NSFL Nickelodeon Talks About “Environmental Racism”

Likely to prove unsurprising to those familiar with the widespread propaganda being force-fed to children in the West, child-focused TV channel Nickelodeon has now also taken part in brainwashing children as the official Twitter account has uploaded a video discussing “environmental racism”.

The entire 8-minute video that any halfway intelligent adult will find taxing to sit through:
Video archive(for 30 days)



The Twitter account naturally also disabled direct replies to prevent any adult of sound mind from arguing with their agenda, a typical turn of events for those pushing the narrative in the West:
Nickelodeon-Environmental-Racism-Tweet-Replies.jpg


This didn’t prevent quote tweets however, and disgruntled commentators weren’t afraid to let others know how they feel about this child-focused brainwashing:
Look at the like to retweet ratio.
Skärmklipp.PNG

e7849c9e372b97ba2d6208327a7479961182a98a.jpg
57e57cbaf2a06d5a8d11184b033c1dadbf8bc031.jpg
d0a930b3aaee7027555d1d346841ccce795bbd74.jpg
ada8c5fd09599fd551eb2c5029a4656b0885b4b4.jpg
38ff711b9b9aed4789393051c7f4bf4389ee0a1c.jpg
a3c583a918aa4d406d05c15e61a9700f57a8916d.jpg
b202a8ec1675e20fad587e5798edd183bb39d60b.jpg
5ba79f0ce84a6fb0ab1d7024bacffba25ed8f9db.jpg
3c55497520719f5f26080c08baf03cba046b9c78.jpg
21350d79aa17031650d31db3ae51d6b5b12a955d.jpg
ad677dd965bfddc09af87a078d40d92d86d0e83b.jpg
3f51d079b1a43ba8e9114f362f751e37b2945016.jpg
cc1313a5a50caa9579f8f194929bb493e4c51dfb.jpg
af6775a22436e5998c19e8c7b0fe9dda0c8d2b59.jpg
6abbbef6edeff7c9af751dde7ed7079a9a386c10.jpg
ef365c73e9a45db99928a4f7b20dea365c2a957d.jpg
4503f3c210745ffaab8c628bc4442ec5d5857e79.jpg
8b4e84dc262c0d85211c82a1f96753f61205b566.jpg

260f6397d19dd62f09a0070f54c5ebb79a20c915.jpg
f9647c8f8a09a809ded84e7f9e30c7c999824627.jpg
271ddbbc93e05a86da0b18005393e4730e6fcdd8.jpg
84c5fe3b9f379db0d662cbff4c3ddba42e09b748.jpg
f6d3afb2120edae6578498e6f963be16553aeffc.jpg
e0558f4e0fe35a267e264962358b00ad607e85f2.jpg
e97b8a3591f2741a9b4f1345625bfd44070a5746.jpg
d5f0d5e87f0f543a70434bb154655cb41041f805.jpg
7731e99a99bce576bf16060986737ca0e00ce87f.jpg
b1af3ca1b6cee735034c820de0e5dbf020ca4de3.jpg
0648abbfa467d1aead3d8a1e8c63467451bd45e6.jpg
82ffbce29547ee3d989829c75f8822320cf70d75.jpg

My favorite comment.
f9131941264afd69e2ff984cea96e147d212f088.jpg

Original article(archive)




Nickelodeon dedicated a segment of its Earth Day special of Nick News: Kids and the Impact of Climate Change to teach its viewers about “environmental racism.”

The segment opened with CBS News correspondent and host of the show Jamie Yuccas describing dangerous living conditions in several cities across the United States.

“What do these cities have in common?” Yuccas asked. “They’re all examples of environmental racism, a form of systemic racism where minority and low-income communities are surrounded by health hazards because they live near sewage, mines, landfills, power stations, [and] major roads.”

The Nick News program intentionally addresses a younger audience and animates different social or political issues in a way that children can understand them, but critics of the Earth Day special were quick to describe it as indoctrination.

Skärmklipp.PNG


After backlash, Nickelodeon disabled the ability for Twitter users to leave comments on its post.

Last year, Nickelodeon aired a segment dedicated to “Kids, Race, and Unity,” where founders of the Black Lives Matter movement took questions from children and instructed families to have “constructive conversations about race and incivility.”

Nickelodeon did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.

Original article (archive)



And people wonder why kids turn into soy-boy pussy's that gets offended by everything. It's because of brainwashing shit like this. I'm genuinely pissed of after finding out about this.
 

NretsewThePerv

Regular
Regular
I dont know why companies think marketing to woke commies who hate big money and the very concept of companies is a good idea that's going to sell, as that's the only reason they do this shit. it's all about marketing, they think it will be a good PR move when in reality it just annoys the shit out of people

so all I gotta say is go woke go broke
 

Narbray

Regular
Regular
WTF with this, excuse me if I am wrong because my english is a little poor and I did not understand the video at all, but basically they are teaching the children that the environmental deterioration of some regions is a form of razism that they call “Environmental Racism "?
Things like this make me wonder if I want to stay alive within a few years, I literally can't imagine the future that awaits us if this continues.:hinata-acid:
 

Grönsak

Always drunk.
Staff member
WTF with this, excuse me if I am wrong because my english is a little poor and I did not understand the video at all, but basically they are teaching the children that the environmental deterioration of some regions is a form of razism that they call “Environmental Racism "?
Sort of. Because there tend to be more black people living in those areas that's way it's apparently racist. Even though it actually have nothing to do with race what so ever. Because in that case China is racist towards Chinese people. Even though these pc people would probably say that stuff is the white man's fault to.
 

Hexasheep93

Regular
this is the classic clout chase movie to try and distract people from how awful they are hell This is coming of the heels of them rejecting a known creators cartoon pitch and their announcing of a live action reboot of the fairly odd parents.
 

translation gundam

Regular
Regular
remember when nickelodeon was about waking up in the morning and watching some great Saturday morning cartoons.
I sure as fuck remember those great times, and maybe this is me remembering with rose-tinted glasses, but when I was a lee lad I watched cartoons to be entertained.
not be preached at on what is the scam now "gets reading glasses on" ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM.

WTF is that.


1619419903360.png
 

Fennec_fox

Cunnysouir
Regular
remember when nickelodeon was about waking up in the morning and watching some great Saturday morning cartoons.
I sure as fuck remember those great times, and maybe this is me remembering with rose-tinted glasses, but when I was a lee lad I watched cartoons to be entertained.
not be preached at on what is the scam now "gets reading glasses on" ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM.

WTF is that.
I actually rememeber that cartoons and fairy tales to be fun, but now everything has to be some kind of tool for pushing some kind of socio-political agenda. Why can't we have just some fun stories:senko-disgust:??? Man I hope they won't reboot more older cartoons (like Ed. Edd n' Eddie) because we all know they will fuck them up:seething::seething:
 

Fennec_fox

Cunnysouir
Regular
Have you seen any of the new Tom and Yerry shows?
No I actually haven't. I haven't seen any of these reboots since I don't care about them and also I assume they are awful.
They are basically friends now days. :a-disgust: Not like the old days. The best episodes is when the have all out war with each other.
It was a slapstick comedy, that was the point. But I guess everything must be a comfort and no conflict must ever happen:gura-pain:. Reminds me of Raging Golden Eagle's rant about the slides and slopes he used to use when he was a kid (they were very high and made of metal and later turned them to be small and made of plastic). Everything becomes safe so nobody gets hurt.
 

Crowblack187

Regular
Likely to prove unsurprising to those familiar with the widespread propaganda being force-fed to children in the West, child-focused TV channel Nickelodeon has now also taken part in brainwashing children as the official Twitter account has uploaded a video discussing “environmental racism”.

The entire 8-minute video that any halfway intelligent adult will find taxing to sit through:
Video archive(for 30 days)



The Twitter account naturally also disabled direct replies to prevent any adult of sound mind from arguing with their agenda, a typical turn of events for those pushing the narrative in the West:
View attachment 3580

This didn’t prevent quote tweets however, and disgruntled commentators weren’t afraid to let others know how they feel about this child-focused brainwashing:
Look at the like to retweet ratio.
View attachment 3615

My favorite comment.
View attachment 3597

Original article(archive)




Nickelodeon dedicated a segment of its Earth Day special of Nick News: Kids and the Impact of Climate Change to teach its viewers about “environmental racism.”

The segment opened with CBS News correspondent and host of the show Jamie Yuccas describing dangerous living conditions in several cities across the United States.

“What do these cities have in common?” Yuccas asked. “They’re all examples of environmental racism, a form of systemic racism where minority and low-income communities are surrounded by health hazards because they live near sewage, mines, landfills, power stations, [and] major roads.”

The Nick News program intentionally addresses a younger audience and animates different social or political issues in a way that children can understand them, but critics of the Earth Day special were quick to describe it as indoctrination.

View attachment 3614

After backlash, Nickelodeon disabled the ability for Twitter users to leave comments on its post.

Last year, Nickelodeon aired a segment dedicated to “Kids, Race, and Unity,” where founders of the Black Lives Matter movement took questions from children and instructed families to have “constructive conversations about race and incivility.”

Nickelodeon did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.

Original article (archive)



And people wonder why kids turn into soy-boy pussy's that gets offended by everything. It's because of brainwashing shit like this. I'm genuinely pissed of after finding out about this.

Companies are the last people talking about moarlity and good.
 

namedoesntfi

Regular
Regular
Patron of the Forums
Oh, I didn't see this thread. This video is horrible on so many levels. Like many said here, where is the Nickelodeon that kids could tune into weeknights or Saturday morning and just enjoy? The most vile thing at the time were toys advertisements. :gura-pain:

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
View attachment 3626

More reasons to just let the legacy media die off and rebuild on top of its ashen corpse.
That guy sums it up. Yeah, legacy media is done. Rebuilding on top of the wasteland they will leave behind is the only way forward unfortunately.

We know there are many grifters in this woke environment. Just saying whatever is the trend or whatever a major overlord states. However, there are people who truly believe these things and I wonder: how depressing is living life like that? Always trying to find problems were there aren't. Or finding problems but always interpreting in some horrible way. Worst of all, not allowing themselves and other to some escapism because it's elitist or whatever. :hibiki-pain:
 

Beginner

Regular
Regular
WTF with this, excuse me if I am wrong because my english is a little poor and I did not understand the video at all, but basically they are teaching the children that the environmental deterioration of some regions is a form of razism that they call “Environmental Racism "?
Things like this make me wonder if I want to stay alive within a few years, I literally can't imagine the future that awaits us if this continues.:hinata-acid:
Want the philosophical rant on the topic and the justification for it?

Comes from about three different places from what I can understand.

One: Consequentialist Morality
So what determines the morality of an action: The intentions behind the action, or the consequences of the action?
Real hard question, I know, but if you think on it a while you realise the whole thing is a false dichotomy - it's more of an intricate combination of the two, prioritising one over the other leads to a kind of warped sense of right and wrong, because when you expand the ideas out you start hitting brick walls real quick in your limit cases.
The intention side (deontology is the technical term) ends up asking questions like 'is it appropriate to lie if it means saving a life?' (to which the answer is technically 'No' if you wanna be consistent in this worldview), the consequenatialist looks at anyone asking this question like they're a complete fucking retard - 'of course it's acceptable you numpty!'
The consequence side (just called consequentialism) ends up demonising people who try to do the right thing, they just fucked up (someone who has never been taught how to deal with an oil fire trying to put it out with water is a good example of this. The deontologist would say 'you did the best you could with what you had', whereas the consequentialist would argue 'nah, you fucked up and you need to pay'.)
How does any of this relate to environmental racism?
Simple: The consequences outlined in every climate change manifesto put forward fuck up poor places more than they fuck up rich places (because rich places can... y'know, throw money at fixing the problems.). Poor places tend not to be caucasian places (thank the industrial revolution and enlightenment both kickstarting from Europe for that).
If morality is determined in the consequences, it stands to reason that consequences can be deemed on their moral valence even if there's no actor behind them - the consequence itself is the thing being morally judged.
(As an aside, if you want the equivalent issue with the deontological perspective: because intentions alone bear the full weight of moral judgement under that view, it means that fantasies that are never acted upon can be construed to have moral weight - and that leads to censorship, because while you can't control thought, you can control the things that might spark it).

Two: "You can't stand still on a moving train"
I fucking hate that phrase...
So if we assume climate change is real and man made (I don't care whether or not you believe it - this is the axiom they're working from, they assume you accept the premise too and will browbeat you if you don't), then that means we're ultimately responsible for the oncoming catastrophe. The idea is that it's chugging along (hence, moving train), and that the moral imperative is that you need to do something about it (i.e. stop the train).
Refusal to act is to tacitly permit the negative consequence to happen.

Three: "Everything is Political"
Even though this is a quote from literal fascists, a lot of the left leaning types labour under this presumption. I know it's an unpopular view, but I fully believe fascists are just commies who aren't naively utopian about it, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
So if you assume that literally everything has a political texture (I fucking hate that assumption and I think it's a horrible way to paint how people function, but that's the rules of their game here), we can assume that any action, or non-action as the case may be, has a political motivation. Whatever your stated motive is irrelevant, because your choices further a particular political agenda at any given time, even if you don't personally associate with it.
Therefore, action or non-action on matters of environmental concern, are intrinsically a matter of political power.

Ergo, we have the following:
- If climate change bears an outsized negative impact against the poor and dispossessed, then morally: climate change is oppressive.
- Because those poor and dispossessed are of ethnically homogenous, non-white groupings, Climate Change has a racial texture.
- If all (non) actions have a political texture due to their knock on effects, then that racial texture manifests as a racially motivated political outlook.
- If climate change is morally oppressive, then those who refuse to act on the matter of climate change are making a morally oppressive non-action.
- If that morally oppressive non-action is racially political, then the personal responsibility of climate change's racism falls on those who refuse to act.

Therefore: Non-action on climate change is fundamentally an expression of racism, as you are content with letting the climate 'deal with the problem' so that you don't have you.
 

namedoesntfi

Regular
Regular
Patron of the Forums
Want the philosophical rant on the topic and the justification for it?

Comes from about three different places from what I can understand.

One: Consequentialist Morality
So what determines the morality of an action: The intentions behind the action, or the consequences of the action?
Real hard question, I know, but if you think on it a while you realise the whole thing is a false dichotomy - it's more of an intricate combination of the two, prioritising one over the other leads to a kind of warped sense of right and wrong, because when you expand the ideas out you start hitting brick walls real quick in your limit cases.
The intention side (deontology is the technical term) ends up asking questions like 'is it appropriate to lie if it means saving a life?' (to which the answer is technically 'No' if you wanna be consistent in this worldview), the consequenatialist looks at anyone asking this question like they're a complete fucking retard - 'of course it's acceptable you numpty!'
The consequence side (just called consequentialism) ends up demonising people who try to do the right thing, they just fucked up (someone who has never been taught how to deal with an oil fire trying to put it out with water is a good example of this. The deontologist would say 'you did the best you could with what you had', whereas the consequentialist would argue 'nah, you fucked up and you need to pay'.)
How does any of this relate to environmental racism?
Simple: The consequences outlined in every climate change manifesto put forward fuck up poor places more than they fuck up rich places (because rich places can... y'know, throw money at fixing the problems.). Poor places tend not to be caucasian places (thank the industrial revolution and enlightenment both kickstarting from Europe for that).
If morality is determined in the consequences, it stands to reason that consequences can be deemed on their moral valence even if there's no actor behind them - the consequence itself is the thing being morally judged.
(As an aside, if you want the equivalent issue with the deontological perspective: because intentions alone bear the full weight of moral judgement under that view, it means that fantasies that are never acted upon can be construed to have moral weight - and that leads to censorship, because while you can't control thought, you can control the things that might spark it).

Two: "You can't stand still on a moving train"
I fucking hate that phrase...
So if we assume climate change is real and man made (I don't care whether or not you believe it - this is the axiom they're working from, they assume you accept the premise too and will browbeat you if you don't), then that means we're ultimately responsible for the oncoming catastrophe. The idea is that it's chugging along (hence, moving train), and that the moral imperative is that you need to do something about it (i.e. stop the train).
Refusal to act is to tacitly permit the negative consequence to happen.

Three: "Everything is Political"
Even though this is a quote from literal fascists, a lot of the left leaning types labour under this presumption. I know it's an unpopular view, but I fully believe fascists are just commies who aren't naively utopian about it, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
So if you assume that literally everything has a political texture (I fucking hate that assumption and I think it's a horrible way to paint how people function, but that's the rules of their game here), we can assume that any action, or non-action as the case may be, has a political motivation. Whatever your stated motive is irrelevant, because your choices further a particular political agenda at any given time, even if you don't personally associate with it.
Therefore, action or non-action on matters of environmental concern, are intrinsically a matter of political power.

Ergo, we have the following:
- If climate change bears an outsized negative impact against the poor and dispossessed, then morally: climate change is oppressive.
- Because those poor and dispossessed are of ethnically homogenous, non-white groupings, Climate Change has a racial texture.
- If all (non) actions have a political texture due to their knock on effects, then that racial texture manifests as a racially motivated political outlook.
- If climate change is morally oppressive, then those who refuse to act on the matter of climate change are making a morally oppressive non-action.
- If that morally oppressive non-action is racially political, then the personal responsibility of climate change's racism falls on those who refuse to act.

Therefore: Non-action on climate change is fundamentally an expression of racism, as you are content with letting the climate 'deal with the problem' so that you don't have you.
Good insight.

From what I understood from that:
One allows topics to be associated with things that do not necessarily have any correlation. E.g.: Racism in climate change.
Two creates the mob and grievance mentalities. E.g.: "You don't want further climate change, right? So you HAVE to do this in order to save the planet."
And Three allows the creation of a bogeyman of those that do not conform to whichever ideology is enforced through Two.
 

Beginner

Regular
Regular
Good insight.

From what I understood from that:
One allows topics to be associated with things that do not necessarily have any correlation. E.g.: Racism in climate change.
Two creates the mob and grievance mentalities. E.g.: "You don't want further climate change, right? So you HAVE to do this in order to save the planet."
And Three allows the creation of a bogeyman of those that do not conform to whichever ideology is enforced through Two.
Hammer, meet nail.
 

Vajra

Straggot
Patron of the Forums
Reminds me of Raging Golden Eagle's rant about the slides and slopes he used to use when he was a kid
We used to have one of those slides in the town park. Must've been like 10-15 years ago. As expected, everyone stopped going there when the town replaced all the fun stuff in the park.

I do miss when things were fun though. Kids nowadays have to deal with both shitty cartoons/reboots/etc. and the brainwashing from these networks. Everything's become a hugbox, it's unfortunate. :hinata-acid:
 
Top