The same people absolutely believe discrimination occurs in culture/education/training/etc. If I cited an article showing that e.g. childhood participation in private music lessons for orchestral instruments had a race skew (which it does), would they be surprised? I really don't think so. Do they believe that lessons and practice just... don't matter? That's the only way I can think of to justify the notion that a fair meritocratic test of orchestra applicants wouldn't show a similar skew even assuming uniform innate capacity and interest.
The usual justification I hear is something you're brushing briefly against here: interest. What DEI proponents think is that the underrepresented minorities are not taking private music lessons for orchestral instruments because they don't feel welcome or invited in those fields. They feel it's a white or asian thing, not for them. Culturally, it's less of a thing they're likely to be introduced to.
So to steelman the DEI side here (which I must state I disagree with, but it still deserves steelmanning), minority enrollement in these activities requires bootstrapping; get a generation of these under-represented minorities in there or two by putting your thumb on the scale if necessary, hype the fuck out of them, and hopefully the next generation of the under-represented minority will be inspired by the DEI hires, will get on the pipeline early and the minority will not be under-represented anymore and you won't need to put your thumb on the scale.
I don't think it has ever worked, but I think that's the general idea.
*EDIT: To clarify why I don't think it ever works, is because it's extremely conceited. You have to assume that people are dumb and won't notice that your thumb is on the scale, and won't notice that the DEI hires are worse than the meritocratic ones. Which has a tendancy to backfire, if all the pro/famous under-represented minority athletes of a specific sport, or orchestral musicians are noticeably worse, it's likely to reinforce the idea that there is something innate with the group that makes them worse at that activity. Which would be worse than having only a few less-than-representative numbers but at least they perform to the same standard as others, which doesn't damage the "interest gap" potential explanation and won't discourage the people who do have the interest.
pigeonburger
1d ago
I guess I should specify what I mean by trolling here; it's true that outside of the "military intervention" aspect Trump does some trolling too, like the "51st state", calling the Canadian Prime Minister "Governor", etc... I'm guessing he says that because he finds it funny. I find it funny too. And the performative pearl clutching he sees in return is funny too. But the interest is genuine.
pigeonburger
1d ago
The thing is that last year, I saw multiple right wingers say that the Canada stuff and the Greenland stuff was all just trolling, not serious.
I don't recall hearing or saying that; the interest is genuine and has always been genuine. Canada is not serious in the sense that the possibility is and was extremely remote, but if the US sees the opportunity, I think any president, not just Trump, would try to bring Canada in. It'd be a massive legacy setting achievement. Other presidents haven't brought it up, but either Trump has a different idea of what is or isn't realistic, or thinks what you never ask, you never get. Greenland was a strategic interest of US military, one of their "it would be nice-to-have it" things that no one thought was possible. Anyone who told you that Trump wasn't serious about Greenland probably never knew that the US' been trying to buy it since the 19th century. And it turns out probably still isn't possible, but maybe Trump will get some additional concessions for his military bases there, we'll see.
The part that is the trolling has always been the military intervention.
pigeonburger
2d ago
I think the main difference is how would you even argue for or against gay marriage? The difference of opinion on it and topics like it are on a different level than a debate. It is closer to a conflict theory topic than mistake theory. Religious conservatives don't argue against it because they agree that gays should be able to marry but disagree that the government should be the one to do it; they don't think gays should be able to marry, at least not in the same sense as traditional marriages, and usually more broadly.
Housing affordability, healthcare, education, etc... Are more mistake theory. There is a general agreement on both sides that it would be good if housing, education and healthcare were more affordable and higher quality. Both sides have the same goal, but the strategy to get there are at odds, usually some sort of opposition between government intervention vs free enterprise and markets.
pigeonburger
3d ago
Also I think maybe older people have the idea that anime is more high-brow than it is?
I think it's one of these midwit meme distribution. Glug thinks cartoons are low-brow childish entertainment, midwit thinks since it's not aimed at kids it's adult and somewhat sophisticated. Genius knows it's mostly endless rehash of tropes comfortable to its audience.
pigeonburger
3d ago
Yes, and if you take into account empty nesters, it's not that atypical for older people to move from a house sized for a family with 2+ kids to a smaller house, to a condo or an apartment that requires less upkeep work and, as a result of the downsizing you mentionned, frees up money for retirement.
pigeonburger
4d ago
I can understand the collateral for debt argument, but I don't know how common that is, as I am a peasant who avoids debt whenever I can. Maybe somebody else here can fill in the gaps on this one.
If I was in DINK couple, or an irresponsible parent, a reverse mortgage would be very tempting; after all, if I don't have anyone I want to leave my wealth to, what do I care if the bank takes it after I die?
pigeonburger
4d ago
Is the Aging Wheels guy red coded? I mean, he's got the homesteading stuff going on, but I never got that impression. He loves quirky european cars, electric cars, etc...
pigeonburger
4d ago
Coming here from the Quality Contribution thread, I have to concur. America still has a strong positive, but maybe not explicit halo for europeans, at least for working class europeans. My (Spanish) wife and I went to visit New-York in december and my in-laws wanted as souvenirs Statue of Liberty keychains and (more tellingly) american 1$ bills. They have put these bills in their wallets and phone cases as good luck charms. This is despite them also watching the news daily and absorbing all the anti-american signaling. I don't think a country's smallest denomination bill becomes a good luck charm for foreigners without at least unconscious good vibes being associated with it.
pigeonburger
5d ago
As a long time watcher and patreon supporter of his, I'm afraid to watch that video.
It was obvious for years he was chafing at the thought of not being able to discuss politics without risking a large portion of his viewership, but it seems the restraints are gone now.
pigeonburger
7d ago
One of the failure state of it is, but it doesn't have to be. Not every city/state/province/country that has loitering laws, for instance, is a police state. Loitering as a concept is vague enough that the police has to exercise judgement in removing people who are being a nuisance and those who aren't.
But when you run out of social capital, you end up on both sides with abuse (on the police side with abuse of authority and on the other side doing the maximum they can get away with despite going against the spirit of the law).
pigeonburger
7d ago
While it's true that there are already laws on the books against these sorts of things, I think an argument can be made that there needs to be a more focused and vigorous response.
The main answer to this is having vague enough laws and leaving it to the police to enforce it at their discretion, but it requires a lot of social capital and trust to do, which is precisely what you're running out of these days.
pigeonburger
7d ago
Hey, another person getting into Endfield! Enjoying it a lot so far, though I'm still in the honeymoon period, before the gacha system starts putting the squeeze on progression ressources, and before the game settles into a daily grind.
pigeonburger
7d ago
Trump has had… lots of appointees that didn't agree with him much. RFK wasn’t someone I would’ve expected to be on the Trump train.
I think the main consideration he has is for legacy setting, so his best shot is hiring outsider wonks who push for bold reforms. Not sure how Warsh fits there.
pigeonburger
7d ago
Agreed 100%.
But Alex Pretti was an intensive care nurse at a Veteran's hospital with a clean record
He probably did more good for the world in that role than he ever did wrong as a protestor, except to himself. I have no problem calling his death a tragedy, even if I don't think I can blame the officer for taking the shot (though that's from the limited information I do have). Defending ICE's goals and actions does not require celebrating or even attacking the character of Pretti (and Good) except in the specific actions they took before their deaths.
pigeonburger
8d ago
Logistically how do garbage men strike for a year? How are they paying their bills?
Usually they are bankrolled by their union's warchest.
pigeonburger
8d ago
Ok, let's put it this way. The nitty-gritty of use-of-force is mostly irrelevant. Innocents being summarily executed by the state deserves wide social reaction and reevaluation of the politics of those supporting it in a way that "person plays stupid game, wins stupid prize" doesn't. What the OP is doing is pointing that Pretti's shooting matches the second characterization better than the first.
pigeonburger
8d ago
Yes, of course the facts of use of force in a complex dynamic scenario are irrelevant here, that's not the game being played. The left never wants to play that game, you can see it with Rittenhouse, they'll rewrite the entire scenario so that they never have to play that game. The game being played, by the left, is "innocent mother who just confusedly found herself there" or "kind medic" shot by "fascist jackboot thugs". With no control over the media, the right can't chose the game to play, they can't reframe this on "let's just let the professionals do their job and we'll see if it was justified". So in the game we actually are playing, pointing out that Good was actually not accidentally there but willingly interfering, and that Pretti has a history of belligerent behavior towards ICE is fair.
Ended up with Jeffersonianism
My main beef with tests like this is that it doesn't distinguish well between things that are preferences and those that the test taker feels should be policy. For instance, on the question of traditional gender roles. I think they tend to work better and I think it's broadly good if people follow them, but I also don't think anyone has the moral ground to enforce them and that people who don't want to follow them should be allowed to (legally and socially). What would I answer? I could answer in the middle, but that would not capture my actual feeling (positive) towards the roles, and my opinion (negative) towards enforcement of them. My answer should push me more towards libertarian conservatism, not be neutral.
pigeonburger
14d ago
The gun control side doesn't want to discuss self-defense and protection, it's not a productive topic for their side. Having to rely on the police for your protection is something they want to steer the conversation away from, because even if you did neuter the anti control argument that the police don't have to protect by making it that yes the police does have to protect people, they are still not likely to be present when it matters, and neutering that argument is not really possible.
pigeonburger
14d ago
While I agree with you on most of your scenarios that there should be repercussions, there is a distinction between crime and legal repercussions (which could be civil lawsuits).
pigeonburger
14d ago
So even if you increase the number of law enforcement in the field to a stratospheric number, that still doesn't mean they have to do jack all.
Yeah, but what we're talking here is an hypothetical scenario where we were addressing the fact that they don't have to do anything. My point was that the gun control side doesn't want to get into this discussion because discussing this gets to close to discussing how even if they were forced to defend the population, you'd need even more police than in the worst police states for them to actually be close enough to stop most violent crimes in time.
pigeonburger
14d ago
I imagine it's not a conversation they enjoy, since inevitably it would force them to address the fact that unless we increase the amount of cops by orders of magnitude, they simply cannot be there to protect people in many or most cases. Not that their policy choice cannot be defended despite this, after all the optimal number of children drowning in pools is not zero. But the gun control side puts a lot of effort in thinking around this, as it feels wrong in a primal way, especially for men (and blue tribe men are still men, they do feel the macho impulse to be providers and protectors), that they are not trusted with the tools to defend their family or themselves and need to rely on people who are not likely to be present when it counts. It's not great to have to go and acknowledge "Yeah, some people are going to die helpless without means to defend themselves, but such is the price of safety", the same way the opposite side doesn't enjoy acknowledging that "some people are going to get shot with guns being legal but such is the price of freedom and self-reliance".
The main argument is that the simplicity of UBI (are you a citizen? do you have a pulse? congrats, here's your check!) compared to the complex mesh of benefits that make current safety nets makes for a flatter administrative landscape that leaves less cover for corruption and grift to hide in.
Not that it makes much of a difference when government is indifferent to it, as can be attested with how brazen the examples of Somali fraud we've seen recently were. But at least, if the government cares, in the case of UBI avoiding corruption and grift would be easier, as there's really only three ways one could abuse it: claim to be a citizen if they aren't, claim someone is alive when they aren't, claim they haven't recieved the money when they have.
Sentence, ideally no. Arrest, yes, though the bar is high. Suspect/investigate, all the time.
More options
Context Copy link