My parents were alive and in schools when segregation in education was ending. Decades of Jim Crow laws holding people down isn't simply remedied by saying "We're all equal now." and doing nothing to redress the damage inflicted through the abuse of governmental power. Especially not when "We're all equal now." is largely lip service and systemic racism is still prevalent.
Saying "oh we'll let some blacks in" isn't a helpful solution
AA had done more harm than good
Now, i do wish we had better solutions that actually address the issues of individuals and communities suffering from poverty and discrimination, but AA does not solve that.
I'd much rather we provide an actual solution, than a solution that looks like one while still being racist and in many ways making the situation worse, in particular by being a target to point to when talking about real solutions as "we already addressed that"
Would love to see a source on this, especially after I left a mod comment explicitly asking for people to be cautious about jumping in with a simplistic take of 'AA bad'.
Literature is extremely mixed on this topic because, perhaps unsurprisingly, it's almost impossible to control for all factors and implementation of AA varies so greatly (explicit diversity goals vs. some kind of equity boost vs. mandatory spots, etc.).
Conservatives will be back and they will be even worse. Conservatism is a plague of oppression and hatred that cannot stop without severe intervention, as history has shown.
Its sad, but ever since they were bought by Fox in 2015 their magazines stopped being about science, culture, travel and history and instead started pumping out basically bathroom reading for grandparents. Angels, ghosts, jesus, pirates, more jesus, etc etc
Yep. My family were lifelong subscribers to National Geographic Magazine, and I grew up reading it. And I remember distinctly the change in quality when Fox bought it. The first magazine that was put out under the new management was all about the "facts" of the "real" Jesus, and would have been fit for a History Channel special. It was such a disappointment to see something I loved so much turn into a trash rag.
I had no idea that happened, what a sad thing to hear. I haven't read it in a while obviously, but my child is getting close to the age I was when I discovered it and Scientific American. I'm sad I won't get to share National Geographic with them.
If their apprenticeship program goes well, it might allow thousands of people to lift themselves out of poverty, especially if the pay is fair. I hope that’s the case.
Search engines have been becoming increasingly useless for years at this point as SEO gentrification runs rampant and more content moves behind walled gardens like Discord and anything that requires a subscription. Not to mention that Google enshittifies just like everything else. The amount of overly verbose garbage I have to trek through just to not get an answer to my query is far too high. God fucking help us now that AI can generate content, which will be even more garbage to sift through.
You know, that was a good article until the author took a completely unnecessary and irrelevant swipe at Biden; at which point I completely lost interest in anything the author had to say.
I'm really fucking tired of political bullshit being embedded into every-goddamned-thing I read.
Thank goodness someone is here to defend the reactionary fuck who was literally creating a Disinformation Governance Board as part of the ever-expanding police state and its fascist DHS organization. /s
Oh boo hoo. I would have bitched if it was a completely-out-of-place swipe at any politician, even ones I hate. I would have bitched just as much if it was an anti-trump joke. It was irrelevant and obnoxious, shitty, opportunistic writing.
I don’t give fuck one about Biden, but I do give fuck one about journalistic integrity, which the author seems to lack.
Some have suggested that the lack of Google alumni on the transition team of president-elect Joe Biden, a noted sex pest, might bode well for a crackdown, though the presence of veterans from other tech giants like Amazon and Uber suggests otherwise
a completely-out-of-place swipe
Ah. I see you think that reminders that the man in the most powerful position in the world is an actual fucking rapist are totally irrelevant...while that guy is currently helping to dictate what people may and may not see on the Internet. What could go wrong with a rapist deciding to further marginalize rape victims by making them even more invisible?
I would like fo the country to be added to the title (or as tags if that exits on lemmy), like [USA], [FR] or [World]. We are an international community so it’d help filter out the news of country you are not interested in.
It's hard to keep a healthy news sub because of so much polarization, and so much subpar stuff that's called "news". I can point to 2 successful examples that handled it differently.
At truenews https://www.reddit.com/r/truenews/We simply ask for quality sources. You can read the sidebar for the rules. Basically we demand that all news posts are actually from reputable news sources. We provide an explanation of what that means and tons of valid examples. Then we mod to remove non-valid sources, and work with posters to help them understand the rules. If a user is having trouble getting used to the rules, we ask them to stick to the 2 dozen recommended sources we provided.
Another example is neutralnews https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/This is a very clean sub because it went a very strict way. Not only are all posts expected to be from valid sources, but any comment is expected to contribute something useful (so no jokes or venting), and all claims in comments have to be substantiated. This sub is very hard to moderate and it can also be hard on participants because so many comments get deleted until users get the hang of the rules. But the benefit is that it enables real discussion from any angle of politics because people are blocked from repeating party lines and memes, and instead have to argue their point with sources. Some of the most useful political discussions I've seen have happened in this sub, due to the requirement for good faith arguments with sources.
What do people think of a “journalistic integrity” rule? I know that’s also subjective, but I’m trying to think of how to phrase a rule that is basically “don’t post intentionally incendiary crap”. I guess the rule could just be “don’t post intentionally incendiary crap”, with some examples of what that means and community opportunities to in some way indicate that an article is incendiary crap.
If we’re drafting rules here, I’d like to suggest a rule that the original article URL should be the one used for the post, even if it’s to a paywalled source. It helps immensely in vetting sources without first having to click into an obfuscated archive link. I’m all for sidestepping paywalls, but I think it would be beneficial to have the archive link in the post body instead.
Part of my media literacy protocol is establishing that the source is trustworthy, and it gets annoying / tedious clicking into an archive link only to find out the source is “Jimbob’s REEL TRUTH NEWZ”.
I’m also on the fence about linking to YouTube (and similar) videos as news sources.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.