08-11-24 • Kellogg's Diversity Initiative
PR: Kellogg's is being sued over their diversity initiative. They have openly stated that their goal is to achieve “25% underrepresented talent at the management level in the United States."
NP: If Kellogg’s indeed hires, trains and promotes based just on having a balance between races and genders, then that would indeed be discriminatory. These things should be done on the basis of merit and personal achievement only. If race, sex, religion, gender identity, etc form the basis for hiring and promoting, then that’s discrimination.
This supposes that every job opening has one "best" candidate, and giving the job to anyone else for any other reason would be discrimination. But, most people have a variety of skills and competencies vs their lacks and mismatches with a position, and there are almost always several people who could fit the bill, each with their pros and cons. You might not pick the most experienced coder if you need someone with more people skills, for example, or, it's perfectly okay to not give the job to the best qualified candidate if they are asking for too much money. Etc. You end up with a pool, not just one "best" applicant.
And you are doing more than filling a slot - you are building a team that has to be productive together. Research shows that culturally diverse teams are more productive and perform better than homogeneous ones. It wouldn't be discrimination to say, hey, we could benefit from having some qualified women on the team, or some immigrants, so we can hear some ideas from different viewpoints. That would just be smart management.
And you are doing more than filling a slot - you are building a team that has to be productive together. Research shows that culturally diverse teams are more productive and perform better than homogeneous ones. It wouldn't be discrimination to say, hey, we could benefit from having some qualified women on the team, or some immigrants, so we can hear some ideas from different viewpoints. That would just be smart management.
NP: If two candidates were neck and neck and the deciding factor that one is white (or Christian, or male or straight) and the other isn’t, wouldn’t you consider that discrimination? I know you would.
The fact that Kellogg's has to set these goals - by 2025, one quarter not-white-guys in management? Sheesh - shows they already have massive discrimination FOR straight white guys. They are just trying to correct that problem, which they have a right, indeed an obligation, to do.
And, what about being fair to the white guys already on the team? Do you really want to deprive them of all the benefits they would get from having a diverse workplace? Extensive research suggests that diverse teams, which include individuals from a variety of backgrounds, genders, ethnicities, and perspectives, outperform homogeneous teams in a range of areas.
Benefits of diversity include:
• Increased Creativity and Innovation: Diverse teams tend to generate a wider array of ideas and perspectives, leading to more innovative solutions.
• Improved Problem Solving: Different viewpoints can lead to more comprehensive and effective problem-solving, as team members approach challenges from various angles.
• Better Decision-Making: Diverse teams are less likely to fall into groupthink and are more likely to consider a broader range of factors when making decisions.
• Enhanced Adaptability: Diverse teams are often better equipped to handle changes and uncertainties due to their varied experiences and perspectives.
• Enhanced Communication: Interacting with individuals from diverse backgrounds can improve communication skills and foster a more inclusive environment.
• Stronger Customer Relationships: Diverse teams can better understand and serve a diverse customer base.
• Increased Employee Satisfaction: Employees in diverse and inclusive workplaces tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction and engagement.
Is Kellogg's really supposed to ignore all that in favor of coin flipping?
A diversity initiative doesn't favor women and people of color, it just reminds people to stop discriminating so hard in favor of white guys.
And, what about being fair to the white guys already on the team? Do you really want to deprive them of all the benefits they would get from having a diverse workplace? Extensive research suggests that diverse teams, which include individuals from a variety of backgrounds, genders, ethnicities, and perspectives, outperform homogeneous teams in a range of areas.
Benefits of diversity include:
• Increased Creativity and Innovation: Diverse teams tend to generate a wider array of ideas and perspectives, leading to more innovative solutions.
• Improved Problem Solving: Different viewpoints can lead to more comprehensive and effective problem-solving, as team members approach challenges from various angles.
• Better Decision-Making: Diverse teams are less likely to fall into groupthink and are more likely to consider a broader range of factors when making decisions.
• Enhanced Adaptability: Diverse teams are often better equipped to handle changes and uncertainties due to their varied experiences and perspectives.
• Enhanced Communication: Interacting with individuals from diverse backgrounds can improve communication skills and foster a more inclusive environment.
• Stronger Customer Relationships: Diverse teams can better understand and serve a diverse customer base.
• Increased Employee Satisfaction: Employees in diverse and inclusive workplaces tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction and engagement.
Is Kellogg's really supposed to ignore all that in favor of coin flipping?
A diversity initiative doesn't favor women and people of color, it just reminds people to stop discriminating so hard in favor of white guys.
08-07-24 • BLM v Jan 6
Linda: Look at these animals, rioting in Central Park because some influencer was giving away free game consoles.
Rhoda: Chaotic, like January 6.
BabyBunni: No, it's like those BLM protests where they killed cops and burned down businesses all summer long!
While some BLM protests did experience instances of violence or clashes with law enforcement, it's crucial to remember that these incidents were the exception rather than the rule. The majority of protests were peaceful and focused on advocating for social change and racial justice.
BabyBunni: Fact was there was way too much violence and death a whole summer from BLM protests. Fires, shooting, vandalism, businesses destroyed, lives changed. To those lives changed and taken it didn't matter that there were also peaceful protests.
It's a mistake to suggest that the isolated incidents of violence are representative of the BLM movement as a whole.
BabyBunni: And how about the misuse of funds raised for BLM? You can't mention that without being called a racist! BLM has done more damage for the black community than they have good and I, for one, care about that. I also refuse to chose to pick and chose on what riots are deemed bad and what should be swept under the rug.
I disagree that anyone here is sweeping anything under the rug or calling some riots good.
Supporting the BLM movement is not the same thing as supporting the BLM organization. You can have one without the other.
Supporting the BLM movement is not the same thing as supporting the BLM organization. You can have one without the other.
BabyBunni: Yeah, I don't think anyone thinks a riot is good. There are just some who refuse to acknowledge the terrible impact BLM had. Jan 6th is acknowledged and brought up constantly but it isn't very liked when BLM riots are mentioned.
I think what people don't like is the attempt to suggest that they were similar. Other than the fact that they were both crowd violence, they could not be more different.
Plexy: There's no mistake! Not isolated incidents! Not majority peaceful! We all saw the videos. It was devastating.
Yes, there were devastating BLM riots. However, that doesn't mean they are representative of the BLM protests. Millions of people demonstrated in the wake of the George Floyd killing and fewer than 4 percent of those demonstrations had any violence. Yes, majority peaceful.
Based on data from 7,305 BLM protest events, the overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.
Police were reported injured in 1 percent of the protests, and police themselves initiated several of the "clashes." Only 3.7 percent of the protests involved property damage or vandalism. The data suggest that 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police. That is overwhelmingly peaceful, and surprisingly so, given the circumstances.
So yes, it is a mistake to characterize the BLM protest movement by the isolated incidents of violence, as horrific as they were, because that serves to obscure the reason for the protests - intolerable levels of racial overpolicing and disregard for Black lives.
Black Lives Matter protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful, our research finds
Based on data from 7,305 BLM protest events, the overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.
Police were reported injured in 1 percent of the protests, and police themselves initiated several of the "clashes." Only 3.7 percent of the protests involved property damage or vandalism. The data suggest that 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police. That is overwhelmingly peaceful, and surprisingly so, given the circumstances.
So yes, it is a mistake to characterize the BLM protest movement by the isolated incidents of violence, as horrific as they were, because that serves to obscure the reason for the protests - intolerable levels of racial overpolicing and disregard for Black lives.
Black Lives Matter protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful, our research finds
Plexy: Yeah, it was a real summer of love. *rolls eyes*
That's not a bad comparison. There were many incidents of unrest during the initial Civil Rights era, including the Detroit and Newark riots in July 1967, the original "Summer of Love." These were also in response to racial overpolicing and brutality. While justly condemned, these outbreaks of violence occurred inside a much larger context of activism which was raising the consciousness of the entire culture.
The Civil Rights era was full of violent protest, as well as pioneering non-violent protest, and it is rightly regarded as a time of growth and progress towards real equality in our nation. The rights of black people and women and eventually even gay people were better acknowledged as a result. I think in the larger context of protest against police brutality the Black Lives Matter movement will eventually be seen the same way.
Thanks Plexy!
The Civil Rights era was full of violent protest, as well as pioneering non-violent protest, and it is rightly regarded as a time of growth and progress towards real equality in our nation. The rights of black people and women and eventually even gay people were better acknowledged as a result. I think in the larger context of protest against police brutality the Black Lives Matter movement will eventually be seen the same way.
Thanks Plexy!
08-03-24 • America, Divided
Cora: America is more divided than ever. There are now nine different political categories! From Flag and Faith conservatives (10%) to the Populist Right (11%), and from Democratic Mainstays (16%) to Progressive Left (6%). You can take this quiz and find out which one you are.
I think the quiz makes it seem like there are a lot of divisions by having a lot of tiny categories. Political leanings are kind of on a spectrum, because no two people are exactly the same. But people who took the quiz could just as easily be grouped as "conservatives" (40%) and "liberals" (40%)and it would still be accurate.
In other words, the American pie is currently "divided" but the number of pieces is decided by the cutter.
In other words, the American pie is currently "divided" but the number of pieces is decided by the cutter.
Cora: Grouping people by "conservative" and "liberal" is the problem.
Currently we are a bipartisanship. This really doesn’t nurture democracy. Neither party feels threatened by other parties and each have been fiercely party loyal to the point in which it has come down to neither side really calling out bad behavior of their own and a lot of finger pointing. The gap between the two parties has grown so exponentially that neither side can communicate effectively and dialogue to find reasonable compromises. That’s what happens when we lump people into generalized categories.
The division described in this article isn’t necessarily a bad thing IF political generalization stop, people realize there are more options that the two parties, and we actually push for more political diversity.
I don't actually disagree with what you are saying here, but I should clarify, I was not talking about "Democrats" and "Republicans" and this does not apply only to the United States. Most societies around the world, in fact most human groups, have a couple of different broad forces animating them - some people are much more inclined to desire stability and continuity, while other people are much more inclined to desire change and progress. In social psychology terms, those natural inclinations result in people being politically "conservative" or politically "liberal."
There are many more divisions that can be created, to distinguish between people more or less conservative or liberal, and many people are not strongly inclined either way and so are "moderate". But, regardless of whatever governments or parties exist, and with plenty of exceptions of course, most people can be grouped into general categories of "conservative" or "liberal," and these forces work together for the society to preserve what is working and also innovate for solutions. These are the group dynamics we evolved.
You can measure whether people are more "conservative" or "liberal" by determining how they prioritize concepts of morality. Liberals value care over harm and fairness over inequity far more than any other value. Conservatives value those too, but not as much, and they also value authority, in-group loyalty, and purity in nearly equal measure. This is a pretty big difference and it shows up in people everywhere.
Humans are complex and I totally agree with you that two parties are not enough. But the two general categories are emerging naturally and are similar everywhere, so the division may be unavoidable.
There are many more divisions that can be created, to distinguish between people more or less conservative or liberal, and many people are not strongly inclined either way and so are "moderate". But, regardless of whatever governments or parties exist, and with plenty of exceptions of course, most people can be grouped into general categories of "conservative" or "liberal," and these forces work together for the society to preserve what is working and also innovate for solutions. These are the group dynamics we evolved.
You can measure whether people are more "conservative" or "liberal" by determining how they prioritize concepts of morality. Liberals value care over harm and fairness over inequity far more than any other value. Conservatives value those too, but not as much, and they also value authority, in-group loyalty, and purity in nearly equal measure. This is a pretty big difference and it shows up in people everywhere.
Humans are complex and I totally agree with you that two parties are not enough. But the two general categories are emerging naturally and are similar everywhere, so the division may be unavoidable.
07-31-23 • Floridian History
Carrie: Have you seen the new history curriculum they are pushing out in Florida? It emphasizes that enslaved people benefitted from the skills they were learning. They are also proposing using Prager U videos to teach students about slavery, like the one that has an animated Booker T. Washington telling modern-day kids that they should never apologize and they have nothing to feel guilty about.
Val: How terrible that kids might be seeing a cartoon message to love and forgive! How dare Desantis INDOCTRINATE kids with these types of messages! ?????? We shouldn't poison their young minds with all this talk of faith and trust either!!!
It burns your little communist minds, doesn't it, when a little bit of decency is allowed to creep into a state!
If people really wanted to teach the true, unvarnished history of slavery in the U.S. to students, there is already a curriculum designed to do that, rigorously sourced and based on award-winning journalism and academic research. It's the 1619 Project. If they really wanted to understand the legal, social and political ramifications of slavery that still resonate today, there is an acclaimed academic framework for that. It's called Critical Race Theory.
Unfortunately, the truth hurts, so those worthy efforts at understanding have become the enemy, and that's what this Floridian approach is supposed to be supplanting.
The 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory are serious, stringently-researched frameworks for understanding our history, and while they tell harsh truths, there is nothing in them that any kid should feel personally guilty about. But nations can be guilty of past wrongs, and they can apologize for them, and that is usually a step towards healing. The Floridian/Prager-U "we've-got-nothing-to-apologize-for" approach is a step backwards.
Unfortunately, the truth hurts, so those worthy efforts at understanding have become the enemy, and that's what this Floridian approach is supposed to be supplanting.
The 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory are serious, stringently-researched frameworks for understanding our history, and while they tell harsh truths, there is nothing in them that any kid should feel personally guilty about. But nations can be guilty of past wrongs, and they can apologize for them, and that is usually a step towards healing. The Floridian/Prager-U "we've-got-nothing-to-apologize-for" approach is a step backwards.
BabyBunni: I think history is very important and that includes the bad with the good. However I see no problem stating that today's generation should never feel guilty about what people in the past have done. I don't see it as a problem and don't see why anyone would be against children being told you are not responsible for history.
BabyBunni, I appreciate that we can discuss this. I can see some reasons why this approach is problematic.
For one thing, it strongly implies that this is typical; that white kids ARE routinely expected to feel guilty and apologize when taught about slavery. As far as I know, they are never taught this. So it's not right to imply that this is rampant when it's more like a solution in search of a problem.
Secondly, this idea that "teaching slavery requires kids to feel guilty and apologize" has been seized upon as an excuse to whitewash the teaching of uncomfortable history, to the extent of banning "Ruby Bridges Goes to School," etc. It's just an excuse to avoid covering it at all.
Third, it's offensive to think that THAT'S the takeaway from learning about slavery - making sure white people don't feel bad about it. It centers the white experience and white comfort as the most important thing to consider. And this is just for the idea that kids *might* experience discomfort hearing about it. Where is the concern for black people and the racism and structural disadvantage and intersectionality that they DO experience? Addressing those feelings should be a priority.
Fourth, IMO, it's letting people off the hook for responsibility. Not for the sins of the past; for the sins of the present, which are still happening, and the conditions of the present, which are the result of policies. Of course we bear no personal responsibility for slavery - we were not there! But our country and our culture does bear some responsibility, and as its stewards, it's on us to recognize this and atone for it. The prejudice that slavery created persists in a myriad of structural biases and it will take a lot of effort on the part of people living today to set it right. This is our responsibility.
Fifth, feeling bad about some "historical stuff" seems appropriate. Don't we all get a feeling of horror in the pit of our stomachs when we first understand the atrocities of the Holocaust? That's good, it means we can recognize evil when we encounter it, and work to prevent it happening again. I don't think a careful teaching of U.S. history should make anyone feel "guilty," but I think it's unavoidable that good people will feel bad when they learn about atrocities, and that's okay.
Six, saying "I'm sorry you have to deal with that," is not even a personal apology. It's just expressing sympathy. There was nothing at all wrong with Layla's saying sorry in the first place.
That is a bit of the reasoning why this video clip seems problematic and, at the very least, not the best source to teach Florida schoolkids about slavery. Thanks again BB!
For one thing, it strongly implies that this is typical; that white kids ARE routinely expected to feel guilty and apologize when taught about slavery. As far as I know, they are never taught this. So it's not right to imply that this is rampant when it's more like a solution in search of a problem.
Secondly, this idea that "teaching slavery requires kids to feel guilty and apologize" has been seized upon as an excuse to whitewash the teaching of uncomfortable history, to the extent of banning "Ruby Bridges Goes to School," etc. It's just an excuse to avoid covering it at all.
Third, it's offensive to think that THAT'S the takeaway from learning about slavery - making sure white people don't feel bad about it. It centers the white experience and white comfort as the most important thing to consider. And this is just for the idea that kids *might* experience discomfort hearing about it. Where is the concern for black people and the racism and structural disadvantage and intersectionality that they DO experience? Addressing those feelings should be a priority.
Fourth, IMO, it's letting people off the hook for responsibility. Not for the sins of the past; for the sins of the present, which are still happening, and the conditions of the present, which are the result of policies. Of course we bear no personal responsibility for slavery - we were not there! But our country and our culture does bear some responsibility, and as its stewards, it's on us to recognize this and atone for it. The prejudice that slavery created persists in a myriad of structural biases and it will take a lot of effort on the part of people living today to set it right. This is our responsibility.
Fifth, feeling bad about some "historical stuff" seems appropriate. Don't we all get a feeling of horror in the pit of our stomachs when we first understand the atrocities of the Holocaust? That's good, it means we can recognize evil when we encounter it, and work to prevent it happening again. I don't think a careful teaching of U.S. history should make anyone feel "guilty," but I think it's unavoidable that good people will feel bad when they learn about atrocities, and that's okay.
Six, saying "I'm sorry you have to deal with that," is not even a personal apology. It's just expressing sympathy. There was nothing at all wrong with Layla's saying sorry in the first place.
That is a bit of the reasoning why this video clip seems problematic and, at the very least, not the best source to teach Florida schoolkids about slavery. Thanks again BB!
07-22-23 • Country Song and City Song
Linda: Here are the lyrics to the new Jason Aldean song, which he denies is about lynching...
Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk
Carjack an old lady at a red light
Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store
Ya think it's cool, well, act a fool if ya like
Cuss out a cop, spit in his face
Stomp on the flag and light it up
Yeah, ya think you're tough
Well, try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town
Got a gun that my granddad gave me
They say one day they're gonna round up
Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town
Carjack an old lady at a red light
Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store
Ya think it's cool, well, act a fool if ya like
Cuss out a cop, spit in his face
Stomp on the flag and light it up
Yeah, ya think you're tough
Well, try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town
Got a gun that my granddad gave me
They say one day they're gonna round up
Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town
Carrie: A song extolling vigilante justice. Seems kind of racist, especially since the video was filmed at the site of a famous lynching.
Linda: But the reason it is being so heavily defended is not for racist reasons, I think it’s a backlash against people feeling scared by seeing so many riots in the past few years.
Mass rioting is caused by injustice. The solution is to address the injustice. This is just head-in-the-sand, reactionary wagon-circling. It won't help.
Linda: That’s not how most of these small town people see it.
They do know that this spawned from police violence, but they don’t feel as though they have any control over it, and they don’t feel as though they are the perpetrators, so the only thing they do feel is scared that these riots could come to their neighborhood.
Well, that does not sound like a very healthy way to live, does it? Afraid and on hair trigger every second of your life against something that is extremely unlikely to ever happen? It's like having a phobia so severe that you can't go outside and breathe free. It's very limiting.
While I stand by his right to say it, I don't think this song leaning into and encouraging that phobia is a good thing. How are people supposed to learn the real cause and solution?
As I have often said, the MAIN reason people in small towns (and everywhere else) are so afraid is because they are barely getting by and not enfranchised. The cure is more agency and shared prosperity. That cures riots, too. That is what *everyone* needs to take action for.
Circling these wagons is going in the opposite direction and that's why this song is part of the problem.
Later:
I fed Jason's song into Chat GPT and asked it to come up with the opposite song called "Try That in a Big Town." It's no Taylor Swift, and it does not necessarily reflect my views, but this is what it came up with:
Me: Verse 1)
Spread rumors 'bout your neighbor, what a shame
Play politics, but hide behind a friendly name
Sheriff on the take, justice far from fair
Slurs are whispered upon the night air
Chorus:
Try that in a big town, and you'll see
Small-minded ways won't set you free
We embrace diversity and human rights
In a big town, we aim for greater heights
Verse 2:
Confederate flags flying high with pride
In a big town, we don't let those symbols slide
We're moving forward, growing from our past
Not clinging to prejudices that forever last
Pre-Chorus:
In genteel manners, inequality's veiled
Behind closed doors, discrimination's hailed
Sundown towns and hidden fears
In a big town, we face it head-on, no more tears
Chorus:
Try that in a big town, and you'll see
Small-minded ways won't set you free
We embrace diversity and human rights
In a big town, we aim for greater heights
Bridge:
Live in the closet, afraid to be free
In a big town, love's celebrated openly
Claims of purity in the church's air
But we expose the dark where children fear
Verse 3:
In a small town, they claim it's so pure
But behind closed doors, the truth is obscure
In a big town, we're not afraid to grow
Our hearts and minds, we let them flow
Pre-Chorus:
In genteel manners, inequality's veiled
Behind closed doors, discrimination's hailed
Sundown towns and hidden fears
In a big town, we face it head-on, no more tears
Chorus:
Try that in a big town, and you'll see
Small-minded ways won't set you free
We embrace diversity and human rights
In a big town, we aim for greater heights
Outro:
So let's debunk the myths and break down walls
In a big town, we stand tall
Small towns may keep some minds small
But in a big town, love and progress rule
(Disclaimer: This parody song aims to highlight the potential issues and challenges that can exist in small towns, but it does not generalize or stereotype all small towns or their residents. Every community is unique and deserves understanding and respect.)
While I stand by his right to say it, I don't think this song leaning into and encouraging that phobia is a good thing. How are people supposed to learn the real cause and solution?
As I have often said, the MAIN reason people in small towns (and everywhere else) are so afraid is because they are barely getting by and not enfranchised. The cure is more agency and shared prosperity. That cures riots, too. That is what *everyone* needs to take action for.
Circling these wagons is going in the opposite direction and that's why this song is part of the problem.
Later:
I fed Jason's song into Chat GPT and asked it to come up with the opposite song called "Try That in a Big Town." It's no Taylor Swift, and it does not necessarily reflect my views, but this is what it came up with:
Me: Verse 1)
Spread rumors 'bout your neighbor, what a shame
Play politics, but hide behind a friendly name
Sheriff on the take, justice far from fair
Slurs are whispered upon the night air
Chorus:
Try that in a big town, and you'll see
Small-minded ways won't set you free
We embrace diversity and human rights
In a big town, we aim for greater heights
Verse 2:
Confederate flags flying high with pride
In a big town, we don't let those symbols slide
We're moving forward, growing from our past
Not clinging to prejudices that forever last
Pre-Chorus:
In genteel manners, inequality's veiled
Behind closed doors, discrimination's hailed
Sundown towns and hidden fears
In a big town, we face it head-on, no more tears
Chorus:
Try that in a big town, and you'll see
Small-minded ways won't set you free
We embrace diversity and human rights
In a big town, we aim for greater heights
Bridge:
Live in the closet, afraid to be free
In a big town, love's celebrated openly
Claims of purity in the church's air
But we expose the dark where children fear
Verse 3:
In a small town, they claim it's so pure
But behind closed doors, the truth is obscure
In a big town, we're not afraid to grow
Our hearts and minds, we let them flow
Pre-Chorus:
In genteel manners, inequality's veiled
Behind closed doors, discrimination's hailed
Sundown towns and hidden fears
In a big town, we face it head-on, no more tears
Chorus:
Try that in a big town, and you'll see
Small-minded ways won't set you free
We embrace diversity and human rights
In a big town, we aim for greater heights
Outro:
So let's debunk the myths and break down walls
In a big town, we stand tall
Small towns may keep some minds small
But in a big town, love and progress rule
(Disclaimer: This parody song aims to highlight the potential issues and challenges that can exist in small towns, but it does not generalize or stereotype all small towns or their residents. Every community is unique and deserves understanding and respect.)
BigFan: Hey that's great! You should record it! Or give it to a band.
Linda: That would make just about everyone from my small town disengage and no longer be willing to give credence to the discussion entirely.
I don't see why. We are willing to discuss Jason's song, even though it's stereotyping and there is much we don't agree with. Is this somehow worse? Or are they different?
Linda: Most people from this small town feel as though people from big cities target small towns for ridicule… being simple minded, stupid, stubborn…
It just makes them disengage because they feel like the person saying those things doesn’t know anything about them and they don’t give credence to the insults.
Well, I think we can rest assured that they will never hear it, lol. It's not catchy.
And, that didn't stop Jason Aldean from making his big hit, or stop people from rallying around it, even though it's fear-based reactionary metrophobia. Perhaps you should be telling them that the person saying those things doesn't know anything about it and is stoking profound phobias and separatism couched in terms of graphic violence.
Nobody was worried that his song might make big city folk or anyone else "too offended" to further engage. So I don't agree that protecting the discursive relationship from songs is now a concern, especially just for one side.
And, that didn't stop Jason Aldean from making his big hit, or stop people from rallying around it, even though it's fear-based reactionary metrophobia. Perhaps you should be telling them that the person saying those things doesn't know anything about it and is stoking profound phobias and separatism couched in terms of graphic violence.
Nobody was worried that his song might make big city folk or anyone else "too offended" to further engage. So I don't agree that protecting the discursive relationship from songs is now a concern, especially just for one side.
Linda: No… they weren’t worried at all. When a song lambasting big city life came out it was embraced, just as this parody song lambasting small town living was enjoyed and suggested to promote further…
Which is a bit indicative of where we are as a society..
To a degree, both sides legitimately enjoy “sticking it” to the other side…
It's a story as old as Country Mouse and City Mouse, lol.
But what I object to is the suggestion that small town people can't take it, my song would be much too insulting for them and would just shut them down. Really? Yet, they would gladly dole it out, and obviously big city people can take it and talk about it. What's with them?
But what I object to is the suggestion that small town people can't take it, my song would be much too insulting for them and would just shut them down. Really? Yet, they would gladly dole it out, and obviously big city people can take it and talk about it. What's with them?
Linda: I said they would disengage in the conversation. They might add a “Bless your heart” or something like that… but it’s just not a way to get someone to listen if you’re trying to convince them of something…
The song probably wasn’t meant to spark conversation that would change anyone’s mind, it was specifically written for the individuals who agree with the sentiment.
( I was going to go back and edit that last sentence to be specific about which song I was talking about, but it could apply to either one )
Well you brought it up, posted the lyrics here. Why did you do that, if it's a bad way to try to get someone to listen? Or, is it only a problem after I do it? Please.
I think you posted it here to spark a conversation, to make points like people in small towns are fearful of riots, for example. Great, I don't think that was intended as an insult, and if anything I will consider that fear more in the future, thanks.
I too wanted to make an argument, that there is more acceptance of diversity in big cities. Too much? Is it really an insult to say they fly Confederate flags with pride in small towns when that really happens? Is it really an insult to question small town justice, given this country's history? Is it really an insult to mention sundown towns, a real thing to this day? Is it really an insult to small towns to point out that big cities are more accepting of gay people? I don't think it's really that insulting at all...just pointing out real problems that persist, and showing we can "aim for greater heights."
And I think what some people want to avoid when they say "Bless your heart" and walk away is acknowledging this.
I think you posted it here to spark a conversation, to make points like people in small towns are fearful of riots, for example. Great, I don't think that was intended as an insult, and if anything I will consider that fear more in the future, thanks.
I too wanted to make an argument, that there is more acceptance of diversity in big cities. Too much? Is it really an insult to say they fly Confederate flags with pride in small towns when that really happens? Is it really an insult to question small town justice, given this country's history? Is it really an insult to mention sundown towns, a real thing to this day? Is it really an insult to small towns to point out that big cities are more accepting of gay people? I don't think it's really that insulting at all...just pointing out real problems that persist, and showing we can "aim for greater heights."
And I think what some people want to avoid when they say "Bless your heart" and walk away is acknowledging this.
07-25-23 • More Country Song
Penny: The "Country vs. City" song has a long history - people are asking if Hank Williams Jr.'s "Country Boy Can Survive" is like the new Jason Aldean song, and if it's also racist.
Linda: The two sides do like to insult each other.
Betty: There's no reason for insults from any side. If you love country living, great, live in the country, but don't insult city living. If you love city living, great, live in the city, but don't insult country living. It goes both ways.
It's not just Country Mouse/City Mouse rivalry. It's conservative/liberal conflict about how America should be.
Penny: Too many people think that small rural America is ALL conservative and cities are ALL liberal which is just not the case. In my town, about 25% of residents consider themselves liberal (that's about 3000 people in a county of 15,000 which is not a small number) and many of those liberals feel like unwanted residents.
I know the feeling, from living in small town Oklahoma during the Obama years. One summer we were at the annual Payne County Democrats barbecue, and the speaker remarked that there were so few of us, these events seemed more like support group meetings.
It's true that no town or city is *all* one thing or the other. But at the county level, where political power goes to the winning party, it's a pretty consistent pattern - rural counties go red, urban counties go blue.
It's true that no town or city is *all* one thing or the other. But at the county level, where political power goes to the winning party, it's a pretty consistent pattern - rural counties go red, urban counties go blue.
Betty: Why can't we all just have our own preference without feeling threatened that someone else has a different preference?
Because someone might prefer something that others think should be against the law, like having an abortion, or leading a prayer in school.
It's not just about personal preferences. It's about having control over what is legal to do in this country, and yes it IS the conservative vs. the liberal vision.
It's not just about personal preferences. It's about having control over what is legal to do in this country, and yes it IS the conservative vs. the liberal vision.
Linda: LMAO, now " A country boy can survive " is a racist song. All this is accomplishing is more divide.
It's not racist, but it is retrograde. Here's a line from "A Country Boy Can Survive":
We say grace, and we say Ma'am
If you ain't into that, we don't give a damn.
The song declares a clear commitment to an earlier time, an earlier code of conduct, before feminism, when prayer was not questioned. It may not be explicitly racist, but it's hard to avoid that implication when hearkening back to a simpler time, because there was no simpler time in this country when we were not a racial caste system.
v^--------------------_____________------------------^v
We say grace, and we say Ma'am
If you ain't into that, we don't give a damn.
The song declares a clear commitment to an earlier time, an earlier code of conduct, before feminism, when prayer was not questioned. It may not be explicitly racist, but it's hard to avoid that implication when hearkening back to a simpler time, because there was no simpler time in this country when we were not a racial caste system.
Betty: Why is there conflict about "how America should be"? America doesn't have to be just one way. That's actually what makes America great is choices and options and differences. That's why we have so many different sub-cultures. Because different people are going to want different things so if a particular culture is important to you, go live where that culture is prevalent.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way when what people want is to restrict access to abortion, or maintain a separation of church and state, etc. America does have to be one way on protecting rights, and that is what the conflict is about - not "culture."
Betty: Just because others *think* something should be against the law doesn't make it so.
Betty, they ARE making it so, by overturning Roe v Wade, undermining public service rights, passing 'don't say gay' and anti-CRT laws, etc. It's happening right now and that is the problem. I think we do have an obligation to resist others' "preferences" when they threaten human rights.
That's why it's not just a culture war over whether big city or small town life is better, when the obvious answer is pick your choice. It's really a struggle over conservative vs. liberal visions for who should have rights everywhere in the country.
That's why it's not just a culture war over whether big city or small town life is better, when the obvious answer is pick your choice. It's really a struggle over conservative vs. liberal visions for who should have rights everywhere in the country.
Betty: That should be a no-brainer. Everyone should have rights everywhere in the country. The only time one person's rights should be impeded is when those rights infringe on the safety of another.
You are right, it should be a no-brainer, but remember that until 1964, within living memory, the United States was a racial caste system. Everyone having rights everywhere is practically brand-new. And it only lasted until 2022, when Roe v Wade was struck down. I would say it does not come naturally to the human character, at least not to everyone. That's why it's such a struggle to maintain.
ETA: Actually I don't think we can count everyone having rights everywhere until the Obergefell decision made gay marriage legal in 2015. So we made it almost 7 years with everyone having rights everywhere.
ETA: Actually I don't think we can count everyone having rights everywhere until the Obergefell decision made gay marriage legal in 2015. So we made it almost 7 years with everyone having rights everywhere.
07-16-23 • Business is Brutal
Renny: Did you know that if restaurant customers dine-and-dash, the server has to pay their bill? Is that fair?
Margo: That's pretty standard. It's to protect the restaurant owner from the servers. They like to hand out free meals to their friends or pocket the tips without claiming them.
Renny: Servers get screwed by the owners and stiffed by the customers, who will use any excuse not to tip.
That is the competitive system we have constructed to live in. We are all set against each other, trying to shore up our own bottom line.
Renny: The restaurant business is a brutal system with little incentive to change.
Every business is brutal. It's like throwing coins on the ground and watching peasants fight for them. And so very unnecessary - the scarcity is artificial.
07-16-23 • Descriptors
Linda: What do you think of this shirt? Would those descriptors make you not like someone?
Queenie: If I was out in public, I probably wouldn’t even notice what it reads. I generally don’t read people’s shirts.
I think the question is, hypothetically, if you were meeting the person in the shirt, what impression would it make.
Out in public, I do read people's shirts and observe everything about them. I'm a people watcher, endlessly fascinated.
Out in public, I do read people's shirts and observe everything about them. I'm a people watcher, endlessly fascinated.
Teach: I wouldn’t not like someone who wears this. With that said, I’d think the person wearing it is tired of being told he must conform to society being accepting of everyone and everything.
I think you are right about this. But if we want to live in a democracy with liberty and justice for all, we do have to accept everyone. If that's tiring, they need to build up the acceptance muscles.
Queenie: He could just be tired of being condemned and criticized for his labels.
A LOT of people are tired of that. He should be the least tired of all of them, since it's new.
And, really, is that what is happening?
And, really, is that what is happening?
Teach: I disagree. We don't have to accept everyone. There are things I accept that my parents don't accept and that's 100% okay. We don't have to blindly accept things we don't buy into just because it's PC.
What is there not to accept about being non-white, non-straight, non-Republican or non-male? What are people so "tired" of accepting?
v^--------------------_____________------------------^v
So here is what this discussion is about IMO. For a thousand years in this hemisphere, give or take, men had more power than women, Europeans had more power than the colonies, and the church had more power than the state. This power structure enforced a rigid caste system onto the society, causing untold suffering. A few hundred years ago, a few guys started to think we could transcend those limits, and share power. It was a beautiful idea. But it still took *two hundred years* to get rid of the caste system, the gender inequality and the religious taboos that made some people second-class citizens.
All anyone really has to accept now is that the caste system, gender inequality and shaming gays was wrong, and it's over. If people don't want to accept that, we can't live in a fair democracy. That is the struggle we are having now. And it's a big one.
So here is what this discussion is about IMO. For a thousand years in this hemisphere, give or take, men had more power than women, Europeans had more power than the colonies, and the church had more power than the state. This power structure enforced a rigid caste system onto the society, causing untold suffering. A few hundred years ago, a few guys started to think we could transcend those limits, and share power. It was a beautiful idea. But it still took *two hundred years* to get rid of the caste system, the gender inequality and the religious taboos that made some people second-class citizens.
All anyone really has to accept now is that the caste system, gender inequality and shaming gays was wrong, and it's over. If people don't want to accept that, we can't live in a fair democracy. That is the struggle we are having now. And it's a big one.
TrTr: I think maybe using the word "accept" is actually part of the divide. The LGBTQ+ society has a whole "acceptance" movement, and to that end I think they mean "You need to accept that we have different sexuality, and you can't treat us as 'less than' because of it". But then there is a whole group of religious people who truly believe that the LGBTQ+ behaviors are sins and when they hear "acceptance" they think they are being forced to accept it as not sinful. They think they have to accept these behaviors in their lives as "right" or "ok". Hence the constant battle and divide between the two groups.
But really all (most) LGBTQ+ people want is to be treated the same as any typical heterosexual person. So if we say I'm a gay white female, you (general) can think my lifestyle is wrong but don't come up in my face and say "you're wrong and you're going to hell!" Normal people don't do that, just let me be and live my life. I can't treat them different just because I think their actions are wrong. That's "acceptance" in this context.
With all due respect, I must disagree here. I don't think its okay to secretly feel that someone is wrong just because they are gay, as long as you don't say it out loud. Being gay is perfectly natural and it's just as legitimate as being hetero and that's what the prejudice is about. The reasons for considering it 'wrong' are just superstitious taboos - not because it's actually harmful, bad, unnatural or in any way problematic. I think people who refuse to accept that being gay is legitimate are hurting themselves, and they they risk hurting people who are gay with their judgement, because it might not be as secret as they think it is. That is why I think most people should try to build up acceptance muscles rather than sit on their prejudice.
That said, I understand that some people just don't like it when others are different and they can't change. Fine. As I said, the only thing people really *have* to accept is that there are no second-class citizens. If someone can think gays are basically 'wrong' as people without thinking they are LESS as people, it's acceptance enough. But that's hard.
That said, I understand that some people just don't like it when others are different and they can't change. Fine. As I said, the only thing people really *have* to accept is that there are no second-class citizens. If someone can think gays are basically 'wrong' as people without thinking they are LESS as people, it's acceptance enough. But that's hard.
07-11-23 • Republican Party 2023
Swinger: Two dozen white supremacists are outside the main Disney World entrance in Orlando right now, marching with signs featuring Gov DeSantis's face, swastikas, the n-word and homophobic slurs.
This is the Republican Party 2023.
Dinger: Just as the "squad" and the socialists are not the face of the Democrats neither are the half-wits in the photo and other right wingers the face of the Republicans.
This is divisive and part of the problem here in this country and serves no purpose.
Who is the Republican Party 2023?
[crickets]
Well that's the problem, isn't it?
"The Squad" or "socialists" might be "far left" but they don't represent the Democratic party because of the enormous counterweight provided by the mainstream, center-left base represented by milquetoast leaders like Biden and Harris, Warren and Buttigieg, Pelosi and Schumer. They are lame but at least we can say who they are.
There are no counterweights to the extremism of Trump and DeSantis in the 2023 Republican party who anyone is willing to admit they support.
[crickets]
Well that's the problem, isn't it?
"The Squad" or "socialists" might be "far left" but they don't represent the Democratic party because of the enormous counterweight provided by the mainstream, center-left base represented by milquetoast leaders like Biden and Harris, Warren and Buttigieg, Pelosi and Schumer. They are lame but at least we can say who they are.
There are no counterweights to the extremism of Trump and DeSantis in the 2023 Republican party who anyone is willing to admit they support.
Read more in the Archives.