This past weekend I learned

[atomheartbevo 90546]

19 hours ago, bolverk said:

This is a message board where we often have conversations about the content posters cite. We can't have good discussions if posters react the way that they did, because they hate the NYTimes for political reasons in the FOOTBALL section of the board. Unfortunately, they were largely successful in quashing any back-and-forth about the variations in how NIL is structured among the four football teams in the playoffs. 

But those idiots will be happy to discuss what a bunch of very biased sports analysts personalities blabber about for an hour on their YouTube channels. 

This board’s tone (and probably overall activity) changes quite a bit depending on how well our favorite sports teams are doing as well.  We tend to get pretty surly with one another when things go sideways in sports, and when things are going well, we find other things to do, or we gloss over a lot of stuff that might trigger some of us.

At least that’s my theory.

[bolverk 30231]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

This board’s tone (and probably overall activity) changes quite a bit depending on how well our favorite sports teams are doing as well.  We tend to get pretty surly with one another when things go sideways in sports, and when things are going well, we find other things to do, or we gloss over a lot of stuff that might trigger some of us.

At least that’s my theory.

It's a good theory, but they were freaking out over the NYTimes article the day before the Sugar Bowl so it wasn't the loss causing surliness.

[pyrohornIII 4844]

15 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

You misspelled political. Which is why that discussion doesn’t belong in the CR. 

While I agree there might be better places on this site to discuss this, if it were started anywhere but CR, I doubt it would ever get much play.  It would just be shouted down, and probably would have been relocated here anyway.  Just from the response of Incredulity and then later on Slorch, the odds of rational discussion being engaged by both sides was not going to happen.   That's why I started the thread to begin with.  To hopefully discuss it here and get some idea how to approach it here, then maybe on a larger scale, like Neon posted above.    So is this a political topic or not?  Maybe not, but not sure where else this could be discussed with any modicum of success. 

4 hours ago, VRHorn said:

Between blacklab's moderation of DT and posts like imma's in the babbitt thread, it's easy to see why the MAGATs run roughshod over the rest of this site.

I disagree.  This is a board for UT sports first and everything else finds its place behind that.  I have to give props to blacklab and Immamac for taking on the headache and trying to allow everyone a place to speak.   Just as easily they could just kill off CR and end a lot of headaches for themselves, I imagine.  

[atomheartbevo 90546]

34 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It's a good theory, but they were freaking out over the NYTimes article the day before the Sugar Bowl so it wasn't the loss causing surliness.

Nerves maybe.  KXAN could have run a story that Bevo was taking smaller dumps than normal, and they’d be losing their minds and picking it apart.

[pyrohornIII 4844]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Nerves maybe.  KXAN could have run a story that Bevo was taking smaller dumps than normal, and they’d be losing their minds and picking it apart.

Reading Bevo's dung like tea leaves.  Kinda surprised this hasn't been done yet.

[Biff Tannen 46061]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Nerves maybe.  KXAN could have run a story that Bevo was taking smaller dumps than normal, and they’d be losing their minds and picking it apart.

They are still arguing about the last play of the sugar bowl. 

[G650 14421]

54 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

This board’s tone (and probably overall activity) changes quite a bit depending on how well our favorite sports teams are doing as well.  We tend to get pretty surly with one another when things go sideways in sports, and when things are going well, we find other things to do, or we gloss over a lot of stuff that might trigger some of us.

At least that’s my theory.

Seems like the opposite to me

[atomheartbevo 90546]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

They are still arguing about the last play of the sugar bowl. 

Yeah, none of us argued with relatives this past week about it.

[atomheartbevo 90546]

2 hours ago, G650 said:

Seems like the opposite to me

Maybe.  

And the demographics here would include some MAGA types.

[VRHorn 731]

4 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

While I agree there might be better places on this site to discuss this, if it were started anywhere but CR, I doubt it would ever get much play.  It would just be shouted down, and probably would have been relocated here anyway.  Just from the response of Incredulity and then later on Slorch, the odds of rational discussion being engaged by both sides was not going to happen.   That's why I started the thread to begin with.  To hopefully discuss it here and get some idea how to approach it here, then maybe on a larger scale, like Neon posted above.    So is this a political topic or not?  Maybe not, but not sure where else this could be discussed with any modicum of success. 

I disagree.  This is a board for UT sports first and everything else finds its place behind that.  I have to give props to blacklab and Immamac for taking on the headache and trying to allow everyone a place to speak.   Just as easily they could just kill off CR and end a lot of headaches for themselves, I imagine.  

The CR is comfortably the second highest traffic board and 3rd is pretty distant. There are a lot of reasons for that, but to act like this board is a small part of the site is naive.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

If I took article from NYT or WaPo and changed bylines, 99 percent of the people who hate those lib rags would have no problem with the content. The papers aren’t liberal, the people who read them are and that’s what gets folks upset. 

Reality has a liberal bias. 

[mchookem 16728]

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

12 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Reality has a liberal bias. 

That's because the right believes in alternative facts.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

18 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

On a somewhat related topic, has the Knigga thread run its course? It's an unfortunate last name for a white kid and the idea of announcers trying to not mispronounce his name is objectively hilarious. But it seems like the thread is now just people trying to be edgy, but toe the line without saying the actual word.

No kidding. While Surly, and Shaggy before it, is/was well known for line-crossing humor there actually is a line that the nudge-nudge wink-winkers unabashedly cross with the comeback of 'can't you take a joke' and 'this is the Surl and leave if you don't like it.' Same posters can be notoriously thin-skinned when jokes turn personal towards things they hold dear. Going from a five year old's humor: "He said 'poop'!" (the first part of the thread) to a fifteen year old's humor (i.e. the joke where everyone knows it's beyond poor taste but we're going to turn a blind eye because boys will be boys and excused) is not the world changing 'what starts here' of which a UT grad might like to claim, it's the opposite and apparently it's not going away any time soon.

 

 

[aggie08 21733]

15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Maybe.  

And the demographics here would include some MAGA types.

Include? This is a Texas board composed of, largely, relatively well off middle-aged white men. I'd venture to say that steady Republican voters may still be the majority around here. Everyone apparently hates Ted Cruz...but someone is still voting him into office.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

28 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Include? This is a Texas board composed of, largely, relatively well off middle-aged white men. I'd venture to say that steady Republican voters may still be the majority around here. Everyone apparently hates Ted Cruz...but someone is still voting him into office.

I think it’s likely that the majority of the most prolific posters on the CR are a combination of disaffected former Republicans (like Brisket) and politically homeless economic conservatives who vote Democrat consistently but really only by default, with a handful of old-school labor liberals thrown in.
There are exceedingly few genuine progressives on Surly. 

[wildcat09 29556]

It's very funny reading people complain that the NYT is a liberal rag after it's spent the last month-plus acting as Christopher Rufo's megaphone in his campaign to remove all women and minorities from leadership positions of ivy league schools. 

[bolverk 30231]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

No kidding. While Surly, and Shaggy before it, is/was well known for line-crossing humor there actually is a line that the nudge-nudge wink-winkers unabashedly cross with the comeback of 'can't you take a joke' and 'this is the Surl and leave if you don't like it.' Same posters can be notoriously thin-skinned when jokes turn personal towards things they hold dear. Going from a five year old's humor: "He said 'poop'!" (the first part of the thread) to a fifteen year old's humor (i.e. the joke where everyone knows it's beyond poor taste but we're going to turn a blind eye because boys will be boys and excused) is not the world changing 'what starts here' of which a UT grad might like to claim, it's the opposite and apparently it's not going away any time soon.

 

Sure, it's a little funny - a few quips are expected. But we're now on DAY FOUR of that thread, and they're still going. It's beyond the point of somewhat humorous to being downright awkward to see all these white guys take particular relish in recycling jokes and phrases with the kid's name.

It's like they feel they FINALLY have permission now to kinda, sorta say the (tee-hee) N-word. 

[Brisketexan 106618]

56 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's very funny reading people complain that the NYT is a liberal rag after it's spent the last month-plus acting as Christopher Rufo's megaphone in his campaign to remove all women and minorities from leadership positions of ivy league schools. 

The Overton window shift is truly shocking.  Essentially, any outlet that doesn't consistently blame all of America's woes (real or imagined) on 1) brown people/black people or 2) Hunter Biden is A LIBERAL COMMIE RAG WRITTEN BY ANTIFA!  Seriously, the benchmark for what is sufficiently "conservative" is well over the line of completely psychotic and irrational.

[Chewbacca 7827]

I've never been a Republican.
I've never been a Democrat.
You, however, are too easily duped to be allowed a vote.

Fatty is all aboard the fascist train without reservation. Choo choo.

[Guest]

Overton Window, meh?

https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-myth-of-the-overton-window

[cactusflinthead 27626]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

old-school labor liberals

Yeah it mostly fits

[MissingInAction 25478]

On 1/6/2024 at 9:18 AM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Don’t forget, he’s the same dude that made a sock account to go back and pos rep his own posts that were negged by other people.  Internet rep is serious business for him.

Holy shit. Someone tell Tor rep fraud is afoot on Surly.

That may be the most pathetic thing I've read on this sight and even my personal life. Jfc get help slorch.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

35 minutes ago, bolverk said:

But we're now on DAY FOUR of that thread

Not for nothing, I don’t even know what thread talk are talking about, I can think of dozens of threads that fit the bill here.

[Brisketexan 106618]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

Overton Window, meh?

https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-myth-of-the-overton-window

Refusing to acknowledge the obvious is purposeful ignorance.

Look at what the right condemns as "RINOs" these days.  Just a few examples -- Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney....both of whom are pretty staunch conservatives, magically became - in just the past few years - screaming RINO libtards, according to the American right.  That's not what I'm saying.  That's what "CONSERVATIVES" are saying.

I grew up in an ecosystem where conservatives placed the highest of values on American stability, the peaceful transition of power, and the sanctity of elections.  Now....they have jettisoned each of those values in favor of psychotic authoritarianism and literally baseless fantasies (we've had YEARS for all of the evidence of "rigged elections" to be presented, by dozens upon dozens of litigants....and to date...NOTHING...yet it's an article of faith for a MAJORITY of Republican voters.)

Those are shifts I've seen happen in just the past few years.  And they're not slight shifts -- they are huge lurches.

[VRHorn 731]

Imma unironically posted in NIL about the NYT article a few minutes ago.

It bottles the mind...

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Refusing to acknowledge the obvious is purposeful ignorance.

Look at what the right condemns as "RINOs" these days.  Just a few examples -- Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney....both of whom are pretty staunch conservatives, magically became - in just the past few years - screaming RINO libtards, according to the American right.  That's not what I'm saying.  That's what "CONSERVATIVES" are saying.

I grew up in an ecosystem where conservatives placed the highest of values on American stability, the peaceful transition of power, and the sanctity of elections.  Now....they have jettisoned each of those values in favor of psychotic authoritarianism and literally baseless fantasies (we've had YEARS for all of the evidence of "rigged elections" to be presented, by dozens upon dozens of litigants....and to date...NOTHING...yet it's an article of faith for a MAJORITY of Republican voters.)

Those are shifts I've seen happen in just the past few years.  And they're not slight shifts -- they are huge lurches.

So is the campaign to insist: we're becoming normal.  We say so.  Because we say so, it is fact.

A shit ton of folks on here insist they are center when in fact they are not.  The Overton concept supports their notion.  Of course it is the truth now, as defined by them.

[Brisketexan 106618]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

So is the campaign to insist: we're becoming normal.  We say so.  Because we say so, it is fact.

A shit ton of folks on here insist they are center when in fact they are not.  The Overton concept supports their notion.  Of course it is the truth now, as defined by them.

I truly have no idea what you are saying here.

[jimmyjazz 46976]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

So is the campaign to insist: we're becoming normal.  We say so.  Because we say so, it is fact.

A shit ton of folks on here insist they are center when in fact they are not.  The Overton concept supports their notion.  Of course it is the truth now, as defined by them.

Ironically, not in way you think that's true.  The Overton Window has shifted right, making many of what used to be solid right wing Americans "centrists".

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I truly have no idea what you are saying here.

Slorch’d

[wildcat09 29556]

37 minutes ago, slorch said:

Overton Window, meh?

https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-myth-of-the-overton-window

Buddy, if you start linking Matt Yglesias frequently we're going to have words. 

[Brisketexan 106618]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ironically, not in way you think that's true.  The Overton Window has shifted right, making many of what used to be solid right wing Americans "centrists".

Bingo.  I've always had a pretty mixed bag of political beliefs (yes, mixed enough to make me generally "centrist"), but I know y'all have seen me post on here plenty of times before that I regularly find myself in agreement with The Economist 80%+ of the time.  Let's use that example, for starters.

The Economist has not materially changed its take or "slant" in the decades that I've known of it.  It has long been a center to center-right publication.  Also characterized as "classically liberal" (liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues).  It has NEVER been characterized as leftist....until the past few years, where it is ROUTINELY attacked as a libtard pinko rag.  I'm dead serious, it's routine.

Or how about this?  Two of our past Texas governors, Rick Perry and George W. Bush, had approaches to immigration management and reform that I generally agreed with.  They were pragmatic and practical, realizing and accounting for both the "law of diminishing returns" when it comes to pouring money at "immigration enforcement" alone, as well as the fact that we're dealing with human beings and economic laws of supply and demand.  These guys were two bastions of conservatism.  Today....their proposals would find them drummed out of the party as Soros commies.

I grew up thinking that global trade was generally a good thing - free flow of goods, money, and commerce are generally good things (subject to reasonable regulation, of course).  Now.....that makes me a (((globalist))), which is LITERALLY a pejorative/slur in modern conservative-speak.

Come on, man.  

[wildcat09 29556]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bingo.  I've always had a pretty mixed bag of political beliefs (yes, mixed enough to make me generally "centrist"), but I know y'all have seen me post on here plenty of times before that I regularly find myself in agreement with The Economist 80%+ of the time.  Let's use that example, for starters.

The Economist has not materially changed its take or "slant" in the decades that I've known of it.  It has long been a center to center-right publication.  Also characterized as "classically liberal" (liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues).  It has NEVER been characterized as leftist....until the past few years, where it is ROUTINELY attacked as a libtard pinko rag.  I'm dead serious, it's routine.

Or how about this?  Two of our past Texas governors, Rick Perry and George W. Bush, had approaches to immigration management and reform that I generally agreed with.  They were pragmatic and practical, realizing and accounting for both the "law of diminishing returns" when it comes to pouring money at "immigration enforcement" alone, as well as the fact that we're dealing with human beings and economic laws of supply and demand.  These guys were two bastions of conservatism.  Today....their proposals would find them drummed out of the party as Soros commies.

I grew up thinking that global trade was generally a good thing - free flow of goods, money, and commerce are generally good things (subject to reasonable regulation, of course).  Now.....that makes me a (((globalist))), which is LITERALLY a pejorative/slur in modern conservative-speak.

Come on, man.  

Well yeah, it's got words and shit. Only libtards read.

[bolverk 30231]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or how about this?  Two of our past Texas governors, Rick Perry and George W. Bush, had approaches to immigration management and reform that I generally agreed with.  They were pragmatic and practical, realizing and accounting for both the "law of diminishing returns" when it comes to pouring money at "immigration enforcement" alone, as well as the fact that we're dealing with human beings and economic laws of supply and demand.  These guys were two bastions of conservatism.  Today....their proposals would find them drummed out of the party as Soros commies.

Not just Baby Bush and Perry but also the exalted Reagan and Daddy Bush.

(I know you know this - just furthering your point.)

[bolverk 30231]

43 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Not for nothing, I don’t even know what thread talk are talking about, I can think of dozens of threads that fit the bill here.

It's a thread in the Football board about a recruit whose last name is Knigga. You can imagine how the jokes are going.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

On 1/6/2024 at 9:05 AM, G650 said:

football board is the most toxic on this whole website, 

Yep, been saying that.

It takes a while to get crowd sourced in CR, even known repeat trolls. You can get run off in football with a handful of hot sports opinions. 

[TexasEd 8248]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Bingo.  I've always had a pretty mixed bag of political beliefs (yes, mixed enough to make me generally "centrist"), but I know y'all have seen me post on here plenty of times before that I regularly find myself in agreement with The Economist 80%+ of the time.  Let's use that example, for starters.

The Economist has not materially changed its take or "slant" in the decades that I've known of it.  It has long been a center to center-right publication.  Also characterized as "classically liberal" (liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues).  It has NEVER been characterized as leftist....until the past few years, where it is ROUTINELY attacked as a libtard pinko rag.  I'm dead serious, it's routine.

Or how about this?  Two of our past Texas governors, Rick Perry and George W. Bush, had approaches to immigration management and reform that I generally agreed with.  They were pragmatic and practical, realizing and accounting for both the "law of diminishing returns" when it comes to pouring money at "immigration enforcement" alone, as well as the fact that we're dealing with human beings and economic laws of supply and demand.  These guys were two bastions of conservatism.  Today....their proposals would find them drummed out of the party as Soros commies.

I grew up thinking that global trade was generally a good thing - free flow of goods, money, and commerce are generally good things (subject to reasonable regulation, of course).  Now.....that makes me a (((globalist))), which is LITERALLY a pejorative/slur in modern conservative-speak.

Come on, man.  

 

55 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Not just Baby Bush and Perry but also the exalted Reagan and Daddy Bush.

(I know you know this - just furthering your point.)

When you take that issue and make it your main wedge you aren’t going to ever solve it. 

[bolverk 30231]

4 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

 

When you take that issue and make it your main wedge you aren’t going to ever solve it. 

That's the thing with wedges. If the problem is fixed (or even made better), then the urgency disappears. Republicans and their allies don't want to solve it -- they only want symbolic acts that increase its profile. This has become abundantly clear as they repeatedly kill any legislation to actually deal with it.

[pyrohornIII 4844]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That's the thing with wedges. If the problem is fixed (or even made better), then the urgency disappears. Republicans and their allies don't want to solve it -- they only want symbolic acts that increase its profile. This has become abundantly clear as they repeatedly kill any legislation to actually deal with it.

We use the term "the poors" now and then on the site. I'd like to add a new class: "the dumbs."  The dumbs aren't all necessarily in the same Venn circle as the poors.  There are some pretty wealthy dumbs out there, and there's a lot of bright poors out there as well.  

But the republican party started fucking with our education system years ago, basically dumbing America down.  And now they are reliant on those peoples' votes to maintain their offices.  They can only speak dumb stuff, they can't do anything that's brilliant or they are considered too progressive, loo liberal.  They've built a machine of voters who elect people like them, dumb people.  

And if one of them does speak out (Cheney, Romney, hell even McConnell) they are shouted down as socialist commies by MTG, Gaetz, et al. or pushed into retirement or primaried.    

We used to have Republicans who wanted to fix things, but in there overarching drive to build a malleable voter base to support them, they have wiped all common sense out of that same base.  And then here comes Trump with his coup de gras about fake news, which really messed with their minds.  In the meantime, the dumbs hooked up with Q types and worked so desperately hard to appear intelligent, parsing hidden agendas from water bottle labels.  

The Republicans of old would have wanted to solve things, and might could have.  But the ones we have now were voted in by the dumbs, and the dumbs were a product of the machines of Gingrich, DeLay, Limbaugh, etc.  So even if they wanted to fix things, their base won't allow them, because they are too dumb to understand.  

[bolverk 30231]

2 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

We use the term "the poors" now and then on the site. I'd like to add a new class: "the dumbs."  The dumbs aren't all necessarily in the same Venn circle as the poors.  There are some pretty wealthy dumbs out there, and there's a lot of bright poors out there as well.  

But the republican party started fucking with our education system years ago, basically dumbing America down.  And now they are reliant on those peoples' votes to maintain their offices.  They can only speak dumb stuff, they can't do anything that's brilliant or they are considered too progressive, loo liberal.  They've built a machine of voters who elect people like them, dumb people.  

And if one of them does speak out (Cheney, Romney, hell even McConnell) they are shouted down as socialist commies by MTG, Gaetz, et al. or pushed into retirement or primaried.    

We used to have Republicans who wanted to fix things, but in there overarching drive to build a malleable voter base to support them, they have wiped all common sense out of that same base.  And then here comes Trump with his coup de gras about fake news, which really messed with their minds.  In the meantime, the dumbs hooked up with Q types and worked so desperately hard to appear intelligent, parsing hidden agendas from water bottle labels.  

The Republicans of old would have wanted to solve things, and might could have.  But the ones we have now were voted in by the dumbs, and the dumbs were a product of the machines of Gingrich, DeLay, Limbaugh, etc.  So even if they wanted to fix things, their base won't allow them, because they are too dumb to understand.  

I've noticed the inability or lack of willingness to think two, or sometimes even one, steps ahead about the consequences of an immediate action that a GOP politician or teevee pundit is calling for. Or maybe it's a "consequences be damned" sort of thing.

One immediate issue here in Texas is that of school vouchers. Oh, so you support giving just enough of a subsidy that only big city upper-middle-class and rich parents can use for their kids can go to private school (if they're not already going)? How is that going to help your poor ass send your kids to one? What did private schools do in Arkansas when vouchers passed there? They all raised the tuition so that kids like yours can't go.

[Captainant 28387]

12 minutes ago, bolverk said:

One immediate issue here in Texas is that of school vouchers. Oh, so you support giving just enough of a subsidy that only big city upper-middle-class and rich parents can use for their kids can go to private school (if they're not already going)? How is that going to help your poor ass send your kids to one? What did private schools do in Arkansas when vouchers passed there? They all raised the tuition so that kids like yours can't go.

The knock on effect too is that since it takes more money to attend, it filters out the poors which tend to be non-white. Private schools are lilly fuckin white, and that's why they're desperate to send their kids there instead of public schools

[Huckleberry 34407]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think it’s likely that the majority of the most prolific posters on the CR are a combination of disaffected former Republicans (like Brisket) and politically homeless economic conservatives who vote Democrat consistently but really only by default, with a handful of old-school labor liberals thrown in.

I feel attacked, which is irksome. But you also attacked my dad so I'll call it even.

[fattyflattie 4640]

24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The knock on effect too is that since it takes more money to attend, it filters out the poors which tend to be non-white. Private schools are lilly fuckin white, and that's why they're desperate to send their kids there instead of public schools

lol wut.  St. Pius and Strake (among others) are top 20 most diverse.   Maybe some shit "private schools" fall that way, but the ones that play school are diverse.  Are we talking actual private/prep schools here or middle of the mall shit?

https://www.niche.com/k12/search/most-diverse-private-schools/m/houston-metro-area/

 

 

[Captainant 28387]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Ok, I'll be that guy who wanders into the beginning of the thread and doesn't read the rest before responding, so I assume this has already been covered.  HOWEVER ... did I really just read a citation of the GETTYSBURG ADDRESS as an example of when America was homogeneous and united with everyone having the same motivations and aligned incentives?

I don't know, maybe I'm not a history buff.  But something about that seems wrong.   Pretty good troll game, though.

It's Chrispy lol

[SydneyCarton 49325]

17 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

lol wut.  St. Pius and Strake (among others) are top 20 most diverse.   Maybe some shit "private schools" fall that way, but the ones that play school are diverse.  Are we talking actual private/prep schools here or middle of the mall shit?

https://www.niche.com/k12/search/most-diverse-private-schools/m/houston-metro-area/

 

 

hey genius, you cited a link ranking the most diverse private schools, and private schools only, to cite that private schools are diverse in comparison to public schools. 

Do you see the fault in that logic? 

 

[Guest]

Now do Louisiana private schools...

[bolverk 30231]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

hey genius, you cited a link ranking the most diverse private schools, and private schools only, to cite that private schools are diverse in comparison to public schools. 

Do you see the fault in that logic? 

 

 

Yeah, we can also just compare those schools to Harris County with the recognition that school-age populations tend to be even more diverse than the population as a whole with multiple generations.

From the Census:

 

St. Pius

 

 

Strake

@fattyflattie

 

 

Edited January 8 by bolverk

[fattyflattie 4640]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

hey genius, you cited a link ranking the most diverse private schools, and private schools only, to cite that private schools are diverse in comparison to public schools. 

Do you see the fault in that logic? 

 

Yeah.  The claim was private schools are "lily fucking white", which isn't true for the good ones.  I mean our school district is "lily fucking white" compared to Northshore, and looks like a rainbow coalition when compared against the Woodlands.  

[SydneyCarton 49325]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah.  The claim was private schools are "lily fucking white", which isn't true for the good ones.  I mean our school district is "lily fucking white" compared to Northshore, and looks like a rainbow coalition when compared against the Woodlands.  

Yeah. But you can't really support that claim with data, and for some reason you provide a link that offers zero data. You gave a link that said "these private schools are diverse" which might as well be a link saying "I like beans!"

My wife works and my son attends a private school. By my eyes, there is a lot of diversity there, and a lot of scholarships given out to kiddos from underserved areas that can't afford the school itself. But that's my eyes, and I have no frame of comparison, and I would never offer it as evidence or support of a fucking position. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

There are three private schools in Houston. St. Pius, St. Thomas, and Strake Jesuit are more like semi-private.