This is from the Washington Post's homepage right now. A 5 minute video propagating ignorant neoracist nonsense. It's really astonishing the extent to which this stuff is becoming mainstream and normalized, especially by the press.
This is what the current education fight is really about, but people are intentionally pretending not to understand that. The same activists mainstreaming this stuff in the press are also trying to insert it into education. Trying to frame every subject around race.
These views are legitimately harmful and backwards. They shouldn't be normalized and they certainly should not be forced on young kids via public education that is funded by taxpayers. Parents have every right to be concerned and want to step in.
Defenders keep playing this game of saying "well that's not really critical race theory" (despite some proponents identifying it as CRT) and ignoring the evidence that it is being injected into education without actually engaging the real substance of the concerns.
Now that doesn't mean that state laws are the ideal way to deal with those concerns. We can and should have a debate over what options parents should have, but simply rejecting transparency and telling parents and others they should just accept it is not a viable solution.
Anyways, it's really frustrating watching people try to move us towards a society where someone's skin color becomes their defining trait. The very type of society that so many people sacrificed to move away from. The progress they made is worth fighting for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The article is even worse than the headline. It's full of misinformation meant to deflect blame away from the regime for their behavior by pretending they were moderating before Trump. This propaganda isn't even an opinion piece, It's published with a byline of "CNN staff".
The whole article is premised on the idea that moderates actually enjoyed substantial prominence in Iran before Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal, which will come as a shock to anyone who knows anything about Iran's actions at the time.
These tweets were back to back when I did a search on this topic. As always with such incidents, responsible people should wait for the facts.
CBS local news is reporting that the driver is telling police it was an accident where his foot got stuck, but a bunch of other outlets are citing @DeanTrantalis claiming it was a targeted terrorist attack.
Possible, but irresponsible to speculate unless he has more info.
@DeanTrantalis Now people with large platforms are amplifying claims that this was an attack targeting DWS.
Maybe that's accurate, but seems we need more info first.
Anyways, praying for those injured and the family of the person who died.
If you want to understand how these antiSemitic blood libels get spread on social media, this is a great example. CJ took a made up claim from 2014 and pretended it was real and current; now it has spread to hundreds of thousands of people who believe it.
And yet it has to be exposed by a small Jewish group because the disinformation reporters at mainstream outlets that spend their time exclusively on the extremists and conspiracies on the right are nowhere to be found.
I can do the same thing with plenty of Obama bills. I can also show Trump initiatives that received no Dem support (2017 tax cuts). Thinks about what a dishonest partisan someone has to be to only emphasize those examples.
Just looks at how dishonestly the article starts. Republicans didn't say no on infrastructure, they've offered extensive counters despite skepticism within the caucus. But Harwood pretends not going along with whatever Biden/Dems want is just obstruction.
This is such a great example of the problem with media fact-checking right here.
When it comes to partisan bills, each side has partisan arguments that emphasize their points. This is basically just a rebuttal to Republican arguments, not a fact-check.
Out of the 5 things that Dale focuses on, 4 are mostly true. The one that he claims is false is McConnell saying it applied to the South when it applied to 8 Southern States and Alaska (Really got him on that one).
They would never publish a rebuttal to partisan Dem arguments.
But again, a lot of media fact-checkers think their job is to provide cover for Dem arguments and combat Republican arguments. That's how you end up with orgs like Politifact constantly rating spin from one side as false and spin from the other as true.
Since I'm doing threads, I'll do one more. Someone asked me last week why I tend to get so many stories right early on that much of the mainstream press and partisan press gets wrong? It's a combination of common sense, research, curiosity, and skepticism.
When people see a story (myself included) they tend to think about whether it aligns with a narrative they already believe. That often leads to people falling for things that are false, but fit with what they want to believe.
(Happens to everyone!)
But I've developed a habit of often (not always!) then pausing and asking some questions: 1) Does it make sense? 2) Is the sourcing reliable? 3) What are people who would disagree w that narrative saying? 4) Does it need more evidence?