Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

gurragadon posted:

People deserve to know their children are dying for pure nonsense

Are there people who currently think otherwise?

"Yes, it's scary to think my children might be terrorized and brutally destroyed in a suicidal assault on their classroom, but at least I take some comfort in knowing that the killer likely had some good reasons for doing it.." Nobody thinks this - school shooters, and whatever rationales they outline in they claim, are already discredited on the basis that they are school shooters.

I really can't imagine a more universal belief among Americans than "school shooters don't have any good reason to shoot up schools."

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Apr 17, 2023

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

gurragadon posted:

It is a way to be heard in this country. It's a terrible way to be heard but it is a form of being heard in this country. I can't say their reasons are obviously pointless without knowing. The fake rationale they put up in defense of their reasons should be known so they can be looked out for.

If the idea is, "we need these manifestos available because they help us identify and save people who might enter the same psychological spiral," that's a good reason to make them available to the public. It's not a good reason to put them all over the news but to make them public so researchers or clinicians can use them for that purpose.

quote:

I just think that when information is made fully available it better serves the public.

Agreed, there are some tricky exceptions but generally this is a good reason to make information available to the public.

quote:

I truly don't believe people know the pure absurdity of the rationale in some of these manifestos. When they talk about internet memes and Sam Hyde and poo poo like that. Like I think everyone thinks and knows their reason is stupid, I just don't think they know how stupid and pointless it is.

This is completely ridiculous. The vast majority of us already know that mass shootings are 100% stupid and 100% pointless. If anyone thinks "maybe that murder spree wasn't totally stupid and pointless" then they don't need to read the manifesto, they need urgent psychological assistance, because they're deeply unwell.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

XboxPants posted:

Yes, absolutely. There are many people who think that people do this because they are bad people, that they're evil. That it's some sort of moral failing. This leads to a sort of moral panic, and a general feeling that we need to tighten down the moral control of society. You can see this in the quote from Rep. Tim Burchett from a couple pages back:

In reality, while their acts are certainly evil, when you read these manifestos you get the distinct impression that they have completely lost touch with reality. Can't barely hold a coherent thought. No amount of teaching good Christian values to them would have helped.

The distinction you're drawing between "evil" and "lost touch with reality" has some academic significance but it's irrelevant to popular discourse. Every strata of society sees school shooters first and foremost as "crazy." What differs is just what we believe produces "crazy" people (evolution in schools? Brain chemistry? Atheism? Social circumstance? Too much sex on TV? Too little sex in real life?) and these manifestos won't persuade people to drop whatever beliefs they already held on that question.

For some social science and psychology researchers, these manifestos are valuable documents for analysis. For everyone else they are basically horrifying Rorschach tests that show you what's already obvious (mass shooters are violently deranged) and otherwise only enable you to project your own narrative onto an unreliable text.

They should be publicly available but they basically have not ever, and will not ever, make a positive contribution to the public discourse.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Mar 30, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

this is so weird. do you *actually* prefer the alternative of Feinstein('s aides) continuing to vote for her remotely?

Vahakyla posted:

If counterbalance is Feinsteinís aides voting for her, I wanna know what we gain from it.

Responding to both of these, if Feinstein could "work from home" then the Democrats would be able to appoint several liberal judges, while if this situation continues indefinitely, the Republicans could eventually take power in that committee and appoint reactionary ghouls instead. So obviously it is preferable that Feinstein gets a WFH exemption or whatever other legal fiction enables her political machine to function.

The problem with politicians is that they vote on behalf of their greatest campaign donors, that's always true and doesn't change whether they're voting in DC, at home, whether it's really them voting or an employee of theirs voting, whatever.

Seems to me that the best way to play it is "exploit the rules to make voting maximally inconvenient for your enemies and maximally convenient for yourself and your allies" and maybe "accept deals that make voting easier for everyone, as this simplifies the political process and makes it easier for normal busy people to see how they're getting rooked and why."

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

cr0y posted:

My main argument for making people physically be in a chamber to vote is that it makes it harder for an elected official to treat the office like a side hustle.

Why is this good?

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Oxyclean posted:

Is there a good reason elected official should be treated like a side hustle?

I don't see the difference either way - the vast majority aren't responsive to me at all, they work for their donors, so why should I care if they do it with gusto or half-rear end it?

As for the ones who *are* responsive to me, their responsiveness to me necessarily means I already have a mechanism to address any malfeasance, I don't have to have them written up for violating HR policy.

cr0y posted:

Because United States Senator is not driving for Uber when you have some free time, it is literally their full-time job and are being paid several hundred thousand dollars to do it.

This is how I would feel if my coworkers were acting like this, or someone hired to provide me a service, but Mitch McConnell and Diane Feinstein aren't either of those unless you are wildly politically naive.

They both work for political machines which are totally apathetic to my welfare and unresponsive to my interests. Why should I care on principle if they are good or bad at their jobs, or if their effort corresponds to their compensation? I don't immediately care if some exec at Uber is slacking off, why is this situation different?

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Apr 17, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011
Approximately 100% of legislators treat the legislation job itself as a side hustle because it's necessarily overshadowed by the task of raising money for the next campaign or setting up whatever income flow the legislator will enjoy after leaving elected office.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

gurragadon posted:

This point is pretty nihilistic

Not at all. I said elected officials chase campaign donations all day, not that life lacks intrinsic meaning. I think the right word for both the point I make above and the one you make below is "realist."

gurragadon posted:

there is a continuum of donors that politicians have, and some donors have interests that align more with mine. I'd rather someone listen to George Soros than Harlan Crow. I actually agree with you that politicians don't represent me very well at all, but we should work within a system while trying to change it as well.

Agreed, but unclear how this pertains to the question of how American politics would be affected by letting legislators vote remotely. If George Soros or any other Mr. Moneybags isn't happy with his sponsored legislator's job performance, Lord knows he has the tools to address it

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Apr 17, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

gurragadon posted:

My point was that because some donors are more aligned with what I think, I want the legislators in congress full time to listen to people who are aligned with me.

It seems like you're saying more meetings with donors is intrinsically better than fewer meetings with donors because some of those donors better represent your politics than other donors. Do I have that right? If so I find it totally illogical.

There is no reason to think "more meetings with donors => better/more progressive politics."

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Apr 17, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Mellow Seas posted:

^^^ I... really don't think that's what they're saying, but I'll let them answer.

To me it's the only straightforward parsing of what they said: "because some donors are more aligned with what I think, I want the legislators in congress full time to listen to people who are aligned with me."

Some - not even "most," just "some." But because SOME donors exist who are MORE aligned with what the poster thinks than other donors the poster wants legislators in Congress full time, "to listen" to donors more. What's the other reading?

quote:

I dunno, one of our two political parties is currently completely out of the hands of its wealthy donor base .

If the Republican party were truly "completely out of the hands of its wealthy donor base" it would no longer have a wealthy donor base.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

gurragadon posted:

I'm not saying that its an A to B kind of thing in logic. My point is coming from my misreading on the discussion of part time workers. I believe that a Senator who performs there job full time has more experience and knowledge of being a Senator than one who does it part time.

It's not clear to me how I benefit from senators being better at their jobs or taking their jobs more seriously, because a senator's job is to vote in a way that facilitates fundraising for their next campaign and their political party.

quote:

I want them to listen to people. Thats there job

It's their nominal responsibility but it's not what they're actually incentivized to do, so more experience/more time at the office won't make them do it more or do it better.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Mormonism also has some focus on building and maintaining a community and benefits for being in it so long as you can conform, while Scientology remains purely comically exploitative.

Scientology has plenty of "focus on building and maintaining a community and benefits for being in it so long as you can conform."

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Jaxyon posted:

Most white people don't even know who Cornel West is,

I don't think there's any race among whom most today would know about a professor whose biggest presence in popular culture was small features in the second two Matrix movies and whose current project is a Patreon-exclusive podcast. He doesn't have nearly the recognition his thought and talents warrant, that just gives him room to grow if he could ever get some sunlight.

I would love to see him in a real-deal debate, that would probably be a little more likely (snowballs chance vs no chance) if he ran as a Democrat.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Jun 6, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

PT6A posted:

No; other people from the generation are perfectly sane and normal.

Some people smoke all their lives and never get cancer.

Whether it's an "excuse" or just an explanation is basically a religious question with no practical application.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Adenoid Dan posted:

How much of the lead-crime link is actually just poor non-white people (the ones with by far the highest exposure) being over policed and crimes of poverty being the main ones we enforce?

I would guess all of it or close to it.

The literature on lead effects virtually always includes controls for race, gender, education, and poverty, and often they just use homicides which I wouldn't call a crime of poverty. The big concern should be publication bias.

But even with publication bias it seems apparent that people of all races get arrested less - and lead healthier and more fulfilling lives by almost any measure - when they haven't been dosed with a neurotoxin in their air and water until it fills their blood and bones.

We're still working on getting lead out of the pipes in Chicago - still working as in barely started - and it's totally horrifying and depressing and enraging to think about how we. a bunch of alleged grown-up adults, can't come together to de-poison our drinking water.

quote:

To my knowledge no one's gone around measuring childhood lead exposure in criminals to determine "yep, this one's full of lead",

There are multiple papers that basically do exactly this - they identify whether someone's lead testing levels are predictive of future incarceration when you control for race & socioeconomic background. They generally find that, even when you already know someone's race and economic background and gender, knowing how much lead was in their blood, even as a child or when they were in the womb, significantly improves predictions of whether they'll be arrested later on.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jun 6, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

PT6A posted:

Yes, I think it's a huge issue, and I don't mean to downplay it, I'm just saying that a conspiracy theory about why otherwise-healthy Gen-Xers suddenly turn into pricks seems unreasonable. The idea that lead exposure influences crime rates makes sense; the idea that lead is leeching out of people's bones and making them go nuts when they get old, is slightly less reasonable especially in consideration of the fact there are several other more plausible explanations.

Yeah it's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that someone's mental condition is affected by whether they have grew up drinking and inhaling a neurotoxin.

Of course just because we're talking about something real oesn't mean we're talking about something that instantly turns kind people into assholes. It's not werewolf juice, it's just another bale on the camel's back

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Jaxyon posted:

LOL if you think black people don't know who Cornel West is.

Yeah that's what I think. That's obviously not a fault of him or anyone who doesn't know about him, just the reality that he's not at the peak of his popularity and that peak wasn't high.

He had a minor role in thr Matrix sequels, he appeared on some relatively obscure albums in the early 2010s, now he has a podcast on Patreon. This isn't how you get to 50% name recognition in any demographic.

If you could show me wrong here it'd make my day though.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Jun 6, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Jaxyon posted:

i'm not sure how i'd prove that so I guess I'll concede?

It's like trying to prove that Morris Chestnut is well known in the black community but basically unheard of among whites.

Or the song This Christmas

Fair enough but I think there will be some resolution here.

I think it's more likely than not that at least one pollster throws him in, then you have a metric on % of people (probably broken down by race) who say they know him well enough to have an opinion

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

HookedOnChthonics posted:

i wonder if killer mike, e-40, the strokes, lupe fiasco, macklemore, tech n9ne, and dwayne "the rock" johnson all had a matrix watch party and that's why they all know who this obscure figure is and wanted to make reference to him in their songs? :allears:

Successful artists are usually woker and more culturally literate than the average bear, and often shout out their more obscure influences.

I also don't think the average American, or average American of any particular race, knows who Yosef Jochannon or Cheikh Anta Diop are.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

HookedOnChthonics posted:

(if you're not using hollywood nerd media as your main way of learning about the world, i guess)

Most Americans do learn about the world from what's on TV. Whether we know about someone is basically whether we've seen them on TV enough. This is why the art of political campaigning is mostly the art of getting TV shows to talk about you and putting advertisements on the TV.

HookedOnChthonics posted:

and that song in particular, notice how the obscure authors get a specific title named, while cornel west does not: https://genius.com/Krs-one-free-the-book-song-lyrics what might this tell you, contextually, about their relative notoriety?

I don't think you can use KRS-One lyrics to know which names are and aren't recognizable in the American public. KRS-One isn't an average anything and doesn't optimize his work to be maximally understood by the average anything. That's really a crazy and disturbing way to approach what art can tell us about the world.

The reality is that for most Americans - or most White Americans or most Black Americans or most [race] Americans - to know who or what you are, you need a lot of prominence, a level of prominence that doesn't happen without a successful marketing campaign. Most Americans can't name anyone on the Supreme Court. Most Americans can't name their own representative in the house. West has not been marketed to the public - any public - in this way

Jaxyon posted:

Dang it sure is weird that despite evidence someone still considers this prominent black intellectual as fringe.

"Prominent intellectual" means "not very prominent" in the actual country we live in. It's weird to think that the scale of his public recognition is going to be proportional to his intellectual or political merit. We don't live in an attention meritocracy

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jun 6, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

PT6A posted:

Yeah, he's clearly not fringe. I can't say I agree with him all the time, but I've heard him quite a bit (as a white Canadian) and... dude makes some good points. Also some really, really loving crazy points, but he's definitely a prominent voice in the public square and one ought to at least consider his ideas deeply whether you end up deciding they're correct or not.

What's he said that's really loving crazy?

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

socialsecurity posted:

This is insane victim blaming and frankly disgusting.

"Victim blaming" is a pathetic and often hateful thing to do in the context of criticizing a person who's just living their life within their rights.

It has nothing to do with military maneuvering and military maneuvering by other names (like national defense coalitions).

There we have to hold every state responsible for the predictable consequences of its actions, because states don't have rights, only responsibilities, and they can't be victims, they can only make or protect victims.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

karthun posted:

In this analogy of Russia and Ukraine, which guy is trying to live within their rights?

The point is that there is no analogy.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Finally, someone who also thinks Belgium had it coming.

Not sure if serious but the people living in invaded countries never deserve it. And states don't deserve anything because they're not people.

"Victim blaming" is a silly way to think about geopolitics because the state can't be a victim, it's supposed to be a machine that stops people from being victims so when people end up victims anyway we need to check of the machine failed or was simply overwhelmed

In this case I think the Ukrainian state was just squeezed between a rock and a hard place and couldn't get out of it no matter what it did, but if someone else thinks otherwise, that's not blaming the people whose lives were ended or ruined by this war.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jun 7, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Jarmak posted:

States are made up of people, and there absolutely is an analogy.

As someone already said this is abuser logic given geopolitical scale.

There is no analogy between the interpersonal dynamics of an abusive relationship and the logic of geopolitical alliance and competition.

Nobody here would accept the idea that the government should make sure its revenue exceeds its expenses because that's what a household ought to do. Governments are not people or made up of people, they are machines operated by people. Sometimes the machine doesn't operate satisfactorily, and it's important to investigate that. Even if the issue was only possible or consequential because another state did something unreasonable or unacceptable.

If I'm in a car crash and it's totally the other guy's fault, but my airbags didn't deploy or my seatbelt snapped in half, it's important that I investigate that and figure out how to make the car better protect me from the outrageousness of others. It's not "victim blaming," it's not letting the other guy off the hook for hitting my car, it's me the victim trying to figure out how to keep myself safer the next time.

If someone thinks the Ukrainian state could have better protected its citizens from Russian aggression, that's not "victim blaming" and it doesn't validate the Russian aggression via "abuser logic." It's also not victim blaming to say that the Philippine government needs a better response to climate change even though it didn't remotely cause the crisis, or that systemic errors in American national security resulted in thousands of deaths on 9/11. We rely on our states to protect us from problems they didn't directly cause, and we can hold them to that standard

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

Personal finances work fundamentally differently than government budgets and central banks, in ways those lacking experience with the latter don't understand. But people making excuses to do poo poo they wanted to do anyway scales up and down pretty straightforwardly. 'They deserved it because they didn't do enough to avoid it' works entirely on the same logic whether the victim is a person or a country.

To say "the Ukrainian state failed to effectively navigate Russian aggression, and Ukrainians suffered as a result" is not to say the Ukrainian state deserved Russian aggression or that Russian aggression isn't a problem. And it's not any kind of moral claim. It might be incorrect but it's not a statement that the problems faced by the Ukrainian state are fine or cool or all the Ukrainian state's fault.

The task of a state should be to deal with problems it's not responsible for causing. If it only solves problems it caused, what's the point? When it's not effectively dealing with a problem, that's cause for concern and discussion among the people who are victims of the state's failure.

I grew up being taught that Neville Chamberlain totally bungled the UK's response to Naziism and demonstrated that appeasement doesn't work. It never carried the implication the UK/Europe deserved Nazi aggression or that Nazi Germany wasn't responsible for WWII.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Jun 7, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Main Paineframe posted:

Have you ever been taught that Czechoslovakia or Poland bungled their response to Nazism? How about Austria?
I went to public school so these countries didn't come up.

quote:

Appeasement is cited so often because it wasn't a threat to Britain itself, which was a major power with a considerable military and terrain that made it practically impossible to invade.
Appeasement enabled the Nazis to build up a military campaign which ultimately devastated the UK. I don't think it's controversial to say that appeasement, because it failed to protect the UK from Nazi aggression, was a disaster for the UK. I still don't think it's remotely comparable to interpersonal victim-blaming.

quote:

Would you say that the Anglo-Polish defensive alliance made Nazi Germany feel threatened and provoked the invasion that followed?

No, and it doesn't sound true, I think Nazi ideology made invasion inevitable regardless of what other countries did. But if someone says "there is an action the Polish state could have taken to better protect itself from the Nazis and it didn't take that action," then that's not a defense of the Nazis, and it might be an important contribution to the study of how we protect ourselves from Nazis and aggressive states, which is unfortunately something we still need to understand.

I really don't see a contradiction between "the Ukrainian state made significant errors in responding to Russian aggression, to the detriment of the Ukrainian people" and "the Russian state is responsible for Russian aggression."

It seems like the underlying idea here is "people are really stupid so if you point out say that the Ukrainian state handled this crisis wrong then everyone will forget or forgive that the Russian state caused the crisis in the first place" and I think that's more than fair when we're talking about interpersonal violence but when it comes to tens-of-millions-of-lives-and-deaths geopolitics we just have an obligation not to be stupid in that way, we have to be pretty coldly rational about fixing whatever's broken and in our control.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jun 7, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

ryde posted:

I think the problem that I, and many people, have with statements like "the Ukrainian state made significant errors in responding to Russian aggression, to the detriment of the Ukrainian people" is that when you dig into what they could have done better its always seems to be "give Russia what they want". Sometimes just giving Russia everything they want. So it's hard to view that stance as being orthogonal to Russia apologia.

I've been told many many times that the best way to handle a mugging is to give the mugger whatever they want unless it's traveling to another location with them. I don't think that's apologia for muggers, I think it's life-saving advice obtained from a coldly logical analysis of what happens when people respond to muggings in different ways.

I get the idea that the vast majority of criticism toward the Ukrainian state is stupid or unrealistic, but then we can just say it's stupid and unrealistic. "Victim blaming" is just not a good lens through which to understand statecraft - the analogy to interpersonal violence is emotionally inflammatory and obscures that the state's ratio of responsibilities to rights is the polar opposite of a person's.

I personally don't have any criticism for the Ukrainian state, I just really don't like the idea that a government should be held above scrutiny for its response to a problem because of the suffering of its citizens or because someone else caused the problem.

Like when the US government's response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill - both the spill itself and the well-documented safety issues which led to the spill - was dramatically inadequate. Calling that out wasn't an implicit defense of BP, it wasn't "victim blaming", it was just necessary for any serious conversation about protecting our oceans.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 7, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Jaxyon posted:

I grew up being taught all sorts of lost causer poo poo about the US Civil War.

Did you question any of it?

I'm not saying "I grew up learning appeasement was bad ergo it was," but "you can criticize a state's response to s problem without implying the problem is justified or the state's own fault."

Main Paineframe posted:

Now, bringing this back around to Ukraine, I don't think you've ever actually stated what "significant errors" the Ukrainian state made, or described how they "handled this crisis wrong".

I don't have any criticisms of the Ukrainian state. I just don't think it makes sense to dismiss the criticisms of others as "victim blaming." Even if those criticisms are literally always stupid or ridiculous, the analogy to interpersonal violence just doesn't work.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jun 7, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Google Jeb Bush posted:

I would very much like to listen to the backroom conversations of DeSantis et al about whether this gives them a shot

I can't imagine someone who was going to vote for Trump until this made them re-think it.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

zoux posted:

So why did people become more accepting over time?

TV shows about gay people being basically normal, news stories about likable celebrities being officially gay, and more and more people coming out as gay when a few decades ago they wouldn't've. Basically gradual exposure to the idea that gay people are everywhere and maybe a little interesting but not too weird.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jun 13, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011
Yeah GLBT used to be more common which is how you get stuff like:

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Killer robot posted:

It's a general thing about Europe that you can flip the old saying and say that the European left is your racist American aunt only really pro-labor.
What's the original saying?

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Racism (especially anti-black racism) is distinct from other bigotries because it's intrinsic in the person. A Jewish person can conceal their faith or practice it in a muted way to escape persecution.

Part of the invention of race was when this stopped being true for Jewish people during the Inquisition - converts to Christianity and their descendents were still seen as suspicious fifth-columnists not because of their religion but because of their descent.

While I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, what you said is so ignorant and unthoughtful that it's actually offensive. The victims of the Holocaust had no ability to escape persecution just by giving up the religion - hundreds of thousands of German victims were not religious at all - because they weren't being persecuted for the religion but for their ancestry.

Modern antisemitism (as in, dating back to the invention of the term 'antisemitism') is totally racialized and targets Jews of no religion just as much as religious Jews, the only way to escape it as you propose is to conceal the fact that your family is Jewish, not by doing the religion less.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jun 19, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Judgy Fucker posted:

Agreed. But "schools are a form of free childcare" is a qualitatively different statement than "schools should be nothing more than free childcare," and for some reason those two sentiments are getting twisted in this thread.

I don't think "schools should be nothing more than free childcare" is a remotely popular or impactful idea in American politics.

Parents of every political movement and cultural identity, as a rule, want their kids to go to a school where they learn a lot. The difference is what they want their kids to learn and how they want the kids to learn it.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jun 21, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Judgy Fucker posted:

My lived experience tells me it's a much, much, much, much higher number than that, including teaching in public schools for several years.

But of course I don't have statistical data to back that up so I can't present a more compelling case than "nuh uh."

I believe there are plenty of parents who prioritize the childcare over basically everything else, or who would rather their kids learn nothing at all than learn evolution/critical thinking/history of white supremacy, but did you ever encounter a parent who actually said "the kids shouldn't be learning anything at all, schools should be nothing more than free childcare"

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Judgy Fucker posted:

No, I encountered many parents who when I called them for any reason, positive or negative, made it clear in explicit terms I was bothering them and wasting their time.

So did I, but I wouldn't call that an objection to learning, just apathy to whether learning happens or not.

Judgy Fucker posted:

Functional belief, anyway. Not that that is something they have consciously said to themselves or anyone else, but the sum total of their thoughts and actions toward schools amounts to "the place that keeps my kids for free while I work and they better not bother me with any bullshit, I don't care."

This I absolutely agree with, when I read "schools should be nothing more than free childcare" I was imagining someone who consciously believes that and that's pretty rare. But agreed many parents are totally apathetic to schooling beyond the childcare dimension

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011
I wonder if the Diocese has any grounds to sue the fake priest over infringement of trademark.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Uglycat posted:

She wasn't a weak candidate.

Yes she was, because of the vast right wing conspiracy. The point was to hobble her reputation and it worked, so it made her a weak candidate.

Whether she had the intrinsic skills to be a good candidate in an alternate universe where those smears didn't take place, which you seem to be focused on, is a really stupid question.

Uglycat posted:

And i still suspect putin of killing Seth Rich so the fascists could put a body on Hillary before the election.

Two points here

1. In an alternate universe where nothing happens to Seth Rich, Hillary still loses. There are not tens of thousands of people who decided to vote for Trump, or not vote for Hillary, because of Seth Rich.

2. Think about what it means for a foreign state to kill a US citizen on US soil. If Putin was willing to take that extraordinary risk just to create a minor conspiracy theory about Clinton, he must have been doing it all the time, right? So which other bodies are we going to pin on the Russians? And if they're willing to kill an American in America to influence the media narrative, why didn't they spend way more money on the more direct interference?

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jun 30, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Oracle posted:

My chud sister is currently rather enamored of JFKIII because Catholic antivaxxer. Itíll be interesting to see how much support he peels off Republicans/Trump supporters looking for an alternative.

I would say basically none because he'll never be running against any Republicans or Trump. Maybe a very small number of people decide to vote in the DNC primaries instead of the RNC primaries in their state, but I can't see that being enough to swing anything - people don't like voting in the other party's primaries, it's a political identity issue.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011
There's a material explanation: Republican presidents pull the "Jobs for Republicans" and "Inflation for Democrats" levers, and Democratic presidents pull the "Jobs for Democrats" and "Inflation for Republicans" levers.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply