Total posts: 2,178
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
Politicians don't see beyond the next election. Fear of the latino vote keeps that border open. Nobody is going to do anything about it. There was a whimpering yelp from Trump, but he couldn't fix it without funding. It was too little, too late.
The current issue can’t be fixed without congress changing the asylum laws, but Trumps policies did fix the problem. The issue is that the next President can just change the policy back. I don’t see any evidence that Hispanic voters want illegal immigration, democrats are going to get absolutely blown out all across the border in 2022
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Not that long ago, the Democratic Party had generally the same view toward border security that the GOP has. I even recall Bernie Sanders having a different stance. Then, through a combination of PC ideology, political expediency, and the desire to oppose Trump on everything, that changed to what we currently have.
Also they are completely sold on the emerging democratic majority hypothesis that immigrants will make it impossible for the GOP to win ever again. I’m not a believer in that really but it explains their behavior a little
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And in case you are thinking oh well maybe this is just a return to normal and Trumps rhetoric made things slow down, no. Here are the numbers going back 20 years. Illegal immigration was historically overwhelmingly from Mexico and overwhelmingly adults looking for work, and pretty much stopped after the Great Recession. Now it’s from around the world and to a large extent is families seeking welfare benefits
And keep in mind the numbers have stayed the same since July…this isn’t at all normal
And keep in mind the numbers have stayed the same since July…this isn’t at all normal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
These levels are not categorically different from what we saw in 2019. And very little apart from the details has changed since then. I’m just saying it is dramatic to the point of unseriousness to claim that we had a border in 2019 and not now.
I guess I'll go one step further: I consider Biden and the Democrats to be actively aiding and abetting this migration. They want this to happen
But clearly it wasn’t working according to your own metrics.When we experience a surge under Biden, it’s because of his policies. When we experience a surge under Trump, it’s in spite of his policies. The surges are not that far apart from each other, and there are plenty of other factors you don’t even seem to take into account. So I’m just trying to understand if there is any real justification for putting this all on Biden, because this really just looks like political expediency.
I don't know why you'd make a comment like this with the numbers have been posted in this thread again and again and again, but here they are for the last three fiscal years and the beginning of this one: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters It in fact clearly WAS working. Border crossings were touching record lows in early 2020 before the pandemic.
You can see quite clearly that there was a spike in 2019, that peaked at BELOW the ongoing numbers we've had for over NINE MONTHS STRAIGHT now with Biden, and quickly dissipated. You can argue that people don't respond to incentives and so ending catch and release, summarily expelling everyone caught, forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico instead of being released into our country, strong-arming the countries of origin to keep their people in line, etc didn't matter. But I think that's a truly ridiculous statement. The question asked in your OP has been answered: Yes, there is a border crisis, and yes it is unprecedented. Given that there were SIGNIFICANT policy changes between Biden and Trump it seems totally plausible that Biden bears a huge portion of the responsibility. I haven't seen any leftist on this thread argue differently, just various denials that its happening
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yeah the “fertility transition” is caused mostly by access to birth control and knowledge of how to prevent conception. But after that is anyones guess. What causes a country like France to bottom out at around 1.8 while a country like South Korea bottoms out at 0.8? And no, it isn’t immigration. A mix of economics, urbanization and culture I would guess
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree with you that the statistics are pretty bleak but not quite as bad as they appear on the surface, a lot of those children are born to cohabitating/common law marriages, and have both parents in their lives. the divorce stats are inflated by second, third, and fourth marriages. First time marriages only divorce about 30% of the time. But I agree that things have definitely gone off the rails quite a bit, especially for working class people
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well it’s important in getting responsible people to breed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You have my sincere apologies, and a woman peeing outside should actually receive more points than a man. You may add two points to your score
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Somewhat interesting, seeing another's thoughts.I've no interest in having a family myself,
Without being too probing, why not? And without trying to depress you, what do you expect the latter half of your life to be like?
My opinions,If one identifies a country as it's people/genetics/culture, and immigration is high, then low birth rate is bad for a country.If one identifies a country as it's people/genetics/culture, and immigration is low, then a low birth rates consequences can be managed.
Yeah agreed. Although even if someone defines a country as an economy or a polity or whatever I see immigration pressure lowering significantly over the next few decades because birth rates are falling everywhere. There just isn’t this massive reserve of impoverished young people anymore as people think. For example when the big Mexican migration to America happened starting in the 50s/60s, Mexico had a TFR of 6.5, now it’s down to 2.1 and about to hit below replacement
Created:
Posted in:
My grandfather: secular, urban, four children, four grandchildren, zero great grandchildren (hoping to change that soon)
My wife’s grandfather: religious, rural, ten children, 40+ grandchildren/great grandchildren
Both men born the exact same year, almost a century ago. Stuff like this fascinates me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
thanks! 29% of it goes to housing. also look at how the housing costs "per child" (doesnt necessarily work that way but I see what they are getting at) differ between rural and urban areas...3900 vs 2400. I would imagine that has gotten worse in recent years and that other costs have that difference too. could explain a lot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
thanks, that's good information. Do you have a link? Last time I saw this data it was pointed out that this factors in marginal housing costs, so if you already have a house the number is a lot lower. It doesnt factor in college tuition though which is brutal if you want to provide that for your kids
Created:
Posted in:
there are also countries (not the US) that I think are pretty much doomed due to their low birthrates. South Korea = population of 52 million, 272,000 births last year (and the current data suggests they are decreasing further.) Yes yes, technology, automation yada yada but numbers like that are just asking for a social system collapse in 30 years, or for a foreign country to easily overwhelm the 5% of your people who are fighting aged males in 2050
Created:
Posted in:
Total Fertility Rate (TFR) = number of children a woman gives birth to over her lifetime. Historically TFR's have hovered around 5-7 children per women. Almost everywhere in the world, as economic and technological development takes place, the TFR falls dramatically In some places it's higher, in some places significantly lower than that. The reasons for the variance are complicated and not well understood. This is called the "fertility transition." The United States went through its fertility transition early, and other than during the baby boom the TFR has hovered around 2 or below since the Great Depression: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/
This fertility transition is now in an advanced stage almost all around the world. In fact, some analysts are predicting that this year will be the first time (ever?) that the world as a whole has reached below-replacement fertility. The causes of fertility rates are complicated, multivariate, and above all poorly understood.
The future belongs to those who show up. So who IS having kids in America? Ethnically, Hispanic women have the most children, but their birthrates are crashing extremely rapidly as part of a greater phenomenon where the White and Hispanic populations are converging on several important factors. Black women have more children than White women and have for some time, which has allowed them to hold onto their historical 11-13% share of the population even as the non-hispanic white proportion of the country has dropped. But this fertility advantage is dwindling. Other than Asian women (who have rock bottom fertility rates of 1.1-1.3) all groups in the US are converging to around 1.7 children per women, or perhaps even lower than that.
Politically the question is more interesting. For women born in the 1970s, self identified conservative women had around 0.25 children than self identified liberal women. This is a meaningful, but relatively small difference. However, this is a lagging indicator. For women in their 30's, the gap is a lot larger but it's possible that liberal women will in their 30s will have more later births than conservative women. But take a look at fertility rates by state (yes, I know this is from Twitter but this account is a pretty reliable source): https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1460983673491279883
Top 10 states: Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red.
Bottom 10 states (and DC): Blue, Blue, Blue, Blue, Blue, Blue, Bluish-purple, purple, Blue, purple.
Not everyone having children in red states are white conservatives (in the south especially many are minorities) and not all children from conservative households stay that way so I don't think this portends a long term and inevitable conservative dominance. But I think it is still a socially/politically relevant fact that white liberals seem to be going the way of the dodo bird, genetically speaking. If this groups wants to continue to hold onto its share it must do so through conversion.
What can't be denied is that clearly conservative areas are having more success at getting the youth to breed than liberal areas are. While this may provide conservatives a sense of smug satisfaction, this most likely has more to do with cost of living and urbanization rather than policy, as the "family values" party doesn't do all that much for families. But still, the numbers are what they are and liberals ignore this at their own peril. Anecdotally, I expect this trend to grow far stronger with the millennial's and gen-z. I am in my mid to late-20s right now, about the age that many of our parents had their firstborns, and the only people I know who have kids are conservative religious types. The people I know who are in a position to have kids in the next few years (stable relationship/married/engaged, economically secure, non-hedonistic) don't skew as conservative/religious but are far from leftist zealots. The most liberal people I knew from my youth are still status chasing in expensive big cities.
While it's true that kids from conservative families don't always stay that way I expect that 1) The people of my generation who have remained religious and conservative despite being run through the public school and social media ringer are far more likely to raise children who stay that way than their hapless boomer parents, and 2) Personality is extremely heritable, especially when the parents get an 18 year crack at the child's environment, so if conservatives are having far more children the countries culture and temperament will still change even if a large percentage of these children change ideologies.
I also wonder what is going to happen when the number of childless adults rises. Given the already fragile mental state of people in my generation, I'm not bullish on their personal happiness thirty years from now when their parents are dead and their families aren't growing. It really makes me sad.
Wildcards: The US is peppered with small religious groups with ultra high fertility rates. Most famously the Amish, but also Hasidic Jews, Hutterites, conservative Mennonites, and to a lesser extent Latin Mass Catholics, fundamentalist Mormons, and Quiverfull Evangelicals. It's the same principle as compound interest--given enough time, something that starts out small can grow extremely large, which is why the Amish, who numbered about 5,000 a century ago, aren't really that small an ethnic group anymore, now boasting 360,000 adherents. There's basically zero conversion, that's purely internal growth. Continuing that growth rate would yield 26 million Amish people in 2121. The Amish as a whole have a TFR of 5-6, but certain conservative sects have even more kids, 7-10 per woman and so are growing even faster. Hasidic Jews are going to be around 35-40% of children in Brooklyn in the next decade, and will reach majority status very quickly if trends don't change.
The past doesn't predict the future and the birthrates of these groups will eventually hit a wall....but when is anyone's guess, and what will happen afterward is unknown. Millions of ex-Amish and ex-Hasidic Jews filtering into mainstream society fifty to seventy five years from now is a political and social phenomenon no one is expecting but one that I believe is pretty much inevitable unless their TFR crashes to something resembling secular society very quickly.
Anyway I don't really have a point of this post. I was actually just jotting stuff down for my own purposes and thought maybe someone on this forum would find it interesting. I don't know what the future holds, but it's certainly interesting! If you're currently on the fence, you should have a kid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think its a mistake to advertise or hope for a return to normal- that there's some point in the past that's preferable to what we have now. That may be a core tenant of conservatism but its not something I've ever much bought into.
Do you really not want an end to COVID? Where I live, there haven’t been any restrictions for over a year. But there are still places where children are wearing masks in schools, we still have to wear masks in airplanes…do you want this to just continue forever?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
I just hope home prices keep skyrocketing then I'm going to cash out and be a lazy bum until I'm dead
The home prices thing is incredibly depressing. I know rock bottom interest rates make the sticker price less scary than it looks, but being able to buy a home is extremely important in convincing young people to have kids, which is something we desperately need
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
It is so obvious when a certain topic starts getting pumped by the conservative think tanks for strategic reasons. All of a sudden all of the conservatives are talking about "inflation" - before that it was "wokeness" - before that "CRT" - and so on. Talking points arise all at once, in a very clearly coordinated way, and at strategically chosen points in time
The fact that you can make a post like this reveals only your own bias, not mine. It shouldn’t be shocking that people of all political stripes talk about current events and the issues that are currently in the news. If those issues are “carefully chosen” it’s not by Fox News. Inflation has hit a multi decade high so it’s strange that you think I shouldn’t talk about it because a news channel that I don’t watch and don’t like is presumably talking about it as well.
Does it bother you that the buzzwords you will be repeating in 6 months from now are currently being carefully planned and agreed upon in a discussion somewhere of some conservative advocacy group you know nothing about?
It doesn’t bother me because it isn’t true. I’m not a conservative and my exposure to conservative media comes only through a format that also exposes me to liberal media.
I could make this exact accusation, that people line up for their talking points an issues like pigs to a trough, of liberals. And unlike you, I’ll provide some empirical evidence. But I don’t really believe that this is what’s happening. Figuring out what becomes a political issue and what doesn’t is complicated https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's entirely plausible after this Biden inflation disaster era that the pendulum could go bonkers the other way. (like it did after Carter only multiply it by a few factors) ... All it takes is some determined elites to rewrite the narrative. The fresh imported sheep are already here.
Also making the Democratic Party the black party is about as unpopular with other non whites as making the Republican Party the white party in the 70s and 80s was. I don’t wanna read too much into a few election results but it definitely seems like non-black minorities are moving right. I think a socially conservative, economically moderate party would do super well among almost every demographic in the US.
If the Republican Party plays it’s hand right (spoiler it probably won’t) dems would be royally screwed. Imagine if the GOP managed to hold onto its rural voters (and therefore the senate outside of rare circumstances) while also making gains with minorities resulting in locking down Texas and Florida, bringing Arizona and Nevada back into the fold, making New Mexico a swing state, and opening up as many as a dozen house seats in Cali.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's awfully weird is that the demographics of the illegal immigrants are shifting to an increasing amount of radical right Hispanic supporters. That has bad consequences for the country, yet it's unlikely the left is competent enough to see the disaster coming.I really don't want to see the country swing far authoritarian right with the support of millions of illegals from south America. We could just close the border and preserve our country alternatively
I know you’re joking (at least I think) but when I see people coming from places like Venezuela I do wonder about this
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Illegals have been crossing the border for as long as there has been a border, an increase in traffic doesn’t mean we go from being a country to not being a country. There’s really no way to describe that other than just plain silly.
These levels are unprecedented. The purpose of a country = to establish a claim to a certain territory and defend it militarily from outsiders. If the body politic that exists lacks the will to do that, it will be replaced with one that does have that willpower.
And when it comes to which policies you attribute to this surge, I’m wondering how you square that with the surge we experienced in 2019 when Biden was no where near the White House. If it’s all about Biden’s policies then what did Trump do to cause that?
I would square it by pointing out that Trump pursued pretty cut throat policies such as prosecuting all illegal border crossers, applying hardball tactics with the counties of origin (such as threatening to shut down foreign aid if they didn’t stop their citizens from invading), working extremely closely with the Mexican government with policies such as MPP and others, building the wall, expelling 90%+ of illegals with title 42 as soon as COVID came, and restricting the circumstances through which asylum could be claimed. This mix, along with rhetoric yes, did a lot to deter illegal border crossings especially from families looking for welfare as opposed to adults looking for work. You can see it in the numbers, there was a spike around mid 2018-early 2019 that dissipated because people respond to incentives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is the very reason I find the immigration debate interesting. Please help me understand, what personal impact does illegal immigration have on you that this would be your top and only priority issue? Not healthcare, not taxes, not Covid, and not even democracy itself… but this?
It’s about whether we have a country or not. If people are allowed to illegally enter and you’re financially obligated to take care of their kids, against the overwhelming will of the voters and the law itself….you’re not a citizen, you’re a serf. If your country doesn’t enforce its border laws against foreign invaders it’s not a sovereign country
Missed this… No, I don’t engage in such black and white thinking. The question isn’t ‘are Biden’s policies solely responsible or not responsible at all?’, the question is what policies are responsible and more importantly, how much of an impact are they actually having? If his policies account for a 10% increase that certainly doesn’t justify the rhetoric.
I would argue that Biden and Biden alone is responsible for the border crisis. Trump had a similar border crisis and his zero tolerance policies drove crossings to multi decade lows. Biden gets in, reverses those policies and things go to multi decade highs with no signs of slowing down
Created:
Posted in:
Now there’s little reason to go back because even if you don’t make it a low paying job + EITC + food stamps is a better life than back home.
The saving grace is that this is becoming less true as the world becomes wealthier. The number of people willing to completely upend their lives and be thousands of miles from everyone they know to work at a meat packing plant in rural Kansas dwindles by the day
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even when we historically accepted nearly everyone on Ellis Island, we at least had the practical sense to do medical screenings.
There also wasn’t a robust welfare system at the time and a large percentage of immigrants went back. Now there’s little reason to go back because even if you don’t make it a low paying job + EITC + food stamps is a better life than back home. That said the Ellis Island style immigration policy was a complete disaster and pretty much killed the country as it existed previously. But there is something to be said about people coming in through a legal, democratic mechanism instead of just forcing their way in because the powers that be are too weak to fight back.
Created:
Posted in:
At this point I think it’s a safe assumption that a democratic administration = your country doesn’t get to have a border. I will be voting Republican for the foreseeable future no matter who is the nominee, and no matter what other policy issues are at stake. They could nominate someone I loathe and disagree with on literally every single non immigration issue, it doesn’t matter. This is now a question of sovereignty. Do the American people have the right to say no to over a million people forcing entry into our country each year, or not?
Created:
Posted in:
At this point, especially when you consider the large number of illegals who have evaded capture, there is far more illegal immigration under Biden than legal immigration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So, when is this seasonal border crisis going to end? Washington Post is reporting that encounters went UP 5% in November from October (which registered the largest number of illegals ever for October)! How much longer are we expected to tolerate this invasion? How much longer will you deny that there is a crisis, and explain it away as “seasonality”?
Created:
Posted in:
I think a big part of this is people freaking out over cases, though, and the tests pick up a lot of asymptomatic cases.
Omicron is a good example of this. From all the evidence so far it seems that it’s extremely contagious and far more mild than previous strains. It’s almost perfect for getting antibodies into the remaining unvaccinated and non previously infected population without killing them. I never understood freaking about Covid once there were vaccines available (or even before that if you weren’t old or ill) but it’s clearly so close to being behind us now. But I think a lot don’t see that because they are fixated on case numbers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think there can be a point at which you can require vaccines, I just don’t think this is the one. Polio and small pox had about a 30% death rate. So definitely require those.
Those vaccines were also effective over an extremely long period of time. If the Covid vaccine made someone immune for life I would be more open to mandates. Instead, it’s only been rolled out a year and some people have already had two boosters. I think a big part of this is people freaking out over cases, though, and the tests pick up a lot of asymptomatic cases. But it’s utterly absurd to try and organize society around a vaccination campaign requiring 4+ shots a year
The vaccines are amazingly effective at preventing hospitalization and death, about as good as one could reasonably ask for given how quickly they were developed. It’s why I don’t believe that the unvaccinated are a serious threat to the vaccinated. If you listen to the rhetoric of the people pushing vaccine mandates and stuff it’s so obvious that what’s actually motivating them is the desire to punish people for doing something they believe is socially/morally unacceptable
Created:
Posted in:
One thing you gotta hand Trump, he has aged pretty well despite being overweight and having a trash diet. I know he wears make up and stuff but you would never guess that he's only a few years younger than Biden, who really doesn't look like he would survive to the end of his second term if he were reelected
Funny story I once saw him give a speech in a packed hotel ballroom in the middle of the June 2016 in Texas and the AC was out....by the end of it he looked like his face was melting lol. dude wears a lot of make up. I tossed my hat at him and he didnt catch it, but it did brush against his pen and one of his security people gave it back to me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really love the cognitive process of people supporting open borders. When presented with the fact that large industries overwhelmingly support open borders, the way they square that up in their brain is to think that "well even rich people have a heart and care about people all over the world"
yeah large amounts of low skill immigration helping the working class has always been a cheap parlor trick. more cheap labor can be helpful or detrimental to the overall economy depending on the specific situation. High skill immigration is pretty much always good for the economy (provided its actual high skill and not degree mill people who only know how to Google things.) But it can be bad culturally, again depending on the situation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah every time a homeschooled kid would filter in to my public school it was clear they were several years behind developmentally. These days there are more and more “homeschool” options that are more like small cooperatives, especially among religious communities so I could probably have my kids schooled with a bunch of other Catholics. I’m not sure if it’s a good idea or not. I have a lot of time to decide though since I haven’t any yet
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
All of the policies from QE to opening the border back up to paying people to not work were planned by ultra rich lobbyists. Politicians were just doing as they were told so they could keep their jobs.
It does seem like the establishment will pull out absolutely all the stops to keep the stock market going up and to keep the GDP growing. These are both worthy goals of course but sometimes you gotta let the market be a market. It was complete lunacy that the stock market was back to hitting all time highs a few months after COVID. I guess the government did significantly mitigate the financial impacts to businesses...but still...S&P 500 approaching 5000 lmao that is just insane
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Fair enough. I do consider myself right leaning, although these days it’s more out of fear of the left than out of policy, outside of a few things I’m pretty much in the center. I definitely do have a double standard where I judge the left more harshly, but that’s because I’m culturally (not economically through the grace of God) a working class white person. When I see false blood libel about how evil whites are, all these hate crime hoaxes, etc I see something that could foster resentment that has a direct impact on me and my family. When I see “whiteness” being used as a term of invective, I see it as an attack.
When I see bad behavior from the right I dislike it and I do criticize it sometimes. But it doesn’t flash the “attack! Attack! Attack!” Alarm bells in my lizard brain that the left does. I’m trying to be less biased though, I was pretty much a Trump shill during his time in office but after the election I’ve soured on him a lot and want someone new and I try to push back on the anti vaccine stuff. I don’t actually know what Gosar did so can’t comment on it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What do you make of the second part of my post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
He faces three years in prison, and his career is over. As far as I'm concerned he will pay what he owes. My problem is with all of the high level figures, including the now President and Vice President of the United States, who believed this transparently obvious hoax. Where is the accountability? I knew it was bullshit within fifteen seconds. It honestly makes me question these peoples ability to reckon with reality. This is beyond an ideological disagreement, if someone couldn't tell that this story had some serious issues from the get-go, I don't know what to say but I do know that I'm not trusting their judgement ever again
Created:
Posted in:
If Big Donald had even a modicum of self control he would be a heavy favorite (like greater than 80% chance) to come back in 2024. As it stands, Trump being President in 2025 is a coinflip despite everything. I would strongly prefer a new leader, but it's where we're at
Created:
Posted in:
Right on time: https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1469304606069035012
"(CNBC poll) For the first time in any CNBC or NBC poll in history, Republicans have a double digit advantage going into the midterm.
44% say they'll vote Republican in 2022; 34% say they'll vote Democrat"
In addition, this is even crazier in a historical context. For some reason the generic ballot underestimates Republicans in almost every election
Created:
Posted in:
I have to say I'm pretty enraged at the powers that be for letting something like this happen, especially in an environment with rock bottom interest rates. I'm insulated from this because all of my money is in the stock market and my house, but there are people who don't have that luxury, or don't trust the stock market (which is pretty damn overheated imo) and they just have to watch their money lose its value every year, as the result of deliberate policy actions? There are people living paycheck to paycheck who now have to stretch that paycheck another 7%. If you get 26 paychecks a year as most do, that's almost two entire paychecks, gone! How is that not theft?
I also remember earlier this year everyone insisting this was "transitory." My bullshit detector went off immediately and I was right. It's time to ignore anyone who made that claim. 2020 really was the election to lose...I can scarcely imagine how low Trump's approval ratings would be if he were still President and things played out the same (and lets be honest they probably would, other than the border crisis.) The 2022 elections probably would've been such a severe wipeout that Dems were assured the Senate for another decade. As it stands, if this is not fixed within the next three months I expect Republicans to emerge from 2022 with 55 senate seats, the four competitive Dem-held seats and one win out of nowhere.
Created:
Posted in:
The latest inflation data is out, and it aint pretty: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/10/business/inflation-cpi-stock-market-news
Year over year inflation has jumped to 6.8%. For perspective, if you're in a household making, say, $75,000 a year that's a $5,000 paycut taken this year. If this continued unabated, it will absolutely doom Biden.
What do you guys think? Economics is not really my forte. I tend to lean left on economic issues but I think this would be the nail in the coffin for any additional near term spending by a reasonable government. To what extent is this Biden's fault? I know he will get the blame for it, so politically he needs to find a way to fix it or he's done. But what could've been done differently? What should happen now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
OK, well- that's obviously totally unverifiable anecdote but if you're asking me whether I might condemn teaching "blacks good, white bad" I think I can safely say yes. But that is not CRT. My argument is we should stop calling something like this CRT since even Derrick Bell would condemn such a lesson in school.
I can provide witnesses if you’d like. There were two other people in ear shot and I discussed it with them afterward so I know they remember. But you could always accuse me of just faking that too. But I’ll swear to you upon anything you find holy that the anecdote happened as described.
Here’s a good article from The Atlantic from a liberal perspective about the subject, including how a school was teaching elementary schoolers that “whiteness is a deal with the devil.” I guess my final word on this subject is that you and your party can deny this is a problem at your own peril. It may not be happening everywhere but it’s not simply something made up out of the ether by Fox News, and is pissing off parents of all races, backgrounds, and political affiliations. This doesn’t even get into all the creepy sex stuff they are also pushing on children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That's interesting information, I didn't know that. When was all of this occurring?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I suppose anything is plausible. My argument is that your thesis is unsubstantiated by the facts. You've got to define some of these terms in a concrete way before you're going to get any agreement on my part. I consider our country less obsessed with race than ever before. I don't know what "great awokening" means but it sounds like a lot of FOX News claptrap.
Let's look at the facts we both agree on. We agree that there has been a recent (the date you define is September 2020) movement of backlash against the curriculum in certain school districts. We agree that this has been going on nationwide. We agree that this backlash had at least some noticeable impact on the Virginia gubernatorial election, as well as local schoolboard elections nationwide.
"The great awokening" is a term originally coined (to my knowledge) by centrists and center-right affiliated people to describe the sudden change of opinions, mostly concentrated among white liberals, regarding racial issues that began around 2011 that crescendoed in 2020 with the death of George Floyd. This is a great empirical summation that I've actually linked here before: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening
My position: While I can't honestly say that I have full visibility into what is going on at schools, the information I have available to me, namely the strong liberal affiliation of most teachers, the recent strong change in opinions concentrated among liberals on racial issues, and the pandemic (which forced a lot of parents and students home = parents hear for the first time what their kids are learning) combined with the huge upswell in the perceived importance of racial issues in 2020 makes me believe that a critical mass of teachers probably did change their curriculum and behavior recently. The massive, nationwide backlash among parents of all races and backgrounds makes me believe that yes, there probably was a real problem going on with creepy racial essentialist viewpoints that are to the left of 95%+ of Americans being pushed on students.
Your position: There is no problem. It's a controversy manufactured by Republican fat cats and their stupid ignorant voters (apparently including the majority of voters in a Biden +10 state) fell for it hook line and sinker.
I think my position is the more realistic one.
You are arguing that it is fine to censor Free Speech so long as that speech is unpopular? On what principles do you rely to uphold that argument?
No, this is a discussion about what should be taught in schools. The curriculum in public schools is set by the voters--of course they should have a say in what's taught. They're paying for the damn things! Censoring free speech would be like if social media companies banned anyone who talked about critical race theory, or if people were fired from their jobs for talking about critical race theory outside of company hours. If a schoolboard mandates that a school will offer foreign language instruction in French, German, and Spanish, that's not "censoring" Latin.
Brittanica calls CRT a framework of legal anaysis (my point concisely) and you still complain that teachers are teaching that legal analysis in K-12. Are high schools really doing any kind of academic legal analysis at all?That said, I don't know how one honestly teaches teenagers the history of American racism without creating negative feelings. I think negative feelings are the correct response to lessons about the history of American racism. I strongly believe that we ought not to distort the truth or censor particular philosophies based on the fear of feelings they might provoke.
The definition I listed sounds remarkably similar to concepts I've heard that are increasingly proliferated in our society. In fact the definition first describes it as an "Intellectual and social movement" and THEN " [a] loosely organized framework of legal analysis" Now that we have an established definition I can 100% buy that the systemic white supremacy narrative was being taught in many schools. Now I'm convinced that actually opponents of CRT were using the correct terminology the entire time. I don't like to accuse people of hidden motives, but if I had to guess I would say that I think your true belief is that these concepts SHOULD be taught because you believe them to be true
More the other way around but yes. It is called the daily memo and it is issued by John Moody each morning after consultation with GOP leaders (or mostly just Trump for the last few years). The daily memo has been deciding what Republicans are freaking about today for more than 20 years...Yeah, like attacking the US Capitol with impunity or tricking people into being afraid of life-saving vaccinations.
Come now. You're letting your tribalism blind you--you sound no different than a Qanon theorist. Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the Republican Party issues talking points to its members around current events. Of course they would--it would be political malpractice not to. We know that all sorts of public facing organizations do the same. That doesn't mean they have the immense power to simply make things up out of thin air. What incentive would Republican fat cats possibly have to make them want to convince their voters to make themselves more likely to die of COVID, or to participate in a riot that made them look incredibly bad? What, are they just pure evil, twirling their mustaches and getting off on fooling the poor rubes into suffering?
Please. These people couldn't even stop the voters from nominating Donald Trump
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I can tell you, right hand to God, that one of my friends whose fiancé is a history teacher told me that she tries to “radicalize her kids” with the message that “blacks good, whites bad.” That was the moment I decided to either homeschool or Catholic school.
I am hesitant to make broad pronouncements out of humility. I simply don’t know what goes on in schools—I haven’t set foot in a public school since I graduated high school. But the little information that does trickle down to me doesn’t leave me with a good impression. Can I believe there are lots of teachers trying to turn their students “woke” absolutely yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I said I'd agree that some racism gets taught in public schools even before knowing the facts. That's different from your statement that many schools are engaging in racism. Let's be sure to note that you are remarkably unwilling to produce the facts in spite of numerous requests from Double.
There's no reason to take that tone with me when I've been polite with you, and Double_R. I openly admitted multiple times that I don't know much about this issue. Who does? There are thousands and thousands of school districts in this country and the curriculum of each school is not exactly easy to access. My position is basically:
a) Is it plausible that teachers, among the most liberal occupations in the country, have changed their teaching methods and subject matter in a way that I and the majority of people would find to be negative, concurrent with the "great awokening" and the current racial obsession in our country? I think that's certainly plausible.
b) When you see parents revolting nationwide, including in very liberal states and among communities that place a very high value on education, is it plausible to assume that they are reacting to something other than Fox News broadcasts? I think yes.
Fox News' mislabeling of anti-white racism as CRT is not only deliberately misinforming the public, it is being used as the basis for censorship in 9 states. As a Liberal, I generally oppose wholesale censorship of any topic in school but wholesale censorship of the WRONG topic seems like intolerably fucked big government mismanagement and wholesale censorship of the wrong topic based exclusively on the lies of one TV personality represents some terrifying anti-American, anti-Democracy obedience to authority. When Republicans talk about CRT as if it describes anti-white racist propaganda they reveal the carrier code associated with their misinformation. Before Sept 2020, CRT was an almost unheard-of 50 year conversation within the rarified ranks of Black legal scholarship. Once Tucker Carlson started calling any race-based teaching he didn't like CRT, the entire Republican party followed like lemmings- Trump was tweeting about CRT 4 days later, State legislatures were passing laws within weeks of Tucker's lie.
Hold on a second--you say that banning Critical Race Theory from being taught in middle and high schools is unamerican, dangerous censorship, but you also say: "Before Sept 2020, CRT was an almost unheard-of 50 year conversation within the rarified ranks of Black legal scholarship." So if it's not being and never has been taught, why is it so outrageous to demand that it isn't taught?
Here is the definition of Critical Race Theory according to encyclopedia brittanica:
"critical race theory (CRT), intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law and legal institutions of the United States insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans. Critical race theorists are generally dedicated to applying their understanding of the institutional or structural nature of racism to the concrete (if distant) goal of eliminating all race-based and other unjust hierarchies." https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory
I don't think this is an appropriate thing to be teaching at public high schools, so if teachers were trying to teach this I can see why parents would be angry. I would completely disagree with almost everything there and I know that I could make strong arguments against these concepts. Schools should generally avoid teaching things that aren't settled facts without presenting both sides. It's incredibly easy to see how this could drive conflict and negative feelings among teenagers. Just toxic stuff
As far as Republicans being lemmings...you can think that, I guess. But isn't it a little weird that this issue popped up at all? I mean, it's pretty random for a nationwide grassroots movement to appear in opposition to what was "Before Sept 2020, [ ] an almost unheard-of 50 year conversation within the rarified ranks of Black legal scholarship." Do the fat cats leading the Republican party just pick a random scary sounding term out of a hat and tell Fox News rally the troops? If they had that kind of power you'd think they would use it more often instead of being so impotent all the time. And it's weird that they could get so many people who didn't vote for Trump on board.
The hypothesis that something sinister was going on with school curriculums is much more sound imo.
Created:
Posted in:
God exists because the concept of God exists, simple as
Created:
Posted in:
If people are wondering how it’s possible that the GOP could be winning on education of all things, stuff like this explains a lot:
“Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed a bill last month that high school students do not have to prove they can read, write, or do math before they graduate.
Senate Bill 744, which was passed in June and signed into law last month, suspends the proficiency requirements for students for three years, the Washington Examiner reported…
In an email to the media outlets, Charles Boyle, a spokesman for the governor, said the new standards for graduation would help benefit the state’s "Black, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color."How uplifting. You could change the rhetoric slightly and this would basically be white supremacist rhetoric lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What scares me the most is that I felt dirty using the term “blackness” to describe something bad even as a thought exercise. These people must really hate whites (often self hating whites are involved) to be able to say stuff like that with a straight face
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah quite a bit of the motivation is liberal whites desperately wanting approval from blacks. It’s quite pathetic really
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, I said that they’re hiding the problem they actually have behind CRT. Of course there’s a real issue, it would be absurd to claim there isn’t. But the issue is not CRT being taught in schools, which is why I have a problem with this whole thing. Say what you mean and have a honest debate. Instead they play these political games which is why we get no where.
I guess I’m a little confused then. I did jump into the thread late so take some baby steps with me. As I see it, there’s been a rise in creepy racial essentialist type thinking and teaching over the past few years, concurrent with the so called “great awokening.” I’ve definitely seen quite a few absurd and offensive clips of teachers or assignments/readings but I don’t know how widespread the issue is since I’m not that educated on the subject, not having any school age children myself.
CRT has been used as a catch all term to describe this. You’re saying that it’s the wrong term to use, but there’s clearly a lot of emotion going on. Much more emotion than I feel when I hear somebody use the term “tin foil.” Personally I think “racial essentialism” is the better term to use but I’m not up in arms about it. I don’t think you disagree with the terminology so much as you believe that the concepts people are objecting to should be taught. Why not just say that instead of going for the easy dunk (“can you even DEFINE critical race theory?”)
The impact of racism on ethnic communities is essentially what CRT deals with, which is the professed thing the voters are against. That’s what I was pointing to, but we all know that’s not really what people are upset about.
That’s always been taught in schools though. Slavery/the civil war is probably one of the only historical events virtually all Americans can name along with WWII and the Holocaust. The modern day impact of racism is a more controversial issue and I wouldn’t blame parents for objecting to a certain theory of it being taught as fact. There are a lot of academic concepts I’ve heard that I disagree with but which absolutely do not belong in a high school classroom regardless of anyone’s opinion. Teaching kids about “whiteness” isn’t conducive to a positive learning environment for anyone
Also isn’t it fucked up how “whiteness” is a term of invective among these woke academics? Imagine if I were criticizing the high rate of single motherhood in black communities and called that “blackness”….talk about dehumanizing racial essentialism
Created: