their cultural values of education and filial piety
One could argue that despite being free, African Americans still had to work against racism, unfair laws, and a system rigged against them in many ways. Those are things a white immigrant wouldn't have had to deal with, but black immigrants would have. Is the black immigrant excluded or included in any potential reparations?
I mean if the language is not appropriate at school, then the school should educate them. There's plenty other behaviours expected at a school - that the school teaches them - that isn't expected at the home or other places.
I'm not sure which comment you're reading, but the person you're replying to is talking about their friend's policy which explicitly states that there exist some people who you probably shouldn't swear around. It just isn't dad
I've been using helix a while, and compared to vim, the bindings are not as time-efficient as vim bindings are, but I just can never get LSP to work quite right at neovim, so I use helix for code
Isn't it more in the interest of conquering rather than exterminate and destroy? If Ukraine were to surrender, I don't think Russia would continue to kill them all.
Genocide is a part of that. People capable of leading a country (top politicians, lawyers, academics, businessmen, military leaders, etc) must be murdered so that there is no-one to lead the opposition to Russian rule. After WW2, former leadership of countries occupied by the Soviet Union was methodically exterminated the same way. After people capable of leading a nation are murdered and prohibitions of cultural practices are placed on the remaining, they begin to lose their group identity (language, religion, etc) until they cease to exist as an independent entity.
Many Native American tribes disappeared this way, for example. They weren't murdered to the last person. Instead, they were put into conditions that lead to their irreversible decline.
