Total posts: 1,890
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, I’ll answer the questions I posed, then:
According to far left academia (not that all of it is far left, but the vast majority which is):
Far left academia gets to define racism. Oh, and they get to modify that definition over time— usually to encompass more and more aspects of society as meeting that definition.
Far left academia gets to define “anti-racism.” “Anti-racism” is actually a far left academic term, so that makes sense. Only they know how to fight it, see. Listen only to them, and learn.
Ya know, no one in far left academia can cogently answer who/what/where is NOT racist… which is not surprising…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yep… that’s just as I thought. So, back to what many parents want:
Many parents don’t want their children being taught a definition of racism that leads them to conclude that they are either inherently racist or a hopeless, powerless victim of racism…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not exactly— you answered the first out of three questions I posed— “what’s the definition of racism”— and it was, frankly, the easiest to answer of the three. And I posed my concerns about how your answer is not as simple as it seems. Hence, I ask slightly reworded questions now (except for the third, probably the trickiest and most unanswered one by anyone) none of which you have answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I frankly don't think that racist parents are a good influence on their children.
How trite. But I have been through this with you before, RM:
Who gets to define what racism is?
For that matter, who gets to define what “anti-racism” is?
Who/what/where is NOT racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The issue front and center in these elections was about the teaching of critical race theory in schools, which the republican candidate declared he would ban.
Except that critical race theory isn’t being taught in one single school anywhere in the state and his opponent has never expressed support for teaching it.
The most basic idea from which critical race theory is grounded is the idea that race is the most prevalent source of conflict in American life.
So to recap, the mere threat of teaching a course about race as a source of conflict in American life was so toxic that a private businessman was able to ride the fear and anger over it all the way to the governor’s mansion even though the class is not and has never been taught in schools ever before. If that doesn’t sound like baiting people over race I’m not sure what to tell you.
This is the standard lefty rebuttal, and it is steeped in semantics. What many parents do not want is “anti-racism” (of the Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DeAngelo, Ta Nehasi Coates et al variety) taught to their children in lower school.
Created:
Posted in:
This is yet another wake up call for the left and the DNC to reflect and self-assess, particularly in education. Maybe law enforcement, too. But the DNC didn’t reflect after the historic upset in 2016, so why would it start now?
Created:
Posted in:
“Let’s go, Brandon!” is a pretty effective meme because it gives those who oppose it nowhere to go. It doesn’t contain the vulgarity of the original chant, for one. It has all the appeal of an inside joke for another— innocuous superficially but making a powerful subreference. Most importantly IMO, it mocks the media for refusing to acknowledge the original chant even existed…
Created:
Posted in:
Biden is a combination of Carter, Neville Chamberlain, and the title character of “Weekend at Bernie’s.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Correct. It's the elite and wealthy DC lobbyists that select and elect their PR man, not the voters.
Generally true— even more true of the DNC than the RNC. Trump’s nomination was a notable upset of that norm. I’ve also heard that Carter’s nomination was pretty “grassroots” as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don’t blame people for trying to make a better life (although I do blame the human traffickers); I blame the people in power who incentivize it and think more highly of non citizens than our own citizens. It also leads me to wonder: if this nation is so irredeemably and systemically racist, why do so many POC demand to live here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I’ll just reiterate this sentiment of mine:
“Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Depends on the argument. If the argument is really about national security (i.e. a group of organized terrorists or a drug cartel crossing the border with impugnity), and that's the argument you make, it's different than the fig leaf that this issue often is, where pundits say things like "THEY are coming to replace US." It's a fundamental misunderstanding of immigration, the promise that makes this country the best one on earth even if it isn't perfect, and it's about oligarchy. The bottom line is if your political ideas don't appeal to the majority of voters, the problem isn't the voters, it's your ideas, in a democracy (and again, that's not me saying we have democracy perfected by any means). And I'm not accusing you of one or the other, but the fact that people see through those pseudo-intellectual fronts more now than in years past is PROGRESS.
Yikes… you actually would *consider* firing someone over a widely held national policy opinion?
And you left out THE most important point in my response:
“The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago.”
But I see now that you are AOK with that ever expanding strike zone. It “is PROGRESS,” as you said…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It’s not a syllogism, I’m just giving the latest example.
Ah, I see.
Almost every example in recent months regarding freedom of speech is just as absurd, whether we’re talking about Twitter enforcing it’s ToS against Trump or cancel culture. The point is that this popularized pro freedom of speech rhetoric is really just advocacy of one’s right to say whatever they want without any consequence from society. That’s not how it works.
Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Also most of the time freedom of speech issues are people getting mad at PRIVATE BUSINESSES limiting your speech. 1A only guarantees the government won't do it. It in no way guarantees that you can post racist rants on twitter.
You are correct technically and Constitutionally— you cannot be punished by the government for protected speech. The issue today is more one of our culture and the power of corporations and institutions to coerce people into limiting their speech. As Dave Chapelle said, “You take away a man’s job, you take away his life!”
Sure, people don’t want openly bigoted people in their workplace. The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago. For example, is it bigoted to opine that you want better border security, and if so, should you get fired for that?
Eventually, people will be afraid to talk openly about anything, and they will simply cluster together in like-minded groups and echo chambers, where tribalism, division and de facto segregation will markedly increase— the exact opposite of what these cultural limitations on speech are trying to achieve!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Your conclusion doesn’t follow your anecdotal setup. *scratching my head*…
Created:
Posted in:
1. Where do you get your information from? What news channels are you watching, what publications are you reading, etc.?
Yahoo, which comprises, among others:
- The PuffPost
- The Daily Least
- The Giardian
- The AOCiated Press
- NYT
- The Washington Compost
- Reuters
- Politico
- The Washington Examiner
- The National Review
The WSJ, Fox News, The Ben Shapiro Show, Anthony Brian Logan, Waking Up with Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray
Sometimes, out of morbid curiosity, I will check out CNN and MSNBC just to see if I can guess what they are talking about/not talking about and to see how they frame stories so differently from Fox
2. How do you go about vetting the information you consume?
To help “center” the news, I will peek at The Christian Science Monitor, but it’s only a weekly now, which is too bad.
In general, I use critical thinking skills and a BS detector honed over many years. If something fails the “smell test,” I will look at mediabiasfactcheck.org (to analyze sources), fact-check.org, politifact, snopes, media research center, Wikipedia (and its links) for less current information
3. How exactly do you identify when you think someone else is not “thinking for themselves”?
I don’t really think that very often. When I do, it’s when someone claims to like or dislike a particular politician but cannot substantively explain why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
If Carlson’s narrative is problematic, it is nonetheless very popular and well received. In other words, I think he is a reflection of issues in the country rather than an issue himself…
Created:
Posted in:
The government is paying low wage workers NOT to work; the Fed is buying bonds to keep interest rates as low as they’ve ever been… and inflation comes as a surprise? The real insult is claiming this inflation is “temporary” pffft…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Close, but not quite. Satirical, yes, but it’s not *really* about Chappelle’s feelings about Trump supporters. There’s an extra layer of satire there. I even attached a video to supply context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I found a quote about my country which I felt was worthy of discussion. Whatever else you get from that is you reading into things— with a rather large chip on your shoulder I might add…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Finite yes but we throw away enough food to feed the world's hungry and leave many houses vacant while people remain homeless. This is not a supply problem it is s distribution problem. Our distribution system is capitalist. That is the problem.
Capitalism isn’t just a system of wealth distribution; it is also a system of wealth creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Vestigial as in evolutionary leftover. The desire to protect limited resources is an evolutionary advantage that hurts us now that we have plenty to go around but don't really know how to share effectively.
Resources are no longer limited?
Assuming your claim as true, human nature remains unchanged. Large populations still have to be coerced into sharing what they believe they have earned, and the elites of society will want to retain more money and power than the general populace. Hence, authoritarianism/totalitarianism… and concentration of wealth (via political power rather than via enterprise).
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not advocating for socialism or Marxism or any other isms by the way only pointing out the problems of capitalism and how it can be used to short circuit our survival instincts by tying those instincts artificially to the movements of little pieces of paper which are at there most basic actually divorced from our survival.
In saying what you are NOT advocating for, it leads me to wonder what DO you advocate for as an economic system?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorry— you lost me at “vestigial reaction.” I also don’t see how what you said next concerns what I said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Technically, they should not be equated in theory, but they are correlated in practice. Ideally, communism is community control of the means of production. It can work in small contexts, as in communes— which, ironically, can exist just fine in free, capitalist countries.
Totalitarianism rears its ugly head when communism is employed on a large scale, mainly because of human nature. Larger populations have to be coerced into sharing wealth, for one. The leaders at the top tend to hoard and protect their wealth and power, for another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Right. I find it interesting to note that our Constitution was actually an increase in federal power from the Articles of Confederation. It’s difficult to see that today, as the Constitution goes to such lengths to limit federal power. The Federalist Papers were not written to persuade authoritarians toward the new Constitution; they were written to persuade those afraid of federal overreach!
Created:
Posted in:
“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America.”
Discuss…
Created:
Posted in:
The DNC won in the short term… America lost in the longer term.
I think we are seeing the increasing effects in our elections of corporate control over information (social media with its algorithms in particular) and how it is presented and distributed— or not distributed as the case may be…
“Overall, a potential interpretation of these results is as follows. Twitter users, and users of other social media platforms, are more likely to be young, well-educated, live in dense urban areas, and support the Democratic party (see discussion in Section 2). Perhaps as a result, Democratic politicians are more popular on Twitter than Republicans (Figure 1). In 2016 and 2020, Twitter became a vehicle for spreading opinions, particularly from Democratic-slanted users, on Trump. This may, in turn, have persuaded voters with weaker priors—independents and perhaps more moderate Republicans—to vote against Trump in the presidential election.49
7 Conclusion
Election officials around the globe are concerned about social media’s increasing influence on voting decisions (e.g. NPR, 2020a). At the time of writing, there is a heated debate about whether platform providers should “moderate” election-related content in the U.S. (e.g. Politico, 2020). Exploiting variation based on a shock to Twitter’s initial rise to popularity,
our paper provides some of the first empirical evidence that social media can affect election outcomes.
We find that Twitter lowered the Republican party’s vote share in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. While this finding runs counter to a popular narrative that places social media at the heart of Trump’s election win, it is consistent with a growing body of evidence showing that social media users were less, not more likely to vote for Trump in 2016 or hold polarized views (Boxell et al., 2017, 2018).
We also provide support for the idea that the demographics of Twitter users may account for the platform’s partisan effects. People who use Twitter are 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats rather than Republican, and Democratic politicians are more popular on Twitter than Republican ones. Our work suggests that this environment not only reflects selection of like-minded individuals, but also affects voting decisions, particularly for people with more moderate views.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~fujiwara/papers/SocialMediaAndElections.pdf
I think we are seeing the increasing effects in our elections of corporate control over information (social media with its algorithms in particular) and how it is presented and distributed— or not distributed as the case may be…
“Overall, a potential interpretation of these results is as follows. Twitter users, and users of other social media platforms, are more likely to be young, well-educated, live in dense urban areas, and support the Democratic party (see discussion in Section 2). Perhaps as a result, Democratic politicians are more popular on Twitter than Republicans (Figure 1). In 2016 and 2020, Twitter became a vehicle for spreading opinions, particularly from Democratic-slanted users, on Trump. This may, in turn, have persuaded voters with weaker priors—independents and perhaps more moderate Republicans—to vote against Trump in the presidential election.49
7 Conclusion
Election officials around the globe are concerned about social media’s increasing influence on voting decisions (e.g. NPR, 2020a). At the time of writing, there is a heated debate about whether platform providers should “moderate” election-related content in the U.S. (e.g. Politico, 2020). Exploiting variation based on a shock to Twitter’s initial rise to popularity,
our paper provides some of the first empirical evidence that social media can affect election outcomes.
We find that Twitter lowered the Republican party’s vote share in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. While this finding runs counter to a popular narrative that places social media at the heart of Trump’s election win, it is consistent with a growing body of evidence showing that social media users were less, not more likely to vote for Trump in 2016 or hold polarized views (Boxell et al., 2017, 2018).
We also provide support for the idea that the demographics of Twitter users may account for the platform’s partisan effects. People who use Twitter are 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats rather than Republican, and Democratic politicians are more popular on Twitter than Republican ones. Our work suggests that this environment not only reflects selection of like-minded individuals, but also affects voting decisions, particularly for people with more moderate views.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~fujiwara/papers/SocialMediaAndElections.pdf
Created:
Posted in:
Maher also predicted “We need to have a recession in order to get rid of Trump.” Turned out to be true, but he isn’t exactly boasting it from the rooftops, nor am I wondering why not. I sincerely hope this prediction is remembered in 2024 no matter what happens.
I’ll make my own prediction: the DNC will do everything it can to make sure mail in voting becomes a continued— even permanent fixture in the election process…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So is this really it? It’s Biden created crisis for maintaining longstanding US policy?
It’s about incentives and disincentives, too. Trump executed several controversial measures which disincentivized border crossing attempts. When Biden took office, he pretty much rolled back every Trump measure along with a 100 day moratorium on deportations with some exceptions. This increased incentives. Heck, just Trump being out of office increased that. Also, Biden said on the campaign trail that he was for universal healthcare even for border crossers, and the world was listening.
Another interesting aspect: the Supreme Court reinstated Trump’s controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy by 6-3 vote. It requires non Mexican people to remain in Mexico while awaiting their court date, I believe. Funny thing is that the Biden admin didn’t seem too terribly disappointed about that.
The Biden admin seemed to have a disconnect about immigration and refugees when it came to people coming from Cuba. It tried hard to disincentivize that origin of asylum seeking, which only served to confirm suspicions that Biden’s immigration policy is highly political.
As is usually the case, righties think Biden has done too much to open the borders, while lefties think he hasn’t done enough (yet).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
In Trump they see something they’ve never seen in a politician… themselves. They don’t know anything about NATO or why it matters, well Trump doesn’t either. They don’t want any more Muslims coming in and don’t see why we can’t just ban them, well neither does Trump. They can’t stand the fact that they have to accept when they lose an election, well neither does Trump. And the guy is a big success so he must know what he’s talking about.
This is definitely a part of it. It gives him an effortless authenticity to his supporters. It reminds me of a rally where Trump was bragging about how unpresidential he was. He embraced it. “Unpresidential they say. How fun would it be if I tried to be presidential? This is me being presidential *walks as if he has a rod up his wazzoo*”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Oh, you don’t want a constructive discussion. Why didn’t you say so?
As to this:
As to this:
Our contributions don't really seem the same though. You are able to write such a cool thread topic, whereas I feel like just being a whiny little snot.
Yes, well, I don’t know what to tell you other than… stop being that way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I’m afraid you are really missing the point of this thread (and my statement you are responding to just now, btw). Did you read the PS?
Also, you really shouldn’t alter a person’s statement and then attribute the altered statement back to the person via the quote feature. It is a nonstarter to constructive discussion…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump grabs every 3rd rail issue in politics because he can. When he is the only voice, he has a monopoly on the solution. That is how he used his business sense to get into politics. He saw an opening and a way to corner the market in politics by monopolizing issues nobody else would previously dare address.
Excellent insight. Too bad I have yet to see the loyal Trump opposition express anything like it. Well, too bad for the loyal Trump opposition and the nation as a whole by extension…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Assuming your summarization as true, this administration’s response to that anger among the populace is to open the borders even more and hope for the best, which is what I mean about the dangerous failure of Trump’s opposition to properly analyze his appeal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Wow, the word persecuted really has lost a lot of meaning over the last few thousand years hasn't it?
We refer to getting burned at the stake for one’s beliefs as persecution in the context of a thousand years ago. In the present day, it can comprise not getting called by one’s preferred pronoun…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes, and it’s hardly the only one…
Created:
Posted in:
Back in pre election 2016, a (foreign) brother-in-law asked me what was up with Trump’s popularity in the US. I replied, “I don’t fully understand it, but whether you agree with it or not, we as a nation need to understand what the appeal is and why it’s there”— and I said that assuming he was going to lose. That much greater the need to understand his appeal after he won! To the contrary, his opposition just made continual efforts to unseat him rather than comprehend what was happening.
After his election, his presidency, and his departure from office, I cannot help but observe that over half the nation still does not have a clue as to why Trump has an enduring popularity with so much of the nation. I believe his opposition ignores his appeal at their own peril.
Now, with the added advantage of hindsight, why do you think a (former) president such as Trump has such intense loyalty among his supporters?
After his election, his presidency, and his departure from office, I cannot help but observe that over half the nation still does not have a clue as to why Trump has an enduring popularity with so much of the nation. I believe his opposition ignores his appeal at their own peril.
Now, with the added advantage of hindsight, why do you think a (former) president such as Trump has such intense loyalty among his supporters?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Critical Race theory is one of the underpinning social theories about systemic racism.
That is not being taught.
What is being taught, from what I can see, is a deeper and more specific set of history about historical racism, the impacts of racism; how various groups have been historically oppressed, which is more “history” than “critical race theory”.
I have so many questions/concerns about this issue that I will refrain from asking them all at once. To start, if CRT is an inaccurate label, what should this push to alter lower education be called?
Created:
Posted in:
Dave Chappelle just finished his final comedy special (for now), and he has an offensive tendency towards punching down at people he fails to understand. Namely, Trump supporters. He took a subtle but definite swipe at Trump supporters, and it wasn’t the first time, either. Does he not know that Trump supporters are persecuted every day in our society? Shame on Netflix for giving a comedian with such offensive jokes a platform…
PS Nah, not really. I can take it just fine. I don’t have to disrespect/dislike/cancel someone just because we disagree on certain things. We can joke about it, can’t we? Lighten up, people. Humor is the first casualty of political correctness and certainly not the last. If you need some background on this subject:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What kind of airplane do you have? I only have a Rockwell Commander 114.
Oh, I wouldn’t sell one of those short. I understand they are comfortable, well-built, and darn nice looking to boot! Added bonus: Robert A. “Bob” Hoover (RIP) once flew his trademark aerobatic demos in one…
Created:
-->
@949havoc
It is not a stretch to predict that home schooling will take on ever increasing popularity. Is CRT being taught in lower education? The answer to that is merely an exercise in semantics:
Technically, no, but in general terms, kinda sorta. What one calls it should be quite secondary to the actual content and ideological agenda behind it. Then there are schools such as in Seattle, which go so far as to mix identity politics with mathematics, of all things:
Semantical arguments regarding CRT make for a smokescreen with an air of academic authority in the meantime. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” while your children are “properly” educated and enlightened…
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Thank our lucky stars that Merrick Garland didn’t get on the Supreme Court. Really dodged a landmine there…
I half expect these school board members to finally announce “NOW you know what systemic oppression is and what it feels like, white people! Bazinga!”
Well played, CRTers; well played…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Since you have stated that the honest assessment of Biden's almost 9 months in office is that nothing has improved except the stock market, I think we have established that you are not, yourself, an honest assayer of political facts.
You are reading statements I haven’t made. Wouldn’t hurt you to lighten up a tad…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Extra bonus points awarded!
But… I feel the need to add— stock market highs are mainly a result of the Fed, which hasn’t yet changed leadership.
Created:
Posted in:
So, here we are, nearing the end of Biden’s first year in office.
What do you believe has improved? What do you believe has worsened?
Extra bonus points if you can give honest answers to both!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But there’s this bit:
“Republicans have twice blocked Democrats from raising the debt ceiling: once, to suspend the debt ceiling as part of a short-term government funding bill, and a second time when Schumer tried to bypass the 60-vote filibuster to set up a stand-alone bill to suspend the debt ceiling.”
Created: