I Pit damuriajashi and DemonTree

That’s weird to me - even in the depths of Apartheid, I still had a choice of which of the government schools for Coloureds I could go to. There was never any sense of “you live here, you must go to this school”. Obviously, if you lived in a smaller town, you’d be limited by transport practicalities, but even just in the suburbs of Cape Town we had (and still have) choices.

In the States, the schools are generally paid for by local taxes, so if you live in one town in NJ, NY, or whatever, that’s where you go to school (or, you can pay for private school). NYC has a single Board of Education for the whole city, so it can offer more choices than my little locality, which only had one high school.

Even in districts with multiple schools, most places I’ve lived assigned you to a school based on location.
DC doesn’t, but you’re on your own re:getting to/from school.

In Florida children are eligible for all public schools in the district of their parent/guardian’s legal residence. There are over ten public schools in the district I grew up in.

Public charter schools, however, are operated by companies. Charter schools are allowed to give enrollment preference based on relation to existing students, children of school board members, children of the company’s employees, children of the company’s business partner’s employees, &etc. In practice, publicly funded to provide a company and its business partners a significant job perk.

~Max

Our town has only one high school and one middle school. There are two elementary schools, one on the “good side” of town and one on the “bad side”. There is multi-unit housing, public housing and a trailer park on the bad side and an identical house would sell for $50k-$100k less if it is on the wrong side of the catchment line. Conversely, when a 50 unit townhome development was built on the “bad side” of town, there was intense lobbying to determine which cul-de-sac(s) would be moved from the good side to the bad side. The cul-de-sac with McMansions won, with the buses for the “good” school now driving past several neighborhoods in the “bad” side to get to that cul-de-sac. Who knows what favors were exchanged.

Oh yeah, the “bad” elementary school has much better test scores than the “good” one. That’s the side of town from which kids aspire go to Harvard, Yale and MIT rather than Bowdoin, Skidmore and Colgate.

I thought, that can’t be the name of a real place. But not only is it real, it’s located in my birth town. :man_facepalming:

In my defense I left when I was 6 weeks old and never went back, so it’s not like I’m well-versed in the area.

Very late to the party, re: the above comment, but you can actually watch Last Week Tonight segments going back several years, including the one discussed by @Gyrate, on YouTube through the program’s official channel.

The channel:

The segment then under discussion:

I appreciate everyone who is ripping apart the ridiculous article that DT posted in my CRT thread. I’ll hold my breath until she comes in and retracts that piece of crap.

Dear Karentree, nobody cares about your white ass grievances.

“Than make any kind of concession towards them…” Like what? ‘OK, we’ll let you lynch half of them in exchange for…’
What’s next? Are ‘’‘progressives’’’ expected to compromise with neo-Nazis too?

tHeRe WeRe VeRy FiNe PeOpLe On BoTh SiDeS

There ya go.

@DemonTree clearly doesn’t understand liberal ideology. Racists shouldn’t be shunned or left to starve on the street. They should be given the basic care that everyone else gets - access to food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, etc. These are all things that I believe are basic human rights that everyone deserves, even the most virulent racists.

But having a twitter account isn’t one of the basic human rights?

That’s not as crazy a question as it might first appear. I do think that we have more serious issues to deal with first, but once people aren’t starving or homeless in this country, we SHOULD focus on giving everyone internet access. A human with an internet enabled smartphone is, in terms of capability to influence the world around them, an entirely separate species than a human without a smartphone. Expecting a human with no internet access to compete in our society against a human with a 4g smart phone is like expecting a sprinter to outrun someone with cybernetic legs.

But that’s internet access in general. What about the right to post on one specific social media platform? How is a business that can’t advertise on Facebook going to compete with one that can?

At the same time, Twitter is a private company and they have the right to choose who to work with. If they think that not banning Trump will hurt their bottom line, they’ll ban him. And misinformation is such a huge problem that we need to get a handle on it, and preventing the social media sites from banning problem users would hamstring them in this fight.

All in all, I don’t think we need to ensure everyone has social media access at this time. But our society could conceivably move along lines that make it harder and harder to exist without a social media presence. The smart thing to do would be to avoid ever becoming that reliant on social media, but we don’t always take the smartest route. If the role of social media in society grows even more than it already has, we might get to a point where we need to ensure everyone has access to social media.

Just SMFH at the fucking unmitigated gall on display here:

Not the first time she’s tried cloaking herself in minoriy-hood, either.

She’s a troll.

Obvious troll is increasingly obvious.

I don’t think she’s a troll, exactly, but I do think she’s a small-minded dingus who sweats through her shirt from the effort of forcibly suppressing her desire to blow the trumpet of her pet prejudices.

:rofl: