One of the weird things about Trump's speech today was the picture he painted of human trafficking, saying that human traffickers would put duct tape on a woman's face and tie her up when transporting her to the United States.
But that's not how human traffickers keep their victims silent. If you read accounts from survivors of human trafficking, their captors didn't rely on duct tape and physical restraints; they relied on a combination of psychological abuse, rape, death threats, indentured servitude (treating them as employees and arbitrarily adding to a victim's "debt" to their captor) and in some cases language barriers to keep their victims from seeking help or escaping. Human trafficking doesn't depend on a single day of secrecy when crossing a border--it takes years of abuse and oppression to keep a victim from escaping. The cages are not physical; they're mental. The restraints are not rope and duct tape; they're terror and despair. Human traffickers will very often transport their victims in public, at the airport, after terrorizing them into silence.
It bothers me that Trump will make up vivid scenarios out of whole cloth. The portrait he paints looks terrifying, but that's simply not what human trafficking looks like--he's just making up a story to justify the wall. Distorting the truth is one thing, but there's something about completely fabricating stories that especially bothers me.
He has never stopped giving varying versions of his "American Carnage" speech. It's basically the step-child of the age old stereotype that black men are on the prowl looking to rape white women. It's just been transferred to immigrants from Latin America. You paint the entire swath of people coming to the border (99% of whom are just regular people) with the brush of the absolute worst elements of society. He uses this imagery because it is meant to evoke visceral reactions. The situation at the border Trump describes on a daily basis is more akin to a Mad Max movie than any reality. And when reporters go to towns near the border and ask them about it, no one has any clue what he is even talking about.
They also tend to project the whole spare the rod, spoil the child crap to mean that any mercy shown to criminals is worthless and that only draconian punishment will lower the crime rate.
Studies have consistently found that the chance of getting caught has a much larger impact on reducing crime than the harshness of the punishment (which has virtually no effect at all). The problem is that criminals generally don't tend to be good decision makers or particularly logical thinkers, and so they essentially round down the chance of getting caught to zero. Criminals don't look up statistics on punishment and then do a cost-benefit analysis to see if a 1% chance of a 2-year prison sentence is worth the 99% chance of getting away with a crime. Corporation do that sort of analysis to find out if breaking the law is worth it (since they tend to get hit with monetary fines instead of jail time), but your average Bob the Robber isn't generally that clever. The average criminal just thinks "I won't get caught" and does it anyway, without even considering how severe the punishment is.
Police presence has a much stronger impact on reducing crime for one simple reason: criminals don't fear prison guards; they fear police officers. The best way to reduce the crime rate is to increase the police force and improve public surveillance. The threat of prison time is very abstract; a police officer is a much more concrete threat in the eyes of a would-be criminal.
If you actually did a cost-benefit analysis of a typical crime, you'd probably find that it wasn't remotely worth the risk. Even a 99% chance of getting away scot-free doesn't make a typical crime worth it; the penalties still outweigh the benefits many times over.
I mean, take the example of unsafe sex: on average, unprotected sex has only a 2% chance of resulting in a pregnancy. But how many acts of unprotected sex are you going to get away with before you hit that 2% chance? After 34 iterations, you've got a 50/50 chance of a pregnancy. After 114 iterations, your 2% chance has become 90%. Unless you're trying to get a child, that's not worth it.
About the "spare the rod and spoil the child" thing: when I first saw that phrase in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, I thought it meant "you should spare the rod, even if it spoils the child," as opposed to, "don't spare the rod, lest you spoil the child." You know, because beating children with sticks is a bad thing.
You'd think they'd remember to include the word "don't."
The funny thing is that the whole Hell for eternity thing doesn't seem to reduce the rate that Christians themselves engage in some of the more heinous crimes (rape, child molestation and suicide to name a few - didn't check out murder, theft, or other crime rates, nor things that are not crimes but are against general Christian beliefs such as homosexuality and adultery).
It's my understanding that there is a small but statistically significant negative correlation between religiosity and crime. Fear of Hell does discourage people from doing terrible things--it's just not a particularly strong effect.
One of the weird things about Trump's speech today was the picture he painted of human trafficking, saying that human traffickers would put duct tape on a woman's face and tie her up when transporting her to the United States.
But that's not how human traffickers keep their victims silent. If you read accounts from survivors of human trafficking, their captors didn't rely on duct tape and physical restraints; they relied on a combination of psychological abuse, rape, death threats, indentured servitude (treating them as employees and arbitrarily adding to a victim's "debt" to their captor) and in some cases language barriers to keep their victims from seeking help or escaping. Human trafficking doesn't depend on a single day of secrecy when crossing a border--it takes years of abuse and oppression to keep a victim from escaping. The cages are not physical; they're mental. The restraints are not rope and duct tape; they're terror and despair. Human traffickers will very often transport their victims in public, at the airport, after terrorizing them into silence.
It bothers me that Trump will make up vivid scenarios out of whole cloth. The portrait he paints looks terrifying, but that's simply not what human trafficking looks like--he's just making up a story to justify the wall. Distorting the truth is one thing, but there's something about completely fabricating stories that especially bothers me.
He has never stopped giving varying versions of his "American Carnage" speech. It's basically the step-child of the age old stereotype that black men are on the prowl looking to rape white women. It's just been transferred to immigrants from Latin America. You paint the entire swath of people coming to the border (99% of whom are just regular people) with the brush of the absolute worst elements of society. He uses this imagery because it is meant to evoke visceral reactions. The situation at the border Trump describes only a daily basis is more akin to a Mad Max movie than any reality. And when reporters go to towns near the border and ask them about it, no one has any clue what he is even talking about.
He's using a real problem, magnifying it, and then offering a solution that sounds so simple that the only explanation for why it hasn't been done already must be because of some vast conspiracy. I know the type of person that appeals to. Arguing with that type of person requires a tiring amount of psychology. I know! It's not impossible to change the views of those folks but you have to combat it with questions that make them think. Even then they'll argue with you until they're blue in the face and then trump you with "that's what God (or somebody that heard from God) said". It's only later that you'll find out they've modified their views (sometimes only slightly, but hey that's better than nothing). It's rather humorous to me that I'm probably viewed as one of the more right-wing persons on this thread. You haven't seen right-wing if you think that!
In regards to the Democratic Party.....there are two versions of it (and we are now going on three) since the early part of the 20th century. The first part peaked with FDR, who ushered in the most effective and popular government programs in history with the New Deal and saved the country from absolute collapse. The problem being, of course, that it had to come at the near COMPLETE expense of African-Americans to keep the coalition of southern whites in the fold (which the two aforementioned articles go into great detail about).
The 2nd part exists when LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act, and famously says "we have lost the South for a generation". This was true, but he was underselling how many generations were lost. At this time, though they are no means GOOD on racial issues, the Republican Party under Nixon absorbs the directly racist elements of the Confederacy into it's tent as a tactic. After this happens, Democrats go into the wilderness nationally for most of the rest of the century, as Carter only got one term because Nixon was a straight-up criminal and he was vowing honestly above all else, and Bill Clinton would have never been elected without swerving so far to the center on many issues in the 90s that today he would be almost indistinguishable from many Republicans.
Only under Obama has the party actually taken any real turns to the left, and, even then, Obama himself was extremely temperate and moderate. The difference is the coalition, the demographics of the people that supported him. The ideal version of the party combines the strength and effectiveness of the government under FDR with an honest to god commitment to voting rights of all citizens and the assurance that ALL of those citizens are able to take equal advantage of the programs made available, and the diversity of voters that Obama put together mostly through the strength of his charisma and personality. Point being, when I look at a picture of the Democratic House caucus, I see all of America. When I look at the Republican caucus, I see my rural home town of 500 people.
In regards to the Democratic Party.....there are two versions of it (and we are now going on three) since the early part of the 20th century. The first part peaked with FDR, who ushered in the most effective and popular government programs in history with the New Deal and saved the country from absolute collapse. The problem being, of course, that it had to come at the near COMPLETE expense of African-Americans to keep the coalition of southern whites in the fold (which the two aforementioned articles go into great detail about).
The 2nd part exists when LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act, and famously says "we have lost the South for a generation". This was true, but he was underselling how many generations were lost. At this time, though they are no means GOOD on racial issues, the Republican Party under Nixon absorbs the directly racist elements of the Confederacy into it's tent as a tactic. After this happens, Democrats go into the wilderness nationally for most of the rest of the century, as Carter only got one term because Nixon was a straight-up criminal and he was vowing honestly above all else, and Bill Clinton would have never been elected without swerving so far to the center on many issues in the 90s that today he would be almost indistinguishable from many Republicans.
Only under Obama has the party actually taken any real turns to the left, and, even then, Obama himself was extremely temperate and moderate. The difference is the coalition, the demographics of the people that supported him. The ideal version of the party combines the strength and effectiveness of the government under FDR with an honest to god commitment to voting rights of all citizens and the assurance that ALL of those citizens are able to take equal advantage of the programs made available, and the diversity of voters that Obama put together mostly through the strength of his charisma and personality. Point being, when I look at a picture of the Democratic House caucus, I see all of America. When I look at the Republican caucus, I see my rural home town of 500 people.
Again, only two sides of the coin and one side wins all has caused much of this bullshit. There hasn't been any time in the last 40 years when either side has had even close to a real majority (I think 60-40 or even closer to 65-35 is a REAL majority). No party that pisses off close to 50% of the population has any real chance at a mandate...
Edit: There are quite a few examples of a one party system, but are there any other examples of a two party system?
@Balrog99: To be fair, you actually are one of the more right-wing persons on this thread, if only because this thread skews liberal. According to the demographics poll on political affiliation, 16% of active forumites are conservative while 30% are liberal or far-left (with 54% being neither), and the liberals on the forum tend to post here more often.
Normally, a majority-male, majority-white, RPG-playing population like ours would skew conservative, but I think the Mizhena controversy ended up scaring off the furthest-right gamers, and so this forum has remained mostly liberal since then, whereas most gaming fora are mostly conservative.
@Balrog99: To be fair, you actually are one of the more right-wing persons on this thread, if only because this thread skews liberal. According to the demographics poll on political affiliation, 16% of active forumites are conservative while 30% are liberal or far-left (with 54% being neither), and the liberals on the forum tend to post here more often.
Normally, a majority-male, majority-white, RPG-playing population like ours would skew conservative, but I think the Mizhena controversy ended up scaring off the furthest-right gamers, and so this forum has remained mostly liberal since then, whereas most gaming fora are mostly conservative.
Well, to be totally honest, I don't miss the Mizhena hystericals so I'm fine with that. Talk about a real nothing berder!
They also tend to project the whole spare the rod, spoil the child crap to mean that any mercy shown to criminals is worthless and that only draconian punishment will lower the crime rate.
Studies have consistently found that the chance of getting caught has a much larger impact on reducing crime than the harshness of the punishment (which has virtually no effect at all). The problem is that criminals generally don't tend to be good decision makers or particularly logical thinkers, and so they essentially round down the chance of getting caught to zero. Criminals don't look up statistics on punishment and then do a cost-benefit analysis to see if a 1% chance of a 2-year prison sentence is worth the 99% chance of getting away with a crime. Corporation do that sort of analysis to find out if breaking the law is worth it (since they tend to get hit with monetary fines instead of jail time), but your average Bob the Robber isn't generally that clever. The average criminal just thinks "I won't get caught" and does it anyway, without even considering how severe the punishment is.
Police presence has a much stronger impact on reducing crime for one simple reason: criminals don't fear prison guards; they fear police officers. The best way to reduce the crime rate is to increase the police force and improve public surveillance. The threat of prison time is very abstract; a police officer is a much more concrete threat in the eyes of a would-be criminal.
If you actually did a cost-benefit analysis of a typical crime, you'd probably find that it wasn't remotely worth the risk. Even a 99% chance of getting away scot-free doesn't make a typical crime worth it; the penalties still outweigh the benefits many times over.
I mean, take the example of unsafe sex: on average, unprotected sex has only a 2% chance of resulting in a pregnancy. But how many acts of unprotected sex are you going to get away with before you hit that 2% chance? After 34 iterations, you've got a 50/50 chance of a pregnancy. After 114 iterations, your 2% chance has become 90%. Unless you're trying to get a child, that's not worth it.
About the "spare the rod and spoil the child" thing: when I first saw that phrase in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, I thought it meant "you should spare the rod, even if it spoils the child," as opposed to, "don't spare the rod, lest you spoil the child." You know, because beating children with sticks is a bad thing.
You'd think they'd remember to include the word "don't."
The funny thing is that the whole Hell for eternity thing doesn't seem to reduce the rate that Christians themselves engage in some of the more heinous crimes (rape, child molestation and suicide to name a few - didn't check out murder, theft, or other crime rates, nor things that are not crimes but are against general Christian beliefs such as homosexuality and adultery).
It's my understanding that there is a small but statistically significant negative correlation between religiosity and crime. Fear of Hell does discourage people from doing terrible things--it's just not a particularly strong effect.
Does that small amount of reduction make up for the general self-loathing that lowers your self-esteem to the point of committing suicide? I'm just wondering that since suicide isn't considered a crime, whether that's ever been factored into the equation. I'm an analyst, I can't help it...
They also tend to project the whole spare the rod, spoil the child crap to mean that any mercy shown to criminals is worthless and that only draconian punishment will lower the crime rate.
Studies have consistently found that the chance of getting caught has a much larger impact on reducing crime than the harshness of the punishment (which has virtually no effect at all). The problem is that criminals generally don't tend to be good decision makers or particularly logical thinkers, and so they essentially round down the chance of getting caught to zero. Criminals don't look up statistics on punishment and then do a cost-benefit analysis to see if a 1% chance of a 2-year prison sentence is worth the 99% chance of getting away with a crime. Corporation do that sort of analysis to find out if breaking the law is worth it (since they tend to get hit with monetary fines instead of jail time), but your average Bob the Robber isn't generally that clever. The average criminal just thinks "I won't get caught" and does it anyway, without even considering how severe the punishment is.
Police presence has a much stronger impact on reducing crime for one simple reason: criminals don't fear prison guards; they fear police officers. The best way to reduce the crime rate is to increase the police force and improve public surveillance. The threat of prison time is very abstract; a police officer is a much more concrete threat in the eyes of a would-be criminal.
If you actually did a cost-benefit analysis of a typical crime, you'd probably find that it wasn't remotely worth the risk. Even a 99% chance of getting away scot-free doesn't make a typical crime worth it; the penalties still outweigh the benefits many times over.
I mean, take the example of unsafe sex: on average, unprotected sex has only a 2% chance of resulting in a pregnancy. But how many acts of unprotected sex are you going to get away with before you hit that 2% chance? After 34 iterations, you've got a 50/50 chance of a pregnancy. After 114 iterations, your 2% chance has become 90%. Unless you're trying to get a child, that's not worth it.
About the "spare the rod and spoil the child" thing: when I first saw that phrase in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, I thought it meant "you should spare the rod, even if it spoils the child," as opposed to, "don't spare the rod, lest you spoil the child." You know, because beating children with sticks is a bad thing.
You'd think they'd remember to include the word "don't."
The funny thing is that the whole Hell for eternity thing doesn't seem to reduce the rate that Christians themselves engage in some of the more heinous crimes (rape, child molestation and suicide to name a few - didn't check out murder, theft, or other crime rates, nor things that are not crimes but are against general Christian beliefs such as homosexuality and adultery).
It's my understanding that there is a small but statistically significant negative correlation between religiosity and crime. Fear of Hell does discourage people from doing terrible things--it's just not a particularly strong effect.
Does that small amount of reduction make up for the general self-loathing that lowers your self-esteem to the point of committing suicide? I'm just wondering that since suicide isn't considered a crime, whether that's ever been factored into the equation. I'm an analyst, I can't help it...
It depends. Whne I was a Christian, I was told that suicide sends you immediately to hell. If you'll forgive the joke, "Go to Hell. Go directly to Hell. Do not Pass Go, Do not collect $200." I dunno if it's because you are choosing to die when God didn't choose you to, or you are denying God the chance to end your life before HE wants it to end. I always thought it was a stupid argument. If God is omniscient, he knows when you are going to do it anyway, so who says he didn't chose to end your life then? And that he didn't choose you to end your own life.
But I suppose that would make this response more suited to the Religion thread...
I don't believe people can be objectively divided [by race]
It's funny, if you go back and look at the history of "race" you will see that it is an entirely human-constructed concept, it has no basis in science at all. Unfortunately, the fact that race is imaginary doesn't mean racism isn't very real...
To reiterate, you stated that the subject of this particular piece, Hagerman, is more or less correct. The entire point of her piece was indeed that hiring a tutor or going to private school or giving your kids advantages perpetuates racism.
Hiring a tutor or sending your kids to private school perpetuates the effects of a history poisoned by racism. It perpetuates a socioeconomic and cultural divide that will inevitably track differences in skin color. That doesn't make you a bigot. It makes you someone making self-interested choices - which is something we all do! My point is not that you should never make self-interested choices. My point is that it's worth recognizing that the range of choices available to [most] white Americans is far greater than the range of choices available to nonwhite Americans, and those choices have been defined as the result of a massive historical injustice.
So far, so non-controversial. But I don't think one can reasonably get to that point and stop. I think you really have to grapple with the question "what do we do about injustice?" Can such injustice be tolerated? In small scenarios this is easy: nobody likes injustice. If you or someone you care about is attacked or ripped off or otherwise done undue harm, of course you don't tolerate it. You fight the attacker, you prosecute the thief, whatever. So here we are, sitting atop this mountain of past racial injustice. Some of us are the indirect beneficiaries of it, while others of us suffer on a daily basis due to its residual effects. Do we ignore it? Do we try to make it right? If the latter, how?
Economic inequality exists and can be explained by historically racist factors. Society tries to undo those by various legal means like anti discrimination laws and college aid and other programs but that doesn't mean they don't still exist.
This, I think, is the heart of the matter: anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, financial aid, etc. - none of these things actually undo the harms and inequalities resulting from past racism. They are designed to stop racism itself from being perpetuated; but they do not address the stark fact of the tilted playing field on which we find ourselves. It has become clear that these kinds of things are a necessary, but not sufficient, way to address our problematic history.
The premise of the article was that you should actively *not* work to give your kids advantages in life because that "solidifies and perpetuates their power" (presumably the power of white people), and that "by giving your kids advantages, you are actively disadvantaging others".
You didn't link to Hagerman's writing and I haven't read it. Nothing you quoted in your posts suggested that her premise was that you should actively disadvantage your kids. I noticed an observation attributed to her, which is that when white people do what comes naturally and give their kids every advantage they can, that tends to result in propping up an economic system that is structured to create unequal outcome along stark racial lines. That's how I interpret your quote:
"Racism is so hard to overturn, in part, because white people prop it up when they work to make sure their children succeed."
As I said: I think that is true. It is a deeply unfortunate fact that tons of white people who are not bigoted at all find themselves in this situation. (And of course, it's even more deeply unfortunate that black people find themselves in this situation.)
That is a patronizing and racist view, wouldn't you agree?
So far, no, I don't see anything patronizing or racist in what I've said. Different people will inevitably propose different responses to try to actually tackle this enduring injustice. Maybe Hagerman thinks white people should stop hiring tutors. If so I disagree. Maybe Ta-Nehisi Coates thinks we should have a one-time tax to raise 5 trillion dollars and distribute it to black people. I'm not claiming to know the answer.
the very idea that you would deny your kids advantages in life "for the greater good" is just downright unethical.
Where I live the public schools suck, and contributing to that is the fact that lots of well-to-do people send their kids to private school. A lot of the smartest and richest students who would be an asset to their schools in many ways, are removed from the system entirely. They have, in a small sense, "gone Galt." The public schools, bereft of that population, suffer; and each year parents with a certain amount of money at their disposal look at the situation and think something like, "why would I want to send my kids to worse schools if I don't have to?" And they choose private schools. And that perfectly sane, reasonable, self-interested choice, acts to prop up the inequity in the system.
But I'll tell you, I know a lot of people who have chosen otherwise - who want their kids to be in the public school, to get the benefits of being a part of their community, and they figure their kids are smart and have loving, smart, well-to do parents and they'll probably do just fine in life, even having gone to public school. That is also a reasonable decision for parents in that situation, and I have to say, I think it's pretty offensive to suggest that it is "downright unethical." < < < < My exact point in sending my daughter to public school. Again, my community is suburban so it's not like I'm sending her to an inner-city school, but my reasoning is to not shelter her purposefully. I can afford a private school for her but that money I save can be better spent elsewhere (college or even my own retirement fund if I can be entirely honest). My ex-wife sent her kids to charter schools (which wouldn't cost me any more than public school in Michigan) and I will say that my experience with them was horrible to say the least. Their sports programs sucked and they can't keep any of their good teachers for more than a year or two because they pay them shit. Private schools are either religious institutions or aren't anywhere near my city of residence. Neither of those facts appeal to me personally. Hopefully time will prove me right in my decision (my ex has seen fit to not fight me so far).
Edit: Added a few '<' since there wasn't a clear break between my lines and those of @subtledoctor.
They also tend to project the whole spare the rod, spoil the child crap to mean that any mercy shown to criminals is worthless and that only draconian punishment will lower the crime rate.
Studies have consistently found that the chance of getting caught has a much larger impact on reducing crime than the harshness of the punishment (which has virtually no effect at all). The problem is that criminals generally don't tend to be good decision makers or particularly logical thinkers, and so they essentially round down the chance of getting caught to zero. Criminals don't look up statistics on punishment and then do a cost-benefit analysis to see if a 1% chance of a 2-year prison sentence is worth the 99% chance of getting away with a crime. Corporation do that sort of analysis to find out if breaking the law is worth it (since they tend to get hit with monetary fines instead of jail time), but your average Bob the Robber isn't generally that clever. The average criminal just thinks "I won't get caught" and does it anyway, without even considering how severe the punishment is.
Police presence has a much stronger impact on reducing crime for one simple reason: criminals don't fear prison guards; they fear police officers. The best way to reduce the crime rate is to increase the police force and improve public surveillance. The threat of prison time is very abstract; a police officer is a much more concrete threat in the eyes of a would-be criminal.
If you actually did a cost-benefit analysis of a typical crime, you'd probably find that it wasn't remotely worth the risk. Even a 99% chance of getting away scot-free doesn't make a typical crime worth it; the penalties still outweigh the benefits many times over.
I mean, take the example of unsafe sex: on average, unprotected sex has only a 2% chance of resulting in a pregnancy. But how many acts of unprotected sex are you going to get away with before you hit that 2% chance? After 34 iterations, you've got a 50/50 chance of a pregnancy. After 114 iterations, your 2% chance has become 90%. Unless you're trying to get a child, that's not worth it.
About the "spare the rod and spoil the child" thing: when I first saw that phrase in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, I thought it meant "you should spare the rod, even if it spoils the child," as opposed to, "don't spare the rod, lest you spoil the child." You know, because beating children with sticks is a bad thing.
You'd think they'd remember to include the word "don't."
The funny thing is that the whole Hell for eternity thing doesn't seem to reduce the rate that Christians themselves engage in some of the more heinous crimes (rape, child molestation and suicide to name a few - didn't check out murder, theft, or other crime rates, nor things that are not crimes but are against general Christian beliefs such as homosexuality and adultery).
It's my understanding that there is a small but statistically significant negative correlation between religiosity and crime. Fear of Hell does discourage people from doing terrible things--it's just not a particularly strong effect.
Does that small amount of reduction make up for the general self-loathing that lowers your self-esteem to the point of committing suicide? I'm just wondering that since suicide isn't considered a crime, whether that's ever been factored into the equation. I'm an analyst, I can't help it...
It depends. Whne I was a Christian, I was told that suicide sends you immediately to hell. If you'll forgive the joke, "Go to Hell. Go directly to Hell. Do not Pass Go, Do not collect $200." I dunno if it's because you are choosing to die when God didn't choose you to, or you are denying God the chance to end your life before HE wants it to end. I always thought it was a stupid argument. If God is omniscient, he knows when you are going to do it anyway, so who says he didn't chose to end your life then? And that he didn't choose you to end your own life.
But I suppose that would make this response more suited to the Religion thread...
God doesn't go against your free-will from my understanding of Christianity so suicide is an interesting case study. My sister who has battled depression her whole life attributes her not committing suicide to her Christian beliefs. As a result she decided to stick around and is now a nurse in a mental-health facility dealing with people that I would never be able to deal with. God's plan? Who knows? I only know that I don't...
Simply put, it means the playing field is uneven, and the axis is aligned with skin color. A whole population of people has been prevented from participating in the social and economic activities that lead to professional and economic success and wealth-building. For many,many generations, Americans created the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen, and through many public and private policies, specifically excluded black Americans from taking part. Remember a decade or so ago when people were talking about "the millionaire next door?" How "regular Joe" working people were sitting on a massive store of wealth? Those millionaires were all white. (And a lot of that wealth disappeared or shifted into the hands of richer folks in 2008, but that's a different story.)
It doesn't mean that every white person did benefit from those policies; it means that only white people could benefit from them. And in the aggregate, over many generations, white Americans benefited to a HUGE degree, while black Americans did not. So, it's wonderful and not racist at all that you might want to hire a tutor for your kid; but the average black American's inability to hire a tutor for their kid is down to centuries of policies that prevented them form building the kind of wealth that would allow that sort of thing.
This is a MASSIVE problem, specifically for black Americans (!) but also for the country as a whole. People who can't afford the tools to reach their full potential, definitionally, will not reach their full potential. The whole country suffers for that, socially and economically. People who cannot escape poverty are more likely to turn to crime, and crime is bad for everyone. If we could flip a switch and make every single American into a liberal free-love hippy with no iota of racial animus - make racism go away with a snap of Thanos' fingers? This problem would persist. Not being racist is great, but it doesn't solve the problems of racism. That's the point. You could stop putting money in a savings account but your balance will still grow, due to compounding interest. Similarly, even if we stamp out all racism, the inequities that are the result of several centuries of racism will continue to compound, heedless of our personal enlightenment.
I don't disagree. Economic inequality exists and can be explained by historically racist factors. Society tries to undo those by various legal means like anti discrimination laws and college aid and other programs but that doesn't mean they don't still exist.
But this is an entirely different set of ideas than what I was talking about. The premise of the article was that you should actively *not* work to give your kids advantages in life because that "solidifies and perpetuates their power" (presumably the power of white people), and that "by giving your kids advantages, you are actively disadvantaging others".
That is a patronizing and racist view, wouldn't you agree?
I see this has been covered a bit in more recent posts, particularly in relation to public vs private education. I certainly agree on that topic that there are plusses and minuses and you can justify either decision depending on how you value the different benefits and costs.
I wanted to address a slightly different angle though - not directly about racism, but about a very similar type of situation in relation to disability. My son is disabled and we've received support for him in various ways for nearly all his life. Getting that support though has meant a constant fight against the system to get what he 'should' have. The reason for the struggle is that government policies in this area (and this is not unusual) promise more than it's possible to deliver, i.e. if everyone really got the level of provision they should do according to the policy the cost would be far greater than the available budget.
My wife and I are in an unusually good position to manipulate the system to do what it 'should do'. We've got a level of knowledge that most parents don't, we understand how the bureaucracy works (we've both worked in it), we've got funding available to pay for private reports and contacts with charitable organizations. Thus, while it's been hard work, we have undoubtedly got more support for my son than would have been typical for someone with his level of needs.
Getting that support though has put a considerable strain on our relationship because of the difference in our views. My wife takes the very clear position that of course we should do everything we can to get support for our son, but that poses a very real dilemma for me. I've worked quite a bit on special educational needs funding over the years and I'm acutely aware that if we get more, others will get less. There is thus a real conflict between the position "of course you should do everything you can to help your son" and "of course you want in principle to see everyone treated equally".
I don't know the answer to the dilemma: - levelling everyone by genuinely implementing the current policies would be very expensive and cause strains somewhere else in the system. - levelling everyone down would tacitly accept disabled people as second class citizens. - leaving the system as it is allows the possibility of 'gaming' and the disparities that results from that.
What I do know though is that it is a very real and emotional dilemma. I absolutely would not criticize a parent who chose to support their child less than they could on the basis that they had decided a more equal society was more important than some extra benefits for their child.
Even beyond the whole racism angle, the very idea that you would deny your kids advantages in life "for the greater good" is just downright unethical. If you care so much, take advantages out of your own damn life to make room for other people.
So, don't pay taxes, because it might accidentally help someone else. Don't stop and call an ambulance at a car crash because it might deny your advantages. Right. Nice. Very Christian.
But seriously this sounds like an excuse for some bad behavior. "I only murdered her to get an advantage for me."
So don't give my child every advantage within my power just on the off-chance it might somehow help somebody more unfortunate (which is debatable anyway)? What if my child uses those advantages to cure cancer? What if she uses those advantages to invent a cheaper, more environmentally friendly energy source? What if she decides on her own to use her skills to better the lives of many children? What if she becomes a doctor and helps thousands? Sorry if I don't believe that holding my child back on purpose will somehow make the world a better place. I just don't, and i don't think anybody with a child would think that either...
There's a line somewhere between wanting what's best for your child and telling society to "screw you, I got mine". A lot of people seem to have a problem finding that balance and society in America is tipped towards the right-wing view of "screw you I got mine" from people who have theirs and "screw you I've got a little bit" for those without anything and "screw you get out of you insect" from the rich.
Where I live the public schools suck, and contributing to that is the fact that lots of well-to-do people send their kids to private school. A lot of the smartest and richest students who would be an asset to their schools in many ways, are removed from the system entirely...
But I'll tell you, I know a lot of people who have chosen otherwise - who want their kids to be in the public school, to get the benefits of being a part of their community..
A lot of the most socially awkward and people who struggle to function in what I'd consider normal society have been homeschooled. No offense to anyone here who may have been but I believe that doing this to a child really deprives them of tools they'll need later in life when they have to interact with "people".
I've Seen some weird homeschooled people. Mostly just kinda goofy and gullible. But one guy would like wash his hands for like literally 15 minutes after every time he took a piss. It was "odd". Just sit there and scrub and scrub and scrub and scrub...
I'm not using the quote feature because multiple quotes seems to be problematic.
I feel for you. My daughter doesn't have special needs so I'm not in your situation. I must say though, that the money put into those funds isn't there solely for people that 'need' it. Need is subjective. If the money you save by using those funds is spent on you getting a BMW or something then you may be right. If, however, you are donating time or money to charity or even if you're using that money to save for your golden years that is precisely why that money is there in the first place. Who decides what people 'deserve' that help and what people don't?
I'm not using the quote feature because multiple quotes seems to be problematic.
I feel for you. My daughter doesn't have special needs so I'm not in your situation. I must say though, that the money put into those funds isn't there solely for people that 'need' it. Need is subjective. If the money you save by using those funds is spent on you getting a BMW or something then you may be right. If, however, you are donating time or money to charity or even if you're using that using that money to save for your golden years that is precisely why that money is there in the first place. Who decides what people 'deserve' that help and what people don't?
Who decides is indeed an issue. However, I know that we have been largely successful in getting my son what we've asked for. Even though that's been hard work for us, I also know that many others have gone through similar struggles without getting the same results. In a sense this is just a market economy operating and if you're a strong believer in a market economy then it's easy to accept there will be winners and losers. Personally I don't think a market economy is the best way to deliver universal services like health and education, though I don't have a perfect replacement in mind I'm afraid .
Where I live the public schools suck, and contributing to that is the fact that lots of well-to-do people send their kids to private school. A lot of the smartest and richest students who would be an asset to their schools in many ways, are removed from the system entirely...
But I'll tell you, I know a lot of people who have chosen otherwise - who want their kids to be in the public school, to get the benefits of being a part of their community..
A lot of the most socially awkward and people who struggle to function in what I'd consider normal society have been homeschooled. No offense to anyone here who may have been but I believe that doing this to a child really deprives them of tools they'll need later in life when they have to interact with "people".
I've Seen some weird homeschooled people. Mostly just kinda goofy and gullible. But one guy would like wash his hands for like literally 15 minutes after every time he took a piss. It was "odd". Just sit there and scrub and scrub and scrub and scrub...
I had a couple of those guys in my dorm in college! One was exactly like you describe, spending extraordinary amounts of time in the bathroom washing his hands, using incredible amounts of TP doing his business and wiping every doorknob with a handkerchief before he'd touch it. The other was worse. He would actually wander the hallways flapping his arms and chirping like a bird. He also would just dump his trash on the floor in his room and leave it there for months. You could literally smell the garbage in the hallway even with his door shut! Now you've got me wondering if those two were home-schooled. I didn't mention home-schoolers before because I personally think parents that do that to their kids are mentally unstable to begin with...
I'm not using the quote feature because multiple quotes seems to be problematic.
I feel for you. My daughter doesn't have special needs so I'm not in your situation. I must say though, that the money put into those funds isn't there solely for people that 'need' it. Need is subjective. If the money you save by using those funds is spent on you getting a BMW or something then you may be right. If, however, you are donating time or money to charity or even if you're using that using that money to save for your golden years that is precisely why that money is there in the first place. Who decides what people 'deserve' that help and what people don't?
Who decides is indeed an issue. However, I know that we have been largely successful in getting my son what we've asked for. Even though that's been hard work for us, I also know that many others have gone through similar struggles without getting the same results. In a sense this is just a market economy operating and if you're a strong believer in a market economy then it's easy to accept there will be winners and losers. Personally I don't think a market economy is the best way to deliver universal services like health and education, though I don't have a perfect replacement in mind I'm afraid .
I would hope that skin-color isn't a factor but it may very well be. I'd be happy to hear that you're black, Arabic or Latino but I suspect you're not.
Even beyond the whole racism angle, the very idea that you would deny your kids advantages in life "for the greater good" is just downright unethical. If you care so much, take advantages out of your own damn life to make room for other people.
So, don't pay taxes, because it might accidentally help someone else. Don't stop and call an ambulance at a car crash because it might deny your advantages. Right. Nice. Very Christian.
But seriously this sounds like an excuse for some bad behavior. "I only murdered her to get an advantage for me."
So don't give my child every advantage within my power just on the off-chance it might somehow help somebody more unfortunate (which is debatable anyway)? What if my child uses those advantages to cure cancer? What if she uses those advantages to invent a cheaper, more environmentally friendly energy source? What if she decides on her own to use her skills to better the lives of many children? What if she becomes a doctor and helps thousands? Sorry if I don't believe that holding my child back on purpose will somehow make the world a better place. I just don't, and i don't think anybody with a child would think that either...
There's a line somewhere between wanting what's best for your child and telling society to "screw you, I got mine". A lot of people seem to have a problem finding that balance and society in America is tipped towards the right-wing view of "screw you I got mine" from people who have theirs and "screw you I've got a little bit" for those without anything and "screw you get out of you insect" from the rich.
If there was better oversight on how tax money is spent a lot of my objections would disappear. That's just me personally, but I think I think I mirror a lot of the opinions on the right.
I posted a story (in the religion thread) about homescholing parents who chained their kids to beds and were making them memorize either the Bible or passages from the Bible. It was quite disturbing. I knew several homeschooling kids who used to come into the library where I worked and some families would homeschool their kids together, until one of the girls (about 15) ended up pregnant. Sounds like someone wasn't doing their job there.
I've heard lots of stories about how homeschooled kids do so much better, but then you hear stories like the above and wonder...
And some also like the Pearls' book, "How to Train Up a Child". We got a copy of that at the Library once, and I read it. It advocates spanking your child as young as 8 months old, which is downright disgusting. For older kids, like 2 years old, they suggest using a piece of plumbing supply line, 1 inch in diameter, and not to love your kids too much or you will ameliorate the spanking when you hear them cry. Basically, you are told to break their will so they will be obedient to you, the parent.
As i said, this is pretty darned disgusting to any parent who loves their kids. (I don't have kids, and I still think its disgusting.) Why would any loving parent spank an 8 month old, or hit their kids with something like a rubber hose?
I posted a story (in the religion thread) about homescholing parents who chained their kids to beds and were making them memorize either the Bible or passages from the Bible. It was quite disturbing. I knew several homeschooling kids who used to come into the library where I worked and some families would homeschool their kids together, until one of the girls (about 15) ended up pregnant. Sounds like someone wasn't doing their job there.
I've heard lots of stories about how homeschooled kids do so much better, but then you hear stories like the above and wonder...
And some also like the Pearls' book, "How to Train Up a Child". We got a copy of that at the Library once, and I read it. It advocates spanking your child as young as 8 months old, which is downright disgusting. For older kids, like 2 years old, they suggest using a piece of plumbing supply line, 1 inch in diameter, and not to love your kids too much or you will ameliorate the spanking when you hear them cry. Basically, you are told to break their will so they will be obedient to you, the parent.
As i said, this is pretty darned disgusting to any parent who loves their kids. (I don't have kids, and I still think its disgusting.) Why would any loving parent spank an 8 month old, or hit their kids with something like a rubber hose?
They wouldn't unless they believe the person(s) preaching that to them. Never underestimate the power of religious dogma...
I'm not using the quote feature because multiple quotes seems to be problematic.
I feel for you. My daughter doesn't have special needs so I'm not in your situation. I must say though, that the money put into those funds isn't there solely for people that 'need' it. Need is subjective. If the money you save by using those funds is spent on you getting a BMW or something then you may be right. If, however, you are donating time or money to charity or even if you're using that using that money to save for your golden years that is precisely why that money is there in the first place. Who decides what people 'deserve' that help and what people don't?
Who decides is indeed an issue. However, I know that we have been largely successful in getting my son what we've asked for. Even though that's been hard work for us, I also know that many others have gone through similar struggles without getting the same results. In a sense this is just a market economy operating and if you're a strong believer in a market economy then it's easy to accept there will be winners and losers. Personally I don't think a market economy is the best way to deliver universal services like health and education, though I don't have a perfect replacement in mind I'm afraid .
I would hope that skin-color isn't a factor but it may very well be. I'd be happy to hear that you're black, Arabic or Latino but I suspect you're not.
Lily-white I'm afraid, but at least in the areas where I've lived race has not been a significant factor in expected outcomes - there's been a much stronger predictive link with social class, parents' educational attainment and poverty (there are strong links between those as well of course).
Well, I wasn't going to go to the 5-alarm alert on the Venezuela situation just yet, until I saw that Elliott Abrams has been appointed as the special envoy for the situation. The same Elliott Abrams central to the policies in the '80s toward Nicaragua and El Salvador and who PLED GUILTY to withholding information in the Iran-Contra affair. Elliott frickin' Abrams. If Oliver North wasn't already in charge of the NRA, he'd likely be in the Administration as well.
I was actually home schooled through High school. So I guess I've been through all three institutions that get brought up in this thread. After public school tried to bully my parents into pumping me full of drugs, and a rogue teacher at private school emotionally abusive (and the school refused to do anything about it), home school was kinda the only option left. Thankfully, my parents didn't control the curriculum. It was an actual school curriculum, and for a few days a week, I met up with several other home schooled students for group classes (overseen by a career teacher). Most of us ended up doing pretty well for ourselves.
Comments
Police presence has a much stronger impact on reducing crime for one simple reason: criminals don't fear prison guards; they fear police officers. The best way to reduce the crime rate is to increase the police force and improve public surveillance. The threat of prison time is very abstract; a police officer is a much more concrete threat in the eyes of a would-be criminal.
If you actually did a cost-benefit analysis of a typical crime, you'd probably find that it wasn't remotely worth the risk. Even a 99% chance of getting away scot-free doesn't make a typical crime worth it; the penalties still outweigh the benefits many times over.
I mean, take the example of unsafe sex: on average, unprotected sex has only a 2% chance of resulting in a pregnancy. But how many acts of unprotected sex are you going to get away with before you hit that 2% chance? After 34 iterations, you've got a 50/50 chance of a pregnancy. After 114 iterations, your 2% chance has become 90%. Unless you're trying to get a child, that's not worth it.
About the "spare the rod and spoil the child" thing: when I first saw that phrase in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, I thought it meant "you should spare the rod, even if it spoils the child," as opposed to, "don't spare the rod, lest you spoil the child." You know, because beating children with sticks is a bad thing.
You'd think they'd remember to include the word "don't." It's my understanding that there is a small but statistically significant negative correlation between religiosity and crime. Fear of Hell does discourage people from doing terrible things--it's just not a particularly strong effect.
The 2nd part exists when LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act, and famously says "we have lost the South for a generation". This was true, but he was underselling how many generations were lost. At this time, though they are no means GOOD on racial issues, the Republican Party under Nixon absorbs the directly racist elements of the Confederacy into it's tent as a tactic. After this happens, Democrats go into the wilderness nationally for most of the rest of the century, as Carter only got one term because Nixon was a straight-up criminal and he was vowing honestly above all else, and Bill Clinton would have never been elected without swerving so far to the center on many issues in the 90s that today he would be almost indistinguishable from many Republicans.
Only under Obama has the party actually taken any real turns to the left, and, even then, Obama himself was extremely temperate and moderate. The difference is the coalition, the demographics of the people that supported him. The ideal version of the party combines the strength and effectiveness of the government under FDR with an honest to god commitment to voting rights of all citizens and the assurance that ALL of those citizens are able to take equal advantage of the programs made available, and the diversity of voters that Obama put together mostly through the strength of his charisma and personality. Point being, when I look at a picture of the Democratic House caucus, I see all of America. When I look at the Republican caucus, I see my rural home town of 500 people.
Edit: There are quite a few examples of a one party system, but are there any other examples of a two party system?
Normally, a majority-male, majority-white, RPG-playing population like ours would skew conservative, but I think the Mizhena controversy ended up scaring off the furthest-right gamers, and so this forum has remained mostly liberal since then, whereas most gaming fora are mostly conservative.
Edit: Besides, I have @SorcererV1ct0r and @WarChiefZeke to make me feel like I'm not totally alone.
But I suppose that would make this response more suited to the Religion thread...
But I'll tell you, I know a lot of people who have chosen otherwise - who want their kids to be in the public school, to get the benefits of being a part of their community, and they figure their kids are smart and have loving, smart, well-to do parents and they'll probably do just fine in life, even having gone to public school. That is also a reasonable decision for parents in that situation, and I have to say, I think it's pretty offensive to suggest that it is "downright unethical."
<
<
<
<
My exact point in sending my daughter to public school. Again, my community is suburban so it's not like I'm sending her to an inner-city school, but my reasoning is to not shelter her purposefully. I can afford a private school for her but that money I save can be better spent elsewhere (college or even my own retirement fund if I can be entirely honest). My ex-wife sent her kids to charter schools (which wouldn't cost me any more than public school in Michigan) and I will say that my experience with them was horrible to say the least. Their sports programs sucked and they can't keep any of their good teachers for more than a year or two because they pay them shit. Private schools are either religious institutions or aren't anywhere near my city of residence. Neither of those facts appeal to me personally. Hopefully time will prove me right in my decision (my ex has seen fit to not fight me so far).
Edit: Added a few '<' since there wasn't a clear break between my lines and those of @subtledoctor.
Over 100 Charges, 34 People and 3 Companies: The Investigations Surrounding Trump, Explained
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/mueller-investigation-charges.html?fbclid=IwAR2s4IvooTNM4Ez3TLO-LR6riqvjwaAGAQwCKus9K0kkws7aYzm2q5nmqhIAn Alt-Right Enforcer's Rallying Cry: 'No More Safe Spaces'
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/01/24/alt-right-enforcers-rallying-cry-no-more-safe-spaces?fbclid=IwAR0iNf2H3M_7qWcdYD15TLA3t90oHDY5Yb-UOOdtSGt6I4U26-dNU3L7kFsWinter storm, life-threatening wind chills possible next week for southern Wisconsin
https://www.channel3000.com/weather/winter-storm-life-threatening-wind-chills-possible-next-week-for-southern-wisconsin/989492020?fbclid=IwAR2mwagtqNWpFYVBenwjFUn9rxIItEadNwI_QAfXRD2AGoP6TtTyP2RFjggIf you live there, please take care!
'No Trump supporters': Chicago bar's house rules spark heated debate
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/chicago-bar-faces-backlash-house-rules-list-no-trump-supporters-001719788.html?fbclid=IwAR1936nIWBaSuAeko2GASjXvDvmd39dWU07fyisX2_E7PNX4WFvLRcQyhjwAlso, "No Cubs Supporters".
Congress reacts to 6th Mueller indictment: That’s ‘a lot of witches’
https://shareblue.com/congress-roger-stone-mueller-indictment-witches/?fbclid=IwAR2IzREATaw_J8u2Ls1OyUiTkSjZF0CwNq6dBZpE7YSwEPUkzEYUg8hpwaURare bipartisan moment: Both sides embrace Robert Mueller as special counsel
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/17/rare-bipartisan-moment-both-sides-embrace-robert-mueller-special-counsel/101810310/?fbclid=IwAR1qxHP438h58iHU-N-Q5FoCLbU4NwxzkSJLlAF5K4lHS5wGEAFGWhlHB7URoger Stone Says Mueller's Russia Investigation Has Made Him Broke. Here’s What We Know About His Money
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/roger-stone-says-mueller-apos-192318305.html?fbclid=IwAR3b9x5ApjgBAhuXCHrBpxoWfIiVJUJhWAb2_fA3uXNKhhkNxJZjwLQf2UII see this has been covered a bit in more recent posts, particularly in relation to public vs private education. I certainly agree on that topic that there are plusses and minuses and you can justify either decision depending on how you value the different benefits and costs.
I wanted to address a slightly different angle though - not directly about racism, but about a very similar type of situation in relation to disability. My son is disabled and we've received support for him in various ways for nearly all his life. Getting that support though has meant a constant fight against the system to get what he 'should' have. The reason for the struggle is that government policies in this area (and this is not unusual) promise more than it's possible to deliver, i.e. if everyone really got the level of provision they should do according to the policy the cost would be far greater than the available budget.
My wife and I are in an unusually good position to manipulate the system to do what it 'should do'. We've got a level of knowledge that most parents don't, we understand how the bureaucracy works (we've both worked in it), we've got funding available to pay for private reports and contacts with charitable organizations. Thus, while it's been hard work, we have undoubtedly got more support for my son than would have been typical for someone with his level of needs.
Getting that support though has put a considerable strain on our relationship because of the difference in our views. My wife takes the very clear position that of course we should do everything we can to get support for our son, but that poses a very real dilemma for me. I've worked quite a bit on special educational needs funding over the years and I'm acutely aware that if we get more, others will get less. There is thus a real conflict between the position "of course you should do everything you can to help your son" and "of course you want in principle to see everyone treated equally".
I don't know the answer to the dilemma:
- levelling everyone by genuinely implementing the current policies would be very expensive and cause strains somewhere else in the system.
- levelling everyone down would tacitly accept disabled people as second class citizens.
- leaving the system as it is allows the possibility of 'gaming' and the disparities that results from that.
What I do know though is that it is a very real and emotional dilemma. I absolutely would not criticize a parent who chose to support their child less than they could on the basis that they had decided a more equal society was more important than some extra benefits for their child.
I've Seen some weird homeschooled people. Mostly just kinda goofy and gullible. But one guy would like wash his hands for like literally 15 minutes after every time he took a piss. It was "odd". Just sit there and scrub and scrub and scrub and scrub...
I'm not using the quote feature because multiple quotes seems to be problematic.
I feel for you. My daughter doesn't have special needs so I'm not in your situation. I must say though, that the money put into those funds isn't there solely for people that 'need' it. Need is subjective. If the money you save by using those funds is spent on you getting a BMW or something then you may be right. If, however, you are donating time or money to charity or even if you're using that money to save for your golden years that is precisely why that money is there in the first place. Who decides what people 'deserve' that help and what people don't?
I've heard lots of stories about how homeschooled kids do so much better, but then you hear stories like the above and wonder...
And some also like the Pearls' book, "How to Train Up a Child". We got a copy of that at the Library once, and I read it. It advocates spanking your child as young as 8 months old, which is downright disgusting. For older kids, like 2 years old, they suggest using a piece of plumbing supply line, 1 inch in diameter, and not to love your kids too much or you will ameliorate the spanking when you hear them cry. Basically, you are told to break their will so they will be obedient to you, the parent.
As i said, this is pretty darned disgusting to any parent who loves their kids. (I don't have kids, and I still think its disgusting.) Why would any loving parent spank an 8 month old, or hit their kids with something like a rubber hose?