Political Roundtable Part XXXI

[dckingsfan]

Most of us here vote based on issues. And the R and D parties have pretty consistent positions. So what do think the individual with R views should do? Does the fact that some R politicians supported insurrection mean they have to vote D? ( I don’t think that many R politicians actually supported insurrection. They main problems is that they refuse to do anything about it for partisan political reasons.)

D voters can have the same dilemma. I think there is good reason to believe Bill Clinton is a rapist, and thought so 30 years ago. Did I have a problem voting for a rapist? Not the slightest, even though George HW Bush was the far more admirable person, as was Robert Dole.

No, not the same dilemma. One is a personal flaw that wasn't covered during the campaign. You didn't know about this until after the election and most of the allegations came out after 2016. And gee, it was part of the reason that Hillary wasn't elected.

This isn't a personal flaw. This is taking down all of democracy. It is covered. It is documented.

You are trying the both sides argument again. It doesn't stand. And those both sides fallacy arguments are going to cost us dearly.

My timeline on Bill Clinton was wrong. The Paula Jones scandal and his infidelities were known in the 90s, but the rape allegations were after he ran for office.
In no way was I saying that R and D actions are equivalent. My anti R feelings are up there with anyone. I was writing about the equivalence in the emotions between R and D voters. The D voters hate (substitute you own feelings here) the R party and their positions and the R voters feeling the same way about the D party. Insurrection or rape are not going to change minds. A very conservative Liz Cheney will stop at supporting a Trump, but is not going to start voting D.
It’s worth going after the R party, but the voters you’re trying to influence are independents, and tring to fire up the D base.

Then I must be an outlier. After Gingrich & then second Bush (forever wars and killing our budget), I was done with them. I moved to the more rational party.

And step back for a second. If it was all Liz Cheney types vs. Donald Trump types we could make progress and have meaningful dialog. You can't have a dialog with a Trump supporter that is good with the big lie. DeSantis is more of that.

[popper]

FWIW - here's the FL statute governing what high schools students will be taught. Scroll down to 2 (h) for section on African American history. I spoke with a state level education administrator and he said the AP curriculum as it currently exists is a pilot that is quite good except for a small section that violates some FL law. They've already invited the relevant provider to modify that section and reapply.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=1003.42&URL=1000-1099/1003/Sections/1003.42.html

[Zonkerbl]

No, not the same dilemma. One is a personal flaw that wasn't covered during the campaign. You didn't know about this until after the election and most of the allegations came out after 2016. And gee, it was part of the reason that Hillary wasn't elected.

This isn't a personal flaw. This is taking down all of democracy. It is covered. It is documented.

You are trying the both sides argument again. It doesn't stand. And those both sides fallacy arguments are going to cost us dearly.

My timeline on Bill Clinton was wrong. The Paula Jones scandal and his infidelities were known in the 90s, but the rape allegations were after he ran for office.
In no way was I saying that R and D actions are equivalent. My anti R feelings are up there with anyone. I was writing about the equivalence in the emotions between R and D voters. The D voters hate (substitute you own feelings here) the R party and their positions and the R voters feeling the same way about the D party. Insurrection or rape are not going to change minds. A very conservative Liz Cheney will stop at supporting a Trump, but is not going to start voting D.
It’s worth going after the R party, but the voters you’re trying to influence are independents, and tring to fire up the D base.

Then I must be an outlier. After Gingrich & then second Bush (forever wars and killing our budget), I was done with them. I moved to the more rational party.

And step back for a second. If it was all Liz Cheney types vs. Donald Trump types we could make progress and have meaningful dialog. You can't have a dialog with a Trump supporter that is good with the big lie. DeSantis is more of that.

Republicans hate the imaginary actions of an imaginary enemy cooked up by Fox News and other (non-jewish!) billionaire funded propaganda. Democrats hate the fact-driven evidence in front of them that Republicans are actively trying to destroy democracy and everything the founding fathers tried to create. Republicans who hate Democrats do so because they are brainwashed sheep. Democrats who hate Republicans do so because they love America.

I don't hate Republicans for being pro business, or pro free trade. I don't hate them for having religious objections to abortion, although I do hate them for imposing those religious views on me without my consent, particularly since those objections to abortion are the opposite of what my reform shul's religious beliefs are. I think that's fair and proper. That is why this country was founded, so no one could force religious views on anyone else. Also using churches to spread right wing propaganda is evil and also illegal. Churches should not be involved in politics. Liberal Christian churches are politically invisible, as it should be.

[Zonkerbl]

FWIW - here's the FL statute governing what high schools students will be taught. Scroll down to 2 (h) for section on African American history. I spoke with a state level education administrator and he said the AP curriculum as it currently exists is a pilot that is quite good except for a small section that violates some FL law. They've already invited the relevant provider to modify that section and reapply.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=1003.42&URL=1000-1099/1003/Sections/1003.42.html

What is the small section that violates FL law?

This absolute horsecrap section?

"(3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that all persons are equal before the law and have inalienable rights. Accordingly, instruction and supporting materials on the topics enumerated in this section must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom:
(a) No person is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex.
(b) No race is inherently superior to another race.
(c) No person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.
(d) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are not racist but fundamental to the right to pursue happiness and be rewarded for industry.
(e) A person, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
(f) A person should not be instructed that he or she must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, in which he or she played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex."

Why is it illegal to make white people uncomfortable? Why is it not illegal to make black people uncomfortable? What business of the state is it the individual mindset of anyone taking a class? Is it Thoughtcrime to think white people as a group should take responsibility for the actions of their forebears? Whose responsibility is it? Black people's?

Also don't appreciate the laziness of making me look this up. State your case without deception or omission.

[Wizardspride]

FWIW - here's the FL statute governing what high schools students will be taught. Scroll down to 2 (h) for section on African American history. I spoke with a state level education administrator and he said the AP curriculum as it currently exists is a pilot that is quite good except for a small section that violates some FL law. They've already invited the relevant provider to modify that section and reapply.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=1003.42&URL=1000-1099/1003/Sections/1003.42.html

I would like to know what specifically needs to be revised.

So far when asked by media, the state has refused to answer this question.

Don't why that's such a difficult question to answer.....

[popper]

FWIW - here's the FL statute governing what high schools students will be taught. Scroll down to 2 (h) for section on African American history. I spoke with a state level education administrator and he said the AP curriculum as it currently exists is a pilot that is quite good except for a small section that violates some FL law. They've already invited the relevant provider to modify that section and reapply.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=1003.42&URL=1000-1099/1003/Sections/1003.42.html

I would like to know what specifically needs to be revised.

So far when asked by media, the state has refused to answer this question.

Don't why that's such a difficult question to answer.....

I'd like to know as well. I'm sure it will come out in the next several days.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=LWdVQmhFYTCH_pp3C9kkEg&s=19

[Zonkerbl]

I am 100% certain it has something to do with the section prohibiting making white people uncomfortable that their ancestors enslaved people, and that the current wealth of the white people in this country was accumulated and PASSED DOWN TO THEIR DESCENDENTS by exploiting enslaved labor.

[Wizardspride]

I am 100% certain it has something to do with the section prohibiting making white people uncomfortable that their ancestors enslaved people, and that the current wealth of the white people in this country was accumulated and PASSED DOWN TO THEIR DESCENDENTS by exploiting enslaved labor.

You and I know what the issue is.

I was just hoping Popper would come to the same conclusion.

[dobrojim]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/conservative-freedom-phone-backers-turn-on-each-other

look at these scummy rats turn on each other after the grift is up.

just reading this now. Trying to keep in mind my mother's admonition that if
you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

What was it PT Barnum said?

[dobrojim]

Read on Twitter

?t=LWdVQmhFYTCH_pp3C9kkEg&s=19

When she loses or decides not to run, that will give her more time for something
she's apparently good at, running marathons. It'll be harder for her to eff up the
country that way.

[popper]

I am 100% certain it has something to do with the section prohibiting making white people uncomfortable that their ancestors enslaved people, and that the current wealth of the white people in this country was accumulated and PASSED DOWN TO THEIR DESCENDENTS by exploiting enslaved labor.

I'm trying to figure out what a logical "universal principle" is regarding peoples of the world who oppressed and exploited others and built wealth as a result. You seem to have an answer. Please explain.

[Zonkerbl]

I am 100% certain it has something to do with the section prohibiting making white people uncomfortable that their ancestors enslaved people, and that the current wealth of the white people in this country was accumulated and PASSED DOWN TO THEIR DESCENDENTS by exploiting enslaved labor.

I'm trying to figure out what a logical "universal principle" is regarding peoples of the world who oppressed and exploited others and built wealth as a result. You seem to have an answer. Please explain.

I have no idea what you are talking about so I can't answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Figure out what you're trying to say.

[popper]

I am 100% certain it has something to do with the section prohibiting making white people uncomfortable that their ancestors enslaved people, and that the current wealth of the white people in this country was accumulated and PASSED DOWN TO THEIR DESCENDENTS by exploiting enslaved labor.

I'm trying to figure out what a logical "universal principle" is regarding peoples of the world who oppressed and exploited others and built wealth as a result. You seem to have an answer. Please explain.

I have no idea what you are talking about so I can't answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Figure out what you're trying to say.

So you can't articulate a "universal principle" on a subject that you beat the drums on frequently here. That's okay. Until you can, it's probably not something that you/we should be strident about. I can't do it either. Maybe with additional time and good will we can figure it out.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=iBTfMEUR_XAZPZtA77Qv_g&s=19

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=KdHD7jiLT0rljU1slWAhVQ&s=19

Read on Twitter

?t=B6RJU31ySo4Z74wj3v4hWw&s=19

[montestewart]

I am 100% certain it has something to do with the section prohibiting making white people uncomfortable that their ancestors enslaved people, and that the current wealth of the white people in this country was accumulated and PASSED DOWN TO THEIR DESCENDENTS by exploiting enslaved labor.

I'm trying to figure out what a logical "universal principle" is regarding peoples of the world who oppressed and exploited others and built wealth as a result. You seem to have an answer. Please explain.

Did anyone respond? Anything that broad and covering that much history would be too vague, but how about, "If group A held group B down, group A is obligated to lift group B back up and sustainably rectify the inequity."

Of course, the situation in the United States is much clearer, because this country has the same governmental system and operates under the same Constitution. It is more the same government it was at the time the Constitution was ratified than virtually any other country on the planet. As a result, neither the United States nor white Americans can so easily or logically disassociate from the wrongs of the past (and present) and the continuing inequities that stem from them. As such, its obligations to wronged groups, most specifically to African Americans and Native Americans, is much more a current and legal obligation than an historical and moral obligation.

It may be that the very durability of the United States has stood in the way of reckoning with its past. Both Germany and Japan were forced to reckon with their respective pasts after WWII. South Africa took it upon itself to reckon with its past. The United states has just had so much winning, it never really was forced to face up to the fact that a fair share of that winning was legally denied to most non-whites until the court cases in the 50s, 60s, and 70s began to strike down many aspects of legal (and sometimes government enforced) racism. All these decisions were met with great resistance. The Brown v Board of Education decision was in 1954, but there were still non-geographically based segregated schools well into at least the 1960s. White racist animosity was clear in the Boston busing riots in the 1970s, as it was in the massive resistance to integration across the South that lasts to this day. Until the fair Housing Act of 1968 provided an enforcement mechanism, racially discriminatory practices in housing were still de facto legal, and such practices continued long after that (ahem, Trump).

If you can admit that slavery was enshrined in the Constitution, that starting point should inform that most laws on the books through most of this country's history were written by people who believed in racial discrimination. Federal, state, and local laws, contract laws, banking laws, property laws, marriage laws, employment laws, healthcare laws, and on and on. Thousands of laws, tens of thousands of laws, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of regulations and policies. The ones that contained an explicit racial component were somewhat easier to challenge, but what of the ones that were written with racist intent and had a racially discriminatory effect, but contained no explicit racial component? Harder to perceive, prove, challenge, and change. Of course racially discriminatory laws still exist, and some probably haven't even been identified.

The above is just a smattering of why the banning of CRT is nothing but a cynical joke perpetrated by hucksters marshaling and inflaming preexisting racial animus toward blacks among whites with no interest in participating in an honest conversation about any of the above, preferring instead to hear that the real discrimination is actually against them. The only discrimination they've ever heard of was affirmative action.

Not really a principle, but hopefully it's clear that the United States would require something more specific than a universal principle would provide, the case for it is much easier to prove, and the culpable governments remain intact. You need to challenge yourself more, Popper. This is not even a deep dive.

[popper]

I am 100% certain it has something to do with the section prohibiting making white people uncomfortable that their ancestors enslaved people, and that the current wealth of the white people in this country was accumulated and PASSED DOWN TO THEIR DESCENDENTS by exploiting enslaved labor.

I'm trying to figure out what a logical "universal principle" is regarding peoples of the world who oppressed and exploited others and built wealth as a result. You seem to have an answer. Please explain.

Did anyone respond? Anything that broad and covering that much history would be too vague, but how about, "If group A held group B down, group A is obligated to lift group B back up and sustainably rectify the inequity."

Of course, the situation in the United States is much clearer, because this country has the same governmental system and operates under the same Constitution. It is more the same government it was at the time the Constitution was ratified than virtually any other country on the planet. As a result, neither the United States nor white Americans can so easily or logically disassociate from the wrongs of the past (and present) and the continuing inequities that stem from them. As such, its obligations to wronged groups, most specifically to African Americans and Native Americans, is much more a current and legal obligation than an historical and moral obligation.

It may be that the very durability of the United States has stood in the way of reckoning with its past. Both Germany and Japan were forced to reckon with their respective pasts after WWII. South Africa took it upon itself to reckon with its past. The United states has just had so much winning, it never really was forced to face up to the fact that a fair share of that winning was legally denied to most non-whites until the court cases in the 50s, 60s, and 70s began to strike down many aspects of legal (and sometimes government enforced) racism. All these decisions were met with great resistance. The Brown v Board of Education decision was in 1954, but there were still non-geographically based segregated schools well into at least the 1960s. White racist animosity was clear in the Boston busing riots in the 1970s, as it was in the massive resistance to integration across the South that lasts to this day. Until the fair Housing Act of 1968 provided an enforcement mechanism, racially discriminatory practices in housing were still de facto legal, and such practices continued long after that (ahem, Trump).

If you can admit that slavery was enshrined in the Constitution, that starting point should inform that most laws on the books through most of this country's history were written by people who believed in racial discrimination. Federal, state, and local laws, contract laws, banking laws, property laws, marriage laws, employment laws, healthcare laws, and on and on. Thousands of laws, tens of thousands of laws, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of regulations and policies. The ones that contained an explicit racial component were somewhat easier to challenge, but what of the ones that were written with racist intent and had a racially discriminatory effect, but contained no explicit racial component? Harder to perceive, prove, challenge, and change. Of course racially discriminatory laws still exist, and some probably haven't even been identified.

The above is just a smattering of why the banning of CRT is nothing but a cynical joke perpetrated by hucksters marshaling and inflaming preexisting racial animus toward blacks among whites with no interest in participating in an honest conversation about any of the above, preferring instead to hear that the real discrimination is actually against them. The only discrimination they've ever heard of was affirmative action.

Not really a principle, but hopefully it's clear that the United States would require something more specific than a universal principle would provide, the case for it is much easier to prove, and the culpable governments remain intact. You need to challenge yourself more, Popper. This is not even a deep dive.

If it's not a deep dive then I challenge everyone here to prescribe a specific remedy. California is doing the deep dive now and thousands of man hours have been expended so far.

Edit -thanks for your thoughtful response Monte

[pancakes3]

edit: I didn't mean to post a whole screed - I initially intended to just post the first sentence

we don't live in a society where people are free from oppression and exploitation but it would be great if we did, so seems like Popper answered his own challenge there.

i think there are many republicans who think that we do live in such a utopia, and that's the problem. they don't understand or don't want to understand how their perceived utopia comes at the cost of the oppression and exploitation of others.

one remedy is to construct such a society. then we can have the luxury of engaging in a meaningful conversation about how to redress the wrongs of the past. i'm not sure if Popper is alluding to reparations or whatever, but the conversation about reparations, affirmative action, etc. is not about atonement. it's about bringing about the here and now, and how to most effectively and efficiently shape the current society to get to one free of oppression and exploitation. whether it's racial discrimination, national origin discrimination (immigration), sex/gender discrimination, we live in a society where 80% of the wealth is controlled by 20% of the population*. That 20% of the population is disproportionately dominated by native born white men. How many "remedies" are necessary to even get that 20% to be the populational proportion of women, people of color, lgbtq+? Then how many "remedies" does it take to get that 20% to shift to 25%, 30%, 50%?

the footnote to this is that i think, naively, so many people think that there exists some plan and roadmap to get to this utopia, and it just takes the pulling of certain levers of power by the right person to get us there. Obama. Trump. Bernie. Whoever. ::buzzer:: Wrong. It's a continuous, dynamic process of neverending improvement that incorporates (a) thoughtful, well-informed, meaningful actions; (b) innovation and progress; restrategizing; (c) the willingness to recalculate and change direction when necessary.

As an example, the agricultural policies of the 1800's are different from the 1900's from the 2000's and it's not that earlier agricultural policies and practices were wrong, oppressive, or exploitative per se (well except for that whole slavery, and then sharecropping hiccup), but it's apples to oranges. The technology has changed, the crops/diet have changed, the demographics have changed, the the economics have changed, the climate has changed, etc.

Asking a basketball forum to summarize and itemize a blueprint for a utopia is like asking my uber driver to explain God to me before I get to Dulles. Inappropriate and insufficient.

*The 80/20 principle is so pervasive that it has a name - the pareto principle and it pops up EVERYWHERE. An obscure italian "economist" first observed that 80% of the land in Italy was controlled by 20% of the population. Then it was observed with regard to the world's wealth. It's a famous rule in sales, where 80% of sales come from 20% of clientele. It comes up in workplace accidents (80% of workplace accidents caused by 20% of the hazards), medicine (80% of costs are attributed to 20% of patients), computer science (80% of crashes are caused by the same 20% chunk of code), 80% of your driving comes on 20% of the roads you frequent most. Some people think this is just a law nature, and that wealth inequality is just a mathematical certainty controlled by the invisible hand but not necessarily. Blockbuster used to subscribe to the pareto principle, 80% of video rentals came from 20% of their titles, but Netflix has broken that. New industries that are more widely adopted have shown to start skewing egalitarian. And it makes sense. Many of the pareto connections that we have observed are all tied to wealth (landowning Italians, health care costs, sales) so if the product is AFFORDABLE, and the people have MONEY, there's no reason for the pareto principle to control.

[popper]

edit: I didn't mean to post a whole screed - I initially intended to just post the first sentence

we don't live in a society where people are free from oppression and exploitation but it would be great if we did, so seems like Popper answered his own challenge there.

i think there are many republicans who think that we do live in such a utopia, and that's the problem. they don't understand or don't want to understand how their perceived utopia comes at the cost of the oppression and exploitation of others.

one remedy is to construct such a society. then we can have the luxury of engaging in a meaningful conversation about how to redress the wrongs of the past. i'm not sure if Popper is alluding to reparations or whatever, but the conversation about reparations, affirmative action, etc. is not about atonement. it's about bringing about the here and now, and how to most effectively and efficiently shape the current society to get to one free of oppression and exploitation. whether it's racial discrimination, national origin discrimination (immigration), sex/gender discrimination, we live in a society where 80% of the wealth is controlled by 20% of the population*. That 20% of the population is disproportionately dominated by native born white men. How many "remedies" are necessary to even get that 20% to be the populational proportion of women, people of color, lgbtq+? Then how many "remedies" does it take to get that 20% to shift to 25%, 30%, 50%?

the footnote to this is that i think, naively, so many people think that there exists some plan and roadmap to get to this utopia, and it just takes the pulling of certain levers of power by the right person to get us there. Obama. Trump. Bernie. Whoever. ::buzzer:: Wrong. It's a continuous, dynamic process of neverending improvement that incorporates (a) thoughtful, well-informed, meaningful actions; (b) innovation and progress; restrategizing; (c) the willingness to recalculate and change direction when necessary.

As an example, the agricultural policies of the 1800's are different from the 1900's from the 2000's and it's not that earlier agricultural policies and practices were wrong, oppressive, or exploitative per se (well except for that whole slavery, and then sharecropping hiccup), but it's apples to oranges. The technology has changed, the crops/diet have changed, the demographics have changed, the the economics have changed, the climate has changed, etc.

Asking a basketball forum to summarize and itemize a blueprint for a utopia is like asking my uber driver to explain God to me before I get to Dulles. Inappropriate and insufficient.

*The 80/20 principle is so pervasive that it has a name - the pareto principle and it pops up EVERYWHERE. An obscure italian "economist" first observed that 80% of the land in Italy was controlled by 20% of the population. Then it was observed with regard to the world's wealth. It's a famous rule in sales, where 80% of sales come from 20% of clientele. It comes up in workplace accidents (80% of workplace accidents caused by 20% of the hazards), medicine (80% of costs are attributed to 20% of patients), computer science (80% of crashes are caused by the same 20% chunk of code), 80% of your driving comes on 20% of the roads you frequent most. Some people think this is just a law nature, and that wealth inequality is just a mathematical certainty controlled by the invisible hand but not necessarily. Blockbuster used to subscribe to the pareto principle, 80% of video rentals came from 20% of their titles, but Netflix has broken that. New industries that are more widely adopted have shown to start skewing egalitarian. And it makes sense. Many of the pareto connections that we have observed are all tied to wealth (landowning Italians, health care costs, sales) so if the product is AFFORDABLE, and the people have MONEY, there's no reason for the pareto principle to control.

Excellent post except for the comment that most R's think we live in a utopia. Every R I know thinks the opposite. You are right though that wealthy D's and R's are perfectly happy with our corrupt system.

Your paragraph describing a country that could aspire to or perhaps achieve some significant measure of continuous and dynamic improvement is spot on and well said. IMO that would require an education system that is top tier. As you know, our K-12 has been going down hill for years. I wish this thread would focus more on that.