So a kid in a story can have a mom and a dad but not two moms? Or no mention of parents?

So no Disney?

Kids watch Disney at home. They have families. There is no way you can avoid all discussions of couples, family, marriage, babies, etc. with kids who have parents and siblings and watch television. This is life. Trying to avoid reality is already twisting people into knots.

What we need is acceptance, and kids need to learn it young.

Biases can begin to develop by age 3 - 5. Studies have shown that the best way to prevent prejudice in adults is to expose them to many different types of people when they are young. This is why they write kid stories about two male penguins raising a chick, or whatever...for exposure, to show that there is nothing wrong with it. It's as natural as being raised by opposite-sex parents. So why not let kids know this?

If kids are not exposed to people who are different from them when they are very young, they are less likely to be accepting of differences as adults. Hiding this from kids will result in more prejudice against LGBTQ people in the future.

Whatever you think, research shows that it's good for kids to be around all different kinds of normal people.

"For years we have thought that children will automatically form positive outlooks about the differences we each convey if we do not speak of those differences. However, research has shown that advocating and exposing children to diversity requires active promotion."

The Importance of Promoting Diversity in Early Childhood Programs

Showing diversity is not teaching kids to put people in boxes. Showing diversity is not teaching them that where they belong is based on the decisions of others. Showing diversity is not teaching "what a family is." It's just showing diversity, and it's important.

It was one professor who was forced to resign after intense backlash. Why do you want to force gay people back into the closet over this?

You are so scared of drag queen story hour twerking at a library in another country that you can't let first graders hear Heather's Two Mommies at school here?

We don't need a national law for something that is not happening. There is not a single child who has been harmed by Drag Queen Story Hour.

You know what really needs national regulation, because it's really killing kids in school? Guess.

Come back with some figures showing how "Drag Queen Story Hour" is the real threat kids face at school.

Here is what we could do to actually decrease crime in cities.

1. Stricter alcohol policies.
Alcohol fuels a lot of crime as it weakens the ability to use sound judgement. We could raise taxes on alcohol to make it more expensive, direct more people to treatment, or in some cases have court-ordered sobriety requirements. We could raise social awareness about the link of alcohol and crime.

2. Hot spot policing.
A large percentage of crime comes from just a few neighborhoods. Police can increase their community presence in these areas, particularly by daily positive interactions with residents (walking a beat, talking to shopkeepers, etc). Police can build partnerships in these areas with families, schools etc to work together to bring down crime where it's happening.

3. Focused deterrent policing.
These are like are individual interventions which focus on the people and gangs who are doing the crime. Police and social services work in specific partnership with the families, schools and churches of people with a long history of crime, making sure they are aware of the consequences of further violations, and that they have lots of supported alternatives.

4. Raise the age for dropping out of school.
A great deal of urban crime is fueled by teens who are not in school, and people who do not finish high school are many times more likely to turn to crime life-long. Many places which allow kids to drop out at 16 should raise the age to 18 and other supports should be in place to keep people in HS until they finish.

5. Behavioral intervention programs.
This strategy uses cognitive behavioral principles to teach youth how to react in encounters that can turn violent. In dangerous neighborhoods, people learn to react quickly and aggressively to show toughness, and this leads to a lot of serious physical altercations over little things like getting bumped. In behavioral programs, kids learn self-regulation, slowing down, negotiating, and other skills that prevent fights.

6. Eliminate blighted housing.
For the relatively low price of cleaning up and repairing dilapidated buildings, neighborhoods can drastically decrease crime. When the area looks clean and cared for, criminals don't feel safe basing crime operations there and the residents get a lot more invested in looking out for the space, a further deterrent.

All of these have been shown to significantly reduce crime, and we could do all this without coming for the guns or the budgets.

6 proven policies for reducing crime and violence without gun control

Surely everyone can agree that community policing techniques and conflict resolution training, etc. are worth a try? There is data suggesting that it really works.

That is not what community policing refers to. The community policing techniques that showed results were "hot spot policing" and "focused deterrence policing," where the police have a strong local presence in positive partnerships with members of the community and families, focused directly on the highest risk areas and individuals.

Also recommended were conflict resolution training, efforts to keep teens in school, and keeping up the neighborhood. It's very basic, common sense stuff.

The only one that took me by surprise was the alcohol tax recommendation. I'm not sure I agree with that, but data does suggest that increasing the tax on alcohol measurably lowers alcohol mortality, traffic accidents and even sexually transmitted diseases. Either way, I think directing resources to shift our society's relationship with alcohol would be good, including more treatment options and more public awareness of the costs.

The point of this post was to make all liberals look unhinged by association, and call liberalism a "mental disorder."

But, no one thinks this guy is correct. He is not "liberalism."

The actual liberal value, that we should reconsider celebrating colonialism, is perfectly valid.

It's a comparison of traction.

The unhinged CPS caller is not being elevated by the left. You don't see Democratic leaders defending him, or encouraging his tactics. Any rando can break the outrage meter - the important thing is, do they have traction in the party? Are they embraced and celebrated? On the left, usually not. The lunatics stay on the fringe.

On the other hand, the lunatic fringe has taken over the Republican Party. Election and climate change denial are winning strategies. QAnon is elevated, the attempt to overthrow the government is defended with conspiracy theories. Unhinged people and ideas have a lot of traction on the right these days and that makes it a really big problem.

No one can prevent stupid assholes from supporting their cause. What matters is, are they rejected, or elevated? Are the lunatics on the fringe...or are they running the asylum?

You know who should have been called out extensively by both sides for using vulnerable children for a stupid stunt? Abbott and DeSantis. Instead, their stunt was celebrated and supported on the right, and DeSantis is on the short list for president. These aren't randos on the internet who are now universally reviled; they are elected governors of U.S. states, who improved their position with their base. That is what is meant by traction.

Like who?

These are just political positions that you do not agree with. It's nothing like "attempting totalitarian control over our society." And if you are worried about that, it wasn't Democrats who actually staged a coup.

Wrong again, on every count. I do NOT support "for policing and incarceration to end." I do NOT support taxpayers paying the bills for "people who are unwilling to work." I do NOT support denying medical care to the unvaccinated. I do NOT support making laws to define who wears what by race, and I don't know anybody who does.

Those are just caricatures of actual liberal positions, like, we should rethink how we manage our criminal justice system, or, we should make sure that vulnerable people are supported, or, we should start setting right historic wrongs. The caricatures are exaggerated to make the positions seem untenable. But once again, the actual liberal values are perfectly valid. We need to do all those things.

In the case of AOC and the "unable or unwilling to work" line, it was a mistake on her web page which she immediately corrected. The actual Green New Deal legislation she proposed had no mention of guaranteeing economic security to those unwilling to work. She said it was a mistake, never defended or fought for it, but of course the right seized on it to make her positions sound more extreme than they are.

Rashida Tlaib has called for an end to policing as we know it, in response to horrific police killings like George Floyd and Daunte Wright. This was an extreme position, quickly walked back. Of course there are extreme ideas on the left, but the extremes are not their main problem.

Yes, exactly the point. That is what is meant by traction. Extremism on the left does NOT have traction, and that is why it's not a big problem. Those ideas are not embraced - they are repudiated, with quick damage control and statements from the White House press secretary that Democratic leaders do not share those views. They were *forced* to walk those ideas back, with zero chance they will become law. They were just bad ideas on a spectrum of ideas from which better ideas can be shaped. That's a healthy part of the process.

None of this even remotely adds up to elevating extremism, let alone "attempting totalitarian control over our society."

People like Trump do not embody conservative values and they are the leaders of the party. Republicans are running on extremism - support for Trump and his attempt to overthrow the government, flooding the zone with Big Lies, scapegoating of the vulnerable. They have overwhelming support from Republicans - traction, among politicians and with voters. Those who do not support them are being driven from the party. This isn't an exaggeration or a caricature - this is actually dangerous. This adds up a lot higher on the "totalitarian takeover of our society" scale. If the election deniers win, how will you ever get them out?

The left has its problems. They are almost as bought as the right, and have done almost nothing to stop the economic degradation of the working class. That is what is driving people into the arms of authoritarians in the first place. But at least the Dems are still doing democracy. The alternative is far worse.

The worst part is what it did to our whole society. How do we get compensated for that?

Two threads over, there is a story about an ax-wielding maniac who was released on the streets only to offend again. While technically true, it's really a self-defense story about a troubled bike thief who paints graffiti. It's being spun to sound like ax murder for several purposes - to gin up outrage, to make people afraid, to make liberal New York City look bad, to make liberalism in general look bad, to make criminal justice reform look bad, to make crime seem out of control, to sell more guns, etc. It's entirely political.

This is what Alex Jones and other outrage talkers did to news...they weaponized it. They elevated the conspiratorial belief that everything is a coverup, that every policy is a failure, that one's political opponents are villainous. Of course conservatives don't want to negotiate on gun control - they are literally told that liberals would do *anything*, even stage a false flag murder of school children, to get their hands on their guns. How can they work in good faith with such monsters?

When people cannot work together anymore, blame these guys. This is how they made it.

You are so right. News can be spun in either direction and no one is immune to conspiracy theories. But really big conspiracy theories, like the "stolen election," are being used by Republican politicians to win elections right now, and that's a really big problem that is not symmetrical.

Perhaps you will not agree with me, but I'd like to differ on this very important point.

Democracy is not what is causing selfishness. It's caused by selfish economics. Selfishness is a required cultural trait of hypercapitalists. Some selfishness is necessary and healthy, of course, but ours is off the charts, because acquisition is our economic engine.

Things don't have to be equal to be fair, but they have to be unequal in ways that make sense. Right now just a few people own almost everything, and the rest of us are forced to compete for what is left. And everyone can see that it is just not even close to fair - it doesn't reflect the work that people do, giving most of their lives to their living.

Again, it's no problem if you don't agree, but I have studied this matter for years across economics, social science and law, and this is what the indicators suggest. During the time when the system worked for the most people, workers were getting a much larger share of the economy than now.



The period when the inequality was low was started by the New Deal and ended when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and unions faded.

This is how we correct it. If we want to have working economics, let alone make it through the coming crisis, we need to give more of the surplus humans create to most of the humans. Letting a few keep most is its downfall.

If we could share just a bit more, everyone could afford to be less selfish. And democracy would work a lot better too.

To be clear, I am not recommending "socialist models" or "communism". The model I showed above and described as working was capitalist. It was not hypercapitalist as we have now, because workers got a larger share. Socialist ideas, like collective bargaining and social aid, were also incorporated.

The fact is that socialism and capitalism are each half a system. They can only work together.

I'm glad we can agree!

Getting stuff wrong is what college is for. I hope they all learned to be kinder.

It's actually an extremely minor incident which was blown out of proportion by a public manic for examples of reverse racism.

Maybe they do just support the police, and they could possibly be unaware of the larger meaning of the slogan. However by subverting the specific slogan used by the anti-police brutality movement, "Police Lives Matter" is a direct counter/response to Black Lives Matter. "A protest to my protest, what kind of shit is that?" as Joyner Lucas would say.

The dominant culture is already everywhere. That is the point of a multicultural center - to offer alternatives.

Those guys were not doing Irish dancing, sharing German Brats or dancing Russian ballet. They were brandishing the exact same dominant cultural blandness you can get everywhere, topped with tribal flourishes like "Police Lives Matter" and "Chik-fil-a." That is what many people come to a multicultural center to get a break from.

I agree the guys were goading and baiting, and so I understand why the girls were upset, but I agree they should not have been asked to leave. I think it's a shame they didn't spend the afternoon at the multicultural center. They probably would have learned a lot of really good things.

I am sure they would have been perfectly welcome to perform a Russian ballet, or serve German sausage, or dance a jig. What was not welcome was overtly political signalling of support for a racially oppressive state. That's what caused the "dislike," and dislike of that is warranted.

The girls shouldn't have asked them to leave. That doesn't mean they had to *like* what they were saying.

I hadn't heard that, thanks. I meant, Irish dance.

There are a million ways to support the police. "Police Lives Matter" is a response to Black Lives Matter, and not in agreement with it.

Maybe it did, though perhaps there are better ways. I certainly stand behind their right to say it, anywhere. They should not have been asked to leave a campus public area because of it.

But there really is a big difference. If a person kills a cop, in all likelihood they will be killed or face full justice for their act. When cops kill black people (or any people, but it's disproportionately people of color) they have been very much less likely to face true justice over it, with all the power of the state and the public behind them. It's institutional oppression which can and should be redressed by the state.

Because of the history, I don't blame people at the multicultural center for thinking "Police Lives Matter" was offensive, and just more of the same oppression they encounter too often everywhere else.

Well I was unaware of this before, and I am perfectly happy to refrain from saying this in the future if it's offensive to Black people. It's that easy.

But, if you are seriously concerned about not using language that is offensive to Black people, you should be just as happy to refrain from using subversions of Black Lives Matter, which are also legitimately offensive.

Why you should stop saying “all lives matter,” explained in 9 different ways

Or if you don't want to quit using them, at least understand how the girls could object to the "vibe" it created at the multicultural center. To you it's not offensive. To others, it is.

That includes "Police Lives Matter," the slogan you have been defending.


This is the point of the entire discussion. This one unfortunate incident at the multicultural center was NOT reverse racism. The boys were not asked to leave because they were "white." It was because some people were legitimately offended by the deliberate intrusion of anti-multicultural content into their multicultural center.

They still should not have been asked to leave. But I can certainly understand how young college girls could make such a mistake. It was not because there were "no white people allowed."

To you it's not offensive. To others, it is.

The last thing it is, is a multicultural center with a "no white people allowed" policy. That kind of language is meant to stoke white resentment.

What is really offensive is the title of this post. It's a lie. There was never a "no white people allowed space." It was just a few kids, offended by symbolism which, whatever you think of it, can be interpreted as offensive. It was a minor incident, blown all out of proportion.

The problem is, the "no white people allowed space" lie is now circulating, without merit, throughout the white grievance echo chamber. It was even used here, in our discussion last year, as an example of the way the tables have turned on white guys. This vapid misunderstanding is fueling the myth that racism by whites is over, and racism against whites is the new normal, causing untold resentment. This is exactly the kind of bullshit that fuels white supremacy and a hatred of multiculturalism, and makes people think "the left" has "gone too far."

Hopefully at least this group knows better now.

What should he be doing? What border policies would you like to see?

There are some answers. I can tell you what people who study the issue have to say.

Prior to 1986 most migration from Mexico was circular; that is, when people came here to work they usually went back home again after making some money. In the 80s a moral panic was drummed up about "The Latino Invasion" and there was a massive increase in border security. This interrupted the circular migration and raised the incentive for people to just stay in the U.S., paradoxically driving illegal immigration rates way up.

So one answer is to allow larger numbers of temporary work visas. These encourage people to come here and work for awhile, but maintain roots in their home country, and return when they have made some money. It discourages people from moving their families here.

Another answer would be to create a level of judiciary at the border that could quickly decide applications for amnesty. The possibility of a quick refusal makes the long journey too big of a risk for many. We also need to coordinate our law enforcement with other nations to crack down on trafficking. Lastly, we need to address poor living conditions in the home countries of immigrants, often due to the machinations of world powers (including the United States.)

These are the kind of serious policy recommendations that people need to be aware of if they want to solve the border crisis. But, they don't fit the narrative that better borders just keep more people out.

In moving away from supernatural explanations, we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. The real strength of religion is providing a moral community to grow in.

I think in the future there could be many new religions, based not on supernatural claims, but on fellowship, mutual aid, celebration and a shared quest for transcendence.

Great example, thanks.

First of all, atheism and the existence of gods is a completely different subject. I'm not an atheist and I'm not concerned with whether people believe in god or not, at all.

Secondly, it might help to explain my view if you can see the work of Dr. Loyal Rue, professor emeritus of religion and philosophy at Luther College. He wrote a book called Religion is Not About God, and he explains what religion is about - personal wholeness and social coherence.



I'm just saying, the nones are growing fast and even believers are staying home from church, but that is just leaving people more alone. I think religions based on other ideas are viable. For example, Buddhism does not have a god and believers of other religions can practice Buddhism. I think more religions of this kind would fill a social need.

You are so right, groups like this already exist, but there could be so many more, so that most people could belong to secular religion in their local area if they wish. And there could be many different kinds, so that people could choose whether they like more ritual expression, or more discussion groups, or more speeches, etc. I want mine to have lots of dancing.