1-8-22 4:30 • Gun Raffle
T:A high school in my area is having a gun raffle to help raise funds for the senior class trip. 25 guns will be raffled off - various hand guns, rifles and AR-15. Winners must be 21+ years old, a resident of the state and successfully pass a background check.
With the current issues in this nation with school shootings, this just seems wrong.
V: We have church raffles of AR-15s. Sounds fine in some parts of the country, out of place in others.
Why not raffle off a night at the strip club? How is that inappropriate when this somehow isn't?
V: Why is female objectification and male lechery more harmful to kids than having a life saving ability that helps feed their families?
Being a stripper is a life-saving ability that helps feed families. it is not more dangerous to teens than guns, which are the leading cause of death for kids 1-19.
V: 100% of strippers are abused.
In 2019, 3,371 American children and teens were killed with guns. None died by seeing a stripper.
They should introduce the raffle with a disclaimer - this is how more of your kids will die than by cancer, and for this there is no search for a cure.
They should introduce the raffle with a disclaimer - this is how more of your kids will die than by cancer, and for this there is no search for a cure.
V: Probably wouldn’t be too well received around here. As a community we’ve lost six people to cancer in the past year and one of them was a child. Cancer has devastated our lives many times, and we just do not have the same experiences with gun deaths, regardless of what nationwide statistics might point to.
Your town is not the only one that matters. Guns killed more children and teens in America than cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, HIV/AIDs, and opioids combined.
V:I never suggested we were the only ones that mattered.
But we have lost people to cancer, pneumonia and opioids this year alone. We haven’t lost anyone to an accident or intentional act involving a gun in our history if you exclude the 1800’s.
Sometimes statistics aren’t an accurate picture of life. Especially when an entire nation’s statistics are compared to that of a town’s statistics.
So we should decide if this is appropriate or not based on your statistically freakish town? I don't think so.
The fact is that guns kill kids in this country more than anything else. And for every one killed, five more are injured in shootings. Guns are bad for kids. Guns hurt kids, and kill kids, a lot. Raffling them off at a high school is loathsome for that reason.
The fact is that guns kill kids in this country more than anything else. And for every one killed, five more are injured in shootings. Guns are bad for kids. Guns hurt kids, and kill kids, a lot. Raffling them off at a high school is loathsome for that reason.
V:I understand that you prefer large area statistics to small area statistics and form your beliefs off of that… but we don’t really do that around where I live. We have trap teams, youth hunts, gun raffles and we fill our freezers every year with the products of those hunts. And we don’t subscribe to the notion that giving kids less information and less abilities will make them safer.
Raffling off guns at the high school is NOT gun safety education, and all the info in the world hasn't kept Arkansas from killing more kids with guns than cancer. Why not raffle off cigarettes to teach kids about the dangers of smoking?
You don't need gun raffles and gun culture at school to fill your freezer. The country, including Arkansas, needs fewer kids death by guns and more gun culture will not solve it.
You don't need gun raffles and gun culture at school to fill your freezer. The country, including Arkansas, needs fewer kids death by guns and more gun culture will not solve it.
V: Having one as a raffle prize for adults isn’t strange to us, because shooting is like any other life skill and one we all practice every year, kids and adults alike.
This isn't "one" as a raffle prize, this is 25 guns dumped straight into one local area,literally at random. Not even by the full intention of needing a gun, having the money and buying a gun, but just 25 anyones willing to enter a raffle with no training, all armed by the end of the night. These extra, random guns make the chances of accidents and suicides at home and local violent crime go up dramatically just at that high school.
V: I actually highly doubt many people who sign up for this raffle would be new gun owners. They’re all probably armed anyways.
And you are willing to bet kid's lives on it.
1-6-22 1:34 • Racially-Based Hospital Policies
Rhea: Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller is suing the state of New York for prioritizing non-White individuals for specific coronavirus treatments in what he called a blatant violation of the Constitution.
The state's Department of Health released a document in December instructing health care providers to consider race as a risk factor for severe illness when determining eligibility for specific anti-viral treatments that are in short supply, such as monoclonal antibodies and antiviral pills.
Clementine: Is that true?
They are prioritizing non white people for medical care?? Being racially discriminated against can go both ways.
Not every acknowlegement of race is bigotry.
Clementine: Let’s be clear… if two people are equally sick and one gets the medicine because of their skin color, that is a privilege. One that we got rid of already in this country because of how racist of a policy it was.
No. We got rid of apartheid because it was designed to systematically privilege one race by oppressing all others to create a two-tiered social order.
This hospital policy is designed to make sure that people get the care they need. It's not "like" racism.
This hospital policy is designed to make sure that people get the care they need. It's not "like" racism.
Clementine: "Designed to systematically privilege one race," what an excellent definition on why we got rid of unfair racially based policies.
That is also why this hospital policy is not unfair. It is not based on supremacy, or designed to harm or oppress. Intent matters.
Clementine: Intent matters when creating racially based policies...
It's the same reason that aiming mammograms mainly at women (even though men can and do die of breast cancer) is not "sexist." It's not part of an effort across the entire society to put women over men in the social order because women are inherently superior and men are dirty beasts. It's based on medical facts about who is most at risk.
Sorry, this hospital policy is not back-of-the-bus stuff. It's not turning the tables, or a slippery slope, or the beginning of a new order of POC supremacy. It's certainly not worth a lawsuit.
Sorry, this hospital policy is not back-of-the-bus stuff. It's not turning the tables, or a slippery slope, or the beginning of a new order of POC supremacy. It's certainly not worth a lawsuit.
12-12-21 12:34 • Everyone is Welcome
KarenI: Look at this sign! Now they want racially-segregated playtime!
A school is having a playground night for "families of color." They said everyone was welcome to attend, but how is this not racist, to invite families by skin color?
KarenII: Let’s get this out of the way, I’m not trying to be nice, I’m not trying to be tolerant, and I’m not going to pretend that white kids today deserve to be left out because assholes in previous generations were denying those same instances of equity others.
We live in the present, and our society is either one where everyone is equal and seen as an individual, or one in which the color of a person’s skin determines where they can go - segregation. You choose.
Kim: I'm not trying to be nice either. You just want them Ni@@ers to just SDASTFU. SOUNDS FAMILIAR. Racist bitch.
KarenII: Holy Shit. You’re delusional. In your world, people who demand equality are racist, and people that demand racial exclusion and say words like that^^^^ in a conversation are the ones in the right.
Get help.
No, people who demand equality for "white kids" when they already have it, and are in no danger of losing it, are delusional.
Everyone is welcome at the playground night. Only the delusional would see this as Reverse Jim Crow.
Everyone is welcome at the playground night. Only the delusional would see this as Reverse Jim Crow.
KarenII: It's upsetting because if it were for white people it would be racist... So if it's racist for one group then it's racist for the others.
STOP WITH THE DIVISION OF PEOPLE BY SKIN COLOR!!!! Stop with this bullshit that money matters, race matters, clothes matter, religions matter, sexuality matters, gender matters, and all of those intersectionalities should be weighed up on how much people deserve to expect in life opportunities or social situations.
Everyone deserves to be treated equally! Period! Stop fucking fighting against that and we can all live happy.
So like, everyone deserves medical care?
KarenII: Of course everyone deserves medical care!
Everyone deserves education, retirement?
KarenII: Yes, everyone deserves an education, yes, everyone deserves a financial security net once they're past a certain age, and if they can't fund it themselves the government should be that security. WTH is your point??
Because of our racist history, some groups have measurably less of this than others. We have to do more as a society to ensure those groups catch up. Otherwise it's not equal.
KarenII: I'm all for working to increase equality anywhere it's needed, but you don't increase equality for some by lowering the bar for others, you bring everyone up to the higher level.
So "playground night" was an attempt to increase equality where some people thought it was needed. It was not "segregation."
11-27-21 6:54 • Democracy Slide
Oana: Did you see the latest - U.S. has made the list of "backsliding democracies" for the first time.
Bindle: Yeah, that's what happens when you do mask and vaccine mandates. We lose our freedom.
Oana: I think it has more to do with our elections.
Bindle: You mean like how a bunch of people protested when Trump won, and then a bunch of people protested when Biden won? Yeah, not helping, both look pretty bad right now.
One was the exercise of democracy and the other is a threat to democracy. What makes the difference is the Big Lie.
Bindle: I just see it as people throwing a fit because their candidate didn’t win, and one side threw a bigger fit.
Oana: Bigger? The Women's March had many more people, plus was entirely non-violent.
Not just that...the marchers in 2016 were not trying to change the outcome of the election. The Jan 6 crew was. That IS the threat to democracy.
Bindle: Oh, really? One of the most often heard chants was “Not my president” and they demanded multiple recounts…suggesting each time that the election was stolen with the help of Putin.
They paved the road for the ones who “attempted” (let’s face it, no they didn’t, they just acted like idiots and rushed in) to change the outcome of an election…
Who demanded multiple recounts? Jill Stein?
Not Hillary. Hillary conceded. She thought Russians interfered - and she was right, they did - but she still conceded. She did not tell her voters that the election was stolen and that she was the rightful winner. She did not call up Secretaries of State to pressure them into "finding more votes." The Women's Marchers may have been noting that their candidate actually did get more votes, but they were NOT trying to change the outcome by force. They did nothing undemocratic.
Trump is the one who "paved the way" for Jan 6 by claiming, falsely, that he won an election he actually lost. He tried himself to cheat in many ways, and is still lying, and still refuses to concede. He himself was the one who told his thugs that they could change the election outcome themselves on Jan 6. Refusing to cooperate with the peaceful transfer of power is profoundly undemocratic, as are the subsequent gerrymanders, voting restrictions and state's attempts to shift power in elections to partisan entities.
Those are the actual threats to democracy, and they are not coming from all sides.
Not Hillary. Hillary conceded. She thought Russians interfered - and she was right, they did - but she still conceded. She did not tell her voters that the election was stolen and that she was the rightful winner. She did not call up Secretaries of State to pressure them into "finding more votes." The Women's Marchers may have been noting that their candidate actually did get more votes, but they were NOT trying to change the outcome by force. They did nothing undemocratic.
Trump is the one who "paved the way" for Jan 6 by claiming, falsely, that he won an election he actually lost. He tried himself to cheat in many ways, and is still lying, and still refuses to concede. He himself was the one who told his thugs that they could change the election outcome themselves on Jan 6. Refusing to cooperate with the peaceful transfer of power is profoundly undemocratic, as are the subsequent gerrymanders, voting restrictions and state's attempts to shift power in elections to partisan entities.
Those are the actual threats to democracy, and they are not coming from all sides.
11-22-21 8:34 • Kenosha Riots
Lin: Those people would not have been shot by Rittenhouse if they weren't out trying to loot and burn. The only people we should be feeling bad for is the innocent shopkeepers who had their businesses torched.
No, that is not the only people we should feel bad for.
Lin: Ok. I feel bad for all the innocent people that went through pain because of the actions of those who weren’t.
What are you doing about it?
Lin: Calling congressmen to advocate for harsher rioting penalties.
That is a pretty thin slice of compassion, considering the generations of suffering people have endured in this country.
And, sadly, this would do absolutely nothing to prevent future riots, as long as the ongoing injustice is ignored.
If you truly feel bad for innocent people who go through pain because of the actions of others, you should call your congressmen and demand an to end systemic inequality. So, be sure to mention that too.
And, sadly, this would do absolutely nothing to prevent future riots, as long as the ongoing injustice is ignored.
If you truly feel bad for innocent people who go through pain because of the actions of others, you should call your congressmen and demand an to end systemic inequality. So, be sure to mention that too.
Lin: Ok, If you have any specifics, let me know.
Redlining was horrible, but no longer legal.
Mortgage apps were horrible, no longer legal.
Police shootings happen most often legitimately, but sometimes not legitimately, so we prosecute them. (and rightly so)
What specific law change would you advocate for?
We need to change school funding so that the quality of a school is not determined by the local property taxes. We need to provide universal healthcare and universal education availability. We need to guarantee basic food and housing protection to every person. We need to enforce anti-discrimination laws to prevent qualified participants from being systematically shut out of loans, tenancies and education. We need to end predatory services that wring fees from the disadvantaged. We need to support women's rights and access to healthcare and child care. We need to provide universal mental health and addiction treatment and to decriminalize drugs. We need to end racialized over-policing which results in POC being arrested, held, tried and convicted and killed by cops at wildly inflated rates compared to their percentage in the population, and instead provide community policing, social services and rehabilitative justice. We need to provide lushly funded public services like libraries, parks, museums, community centers and pools. We need to end the gerrymandering, end corporate lobbying and publicly finance elections. We need to expand voting access, do automatic registration, and declare voting a holiday, and everyone who waits in line to vote should be provided with water.
Citizens who are healthy, enfranchised and have a voice in the system are highly unlikely to hold angry protests which erupt into rioting. And anyway, isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be?
Don't forget to remind your congressmen of that.
Citizens who are healthy, enfranchised and have a voice in the system are highly unlikely to hold angry protests which erupt into rioting. And anyway, isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be?
Don't forget to remind your congressmen of that.
Lin: How would you like schools to be funded if not through property tax?
Our poorest people do have access to free health care and free insurance. That insurance includes mental health services and addiction treatment.
We do provide food and housing to those who can’t afford it.
We do enforce discrimination laws.
We do financially support with tax dollars, libraries, museums , parks, pools…
Which laws would you like to change that would affect over-policing?
Which services that charge fees would you like to see done away with?
These are all generalities that sound great, but when you get the laws actually on paper we either already do it, or it’s not financially feasible.
Then why do we still have massive inequality, crushing poverty, systematic racism, overpolicing, radically lopsided schools, skimpy public services, medical bankruptcy and homeless on the street? Why is our health the worst of any advanced democracy? Why do we have the world's largest prison population, and why is it massively overrepresenting people of color? If we have solved it all, why does BLM exist?
Lin: We have massive inequality because we live in a capitalist society. We base our beliefs on what being wealthy is by private possessions and land and pass it down to our kids. No one wants to let it out of the family. No one wants to give up land. No one wants to get rid of nepotism that has a kid and a good job to give away, it's only the people not in the family that dislike nepotism.
What we call crushing poverty is what people from other countries are dying to get to. We have safety nets of medical care for free if you are below the poverty line, we have free housing if you meet certain criteria.
We have the healthcare that we want. Sounds counterintuitive, but why do we have such a higher maternal/fetal death rate ? We know for a fact the rate of death dramatically drops when midwives and natural birth are utilized, but we also don't want that. We want doctors, drugs and C-sections. So be it...
We have such a large prison population because we give much longer sentences than other countries, because it's a profiting business model that makes us over a billion dollars a year. Other countries don't do that.
So you agree our systems are not delivering health, prosperity, justice or any kind of security to Americans. Even the middle class is one illness or job loss away from losing everything. We invest almost nothing in public and social health. We have almost no influence on our government. Every class - except the very top - is in decline.
Disenfranchisement and decline are recipe for social unrest. This is the cause of the BLM riots, and it is the cause of Trumpism and the January 6 insurrection. Unless we invest massively to reverse the decline, angry protests will continue, no matter how many rioters are shot to death, or how many you lock in jail and throw away the key. The decline will continue to manufacture desperate people until it is addressed head on.
Disenfranchisement and decline are recipe for social unrest. This is the cause of the BLM riots, and it is the cause of Trumpism and the January 6 insurrection. Unless we invest massively to reverse the decline, angry protests will continue, no matter how many rioters are shot to death, or how many you lock in jail and throw away the key. The decline will continue to manufacture desperate people until it is addressed head on.
Lin: That's not what I'm saying at all.
We have the healthcare system we want.
We are as prosperous as a capitalist nation can get.
We are who makes up the government, and we have every bit of control over it. Majority wins in a voting system.
If those rioters want something they should work hard like the strong men and women who came before them.
Not even close. According to researchers, "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” Americans, even the majority, are not enfranchised.
This is not the healthcare system "we" want. A majority of Americans support Medicare for All.
"We" are not prosperous. Most Americans cannot afford an emergency.
The U.S. has not ranked #1 for quality of life since the 90s. We are now 17th, behind countries that are more equal, with better healthcare, and more enfranchisement.
Since the 1980s almost all productivity gains have been accrued by the top 1%, and the process accelerated with the pandemic.
Point is, American health is poor, most families are struggling and we have "near-zero" direct democratic recourse. "Hard work" has not ended systemic racism yet, and means less than ever when the rich keep most of the productivity. As long as that is the case, angry people will keep resorting to protest, and when that doesn't work, "the language of the unheard," as Dr. King called it, is entirely predictable.
This is not the healthcare system "we" want. A majority of Americans support Medicare for All.
"We" are not prosperous. Most Americans cannot afford an emergency.
The U.S. has not ranked #1 for quality of life since the 90s. We are now 17th, behind countries that are more equal, with better healthcare, and more enfranchisement.
Since the 1980s almost all productivity gains have been accrued by the top 1%, and the process accelerated with the pandemic.
Point is, American health is poor, most families are struggling and we have "near-zero" direct democratic recourse. "Hard work" has not ended systemic racism yet, and means less than ever when the rich keep most of the productivity. As long as that is the case, angry people will keep resorting to protest, and when that doesn't work, "the language of the unheard," as Dr. King called it, is entirely predictable.
11-17-21 2:19 • Speech Codes
Trixie: Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education”
No government program shall teach, advocate, or advance any one or more of the following:
That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation,
race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national
origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status ... illVersion
Sounds fine, right?
Unfortunately in practice, this law is now being used to prohibits educators from teaching anything about racism and sexism that might make anybody feel bad, particularly white people and men.
Teachers’ unions in New Hampshire have condemned this law as a “war on teachers,” noting that anyone found in violation of the vague law could have their teaching license revoked, something the right might refer to as “cancel culture” if it happened to them.
Here's a link to a press release from the group who are using this law to hunt the teachers:
https://www.momsforliberty.org/files/671/
Lin: Let's face it, yall have been targeting white men for a long time now (meaning like half a decade), and it's to the point where now they've gone too far yet again...
Trixie: Can you elaborate on who "yall" means? And what "targeting" means?
Lin: Yall means mainstream America,
Targeting means making it a bad thing to be a white male.
You mean like Paul Rudd?
Lin: Who?
A white guy who is doing great, but nevermind that. Why don't you tell me who is being harmed by this targeting?
Lin: men can be denied a job for being a man, women can’t.
White men can be thrown out of places based on their skin color and gender, no one else can.
You won’t hear about any other demographic being told sorry, we have too many people that look like you, you’re not being considered…
Can you give any examples?
Lin: There were those two white kids that got kicked out of the multicultural center for wearing anti-Biden, pro police and Chik fil A gear.
Then there are laws in California now saying that a group of four white men can’t run a board of directors, they have to have either a woman, an lgbt person or a person of color on the board… they can be all women, or all gay men, or all Indian people… but not all white men.
What do you think is the appropriate response to this "trend"?
Lin: What needs to happen is that things should go to judging someone for their merits only. By the content of their character, not the color of their skin, gender, or sexuality….
How do you expect this to occur?
Lin: Let's stop asking people every time they fill out paperwork for anything. That might help.
By the time people are old enough to fill out paperwork it is too late.
There is only one way to substantially reduce racism across an entire society, and that is by exposure. Children need to be exposed starting at a young age to other children of different appearances and ethnic backgrounds and they need to be assigned to work on projects and solve problems together. This type of interaction has been shown to significantly reduce in-group / out-group sentiment. But it requires a significant social investment in creating diverse spaces.
Other remedies include making sure that minority viewpoints are adequately represented in matters that concern them, rather than shut out by old power structures.
Lastly, the best way to decrease division is to provide widespread, durable and abundant prosperity that is easily accessible to all. When people have everything they need and more, they are not as resentful of what others have. The truth is that ALL of the middle, working and underclasses are being exploited by a kleptocracy that is taking the lion's share, and are being forced to fight for the scraps. That is the actual source of the conflict and suffering.
There is only one way to substantially reduce racism across an entire society, and that is by exposure. Children need to be exposed starting at a young age to other children of different appearances and ethnic backgrounds and they need to be assigned to work on projects and solve problems together. This type of interaction has been shown to significantly reduce in-group / out-group sentiment. But it requires a significant social investment in creating diverse spaces.
Other remedies include making sure that minority viewpoints are adequately represented in matters that concern them, rather than shut out by old power structures.
Lastly, the best way to decrease division is to provide widespread, durable and abundant prosperity that is easily accessible to all. When people have everything they need and more, they are not as resentful of what others have. The truth is that ALL of the middle, working and underclasses are being exploited by a kleptocracy that is taking the lion's share, and are being forced to fight for the scraps. That is the actual source of the conflict and suffering.
Lin: I think white men had it so nice and cushy for so long, where as women, people of color, non Christians had it extremely rough.
People rightly worked their asses off to change that and get equality, hats off to everyone who worked for that.
We’re now at a point where future generations are being born and raised, getting into the work force in a world where their achievements can dictate their path in life, but white Christian men who are at this same point in life are being told that because they are who they are, it’s deserved that they should be held back a bit so others can have a chance now. This is also happening mostly in larger metropolitan areas.
How have you determined that we are "now at a point" where we "get equality"?
Can you provide any specific examples of any white man who was told that because of who is is, he deserves to be held back? Discrimination requires cases.
Can you provide any specific examples of any white man who was told that because of who is is, he deserves to be held back? Discrimination requires cases.
Lin: Two young men were kicked out of a multicultural center because "white is not a culture."
(much discussion of this case)
So far I have seen no evidence for systematic or widespread "targeting" of white men because they are white, and zero examples of any person actually harmed by these policies.
On the other hand, we know that widespread "targeting" of black males exists in large metropolitan areas which utilize racial profiling and stop and frisk, and massive over-policing has been used to suppress black communities since the Civil War. We know that people with darker skin or "black names" are systematically turned down for loans, tenancies and employment even with equal credentials. We know that racial policies like redlining have denied people of color generational wealth enjoyed by white families. We know that recent voter suppression laws make it harder for people of color to vote. And we know that this actual, systematic, widespread, generational, ongoing and massive racism has substantially damaged the lives, health and prospects of people of color and continues to disenfranchise them the most.
What is the appropriate response to this?
On the other hand, we know that widespread "targeting" of black males exists in large metropolitan areas which utilize racial profiling and stop and frisk, and massive over-policing has been used to suppress black communities since the Civil War. We know that people with darker skin or "black names" are systematically turned down for loans, tenancies and employment even with equal credentials. We know that racial policies like redlining have denied people of color generational wealth enjoyed by white families. We know that recent voter suppression laws make it harder for people of color to vote. And we know that this actual, systematic, widespread, generational, ongoing and massive racism has substantially damaged the lives, health and prospects of people of color and continues to disenfranchise them the most.
What is the appropriate response to this?
Lin: I do keep sharing with you the specific instances I am talking about.
You have shared ONE outlying example of a couple of provocateurs who were trying to test the limits at a multicultural center. How does this one incident constitute a trend?
You have shown no actual examples of anyone actually being harmed, or having their personal fortunes affected in any way by this. If policies were hurting people there would be evidence of the harm being substantial and widespread, many examples of cases where people were harmed. To claim injustice you need to show who the specific victims of the injustice are. If the injustice is real, that is not a problem.
You have shown no actual examples of anyone actually being harmed, or having their personal fortunes affected in any way by this. If policies were hurting people there would be evidence of the harm being substantial and widespread, many examples of cases where people were harmed. To claim injustice you need to show who the specific victims of the injustice are. If the injustice is real, that is not a problem.
Lin: I’m not claiming injustice. I’m saying why I think this backlash is happening.
Since you know there is no real injustice, do you think the "backlash" is warranted, or faux outrage over nothing?
Lin: I think it’s small things being built up into larger things, and once those larger things start being seen more often, people overreact.
I agree with you 100% that the backlash is an overreaction. This is deliberate.
Truth is, most white men in America ARE suffering, and everyone else is suffering even worse, but it's not because of people teaching CRT or attempts to diversify corporate boards.
This is why:
The wealthiest are hoarding the productivity of the entire society and stoking these culture wars to keep the majority from uniting against them.
Truth is, most white men in America ARE suffering, and everyone else is suffering even worse, but it's not because of people teaching CRT or attempts to diversify corporate boards.
This is why:
The wealthiest are hoarding the productivity of the entire society and stoking these culture wars to keep the majority from uniting against them.
Stacy: My husband has been a recruiter his entire career. He has literally seen it happen where a better qualified white male is passed over for a particular open position in favor of a lesser qualified female or POC because of Affirmitive Action.
Statistically that is extremely rare, and when it does happen there is legal recourse available through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
https://www.upstate.edu/diversityinclus ... eality.php
Evidence demonstrates that discrimination against white men is rare. For example, of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, approximately 3% percent are discrimination cases against white men. Further, a study conducted by Rutgers University and commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor (1995) found that discrimination against white men is not a significant problem in employment and that a "high proportion" of claims brought by white men are "without merit." Affirmative action provides the employer with the largest pool of qualified applicants from which to choose.
https://www.upstate.edu/diversityinclus ... eality.php
Evidence demonstrates that discrimination against white men is rare. For example, of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, approximately 3% percent are discrimination cases against white men. Further, a study conducted by Rutgers University and commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor (1995) found that discrimination against white men is not a significant problem in employment and that a "high proportion" of claims brought by white men are "without merit." Affirmative action provides the employer with the largest pool of qualified applicants from which to choose.
Stacey: You don't understand. He's seen this across his career. He's worked for multiple different companies. He sees it constantly.
If that's true there should be some evidence of disenfranchisement over a large segment of the population. Evidence points to widespread underreporting of domestic abuse, for example. Where is the evidence that points to widespread employment discrimination against white males?
There actually is evidence of disenfranchisement over large segments of the population. Mainly, evidence that people of color are systematically disadvantaged in education, housing, nutrition, employment, healthcare, clean water, etc. And furthermore, as I keep mentioning, there is massive evidence that white males ARE being disadvantaged in the economy. But NOT by people of color or others who are doing even worse.
The responsibility for those white men not getting what they deserve is not coming from those below. It is coming from the ones above who are taking everything they do and keeping it.
There actually is evidence of disenfranchisement over large segments of the population. Mainly, evidence that people of color are systematically disadvantaged in education, housing, nutrition, employment, healthcare, clean water, etc. And furthermore, as I keep mentioning, there is massive evidence that white males ARE being disadvantaged in the economy. But NOT by people of color or others who are doing even worse.
The responsibility for those white men not getting what they deserve is not coming from those below. It is coming from the ones above who are taking everything they do and keeping it.
Lin: If people are having issues, they should be addressed. Not told their issues aren’t prevalent enough yet to warrant discussion.
The evidence shows that the main people having really serious, ongoing issues of societal discrimination are people of color, and that the economic issues of white men are being caused by other white men. That is the issue that should be addressed first and foremost. That would solve the other issue entirely.
Lin: What about teaching Malcolm X to 10th graders? Malcom X said that the white man is the devil. Should we be teaching his words to 10th graders as if they are true?
Who is teaching "White man is the devil" to 10th graders?
Lin: Malcolm X is a civil rights leader, like MLK. We teach the words of civil leaders as truth, their books are set as lesson plans, their quotes are put up on walls as inspiration. Martin Luther King has more streets named after him than almost anyone.
Show me a place where the quotes you fear are actually put up on the walls as an inspiration for tenth grade students. This does not seem like something that is actually happening.
Lin: How do you teach what black pride is without teaching the white students what that would mean for them?
What does it mean for them? Black pride is nothing but good for white people, just like gay pride etc. It means we no longer live in a society where those populations are legally oppressed. That's a win, even for white people.
Lin: It’s not when it means that the previously oppressed population turn the tide. As I said, there’s no room for equality and justice when the point is getting even.
"Tide turning" would consist of a hell of a lot more than a single confrontation with a college girl. On the contrary, all evidence suggests that people of color are still being systematically disenfranchised in every way, even worse since COVID. The problem is NOT a turned tide and quest for vengeance. In the U.S. the tide has yet to turn.
The actual problem of "division" between "races" is a culture war stoked by the elites to prevent the underclasses from noticing that the rich have everything. The violence we see is what fighting over the scraps looks like.
The actual problem of "division" between "races" is a culture war stoked by the elites to prevent the underclasses from noticing that the rich have everything. The violence we see is what fighting over the scraps looks like.
Lin: The issue is how History will be taught, and what text subjects are appropriate for grade school. I don't think you're understanding the harm that might be created by this. It could increase the amount of racism we see today.
Are you saying most parents are afraid this teaching will make their children more racist than they would have been?
Lin: Well...I think most parents against this are at this point are already at the part where they feel like a teaching might be racist against their kid.
Please explain the basis for this. Who are the people who have been hurt by this? What are their names, what is the extent of the damages they have suffered? That would be an example of someone being harmed by the current teaching of History, necessitating speech codes to contain it.
Lin:So, you basically don't want to talk about the issues these parents are bringing up, you only want to discuss specific people this has caused an issue with? Like you want the specific name of a 10th grader that felt as though the lesson was unfairly depicting white people ?
Parents are claiming there is a problem. Evidence of an actual problem would help their case. Better yet if there were studies showing that the current teaching is causing harm to children, or making them more racist, etc. Then the parents could show that the technique was really causing damage and should be changed.
But that is not what studies show. Teaching kids about race does not teach them to be racist, it actually works just the opposite.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/06/anti-racist-children
https://www.pbs.org/parents/thrive/the-benefits-of-teaching-children-to-see-race
Even adults benefit from learning more about it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/
Hiding from race is hurting everyone. Fears that understanding race will increase racism are misplaced, it just doesn't work that way. So why make laws to prevent people from hearing this? If we want a less racist society we need to hear it more, and earlier.
But that is not what studies show. Teaching kids about race does not teach them to be racist, it actually works just the opposite.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/06/anti-racist-children
https://www.pbs.org/parents/thrive/the-benefits-of-teaching-children-to-see-race
Even adults benefit from learning more about it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/
Hiding from race is hurting everyone. Fears that understanding race will increase racism are misplaced, it just doesn't work that way. So why make laws to prevent people from hearing this? If we want a less racist society we need to hear it more, and earlier.
11-16-21 8:19 • Rittenhouse Trial
Ryan: I feel for him. He’s a kid who got caught up in a situation that was far beyond his control, he shouldn’t have been there, but he was, and he defended himself once it was necessary.
No, he did not "get caught up" in this, he went to it to be a part of it.
Ryan: He sure did, but let’s think of the motives…
Group A, the rioters, and Group B the militias.
Group A showed up with the intent to destroy people’s homes, businesses, lives and feelings of safety.
Group B showed up to stop them.
People did die, but if we’re going to debate whose fault that was… everyone in group A needs to stand up.
No, people from either "group" who did the wrong thing should be charged with their crimes and dealt with by the law. Vigilante killings are not more righteous than rioting.
Ryan: When someone puts other people’s lives in danger with Molotov cocktails, other people are allowed to stop them. With deadly force if needed.
When bad guys show up with guns to scare people, good guys with guns shown up too.
None of that has anything to do with this kid.
Ryan: Americans don’t have to accept whichever crime is held against them without the ability to fight back, and stand up for those who are less capable. We do have self defense laws that allow someone to take the life of someone else who is a threat.
It is sad that this all happened, but if those men didn’t decide to go burn down a neighborhood, everyone would still be fine.
Confronting social unrest with vigilantism is not the answer.
The actual right choice is to substantially address the social injustice which caused the rioting in the first place. Remember Jacob Blake, gunned down in front of his kids? This on the heels of the George Floyd killing?
If you want to examine natural consequences, rioting is the completely predictable consequence of decades of systematic oppression and high-profile flashpoints. The protesters had plenty to legitimately complain about. Our society has never had basic equality, ever. Even so, 97% of the protests around the country were entirely peaceful, a credit to the protesters.
We don't actually want the populace arming up for civil confrontation. If you want to see incidents like this prevented in the future, the lesson should be that vigilantism does not pay, and that widespread peaceful protests which reflect the will of the people to have equality are effective in bringing about social change.
The actual right choice is to substantially address the social injustice which caused the rioting in the first place. Remember Jacob Blake, gunned down in front of his kids? This on the heels of the George Floyd killing?
If you want to examine natural consequences, rioting is the completely predictable consequence of decades of systematic oppression and high-profile flashpoints. The protesters had plenty to legitimately complain about. Our society has never had basic equality, ever. Even so, 97% of the protests around the country were entirely peaceful, a credit to the protesters.
We don't actually want the populace arming up for civil confrontation. If you want to see incidents like this prevented in the future, the lesson should be that vigilantism does not pay, and that widespread peaceful protests which reflect the will of the people to have equality are effective in bringing about social change.
10-12-21 2:12 • Atheist Prayer
Hem: I don't believe in God, but I have prayed. That is, I had a really hard time conceiving, and then they found a mass in my uterus that could potentially induce a second-trimester miscarriage. I remember praying to Someone to Please, please save my baby.
It wasn't that I started believing, or thought anyone was listening who could help. It just came out of me because I was so desperate.
When I was a teen my mom went through a kind of "New-Agey" phase where she flirted with belief in the power of crystals, etc. At this time she taught me a "golden glow" healing technique she had learned. She said that you could visualize a golden glow around any part of your body that needed healing and it would get better. It also worked with Creative Visualization, ŕ la The Secret - envisioning a golden glow around what you wanted to put your intention into the universe and draw your desire to you by the Law of Attraction.
As an impressionable teen and young adult, I tried "golden glow" visualizations, and had all the success that confirmation bias and the placebo effect assured I would. In other words, it seemed to sort of work at first, but eventually I realized it wasn't really doing anything, and time could be better spent in doing than glowing.
Yet still, sometimes if I really just want something to work out, I might project a little "golden glow" on it. Not as a prayer, but maybe just as a hopeful wish. I don't think I am manipulating actual reality with the power of my visualizations. But...a little placebo effect never hurt anyone. :-)
As an impressionable teen and young adult, I tried "golden glow" visualizations, and had all the success that confirmation bias and the placebo effect assured I would. In other words, it seemed to sort of work at first, but eventually I realized it wasn't really doing anything, and time could be better spent in doing than glowing.
Yet still, sometimes if I really just want something to work out, I might project a little "golden glow" on it. Not as a prayer, but maybe just as a hopeful wish. I don't think I am manipulating actual reality with the power of my visualizations. But...a little placebo effect never hurt anyone. :-)
10-10-21 10:10 • Space is Cool
Stacey: Do you believe in aliens? That is, do you think intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe? Do you think they have come here?
Single-celled life could develop anywhere with liquid water. Would that life then evolve into multi-cellular organisms? Perhaps not - single-celled organisms floated around here for billions of years before any of them could be bothered to evolve. Multi-cellular life would be less common.
Then, suppose some multicellulars got as far as specializing into plants and animals. Because of neurological limitations of the reptilian brain, it's not likely the dinosaurs would ever have evolved intelligence. It took a massive planetary disaster to put our kind of life on track to achieve it. Intelligent life would be far less common than plant and animal life.
Then, suppose some intelligent species evolved. They would have to survive intelligence. There is no guarantee that a tribal, hierarchical species like ours will survive our own mistakes. Intelligent life that survived internecine warfare and technology could be quite rare.
Then, suppose some civilization managed to survive itself long enough to attain highly advanced technology. They would not necessarily benefit from leaving their own world. Biological forms are highly dependent on the specific conditions they evolved into, and the rays in space are extremely toxic to life and damaging to computer systems. There would be little incentive to devote the resources of society for the relative uselessness of interstellar travel.
Lastly, the distance between worlds in space is unimaginably huge, taking millions of years even for light to cross, and the depths of time are unimaginably long. The chances of species from different planets encountering each other at the eyeblink when their civilizations are ascendant seem vanishingly small.
But, it's a big universe, and life loves to live. So, maybe.
Then, suppose some multicellulars got as far as specializing into plants and animals. Because of neurological limitations of the reptilian brain, it's not likely the dinosaurs would ever have evolved intelligence. It took a massive planetary disaster to put our kind of life on track to achieve it. Intelligent life would be far less common than plant and animal life.
Then, suppose some intelligent species evolved. They would have to survive intelligence. There is no guarantee that a tribal, hierarchical species like ours will survive our own mistakes. Intelligent life that survived internecine warfare and technology could be quite rare.
Then, suppose some civilization managed to survive itself long enough to attain highly advanced technology. They would not necessarily benefit from leaving their own world. Biological forms are highly dependent on the specific conditions they evolved into, and the rays in space are extremely toxic to life and damaging to computer systems. There would be little incentive to devote the resources of society for the relative uselessness of interstellar travel.
Lastly, the distance between worlds in space is unimaginably huge, taking millions of years even for light to cross, and the depths of time are unimaginably long. The chances of species from different planets encountering each other at the eyeblink when their civilizations are ascendant seem vanishingly small.
But, it's a big universe, and life loves to live. So, maybe.
Read more in the Archives.