[wat0n]

Actually, there are BPOC media in Chicago; the same ones that recently interviewed Ms. Lightfoot. So no, you are not correct, I guess.

Then why aren't they in the City Hall beat?

So?

So it's in fact more productive than posturing.

For the fifth or sixth time, no.

Then you would concur with @Julian658's broad point here. If you don't like the infographic example, but you accept quoting from the website as is now, he does have a point about the influence of CRT in government institutions (meaning these people have power).

Would have done what? Created a history of anti-blackness in the USA over centuries, and then created a set of policies for journalism schools that implicitly operated on these tenets of anti-blackness, and promoted only white men to high positions in news media?

Bar BIPOC outlets from joining the City Hall beat.

See how something doesn't add up in her letter? Even if she wanted to claim there are white outlets that discriminate against BIPOC journalists, this would not explain why aren't the BIPOC outlets in the City Hall beat. It's odd to think they'd be disinterested too, since it's a source of major local news. So if disinterest is not the case, it has something to do with how the city manages the City Hall beat, which also seems unlikely (as it would probably be a First Amendment violation). So it makes more sense to think that she's probably wrong on the facts and that this was a political maneuver from the start.

What is?

Interviewing.

Since the only enforcement would be the lawsuits, they could simply continue with the status quo with the reasonable expectation that they would not be sued.

Why? If that was the concern, all the more reason for her to provide help in starting those lawsuits.

I will assume you are now going to start accusing me of supporting the Rwandan genocide for months to come whenever I now ignore one of your questions.

It shows what CRT logic can lead to, doesn't it? Am I wrong about the facts in Rwanda?

[Pants-of-dog]

Then why aren't they in the City Hall beat?

Systemic racism.

So it's in fact more productive than posturing.

No. How so?

Then you would concur with @Julian658's broad point here. If you don't like the infographic example, but you accept quoting from the website as is now, he does have a point about the influence of CRT in government institutions (meaning these people have power).

No, because @Julian658 never made any criticism about the actual Smithsonian website, just like you never did.

And no, CRT advocates do not hold political power or they would be able to stop the ingoing censorship and banning of CRT in the USA. Cancel culture that the right apparently supports or at least tolerates.

Bar BIPOC outlets from joining the City Hall beat.

How?

Created a history of anti-blackness in the USA over centuries, and then created a set of policies for journalism schools that implicitly operated on these tenets of anti-blackness, and promoted only white men to high positions in news media?

She does not have superpowers.

See how something doesn't add up in her letter? Even if she wanted to claim there are white outlets that discriminate against BIPOC journalists, this would not explain why aren't the BIPOC outlets in the City Hall beat.

That is because the two things are not necessarily causally related. One could easily happen without the other.

It's odd to think they'd be disinterested too, since it's a source of major local news. So if disinterest is not the case, it has something to do with how the city manages the City Hall beat, which also seems unlikely (as it would probably be a First Amendment violation). So it makes more sense to think that she's probably wrong on the facts and that this was a political maneuver from the start.

Since you never define what “it” is here, your argument is hard to follow.

Interviewing.

What about it?

Why? If that was the concern, all the more reason for her to provide help in starting those lawsuits.

If what was a concern?

It shows what CRT logic can lead to, doesn't it? Am I wrong about the facts in Rwanda?

What shows that?

[wat0n]

Systemic racism.

On Lightfoot's part?

No. How so?

Already explained how

No, because @Julian658 never made any criticism about the actual Smithsonian website, just like you never did.

Except when I did, you mean.

And no, CRT advocates do not hold political power or they would be able to stop the ingoing censorship and banning of CRT in the USA. Cancel culture that the right apparently supports or at least tolerates.

Except when they plug their acolytes in several local governments to teach CRT, don't they? Or to manage the federal museums. Or to participate in the state and federal legislative processes.

How?

Created a history of anti-blackness in the USA over centuries, and then created a set of policies for journalism schools that implicitly operated on these tenets of anti-blackness, and promoted only white men to high positions in news media?

She does not have superpowers.

What do you mean by "how"? How does that history have any bearing on BIPOC media at all? Will you finally explain why aren't these outlets in the City Hall beat?

That is because the two things are not necessarily causally related. One could easily happen without the other.

But if only one happened, you would indeed see BIPOC journalists in Chicago's City Hall beat.

Since you never define what “it” is here, your argument is hard to follow.

Chicago's City Hall.

What about it?

The first come first served basis would be to interview Lightfoot.

If what was a concern?

Being unable to sue.

What shows that?

That CRT's rhetoric can be used to justify mass murder.

[Pants-of-dog]

On Lightfoot's part?

No.

Already explained how

No.

Except when I did, you mean.

No.

Except when they plug their acolytes in several local governments to teach CRT, don't they? Or to manage the federal museums. Or to participate in the state and federal legislative processes.

I guess you then support the current efforts to get these people fired and these teachings banned.

What do you mean by "how"? How does that history have any bearing on BIPOC media at all? Will you finally explain why aren't these outlets in the City Hall beat?

Which media outlets specifically?

But if only one happened, you would indeed see BIPOC journalists in Chicago's City Hall beat.

Only one what?

Chicago's City Hall.

What about itm

The first come first served basis would be to interview Lightfoot.

This sentence makes nonsense. Policies do not interview people.

Being unable to sue.

Who is?

That CRT's rhetoric can be used to justify mass murder.

Why are you justifying mass.murder?

[wat0n]

No.

Why not? Isn't she a powerful figure in Chicago?

No.

Why not?

No.

So you are now taking back the admission that the Smithsonian's website incorporates CRT?

I guess you then support the current efforts to get these people fired and these teachings banned.

Why were they hired if they don't have political power?

Which media outlets specifically?

Want me to look for Black newspapers for example?

Only one what?

Discrimination within white media outlets and a city ban of BIPOC outlets from joining the City Hall beat.

What about itm

Follow the train of discussion

This sentence makes nonsense. Policies do not interview people.

Hmmm? But they do define who can interview the mayor.

Who is?

Great question. Who is? You made that claim...

Why are you justifying mass.murder?

I'm not. I'm recalling however how similar reasoning was used by Hutu ethnic nationalists at the time.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why not? Isn't she a powerful figure in Chicago?

Why not what?

Why not?

Why not what?

So you are now taking back the admission that the Smithsonian's website incorporates CRT?

No.

Why were they hired if they don't have political power?

Who?

Want me to look for Black newspapers for example?

For what?

Discrimination within white media outlets and a city ban of BIPOC outlets from joining the City Hall beat.

What about it?

Follow the train of discussion

Okay.

Hmmm? But they do define who can interview the mayor.

Who?

Great question. Who is? You made that claim...

What claim?

I'm not. I'm recalling however how similar reasoning was used by Hutu ethnic nationalists at the time.

And?

[wat0n]

Why not what?

Why isn't Lightfoot responsible?

Why not what?

Why isn't looking for legal and economic remedies better than posturing?

No.

Then since I cited from it, why deny that I did?

Who?

CRT believers.

For what?

For showing BIPOC media exists.

What about it?

Both are necessary if you want to claim there are only white journalists at City Hall beat.

Who

Whoever defines the rules of who interviews the mayor. I would say that's Lightfoot herself.

What claim?

That some people can't afford suing.

And?

And it shows how CRT can actually be harmful when taken to its extreme conclusions.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why isn't Lightfoot responsible?

For what?

Why isn't looking for legal and economic remedies better than posturing?

Loaded question.

Then since I cited from it, why deny that I did?

Cited from what?

CRT believers.

What about them?

For showing BIPOC media exists.

What?

Both are necessary if you want to claim there are only white journalists at City Hall beat.

Both of what?

Whoever defines the rules of who interviews the mayor. I would say that's Lightfoot herself.

And?

That some people can't afford suing.

And?

And it shows how CRT can actually be harmful when taken to its extreme conclusions.

No.

[wat0n]

For what?

The lack of BIPOC journalists at the Chicago City Hall beat.

Loaded question.

Allow me to rephrase: Why isn't looking for legal and economic remedies for people who were actually discriminated better than granting some random journalists from the same race and gender that may or may not have faced discrimination by the media outlets an interview that may have little impact on their careers?

Cited from what?

The Smithsonian's website on whiteness.

What about them?

They are being hired at the taxpayer's expense to spread their ideology. That's material proof of political power and a clientelistic relationship.

What?

Isn't the argument clear at this point and how it demolished your nonsense?

Both of what?

Discrimination by white media outlets and the city barring BIPOC outlets from covering the City Hall.

And?

Demolishes your nonsense.

And?

Lightfoot has the power and financial means to redress that issue, although you have yet to name who's affected by it. I doubt journalists are.

The fact that she has such power also means your rhetoric is nonsense.

No.

Why?

[Pants-of-dog]

The lack of BIPOC journalists at the Chicago City Hall beat.

Okay.

You do not seem to get the hint.

I am no longer going to respond to incomplete sentences and sentence fragments.

Allow me to rephrase: Why isn't looking for legal and economic remedies for people who were actually discriminated better than granting some random journalists from the same race and gender that may or may not have faced discrimination by the media outlets an interview that may have little impact on their careers?

This is the same loaded question, but with more words.

The Smithsonian's website on whiteness.

They are being hired at the taxpayer's expense to spread their ideology. That's material proof of political power and a clientelistic relationship.

Nor will I be answering to sentences where the subject is not clearly identified. In this case, you are vague as to who is being hired and for what.

Isn't the argument clear at this point and how it demolished your nonsense?

Nor will I be replying to vague declarations of victory that do not discuss the subject matter at all.

Discrimination by white media outlets and the city barring BIPOC outlets from covering the City Hall.

Sentence fragment.

Demolishes your nonsense.

Note how this is both a sentence fragment and a vague declaration of victory that contains no references to or discussion of the subject matter.

Lightfoot has the power and financial means to redress that issue, although you have yet to name who's affected by it. I doubt journalists are.

The fact that she has such power also means your rhetoric is nonsense.

What issue is this?

Why?

Please clarify your question. Thank you.

[wat0n]

Okay.

You do not seem to get the hint.

I am no longer going to respond to incomplete sentences and sentence fragments.

They are not incomplete and it is easy to tell this is the case once you actually follow the discussion in a honest manner, which you don't because you have no arguments to provide.

This is the same loaded question, but with more words.

Please explain in what way is it loaded.

Nor will I be answering to sentences where the subject is not clearly identified. In this case, you are vague as to who is being hired and for what.

It's identified by the context of our discussion, a key issue you prefer to avoid because you have no arguments to provide.

Nor will I be replying to vague declarations of victory that do not discuss the subject matter at all.

The subject matter has been discussed ad nauseam and right now we are at the stage where you have no counterarguments or ideas to provide.

Sentence fragment.

Easily discernible from context.

Note how this is both a sentence fragment and a vague declaration of victory that contains no references to or discussion of the subject matter.

The string of successive quotes is itself the reference to the subject matter and standard for online discussion.

What issue is this?

That some people cannot afford to sue, an issue you brought up and which the government can address. Including the city governments.

Please clarify your question. Thank you.

Why did you say "no"? Do you have any substantive points to make?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

None of those points are clearly written. Please clarify your points and I will be happy to address whichever you clarify. Thank you.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

None of those points are clearly written. Please clarify your points and I will be happy to address whichever you clarify. Thank you.

I would say they all are. I'm not going to do the reading for you.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Okay! Have a good day!