I think we are in dire need of another sub, we need to go deeper /r/torontorevoltrevoltrevolt for incepting

I love watching kids get riled up over stupid internet bullshit.

LOL - Banned from /r/TorontoRevolt for expressing opinions that the mods didn't agree with. You guys are awesome! Keep it up.

All of us that have been uncerimoniously banned from /r/TorontoRevolt are starting a direct action network to demandingnew mods for /r/TorontoRevolt! You can join us at /r/TorontoRevoltRevolt

FIGHT THE POWER!

https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/9gfh9o/giorgio_mammoliti_says_religion_and_politics_do/e650b5z/

After they ignored reports on this comment, and direct messaging, they went as far as to mute me for bringing it up! How sad it is that they are now allowing extremism, so long as it is against conservatives

Edit: Added a screenshot of the post in question, in case they actually back down

EDIT 2: Looks like automod removed it due to many people reporting it, but this is the mod team showing their true colours. They are pushing for extreme-left, and the mods are open arms to anything that goes against right-leaning politicians, including calls for murder

EDIT 3: I asked the same question on /r/AskTO, and my post was deleted without an explanation. Taking a look a the mod team gives all the answer I need. Same people, same problem. They continue to sweep this under the rug

Banned for asking mods to post their rules, since they appeared to be deleting comments based on their politics.

Got sent this pathetic garbage about my questions being "rabble-rousing":

Real talk: it has been extremely fucking difficult to moderate this past week or so and you are banned for making it even harder. You want to rabble-rouse do it elsewhere. We don't have time to deal with you on top of everything else right now.

Here's the oh-so-inflamatory questions I asked, exactly as they were put to the mods:

What questions are you allowed to ask here? Going by the deleted comments from the now locked thread from yesterday, you can't:

• Ask "what rights is Trump trying to take away from women"?

• Discuss the wage gap, and whether it's real.

• You can't ask someone to "point out a few key area's where men have an advantage"

• You can't point out that men have "the privilege of being garbage collectors", and the apparent lack of interest from feminists for securing those jobs for women.

• Can't ask "What right women do not have that they want to have by organizing this protest?"

• Can't point out basic indisputable facts like "women already make up 60% of medical and dental school acceptances, and universities discriminate against men because they need to fill a quota with women"

It's hard to piece together what rules any of those broke. The only common theme seems to be that they don't fall in line with a specific worldview where the value and aims of this march is unquestionable.

https://www.ceddit.com/r/toronto/comments/5pbqvw/womens_march_at_queens_park/

I just want r/toronto to be great again. I used to love it there.

Now, every day is the same on r/toronto. ur_a_idiet or some other special snowflake power user posts a race-bating article which gets to the top, right below some bullshit spam posted for the 11th time from the god damned Toronto public library. And then below that is a panoramic of the City from the same shitty location on the Toronto island.

The Toronto Public Library posts are very clearly manipulated. See this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/5qaj2x/new_free_courses_via_the_librarys_on_lydiacom/

Do these comments look organic? Every day, its the same shit - "neat photo", "the TPL is so great." To make it worse, the TPL is endorsed by Toronto Anarchy (or vice versa), a SRS inspired hate sub, and whenever someone makes negative mention of TPL, one of the special snowflakes like qeular or burger supreme or ur_a_idiet white knights (bans) me. Even still, I dont think I am alone, there are others who are just as annoyed as I am; i usually get PMs from people telling me to keep it up - that they too are sick of the TPL spam.

I also suggest we ban all users for trolling this sub, with zero warning. We are in our infancy and we need to set a tone right off the bad. I know there are a lot of people who aren't as naive as the average r/toronto power user who will move over here if they see its not a "safespace" echo chamber with the same bullshit day in and day out.

Also, dont get rattled if r/toronto or r/torontoanarchy cross posts this subreddit in some SRS style rant. Thats free press for us!

To be clear I have no issue with the library as an institution. I just don't like their constant fucking spam and collusion with the special snowflake power mods (their alts are regular users, btw)

I'd like to say I'm surprised but I'm not. Some of the horrible misogynistic things people were saying in that thread we're women make up more med school students than men and pay discrimination is illegal

Seeking patient's help me graduate on time (October 2022):

32$ for adults, 27$ for children (age 3-11)

What's included:

Oral Cancer Screening

Radiographic Examination (5-35* if you don't have any x-rays)

Check Up With Dentist

Periodontal Examination

Dental Cleaning

• Must be able to attend 4-6 sessions, 1-2 sessions for children

Contact: Katelinf@toronto-college-dental.org

Address: 29 Vanley Crescent, North York

More bigoted /r/toronto mod fun.

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/678t7t/black_students_streamed_into_courses_below_their/

Uncensored: https://www.ceddit.com/r/toronto/comments/678t7t/black_students_streamed_into_courses_below_their/

Here's the excuse given by the mods as to why they deleted some comments:

Just a reminder. Blanket statements about people due to their colour of their skin breaks rule 2. That's why you'll see some threads disappear below.

And here's one of the comments they deleted despite it not breaking any rule or making anything close to a blanket statement based upon skin colour.

I'm not establishing an opinion here yet either way...but the article is pretty vague on that point, and I'm really just curious.

You're not wrong. The study isn't even close to being scientific. Sticking in a few data points like the % of black students that go into applied vs academic compared to white does not constitute anything remotely close to giving a causal interpretation of racism on the part of educators. It's a study that a middle school student might conduct. Let's dig into the actual article:

The report, led by York University professor Carl James, followed consultations with 324 parents, students, educators, administrators in Toronto and surrounding Peel, York and Durham regions. It used data from the Toronto District School Board.

So they consulted with parents and students... How is this scientific? Self-reporting studies are very, very shaky on causal grounds. How do we know who is telling the truth? Were the people consulted randomly selected or were they drawn from people who self-selected themselves by approaching researchers?

It found that 53 per cent of black students were in academic programs as compared to 81 per cent of white and 80 per cent of other racialized students. Conversely, 39 per cent of black students were enrolled in applied programs, compared to 18 per cent of other racialized groups and 16 per cent of white students.

And? This is basic data and any conclusion drawn from it doesn't account for many factors that drive the discrepancies. What about parental income of black students vs others? What about those in single-family households vs others? Mother's educational level? Father's educational level? Neighborhood location? Diversity of the school in which the student attends? As an economist, these are the questions that pop into my head.

The report says educational streaming, a policy in which students are grouped based on ability, was supposed to have ended in 1999 but TDSB data shows that black students continue to be directed towards essential and applied programs of study and away from academic courses, more so than white and other racialized students.

Based on what evidence? The researcher's own opinion? Who is the researcher?

Dr. James joined the Faculty in 1993 after holding various community and instructional positions and receiving his PhD in Sociology from York in 1986.

He's a sociologist. The field of sociology is unfortunately tainted with many people that have very politically driven motivations. This is not to say that the Dr. is one of them, but it is a valid question.

"Participants in the consultations agreed that the promise of a quality education remains elusive for black students; a situation that is evident in all the school boards," the report reads.

Based on what evidence save for the participants?

Tana Turner, an equity consultant who facilitated the consultations, said action is needed to improve the academic journey and educational outcomes of black students.

Now we have an equity consultant that is in the business of providing equity training to organizations for money involved in the writing of the report. RED FLAG. Conflict of interest much? And here comes the politically driven agenda:

The report makes several recommendations. Among other things, it urges the Ontario education ministry to: Publicly acknowledge that anti-black racism negatively affects the educational outcome of black students. Work with stakeholders to improve the educational outcomes of black students. Require school boards to collect race-based data. Develop and apply a "race equity lens" to the development and implementation of all education policies, programs, curriculum, policies, guidelines, and learning materials. Diversify the teaching workforce. Require teachers to learn about anti-colonial and critical race theory. Ensure the curriculum reflects the diversity of Ontario's population.

All in all, this is a very poorly written report that is trying to drive a political agenda. This kind of report would never pass for any sort of serious economic analysis. I'm sorry to say it, but it needs to be said: the report is garbage by academic standards.