That's interesting and all, but since this isn't a criminal case it's not exactly on topic. If we're involved in a traffic accident and you are found at fault, you will be liable for the damages. If you crashed into me intentionally you would probably face criminal charges, but if you didn't display any sign of intent, the laws related to using a vehicle as a deadly weapon would be irrelevant to our case.

They're being sued for being complicit in the wrongful death of a teenager. They're not being taken to criminal court for failing to uphold their duty as a mandatory reporter.

If I watch you drown and do nothing, even though I'm a capable swimmer standing next to a bunch of flotation devices, and all of this is caught on camera, your family could probably sue me for causing your death even though I'm not a lifeguard and do not own the pool.

That is the story, although there are some conflicting stories so it's not really clear whether "a patchy server" came before or after using the Apache name.

Either way, as far as Native American references go, I find the use by the Apache Foundation to be relatively benign.

While all the reactionaries in this thread (like the first post) are completely ridiculous with how quickly they pulled out their soapboxes to decry cultural sensitivity as "anti-white" while demonizing liberal white women, there is a small kernel of truth in their complaints that we can be a little too sensitive at times. Backlash against the "Apache" name is an example of that. Unfortunately, they take that small kernel of truth and turn it into a mountain of racism.

Damn you're a pussy. How come all the dudes who pine for "masculine" content are such whiny little bitches?

There are all sorts of action movies with white people on Netflix for you to jack off to. If you're watching the type of juvenile ass movies where casting takes things like race into account to get the perfect racial bingo scorecard, you only have yourself to blame for watching stories created for idiots.

I do not see how your post makes sense as a response to mine, but unlike the poster I was responding to you at least made an argument that was on topic and made sense.

However, I think your post largely misses the point of the complaints against the voucher system. The problem is that it takes money away from public schools to fund schools that have to adhere to less strict academic standards, do not pay teachers well, and often teach religion. Not all private/charter schools are worse than public schools, but if you are able to send your kid to one that is better than public schools you are wealthy enough that you do not need that public money. Nice private schools are not built in low-income neighborhoods.

Your concerns about public schools are also quite the over-generalization. My children attend a neighboring school district because we did not like the cultural fit of our local school district (probably for the opposite reasons of your complaints). Public school districts often reflect the culture and mores of the local community, and if they do not it is very easy to win school board races if your values are more aligned with the community. Where I live pretty much all of the rural school boards are run by conservatives and the urban ones by democrats. Maybe that introduces its own set of problems, but it demonstrates that choice exists without the voucher and charter school systems. Taking public money and giving it to non-public schools might provide even more choices, but those are low-quality choices that function as an anchor weighing down the existing public school system. Who really benefits from vouchers? Those looking to prop up low quality schools for personal profit, religious schools, and private schools that are geographically out of reach for low income students.

A quick search shows that some disgruntled former employee is suing Redhat/IBM for "anti-white, anti-male" discrimination. His legal counsel is "America First Legal."

The guy got laid off and is trying to claim it was because he was white because in the past Red Hat had discussed a desire to add more diversity to the workforce, although there doesn't appear to be any actual evidence that one had anything to do with the other.

Won't someone please think of the poor, disadvantaged, disenfranchised white man!?!

I contend that you were aware of how stupid you post is, but for political reasons you want other people to believe this stupid bullshit, so you posted as AC.

You don't even try to make sense. You just structured nonsense as if it were a zinger. Do you think anyone here is stupid enough to think that you just made a real point?

Unfortunately very few projects did that.

They're paying sub-wholesale prices for the hardware, so if an equivalent PC costs 2-3x, they could be selling it around the break even point (with the assumption of profit the minute you buy a second controller, a single game, or any other accessory).

It's weird that you accuse me of cherry-picking when that's what you're doing. There are a ton of pedagogical theories, movements, and ideologies that could all be described as "liberal" and they all compete and at times were supported by various people of various political persuasions.

Were most of those people liberal? Yes. But most people involved in education are liberal. The people who toppled the anti-phonics movement—not the state politicians that railed against it for being "politically correct," the people who actually persuaded educators to drop it—were primarily liberals! I live in a very conservative state that, until recently, was all in on the whole language approach. This had more to do with the successful lobbying efforts of certain textbook companies than any true ideological preference by the state legislature.

How can you honestly assess a situation when you're so stuck in this mindset where everything is left or right?

I have no interest in that, I don't know enough about the statistics you're citing to make an informed comment about it, and it's not related to phonics vs. whole language despite your best efforts to rope them together. Your weird ideas about "Critical Theory" and somehow suggesting that California schools are pedagogically influenced by Foucault's postmodernism demonstrates you are clearly out of your depth here. It sounds like you read a lot of Quillette but don't understand half of what you're reading.

I can discuss at length my gripes with the "theory" movement in higher education and how detrimental it has been. That has very little, if anything, to do with our K-12 problems. Our K-12 problems primarily stem from funding issues that are exacerbated by charter schools, disparate school districts, attempts to "punish" poor performing schools, "teaching to the test," and allowing religious schools to exist. There are also major cultural issues.

Only a fucking moron would assume the accusations are accurate, so there is no reason to go down that route.

The anti-phonics trend was not some liberal partisan thing, as you attempt to portray it. The whole language thing got a huge boost from George W. Bush and the whole No Child Left Behind crap.

It also has its roots outside of America, primarily New Zealand. The whole language thing method took off more because certain textbook companies committed to it than anything else.

There was a tendency for liberal educators to buy into the bullshit about phonics being discriminatory, and there were some conservatives who pushed back against this. But that is hardly the whole story, as you attempt to frame it.

I think they're profitable enough. . .

Well... I'm sure that the office building owners feel motivated to keep getting their lease checks. That's what this return to the office plan is really about.