politics

[smoky hedge]

(16:19 timestamp)

[mystic ermine]

I've clicked it, the whole presentation makes me wanna close it...

[glossy sandal]

Getting people off minimum wage jobs will cripple half the economy because the backbone of most economies are minimum wage jobs no one wants

Minimum wages should be able to afford food, clothing, Bill's without government assistance

Which ain't it

Should definitely be done at state over federal imo because some states are just straight idiotic when it comes to rent costs and slumlords running low income families into homelessness

[mystic ermine]

I mean, there's always that guy who wanted to turn an old laundromat into a set of flats and basically took years and tons of cash to get approval in LA iirc

a lot of people against it where complaining as they where on rent control and that's their only means of staying in the area that they're in cos their community has seen tech jobs growing and such, which brings in people than can pay more, when housing is limited, you're gonna try and take advantage of the pool

fixing the housing shortage would massively solve that

there should also be better protection against slum lords, but, I mean, for at least the UK, some of our slumlords are council owned

[smoky hedge]

I'm unfamiliar with the term "slumlord"?

[mystic ermine]

basically, a landlord who owns a "slum"

[smoky hedge]

But generally - there's less of a housing shortage but more of a problem with unoccupied residencies

[glossy sandal]

People who own rental apartments who do nothing to fix anything and overcharge residents

[mystic ermine]

basically, cheaply maintained to the point that it's one screw away from tumbling

[smoky hedge]

Eg, places that the owner buys up and don't rent out, just to wait for the property value to increase and re-sell

[mystic ermine]

I mean, for stuff like that, I'd say tax them or something

[glossy sandal]

U cant use the t word in america cat silly

[smoky hedge]

Yeah, highly taxing unoccupied residencies would massively incentivise renting them out, etc

Maybe they should re-use the mutual obligations system that so many countries like to force on their welfare recipients :^)

Force them to prove they're actively looking for tenants

[mystic ermine]

See, am not a huge "tax it all" person, but, when people are actively harming communities for their own good, fuck 'em

[smoky hedge]

I mean ideally I’d ban the concept of investment properties

[mystic ermine]

Ever watch rossman?

[smoky hedge]

Buying a property so you can profit off someone else’s need for shelter is hella exploitative

Nah

[mystic ermine]

So, basically, in NY, a lot of landlords basically use agreements which are based on the value of the property as to how much they get

if the value of the property drops, the landlord has to pay the drop to the loanees

stuff like rents going down, etc, can decrease that valuation

So, landlords generally have buildings sitting empty for years, because it's cheaper to them to just pay the taxes, etc, on an empty building and use the "0 tenants = a pause in paying the loan back at full rate (or even a cent in some cases, maybe)" than it would be to actually reduce the rent and get the building used

[smoky hedge]

Yeah fair - In other places it’s generally so that there’s no wear & tear on the property etc

[faint radish]

Sometimes.... I think some people WANT to start a literal race war. https://apple.news/Ag427y7LrSRm-0iQxsmZuow

“Die every day at the hands of the police”

That is so irresponsible to say

In the article they point to the WaPos tracking of police shootings since 2015 and say the number is 48 black women since 2015

[pure jetty]

if they want to draw attention to a cause w/e

[faint radish]

Ofc I don’t have a problem with drawing attention to it, but it’s so misleading. Politicians have said it’s “open season” on black people by police. When you actually look at the numbers and it’s like 11 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019?

Raising awareness in this way, only feeds misinformation does it not? People see headlines, and then don’t read the entire article. They don’t cite the actual stat until several paragraphs into the piece. How does that not contribute to mis-information when the issue is such a spicy one

[shut vine]

If you look at the stats of citizens who engage in an armed conflict with police (i.e. they draw/use a weapon), vs how many are shot at, shot, or fatally shot by police, it sort of blows this narrative apart.

[eager hawk]

I can agree misleading captions for fear-mongering is a prevalent issue on both sides. If I said that in a social justice class in my college I'd get hammered lol. I appreciate y'all arguing for diverse perspectives and not getting into an emotional fist fight over these topics :)

With that being said, police intimidation of black citizens isn't as uncommon as portrayed in right wing media

[eager hawk]

The caption is misleading, that I'll agree with, but the widespread misconduct amongst police officers discriminating against black people isn't a myth.

[shut vine]

Correct, they're less likely to shoot black people, there is rampant discrimination in that area.

[eager hawk]

Just because the caption of an article or a phrasing by a politician shouldn't put you off from supporting the causes of social activist groups, I hope :)

[eager hawk]

Huh

[shut vine]

Police shoot less armed perpetrators that are black by ratio.

In the USA, I have not looked at any other country.

[eager hawk]

You're forgetting the important statistic of per capita, James.

[shut vine]

Per capita isn't relevant, police engage with hostile force against hostile citizens.

Or should..

[mystic ermine]

So, we had a nigerian who sorta like stopped on my and my mates couch for a year, and like, we'd often joke about the cops but like, he was saying that they do have bit more of an eye on you

[eager hawk]

There's obviously more white people shot than black people because there's way more white people in this country lmao. But per capita there's higher rates against BIPOC

[shut vine]

I'm not comparing the number of people, I'm looking at the ratio of those who engage in hostile acts with police vs the number shot.

That's an important statistic.

[mystic ermine]

it's overrated as an issue

and, really, there are bigger issues for black communities, not to that that bad cops in general aren't an issue though

[eager hawk]

And I wonder why these incidents become hostile, because police sometimes purposefully escalate situations so that they can fault the victim

[shut vine]

Yeah I agree, and bad cops should get lethal injections tbh.

[mystic ermine]

shoot first ask questions later

[eager hawk]

No I don't agree about lethal injections, cause that's more expensive to taxpayers than leaving them in a life sentence

[shut vine]

I believe that of anyone who can reasonably be proven to be committing violent acts against the person. But more so for police.

[mystic ermine]

I mean, part of the issue is perception and hightened media attention from anything you do, especially if there is a POC involved

[shut vine]

Rip cat

[eager hawk]

It doesn't work in favor of justice when the Judges have conflicting interests with the police force, which happens often :)

[shut vine]

It's only more expensive due to the red tape involved.

The actual injection process is about 50K iirc.

[mystic ermine]

Like, think about it, if you shoot a POC and he's reaching into his car when you tell him to freeze, that's gonna be over the news

[shut vine]

I'm fine with a firing squad too.

[mystic ermine]

when a week later it turns out into the fact that the guy was reaching into his car to grab a machete, the news sorta like, fades out

[foggy fern]

That "red tape" is all the appeals and such to ensure we aren't killing someone innocent

[mystic ermine]

The media is defo consistently driving a wedge into these interactions which really doesn't help

[shut vine]

Yep I understand, I'm talking ideal world here, everyone seems to like ideal world ideas

[eager hawk]

I think a life sentence in jail is enough of a punishment, euthanizing individuals is unnecessary.

[mystic ermine]

but, you also got a bunch of shitty coppers in the ranks who'll pull over anybody for anything

[eager hawk]

I can agree with your above two statements cat

[shut vine]

Either way, cracking down on police is important when they do wrong

But only on the individuals involved, not the whole force

Unless there are glaring issues uncovered

[mystic ermine]

There needs to be greater tracking and insight into police interactions

[foggy fern]

Black people are more likely to be pulled over or get a "random" stop and frisk

[mystic ermine]

Yea, I know

[shut vine]

They're also nearly twice as likely to commit a violent crime

So the question is. Do you want to feel good, or do you want police to do their job?

[mystic ermine]

am not sure what it's like all too much with enforcement in the US

But, over here in the UK we have stop and search, in which basically the police can basically stop anybody "with suspicion"

many people are against S&S because they feel it's targeting people especially of color

[shut vine]

I believe it's similar to Australia, they can stop you with suspicion, but to search they require a bit more.

[foggy fern]

You get a "random" stop, get busted for some weed (which white people are just as likely to have on them), and now you're in the system which either turns you more violent outright (prisons are awful places) or ruins your chances at most employment so you turn to crime to survive

[shut vine]

They can also check if you're intoxicated relatively easily.

[mystic ermine]

but, at the same point, many people in black communities are often happy with these programs and a fair % have had somebody within some decent proximity on the tree in terms of family or friends who've been a victim of it

[foggy fern]

Bam, now black people are more likely to be drug dealers and drug dealers are more likely to be violent

[mystic ermine]

See, it's part of why I think drugs should be legal

[shut vine]

Yeah decriminalize drugs, I really don't like police being funding to waste their time on it.

[mystic ermine]

Stop this god damned cycle which does nobody any good

You're not getting drugs off the street

[shut vine]

Police the behavior that results from misuse of drugs.

[mystic ermine]

and all you're doing is criminializing people for having a smoke on the weekend with their mates

[shut vine]

That is otherwise already illegal.

[restive seal]

Even if they're reaching to grab a machete it's the cops' responsibility to attempt to de-escalate not shoot the person. Gun vs machete, they have enough time to make a final attempt before going another route (plus, where is their taser in all this gun shooting?). The false idea often spread that the options are only "police get hurt" or "police shoot and kill" really upsets me.

[mystic ermine]

I mean, tasers are nice as a tool but am not sure I'd trust one as a "shit they're gonna end me"

[shut vine]

If you are told by police to keep your hands on the wheel, and you reach for something police can't see, and get shot, you're stupid.

[mystic ermine]

It's a balance between both parties going home and the copper putting their life at risk though not having the effective means to protect themselves

[foggy fern]

You ever see the videos of mentally ill and/or violent people coming at cops with a knife and the cops just back peddle and try to talk them down or tackle them?

[restive seal]

If police shoot over that, the police are doing something wrong. That's a problem in training.

[mystic ermine]

There was actually a study or something which showed that knife vs gun, within like a few feet or something, knife wins all the time

like, unless you're already drawn

[shut vine]

Yeah, guns are only useful when the person can't close the distance in a stride or two.

[foggy fern]

Oh yeah knife is insanely lethal and you don't need room to aim or swing

[eager hawk]

In the end six months isn't enough to train a police officer. That's not enough time to properly learn de-escalation etc. Isn't it like three years in the EU?

[shut vine]

Also if you're willing to pull the trigger before they get within that distance.

[foggy fern]

6 months? Where in the US do they train for 6 months?

I thought it was 6 weeks

[mystic ermine]

Should ship them over to the UK

[eager hawk]

Sorry, I just researched and it averages 21 weeks

[shut vine]

Yeah, well to achieve better training, they need substantially more funding and legislation to enforce that training.

[mystic ermine]

We'll have them as professional baton ninja's by the time we send them back

[restive seal]

For the way I see people argue that it's okay for police to just shoot anyone who behaves oddly I assume it's six hours of firing a gun and you're sent off to the streets! 😛

[mystic ermine]

Issue is that the police is overused

Like, they're basically expected to be peace officers, mental health support when shit generally hits the end

[eager hawk]

It's such a glaring agreeable bipartisan support solution that I don't understand why it's not getting implemented. Unless police unions are too strong or republicans are against it

[mystic ermine]

Like, mental health support over here is trash but it's accessible if you can wait for loooooooong enough

[eager hawk]

The experiment in SF is going well with the mental health rig

[foggy fern]

I don't think they need more funding to increase their training times

They can just buy less LRADs and such

[shut vine]

I'm surprised. Let me explain. The politician oligarchs have been gifted a tool in America. You are busy fighting each other to realize the government doesn't give a shit.

[eager hawk]

^ the illusion of choice

Thanks to the 2010 citizens United rule the rich can buy politicians :)

[foggy fern]

But if it turns out even after getting rid of all the military gear they still don't have enough in their budget for extra training then sure, increase their budget

[shut vine]

No politician wants the issue gone, they want it to remain, so you are too busy fighting over who is right.

Well none of the political oligarch class.

[mystic ermine]

idk but I just remembered south park

[foggy fern]

I'm surprised gay marriage went away as an issue as fast as it did

[mystic ermine]

with the douche and the giant turd sandwich

[eager hawk]

Progressive Democrats aren't political oligarchs at least

Or most of them

[foggy fern]

That used to be one of the wedge issues and abortion has had several Supreme Court cases confirming it's legal too so that can't be why it went away

[shut vine]

Well I don't know, they seem to cow tow to the oligarchs like Pelosi so.

[eager hawk]

They've criticized her a lot but she's too powerful to be pushed down

[shut vine]

Not really, if they believe in their ideals and don't bow to her, just force votes on issues that matter to their base, to expose her for what she is.

[foggy fern]

By the 90s we mostly agreed gay people should be allowed to exist but the fights over marriage were intense and then all of the sudden after one court case and one attempt at defying it that issue was just gone

[shut vine]

My guess is they are only bowing to her because they care about their small measure of power.

But that remains to be seen.

[restive seal]

It's not gone, it's just morphed into "it's my right to discriminate against people by claiming it's my religion to do so"

[foggy fern]

I suppose that was right around when the Republicans were having a come-to-Jesus moment and were trying to figure out how to be relevant again

Then they went the Trump way instead but the gay marriage slipped through the cracks

[shut vine]

I mean, should you be able to force someone to engage in business with you if they don't want to?

[foggy fern]

Civil Rights Act says yes, if the reason is discriminatory

[restive seal]

You're joking, right?

Like, this is some sort of humor attempt?

[shut vine]

I am not joking, no.

What happens in the media to a business who does that today?

[restive seal]

Fox news defends them.

[shut vine]

I highly doubt it.

[foggy fern]

Because we had a couple generations of people who lived with this being the law and thus normal if it happens these days most media tears in to them

[eager hawk]

https://www.businessinsider.com/we-need-new-leadership-aoc-criticizes-pelosi-and-schumer-2020-12

https://thehill.com/homenews/533598-pelosi-acknowledges-criticism-from-ocasio-cortez-younger-members-im-not-dismissing

a bunch of political tension. wouldn't it be nice if pelosi fairly debated against the progressive candidates for her district instead of denying debate offers

[shut vine]

Her district is fairly rich though isn't it?

The reason she doesn't want to is she'd win but at the cost of public image probably.

[eager hawk]

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/23/shahid-buttar-campaign-allegations/

damn i didn't know the challenger had sexual harrassment allegations :-/

[shut vine]

So does Biden, many high profile males do.

[eager hawk]

San francisco is diverse, she covers all SF districts

[eager hawk]

yea

cuomo lmao

[shut vine]

Can't really discredit someone for allegations.

Until it's proven it's better to assume innocence, but look for evidence.

I think especially so when they're high profile as they are more likely to be the target of false allegations.

[eager hawk]

it's not easy to provide concrete proof even when it's true though. wouldn't it be nice if we lived in an idealistic society where there's an easy way to tell if someone is lying or not.

https://apnews.com/article/b5c40b513448cfc1269d51d923bb76f7

[shut vine]

I agree.

[eager hawk]

Provides some interesting insight but completely lost me when they basically equated lack of evidence being false allegations -_-

[shut vine]

The fact we can't easily tell if someone is lying is the crux of the issue.

[eager hawk]

for it being AP News the sources are biased in favor of cases being false

[shut vine]

Yeah, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[eager hawk]

time to get the technology from Black Mirror S1 E2 where they have 24/7 footage from their eyes lmaooo

[shut vine]

You basically have two choices in the matter, either you believe all allegations without evidence to contradict them which will lead to imprisonment of vastly more falsely convicted peoples in all areas, or you require people prove their positive assertions especially when it comes to legal matters.

I prefer the later, it's the least evil of the two solutions I think.

[eager hawk]

amaranth is correct on that the civil rights act protects LGBTQIA individuals from getting refused service by discrimination of gender identity. right wing media says businesses should do however they please, going against the civil rights act

[shut vine]

Actually legal definitions matter, gender is not the same as gender identity. Also CRA protects religious rights too.

[eager hawk]

religious rights to discriminate against LGBTQIA for service?

[shut vine]

There's the gotcha, forcing someone to do business against their religious freedom is also protected to the same extent as someone refusing business.

Supreme Court confirmed it.

[eager hawk]

you oversimplified the matter into the solutions being two bad choices, bruh don't do that lol

to try to defend your argument

[pure jetty]

Holy fucking Christ

What did I walk into

[eager hawk]

uhhhh

[shut vine]

So question for you. If a person is a member of the LGBTQ+ community is operating a business, should they be able to refuse business to Ben Shapiro because of his views?

[eager hawk]

no?

[shut vine]

I think that they should, specifically because they should not be forced to do business with anyone.

[eager hawk]

but if they present as a hostile presence then i think they have the right to kick him out

[eager hawk]

damn that's a moldy view you have

[shut vine]

You should be able to pick and choose who you do business with based on their request or because you just don't want their business, should you not?

Should a business be able to force you to not discriminate against them because of their views?

[pure jetty]

That's not a protected class

Stop strawmanning

[near glen]

A buisness can always choose whom to make buisness with, no?

[shut vine]

The individuals are, they operate the business, by discriminating against them for their religious views, you're violating the CRA.

[near glen]

Unless it's like discrimination against a minority

[shut vine]

Under yuuksters interpretation anyway

[pure jetty]

The idea of protected classes is to protect businesses from discriminating against things out of your control

Like race etc

[eager hawk]

https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate

"Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them." there case solved

[shut vine]

Likewise for other protected groups.

[near glen]

Forcing your believes on others makes you an asshole, not allowing a gay couple into your backery is exactly that

[shut vine]

That's not the situation at all.

[eager hawk]

??

[near glen]

It's just an example

This takes obviously many forms

Doesn't change the fact that it makes you an asshole, and is morally wrong, no matter the legal situation

[shut vine]

I agree

[eager hawk]

religious reasons is not an excuse to discriminate against people. you can choose religion, you can't choose race/gender identity, there's a difference. one is protected to hold their own religious beliefs, but not to use their religious beliefs against other people. there's a difference.

[shut vine]

A person who refuses service to someone because of their beliefs is ultimately an asshole, and also bad at business.

[near glen]

At the end, religious ppl is just another group of extremists, and extremist are all equally dum

[shut vine]

I agree. Just like all of the protected groups don't give you the right to discriminate.

[eager hawk]

...what were we arguing on then>?

[shut vine]

Gender identity is not the legal definition covered in the CRA

It's Male/Female.

[eager hawk]

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d4c80085-e0be-4979-988f-8883789b027b

Maybe not CRA itself as that was written a long time ago but it's been amended.

[shut vine]

Yeah that's different from gender identity again, that's sexual orientation or transgender status.

[eager hawk]

gender identity consists of sexual orientation and transgender status does it not..?

[shut vine]

Also if I go to your business and you don't offer a service because of your religious rights, and I try to force you to offer the service, that's breaking the CRA.

I screwed up that sentence, sec

There

[eager hawk]

which part of that interaction breaks CRA?

and again, gender identity consists of sexual orientation and transgender status does it not..?

[eager hawk]

not offering a service because of their religious right to what?

[shut vine]

Yeah, if you don't offer a service, a person cannot force you to do so because of their protected group status

Just like I cannot force someone to offer a service for another reason

If their reason to not offer it is religious, their religious freedom to not offer that service is indeed protected by the CRA

[eager hawk]

"Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them."

again

[shut vine]

How does not offering a service impose it on others?

[eager hawk]

not offering a service falls under discriminating against them

[shut vine]

I see, so everyone is discriminating then

Because no one offers every service that exists

[eager hawk]

not offering a service for religious reasons falls under discriminating against them does it not? to clarify.

[shut vine]

If my business is selling red cakes with no adornments and you want something different I'm discriminating against you, so basically if I don't do everything anyone can conceptualize then I'm screwed in your dictatorship

[eager hawk]

you forgot the "religious reasons" part bro

[shut vine]

Yea but that doesn't matter in this instance

I'm not discriminating because of your religion

I'm deciding I'm offering x, y, and z services to everyone because of my religion

If you want those services, great

If you don't, great

[loud flax]

discrimination isn't wrong if there is no objective standard that suggests it is, it's only an opinion, so why exactly is it wrong for someone to discriminate?

[near glen]

Wat

[eager hawk]

because discriminating people, for example the LGBTQ population due to the discriminator's religious beliefs is not allowed as LGBTQ is a protected class under the law.

[shut vine]

If I'm baking things, and my religion dictates I only bake things as a business, and you want something deep fried, that's too bad for you

[near glen]

If your religion dictates your life you should reconsider your believes 😂

[shut vine]

That's not a violation of the CRA, you can't just force businesses to magically do things they don't do.

Yeah I agree

[eager hawk]

LGBTQ is a protected class, that you cannot discriminate against. i don't know what you're trying to say.

[shut vine]

Please cite the law which mentions LGBTQ

[eager hawk]

i linked the article above

did you not read it

[shut vine]

I did.

It's a SCOTUS ruling, not a law.

SCOTUS equally ruled in favor of the right for religious people to refuse service based on their beliefs.

[eager hawk]

you can refuse service based on their beliefs if they are not discriminating against a protected class

[shut vine]

I'm saying you're wrong.

If SCOTUS makes laws, I assert they do not, then the law is that a person can refuse service due to their religion.

The government involving itself is a violation of the persons religious rights. As per a SCOTUS ruling.

[eager hawk]

ok then well thank you for clarifying the difference between SCOTUS ruling and law, i will be careful from now on. please take what i said as "law" as"scotus ruling" if thats more appropriate. 🙃

[shut vine]

Read up about Masterpiece Cakeshop vs CCRC.

It's a rollercoster of court rulings.

SCOTUS:

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violating the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.[27][original research?] Kennedy's opinion stated that the Commission's review of Phillips' case exhibited hostility towards his religious views. The Commission compared Phillips' religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law".[28] Kennedy's opinion also cited the three exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[29] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[30]

[eager hawk]

court rulings say LBGTQ are a protected class, and cannot be used as a reason for discrimination, no?

"In a landmark 6-3 decision issued on June 15, 2020, Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ____ (2020), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status."
Also SCOTUS.

[shut vine]

Sure, likewise religion.

Though that one is actually enshrined as a law.

[eager hawk]

"that one" meaning also LGBTQ as CRA is a law, right

[shut vine]

You also cannot discriminate with your service offerings if the service was never offered in the first place.

No, you cannot discriminate against a religion is a law.

Part of the CRA.

[eager hawk]

you're bringing up a completely different perspective that's unrelated to the current topic at hand, stop

[shut vine]

That's the point I've been making for 10 mins.

[eager hawk]

yes you also cannot discriminate against someone for religion.

[pure jetty]

yes you also cannot discriminate against someone for their religion.

[eager hawk]

ty for correcting my grammar

they are both protected. But religion is not protected as a means of discriminating against the protected class. that is the argument that ive been driving for this entire conversation.

[pure jetty]

you can discriminate based on your religion if it doesn't infringe the other parties's rights (and or protected classes)

[loud flax]

in this case you might say the law is just an opinion, but i would say it protects self-evidence, which i think is indicative of something closer to objectivity

[pure jetty]

a SCOTUS ruling sets precedent

[shut vine]

And in not offering a specific service to everyone you are not discriminating. Correct?

[near glen]

I discriminate against all religions equally, so that's ok

[pure jetty]

urm depends on how you do it

since its a protected class

[loud flax]

just so long as you can also discriminate against yourself

^^

[shut vine]

Yep of course.

[pure jetty]

for example, the bakery got away with doing it because the SCOTUS viewed making a gay cake as a separate service which wasn't offered at said bakery

so it would be impossible to discriminate for a service you do not offer

[shut vine]

Also under US law, discrimination is only applicable as a definition if your reason has nothing to do with your legal rights or ability.

Deciding which services to offer as a business owner is a legal right.

[pure jetty]

that's very strange wording

[shut vine]

Feel free to look it up in a legal dictionary.

[pure jetty]

that's not really how this works

you're supposed to cite your own shit

[shut vine]

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=532

[eager hawk]

sorry i was blanked out on the fact that it was a custom designed cake, which the cake place didn't offer (is that right?) that the customer wanted, which wouldn't be discrimination. if that was the scenario, then that'd just be refusal of service.

[shut vine]

Yep, that's the scenario.

[eager hawk]

ah, i was uneducated on the scenario, i thought it was a matter of selling cake that the cake shop would also be selling to other customers, that they chose not to sell to an LGBTQ customer because they were LGBTQ.

[shut vine]

I believe the cake topper was also two males as one figure.

Which they didn't have.

They said they'd make a cake but not that cake.

Wasn't a complete refusal just on the specific design and parameters which they didn't offer.

[eager hawk]

ah, would side with the business in that scenario, if that is all there is to that scenario -- just a simple refusal of request due to insufficient offerings. however, i do see it siding with the customer, if similar to how all businesses have to have a wheelchair parking spot, that they have to accommodate for one's gender identity. i can see why it was a difficult issue to solve in court.

[shut vine]

The problem is that discrimination under US law is specific to situations where the defendant is doing something discriminatory that has nothing to do with his her her rights.

[eager hawk]

right

"his or her rights", in this scenario, would be the business's choice to not accommodate for the offerings of a specific cake type, even though that would discriminate against the customer's gender identity, right?

[shut vine]

In this instance yea.

Also does a business have to justify why they're refusing a customers service? Or is that a right?

[pure jetty]

depending on the case, they do need a reason yes

a McDonalds cannot deny you service because you're black

[eager hawk]

like this can be equated to an example of offering/not offering a wheelchair parking spot -- which is under law to have one in a parking lot, if, there was a clause in a law where such cakes showing some sort of gender identity has to be accommodated to avoid discrimination. kinda worded that funkily, but i hope you understand what i'm saying

[pure jetty]

the cake thing probably falls under 1st amendment since its an "art"

so they probably can't do that

[shut vine]

That's correct they cannot

[eager hawk]

but, my original argument that does not apply to this specific scenario, that
"Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them."
, you agree with that, right?

[shut vine]

But the question is, can they just say "vacate the building" and not tell you why, or do they have to tell you why?

[eager hawk]

james ill assume you do, just you haven't said it directly. i didn't hear a response originally so i assumed you were arguing against this, sorry about that :)

[eager hawk]

idk but they probably should tell you right

like idk if that's necessary under the law but if they dont say anything the person getting vacated can fairly assume they're getting discriminated for their identity that's a protected class under the law

[shut vine]

I agree.

But again, if your religious rights are rights, so the law would say if your practice of your rights is seen as discriminatory, it's not discrimination under the law.

I propose it's a pretty complicated issue legally.

Especially since it's heavily subjective unless someone admits the discrimination.

[shut vine]

Realistically in this scenario the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the reason was discriminatory.

[shut vine]

@eager hawk I have another interesting scenario I'd like to see what your opinion of is. Think we've established that gender is protected under the CRA, and that was extended to LGBTQ under SCOTUS opinion. I would suggest that protection does not apply to businesses exercising their rights to pick and choose their clientele. Would I be correct in assuming you disagree with that?

[eager hawk]

So like an example would be, if we're talking real estate, an agent choosing to not help a black client with selling their home and instead choosing a white client, even if the neighborhood/house value/size are the same. Well I'd say afaik it's not protected under the law and would be very difficult to prove in court. I also think these scenarios actually do happen in real life more common than we think, and I do think it's a discriminatory act. I think you know by now that I'm not the most informed when it comes to rulings/legal viewpoints, but yeah that'd be fucked up is what I'd say :) @shut vine

[shut vine]

No if I decide not to serve a person because they're male, or because they're female. As a business owner.

[restive seal]

Thankfully, there are lots of bigots who are very good at leaving paper trails of their bigotry. Emails, recordings, etc.

[shut vine]

They are equally protected identities under CRA.

[eager hawk]

Well similarly with serving a person because they're black or white as I presented in my scenario, yes it is discriminatory, no it will be difficult to prove in court. And I do think it's a scenario that happens more than we think.

[shut vine]

So you'd say that a business literally having a business model that discriminates like that, is operating illegally?

I don't believe so, myself. I think it's part of their legal rights to pick and choose who they do business with.

[eager hawk]

Like the example, I presented equal household value/size neighborhood showing that the sole factor (unless the clients were being rude for example) was due to the agent's preference in race. I think it's unfair and is a pressing issue that exists in our society. The legality i have no clue, you'd have to inform me, but afaik/imo it'd only be considered illegal if it's able to be proven in court.

[shut vine]

Just like Curves does.

[eager hawk]

I do believe it is a fine line. Both are protected under different laws, and no legal solution I can think of can satisfies this conflict.

[shut vine]

There is no protection under law to say you can discriminate against males.

It's just legal to pick and choose who you exchange fiscal resources with.

In your interpretation of the CRA I argue that you have to believe Curves is an illegal business if you were to be intellectually consistent.

I'd however say they're free to pick and choose their clients.

I would also agree there is a fine line, it is never black and white.

Society has to be careful in these areas because they're very subjective. In MOST cases it's better to let public opinion and outrage decide the fate of these businesses.

[eager hawk]

Idk how curves chooses their clients, I'll look into it, would be nice if you can link me some resources so I can come to an educated opinion

[eager hawk]

You can't discriminate against someone on the basis of sex. I think that also includes discrimination against males in some situations/context

[shut vine]

Should reasonably be applied in all the same situations as at least females.

[eager hawk]

If done fairly in regards to the media presenting both sides of the situation, then yeah, that's fine, and I think it's worked relatively fine, better having the ability for the public to shame people they think deserve the shame than suppressing freedom of press/speech

[eager hawk]

Mind if you elaborate so we're on the same page?

[shut vine]

https://howtoadult.com/391137-can-men-join-curves-gym.html

[eager hawk]

I'll be back in a bit to continue conversing :)

[shut vine]

So if it is wrong to discriminate against a female in situation x, it is also wrong to discriminate against a male in situation x.

Likewise if it's argued race y gets protection against discrimination under the CRA in situation z, the same would apply to both females and males in situation z.

Since the CRA affords equal protection to all of the groups it protects.

[shut vine]

It would be equally discriminatory to discriminate against someone race if they were white or black or Asian or otherwise too. CRA doesn't afford any special status it only talks about the identity group itself; race.

[eager hawk]

Yeah I agree with that sentiment

[eager hawk]

Most likely yeah

[eager hawk]

Yup

[shut vine]

Realistically then university admittance in the USA discriminating against peoples races as it occurs today would be considered against the CRA.

Not all universities mind you. Just those that offset merit with race.

[eager hawk]

In technicality, and I can agree that the consideration of just race in admissions shouldn't affect admissions outcome. However, I do believe that the experiences one talks about with their identity and race and the knowledge/mindset they bring into their schools with their cultural/racial background being considered under admissions doesn't fall under CRA

[shut vine]

I see so.. it's okay to prioritize race if the race itself offers something the other races do not?

[eager hawk]

If you're coming to that conclusion based on what I just said, I think you're misconstruing what I said. The purpose of increasing diversity in perspective, which correlates with race and their identity, is fine, and does not break CRA, imo.

[shut vine]

That's why I phrased it as a question.

Increasing diversity is discrimination inherently. Why is it exempt under the CRA?

[eager hawk]

Ah right, sorry I sort of misinterpreted your question too. Well the experiences, the perspectives, and the aspirations one develops due to their gender identity/race etc can be used for admissions. If the college wants to shape their class into one that is diverse in perspective, which in turn leads to productive discussions in discussion based classes. Idealistically of course because that's been an issue recently with colleges

[eager hawk]

Do you think it's not fair that diversity of perspective and experience is exempt under the CRA?

[shut vine]

I'm not arguing about fairness, I'm arguing technicality.

If I was arguing fairness I'd ask why it's fair for someone who's knuckled down and applied themselves resulting in good grades, should miss out for someone who has done less or none of those things and achieved a lesser grade.

i.e. merit not skin color

[eager hawk]

Ah i was about to expand on the topic to continue conversing, but ok if you're gonna go on that path of argument give me a second

[shut vine]

Also if it's fair to discriminate against someone to increase diversity, it should equally be fair to discriminate against someone to decrease diversity.

Oh sorry lol

[eager hawk]

What makes you think the other person who was accepted "did less or none of these things", these things meaning "knuckled down and applied themselves", where's the basis in that argument of yours?

[shut vine]

I don't really like discussing fairness because it's inherently very subjective depending on perspective.

[eager hawk]

Ok, yeah I can agree that talking about fairness with college admissions is really finicky, mostly because of the different objectives colleges and students have towards the concept of admissions and having them at the school

[shut vine]

The merit, so if person A received a 3.0 GPA, and person B received a 3.4 GPA, there is no conceivable way person B should be passed over for person A for any factor listed in the CRA if it applies to selecting who you do business with.

[eager hawk]

Give me an example of someone getting accepted at 3.0 and someone rejected at 3.4 then, im not going to argue on it unless you can do your best to provide these examples along with the background of each student

[eager hawk]

There's a lot of conceivable ways someone with a lower GPA gets in than a student with a higher GPA.

[shut vine]

I mean, here's some stats: https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07/look-data-and-arguments-about-asian-americans-and-admissions-elite

Rather than looking at single anecdotes, the data suggests on average Asians require nearly 6 points higher on SAT's to get into college.

I don't know the American system for scoring, so take that into account.

[eager hawk]

Aight well let's look at the factors for why that's the case, give me a moment

[shut vine]

It's possible I'm just misunderstanding.

[eager hawk]

Though SAT's are a score between 200 and 1600, a difference between a 1480 and a 1490 are negligible btw.

[shut vine]

Oh the table shows ACT scale, which I was refering to

[eager hawk]

A 6 point difference would be getting 1-3 questions more right or wrong

[shut vine]

SAT scale is 450

[eager hawk]

Ohh ACT that's different, 6 points on the ACT is a lot

[eager hawk]

What

[shut vine]

So blacks require 450 points less on average than an Asian to get admitted

Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1600)

[eager hawk]

Ohhh that was what you were trying to get at, ah okay, one sec.

[shut vine]

They had two columns, didn't realize the first was ACT not SAT

As I said, don't really understand the scaling system.

Also looks like the data is from 97.

[eager hawk]

No worries, you're from the UK and I have no clue about UK standardized testing besides IB lol

[shut vine]

Australia but same difference

[eager hawk]

Oh crap my bad lol

So first, there's this thing called the Common Data Set (CDS) where it shows how schools rank the importance of certain aspects of a student's application, let's look at one school's example for a start.

In it, you'll see that standardized tests, GPA, etc only consist of a relatively smaller portion of how universities accept students. It's still important, but not as important in general, as per say, schools in East Asia where admissions is solely based on exams.

[shut vine]

So if the criteria is not that, what other merit based measure is there?

[eager hawk]

Stanford's CDS:

https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2021/03/stanford_cds_2020_2021.pdf

in page 10

there's several aspects of a student's application that the school ranks as "very important":
rigor of secondary school record
class rank
academic GPA

standardized test scores
application essay
recommendations from teachers, mentors, counselors, etc
extracurricular activities
talent/ability
character/personal qualities

[shut vine]

So what you're saying is Standford is not publicly saying they discriminate based on race, but if they did at all, it would be a problem?

[eager hawk]

at least in Stanford, there are all of these characteristics they look for. One reasonable theory that is often portrayed for there being a more difficult barrier for admissions for Asian students is often the parts of the application from application essay and down that they in general, receive a lower score for. It could be because due to many of their parents being first generation immigrant parents, these parents often approach the application process thinking it's similar to how schools admit students back from their native land -- like in china, south korea, japan, etc. -- purely based on academic merit. I can say from first hand experience that there are a lot of asian applicants who have applied to college solely focused on academics, and due to the lacking characteristics of the other attributes colleges look at, they don't always receive favorable college outcomes

[shut vine]

Or other CRA protected statuses

[eager hawk]

racial/ethnic status is in the "considered" bracket in the CDA, above "not considered". there are some schools that rank race/ethnic status as "important" or even "very important", a big yikes for me 0_o

[shut vine]

If it's at all considered that's discrimination isn't it?

In fact all of their criteria is technically discrimination. The argument can only realistically be about if it matches the CRA criteria.

[eager hawk]

if schools discriminate against someone for having a CRA protected class, then yeah thats f-ed. but if it's the reverse, where schools look at applicants higher for having a CRA protected class, then that's a good discussion to have on if that practice is valid.

[shut vine]

If they discriminate in the positive for a protected class, then those of that protected class that do not benefit are negatively discriminated against.

[eager hawk]

i don't necessarily think it's a causation.

[shut vine]

i.e. if they do it race based, and one race loses out because they're helping another race, it is, discrimination.

[eager hawk]

it's an interesting argument to have, and i think your arguments in regards to it i can understand, however, there are a lot of other issues at hand more so than a person's ethnic status where college admissions is corrupt. i think it is a more considerable issue that legacy applicants and children of mega donors for the school have a much easier time getting into their respective colleges that leave out a spot for many other qualified applicatns.

[shut vine]

My point isn't specifically that they shouldn't discriminate.

My point is we need to apply the law equally in these scenarios.

[eager hawk]

disgressing a bit, but does CRA actually cover discrimination in favor of a CRA protected class, better yet, not in an employing/employment setting? just wanted to clarify the legal rights listed in CRA

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964

[shut vine]

Yes but the protected classes are race, skin color, national origin, sex, religion.. think there's one I am missing.

Oh interesting, CRA cannot be overruled by state laws.

[eager hawk]

ok, then well yeah to reiterate my original argument, although there is much more discrimination against the minority race/religion/sex/sexual orientation etc, i do not think it necessarily means that the dominant/majority should not experience getting discriminated against solely for their unchangeable innate/genetic attributes and their religious preference. However, is presenting these identities in their personal statement, delving more than simply what their identity is -- how their identity shaped their worldview, their perspective on others, their aspirations in life, then i think it is fair to add those positively recognized points made in their personal statement in their college application to improving a student's chances at admission. this does not in any way infringe on CRA, from how i see it.

[shut vine]

That's one I've seen used in arguments "it's legal in my state".

So it only applies to positively perceived qualities not negatively perceived ones?

Because I mean, a person who has a religious view perceives certain attributes positively and could then likely discriminate for those reasons then.

Realistically if both instances the attributes recognized are protected under the CRA in any way, then you have to either say neither are applicable or both are.

[eager hawk]

elaborate on "certain attributes". the positive attributes from the example i said above i was thinking mostly of improvements in character, moral, mindsets, their empathy for others, their desire to help out their community, the grit they've developed that will help them grind through tough academic work in their school.

[shut vine]

If a college solely decides on merit like Standford, reasonably the most likely admissions to Standford will be those with higher Academic scores by and large.

Yeah I'm fine with those.

[eager hawk]

"if a college solely decides on merit like stanford" what is your definition of merit? if it's test scores/academic success then your statement is incorrect.

[shut vine]

The attributes I'm talking about in this particular instance with college admissions is sex, race, religion, and skin color.

If those attributes are considered in any way, the college unless it's exercising a right, is discriminating against those in violation of CRA.

[eager hawk]

what example in a religious belief would view certain race/skin colr--- oh you're talking about sexual orientation. well i think the admission officer will get fired first before they could discriminate an applicant based on their sexual preference, schools do not want to be a place where a religion can dictate the humanity of another person solely for an uncontrollable factor of their identity.

[shut vine]

Or rather if it has nothing to do with the college/university's legal rights.

Well sex is gender, male or female.

[eager hawk]

yeah we've agreed already that discriminating a student solely based on those identities is prohibited and has been carefully done so that they are not considered in admissions, are we not on the same page on that?

[shut vine]

I was just clarifying.

[eager hawk]

sex != gender identity, to clarify

[eager hawk]

yes, and with that being said, most schools don't do such unethical practices.

[shut vine]

Legally they are.

Oh wait, nevermind

There is no definition for gender identity in the US legal code.

[eager hawk]

gender identity includes sexual preference/orientation

[shut vine]

Harvard had a huge lawsuit against it recently for this didn't it?

2018

ish

[eager hawk]

most top universities look at admissions fairly. i can understand that the correlation that we see where asians in general attending the school having higher test scores can be attributed to the first-gen immigrant parent mindset as i explained earlier, but also how they shape the rest of their application, i think it can be said their personal qualities that admission officers look for may be more lacking in general compared to other applicants.

[eager hawk]

yes they did, and there was the issue where Asian student's "personal qualities/attributes" was systematically dropped by a couple points simply due to their race. this is unacceptable, i completely agree. does that mean that this happens to all other schools? i think not. furthermore, the lawsuit showed a lot of statistics demonstrating the blatant favoritism for legacy and donation applicants. there definitely was nasty stuff uncovered in the lawsuit. if these two were not the case then i have no issue to the rest of the things explained in the lawsuit

it was interesting stuff watching it unfold as i was applying for us colleges in the 2018-2019 cycle

[shut vine]

There's the Michigan Law School example too

They literally admitted discrimination

Again just anecdotes

[eager hawk]

there have been examples, yes, and they were problematic, but i can't help but think of your arguments for all of these as trying to validate yourself that you were meant to get into whatever dream college you were applying to and was rejected from, seeing that you originally said

"If I was arguing fairness I'd ask why it's fair for someone who's knuckled down and applied themselves resulting in good grades, should miss out for someone who has done less or none of those things and achieved a lesser grade."

[shut vine]

The practice has been heavily endorsed by Democrats for quite some time

Not sure what you mean

Oh you're suggesting I was rejected from a college application?

[eager hawk]

yes fuck corporate democrats and their viewpoints from the past, i agree. well what you said earlier made me think this argument we're having is related to a personal experience you've had, with the way you phrased it earlier. i apologize if that's not the case.

it seemed like that argument was attached with emotion.

[shut vine]

No personal experience in this matter at all.

[eager hawk]

aight, good to clarify.

[shut vine]

The argument comes from a place of intellectual consistency, I find most people with views about these discrimination matters on both sides advocate for both the cake and eating it.

[eager hawk]

mind if you elaborate what you mean with your play on phrases? im not the best with understanding idioms/sayings etc lol

[shut vine]

So they are not consistent, they want discrimination laws against what affects them or their morals.

Or vice versa.

So when it comes to education conservatives are like "see discrimination". But when it comes to employment progressives are like "see discrimination". Then when you flip the situations it's "no discrimination here".

So my actual point wasn't universities shouldn't discriminate, just that their ability to discriminate should be equal to any business.

They are after all just businesses.

In universities the customer is the student.

[eager hawk]

i mean we've seen an example of "progressives" in SF who rejected a white dude from joining a school board solely because they were white. yes there's some people who hold these beliefs and think that's fair, and i'm not one of them :)

[shut vine]

Yeah I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, just trying to ensure I knew your specific view.

It sounded an awful lot like you'd offer excuses for racial discrimination if it was positive, without realizing the positive discrimination also results in negative discrimination.

You can't discriminate for someone affirmatively without doing so negatively to someone else.

[eager hawk]

Also, going back to this statement you said

"If I was arguing fairness I'd ask why it's fair for someone who's knuckled down and applied themselves resulting in good grades, should miss out for someone who has done less or none of those things and achieved a lesser grade."

you do now understand there's more to US admissions than just test scores/GPA as you were originally thinking, right? since i think you came to this argument seeing the correlation in test score gaps between races originally

[shut vine]

I am aware.

[eager hawk]

agree

[eager hawk]

and eh can't necessarily agree that it's always results in a counterbalance, but in some contexts yes i can agree

[shut vine]

I think all smart businesses do deals based on merit, in the case of universities standardized scores are obviously a large part of that, just not the whole picture.

[eager hawk]

yup! and i personaly prefer this system than ones i've seen placed in eastern asian countries among others, it's great seeing how admissions look at you holistically :)

[shut vine]

I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with an example that it couldn't be easily argued someone else was missing out unfairly (i.e. negatively discrimination).

I mean in interpersonal interactions sure, but those are willing exchanges. My point is basically that all exchanges should be by willing participants.

[eager hawk]

i think people can be unfairly positively discriminated solely based on their identity, while maintaining fairness for everyone else. say there was 5 board members with 100 employees in a company, and one of the employees gets promoted to board member. with now there being 6 board members and 99 employees. one example that proves against your point i think.

[shut vine]

So if 99 of those members are no part of the identity and 1 is, that means 99 never had a chance.

But the 1 who did was born to have a chance.

If the 99 people were black, and the 1 was white, how is that not racist?

[eager hawk]

I was simply responding to your claim as stated:

"You can't discriminate for someone affirmatively without doing so negatively to someone else."

In the example i presented the other employees were not negatively discriminated.

[eager hawk]

that is racist. that doesn't mean the other employees were negatively discriminated, as youve argued.

[shut vine]

I see, it's racist but no discrimination took place so it's legal.

😛

well negative discrimination

[eager hawk]

idk about the legality im not a lawyer so

[shut vine]

I think your position is pretty indefensible, only offering white people board positions would be a violation of the CRA.

I can't see how that doesn't negatively affect individuals not of that identity.

It literally means when they were born they became 100% excluded from that opportunity.

I'm not advocating for this if it isn't clear

[eager hawk]

i never said in the example that the board position was only offered to white people, i just shared that a person got promoted solely for the factor that is protected under CRA. give me one minute to consolidate my argument and see if it makes sense if you dont mind

i think it'd fare better if we bring up a real life example instead of a hypothetical. hope you don't mind if we forget the argument about board positions and restart, i think the example was flawed in defending my position that positive discrimination can exist without simultaneously causing negative discrimination.

sorry this might digress but while looking for an example i came across this article, explaining that positive discrimination (known as affirmative action) is allowed federally https://mannelias.com/what-is-positive-discrimination/

[shut vine]

I mean.. my point is when you apply your example as I did, which is not a deviation from your example, it doesn't seem so cut and dry.

[eager hawk]

ah yes, i understand why i am for affirmative action. because it allows for a quicker track to make employment more fair for all. there is definitely a lot of unconscious bias still in place in employment, and as this cannot be prohibited by the law affirmative actions was implemented as a counterbalancing effect on the state of inequality that there is in the US. So to clarify my viewpoint, do i think it's unfair if we look solely into positive discrimination from a legal standpoint? yes, but it addresses and helps with bringing the bias against preconceived notions that can't be fixed solely by implementing a law that all people need to be treated equally. becuase theres so many ways you can legally be biased against certain historically marginalized groups.

[shut vine]

The issue with affirmative action is it actually exacerbates the problem it tries to solve.

[eager hawk]

it definitely did not when it was first implemented. it can be debatable of its effects after decades of its implementation if it's gone "too far" in certain sectors.

[shut vine]

If you're given a chance that you wouldn't be given because of an easily identifiable characteristic two things occur. 1. you're not going to appreciate it as much, and probably not going to work as hard to achieve it human nature being what it is and all. 2. people with knowledge of such a policy are going to always question if you got where you are from that policy or by your own merit.

[eager hawk]

imposter syndrome is prevalent amongst BIPOC and LGBTQIA individals yes. i'm wondering where you got the "not going to work as hard to achieve it"

[shut vine]

Well, example. Your father owns a big corporation, and you know you're going to inherit that solely because you're his child. Conversely if your father says you're not inheriting shit unless you god damn well earn it.

[eager hawk]

this channel has turned into a two way conversation between me and james lmao

[shut vine]

In which example are you going to work harder and which example are you going to take your position for granted?

Or most likely to.

Yeah lol

How this applies to affirmative action is that through lower expectations you actually lower peoples incentive to work hard.

[eager hawk]

i don't think positive discrimination has spread so much as i'm assuming you're conceiving it, to the point where people from marginalized groups are "given" their jobs

[shut vine]

Oh yeah that could be true.

[eager hawk]

no i don't think that has been the outcomel.

[shut vine]

I'm more arguing the ethics and logic of these ideas.

[faint radish]

speaking of affirmative action (adjacent) topics, california just tried to repeal part of their constitution that prohibited discrimination when hiring workers

(thats right, they wanted to allow discrimination again)

[shut vine]

Yep.

[eager hawk]

yes there was a proposition and it was rejected.

[faint radish]

thankfully

[shut vine]

Prop 16

Nearly passed though

[faint radish]

Im sure itll come up next go around

[shut vine]

42%

[eager hawk]

well there is more progress needed to be made to address racial/gender/socioeconomic/religious inequalities in the US. it was one solution to address it, and yes it is flawed but not the worst idea ever.

[shut vine]

I doubt it will.

[faint radish]

inequalities, or inequities

I'm all for rectifying inequalities

[eager hawk]

yes sorry i keep forgetting to use the term inequities

[faint radish]

but not inequities

[shut vine]

Prop 209 was 45% voted for not having the law, now it's down to 42%.

[eager hawk]

oh

[faint radish]

equality of outcome is a bad goal

equality of opportunity is a very good goal

[shut vine]

Equality good, equity bad.

[eager hawk]

well there's a considerably terrible amount of discrimination against non-east or south asian BIPOC in the silicon valley (i am aware of it first hand growing up there) and i think it was a fair solution to that issue to re address affirmative action.

[faint radish]

inequity is saying we need to either put more women in prison, or less men because of the prison gender gap

inequality is saying that one gender is more likely to go to prison when tried for a crime

[shut vine]

And more likely to have harsher sentences when convicted

[eager hawk]

the activists that fight for equity do not say those things, jesus bring up some actual fights for equity if you're gonna argue on it

[faint radish]

that's what equity is tho, equality of outcome based on race, gender, etc

[shut vine]

I mean I'm not particularly religious

[eager hawk]

why don't you argue against the actual fights for justice taking place instead of putting out a blanket idea that equity is bad because of one example of equity that no one fights for.

[shut vine]

I believe people should be able to practice any religion they like provided they do so in a way that is harmonious with liberty.

[faint radish]

ok, reparations are an example of equity I suppose

first problem with that, is who gets them?

[shut vine]

Quotas are a good example of equity.

[faint radish]

how "black" do you have to be? (which sounds JUST like smth the KKK would do when admitting new members)

yeah, quotas are another good example

you have to have x black people, y hispanics, z women, etc in some group

required by law

[shut vine]

Or even required by company policy.

[faint radish]

well a company can do whatever, my problem is when the gov requires it

[eager hawk]

reparations is not limited to direct financial payments, only the people who are getting the paychecks argue for that. one way reparations have worked is via investing more money into a HBCU/historically black/latino/socioeconomically marginalized group so that they can reach success from the historical discrimination/systemic racism they've had to fight against.

[shut vine]

Well I agree with that sentiment, really bad business practice for success though

[eager hawk]

where the fuck is this example from. please stop bringing up terrible hypothetical ideas, presenting them as my arguments, and saying it's bad, stop employing logical fallacies.

[shut vine]

I was more testing your consistency tbh

[faint radish]

??? this is an actual question, not asked by me, but by people trying to get direct financial payments (re: reparations)

[eager hawk]

huh

[faint radish]

and its a question you would have to answer, who gets the payments (if the reparations come in the form of payments)

[shut vine]

I'm for taxpayer funded scholarships and fiscal help to those who had a bad lot in life, not based on their identity. Especially if they show they are going to make good use of it. I do take issue with those who get those chances and squander them though, I don't think they should get to do that and continue to get those benefits.

[eager hawk]

once again you're using an overly complex and too-idealistic solution for inequity and trying to put out the blanket statement that inequity is bad, why don't you address the example of tackling inequity that i presented earlier?

[faint radish]

the world should still be a meritocracy while working to make sure its a valid meritocracy where anyone has the chance to be the best at what they do regardless of who they are

[shut vine]

Yep

[eager hawk]

and in order for that to happen there have to be some actions to promote equity.

[restive seal]

That's gonna need a hell of a lot of "socialism" to ensure equitable access...

[faint radish]

"equitable access" makes no sense, equity is about outcome, not access

equal access

[shut vine]

Examples?

[eager hawk]

my bad on the original reply lol

[faint radish]

equitable access sounds like having different bars for different groups

like you have to get an A if you are white, but something else if you arent

(broad generalization)

[shut vine]

To get equitable access you have to allow anyone into Harvard who wants to for free.

I don't believe that's a very well thought out idea.

[faint radish]

You'd also have to prevent a ton of super smart driven Asians who are way smarter than everyone else from getting into the top schools

[shut vine]

They actually already achieved that at Harvard.

[restive seal]

To ensure "anyone has the chance to be the best at what they do" you're going to need to provide significant social services to those who don't currently have the same financial access, PK-12 education quaity access, etc. do get access to such things. Then you can employ the pure meritocracy at college admissions without fear.

[shut vine]

Just a little around the other way 😉

[faint radish]

trying to achieve equity is like trying to treat the symptom of a disease, rather than what's actually causing the problem.

[shut vine]

School Choice

[eager hawk]

https://www.odi.org/publications/3480-equity-development-why-it-important-and-how-achieve-it

[restive seal]

Gotta balance out the schools. Nobody's going to choose a crap school.

[shut vine]

Those schools should fail, easy.

[eager hawk]

why don't you tell us then, wise man, how the problem can be resolved? :))

[faint radish]

THIS is what the debate should be about, how to achieve a meritocracy, this is what the arguments should be about. I probably dont agree with mbaxter on how to achieve this, but this is the debate.

[eager hawk]

this convo is getting a bit more messy with 4 people talking at the same time lmao

[shut vine]

If everyone agreed it wouldn't be a debate.

[restive seal]

I probably dont agree with mbaxter

Soooooo you're saying the first part of this to argue shouldn't be "how do we fix the black/white generational wealth gap" then 😄

[shut vine]

Also that would make me feel like we're in the Borg collective.

I don't think that's the debate, it's how to best allow people with talent to achieve the best they can.

Or those without, for that matter.

[restive seal]

But in order to allow those talents to develop, everyone needs access to money, quality education, and other supports.

[faint radish]

yeah, and mbaxter has an opinion on how to do that which he mentioned, more socialism, other people have different ones, and we are in a republic so hopefully the best ideas win

that is trying to fix the equality of access problem, which is the problem that should be addressed, not the equality of outcome

[shut vine]

There's actually a pretty effective way to solve it, that doesn't require a whole lot of money, it actually requires less.

[restive seal]

I'm curious what your proposal is, Machine, for ensuring that everyone has access to what they need without government run social programs. Because charity only gets us so far, and that isn't very far.

[faint radish]

the US is so polarized, each side finds trouble agreeing on what the problems even are. not that long ago, Rs and Ds shared a bunch of the same issues, just with different ideas on how to solve them, now, they share none of the same issues.

[eager hawk]

i agree, you haven't addressed my prior question of what a good plan is to solve this problem, if the ideas weve presented and what social justice/ equity activists have been pushing don't align with your ideals. looking for what you have to say Machine

[faint radish]

idk what the solution is, probably because I havent thought about it enough. but at least now you are talking about how to address inequality, not inequity. That's what I was really trying to do when I jumped into this convo

[shut vine]

Not suggesting he doesn't have an answer, but it's a pretty bad argument to say "well if you don't have a solution you have no right to criticize other solutions".

[faint radish]

was about to say smth like that.

[shut vine]

You can recognize a bad idea without having a solution yourself after all.

[faint radish]

critizing other ideas is how people form their own

[restive seal]

Sure, so please criticize the idea without using the phrase "socialism bad"

and then develop how you'd modify the idea

[eager hawk]

this.

[shut vine]

Like for example, exterminating an ethnic group to solve a financial crisis after WWI was probably a bad idea, and you don't have to have another solution to the actual problem to be like "no mate".

To my way of thinking the biggest issue America faces is single parent households.

[eager hawk]

what-in-the-weirdest-juxtaposition that is you just presented. criticizing the solutions we have addressed and not providing a solution simply provides the implication that you guys just are fine with the status quo, because no solution is a good solution.

[shut vine]

It's the biggest indicator of poverty that exists, there are so many social programs that actually offer an incentive to parents to do that, it's heavily destructive.

[faint radish]

Yeah, I've heard that brought up a bunch. 2 parents increases your chance of a better life

[faint radish]

??? what? where did either of us say no solution is a good solution?

[eager hawk]

yes and we should compensate for the children of divorced households by providing them with equitable opportuntiies to achieve equialty.

[shut vine]

Yeah it's not the only factor, but it's a very strong statistic, beyond that of a coincidence.

Yeah I think this situation is a double edged sword.

[eager hawk]

so what's your solution? if you're not going to present with a solution to counteract this widespread problem and just bash at the ones being presented then i can't help but think you guys will do just fine if it's just left to the status quo.

[shut vine]

On one hand if you make it easier for those families to succeed then you give incentive to that kind of thing.

Which just makes the social burden bigger.

On the other if you take away the funding already existing (good luck first of all), you're throwing people to the wolves.

[faint radish]

I probably will do just fine if left to the status quo... but why does that mean I don't want to fix issues that affect others?
People are outraged FOR someone else all the time these days.

[eager hawk]

are you implying people being outraged for someone else is a bad thing?

[shut vine]

I think it's also reasonable to recognize the issue is actually infinitely more complicated than many people realize.

[eager hawk]

ok, you want to fix issues for others. what's your solution if you're going to disagree with the presented solutions?

[faint radish]

I was kinda making fun of the whole Latinx thing there. Almost no actual Latinos want to use it, it just seems like smth white people made up for them.

[shut vine]

I kind of agree it would be helpful to debate your actual ideas, if you had any. Even if they were not particularly fine tuned.

[eager hawk]

there are dozens of latinos i know that use that term, there's clubs with latinos in them that use the term latinx to describe their group.

[shut vine]

But it's also at the same time not a logical way to discredit your arguments against other solutions.

[eager hawk]

yes that is a personal anecdote but i don't see why it's an issue for you machine maker

[faint radish]

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/

25% know of the term, 3% use it

[restive seal]

I proposed social programs to ensure everyone has access and from what I can tell the feedback was "You can recognize a bad idea without having a solution yourself after all." and then talking about genocide as an example of a bad idea. That's... not constructive at all.

[eager hawk]

yes, which is why i said personal anecdote, as shown in the paper young latino women are the most likely to use them, and my sample size of people i know are mostly young latinos.

^ responding to machine

[restive seal]

It's almost 2am, I can't keep playing this game. Goodnight.

[faint radish]

I gotta stay up still. I want to watch the spacex launch at 3 am my time. 😢

[eager hawk]

people who argue against these social programs but then don't provide me any alternate solutions just strikes me as a dude who is just insecure about the possible changes to their social position and status and don't want to compromise that in the name of providing greater justice to marginalized individuals.

[faint radish]

part of the solution can't really involve giving the government more money. they are already wasteful with what they have

[shut vine]

I mean if you mean me, I've explained already I think the programs themselves are harmful.

[eager hawk]

ok then what's your solution. again we also don't believe there's a perfect solution, but there's a better solution than just leaving things as is, which seems to be what you guys are more in favor of than these solutions.

[eager hawk]

then what's your solution instead to address social justice?

[shut vine]

The actual removal of some of the programs is the actual solution.

I mean there was no alternative to Jim Crow laws proposed.

They were just removed.

I don't see how your premise even has a shred of merit.

[eager hawk]

....what?

[eager hawk]

elaborate "some of the programs" if you don't mind

[shut vine]

The Jim Crow laws were abolished without a replacement "solution". Bad legislation is bad legislation.

[faint radish]

ok, part of my solution would probably be the government getting the hell out of the way.
businesses want to make money, and to do that, they want the best people.

bad lives usually start as a child, you have a bad childhood, more likely to have a bad life, so you gotta look there a lot.

gov spends like 15000 per student, per year in the US right?

[eager hawk]

abolishing jim crow made some progress in social justice..? right? yes i keep saying, there is no best solution but there are good solutions, and a good solution was to remove the mf jim crow law to make some societal progress.

[restive seal]

One final reply:

businesses want to make money, and to do that, they want the best people.

You ensure the best people by ensuring those folks have the chance to learn, grow, be healthy, etc. It's a net benefit if you fund them early on.

[faint radish]

my private gradeschool/highschool didnt cost that much, where is that money going? (I dont know, Im asking)

[shut vine]

Your premise is social justice is required, and that a law that seems like it may do some good, should not be removed unless there is an alternative.

That's a faulty assumption.

[eager hawk]

if you're talking about schools, it's tied to income tax near the schools so no not all schools have equal compensation and similar expenditures per student.

[faint radish]

yeah, I dont know enough about how the state, federal government spends its money on education so I cant really speak to that

[shut vine]

If a law gives incentives to individuals to split up with their partner who they had a child with, and that single parent households are the biggest indicative statistic in regards to poverty.. is the law itself harmful?

I assert that if that premise is true, then the law is indeed harmful.

An alternative does not need be considered, the law itself must be abolished.

Unless the harmful result of abolishing said law, outweighs the harm of keeping it.

Ultimately the law shouldn't protect the willing participants in this instance (parents), it should protect the child who is an unwilling participant.

Government and societal push either via words, ideas, or legislation; that glorifies single parent households and erode the foundation of the family unit is in my opinion the most destructive thing occurring in the modern day.

Solving that problem I think solves a lot of the issues in the world, that combined with instilling individual responsibility in young people.

Rather than instilling them with excuses for why they can't succeed.

Life is tough, life is unfair, there are injustices, but I can't see believing you can't ever be successful because of your skin color is in any way going to help you.

It's just going to make everything worse. I know I've text walled a bit. 😛

I'm for social programs that keep the family together if that makes sense.

[eager hawk]

where did i ever say that the solution to any of the social justice issues is via implementing laws? every time we talk about these issues, you always bring up the viewpoint of the law, but it seems like you are short-sighted on the many ways there are solutions to solving social justice issues. in this example, you just argued with yourself on a misrepresented viewpoint of mine and tried to use it to attack my viewpoint, that is a strawman argument.

yes i'm glad you're also for social programs like the one you mentioned, which would probably be an NGO that would have to be funded by the government, which would mean that your solutions counter with Machine maker's that the government should not be involved in solving these issues.

I also think social programs focused on equity that provide extra support/education to the kids who have had their life affected by these uncontrollable personal backgrounds, would also be a good idea. @faint radish you agree with me this is a solution via means of creating equity, right?

and yes i also agree on not instilling excuses for why they can't succeed, ill just address this here just in case but don't fall for the false presumption held by leftists/liberals delivered by right wing media that we believe in instilling excuses or some shit.

i am way disagreeing on you that the most destructive thing occurring in the modern day is a hypothetical you just presented where governments glorify single parent households, how is it the most destructive thing, if it hasn't happened yet? once again, that is a strawman argument of yours equating creating social justice by implementing laws. but if you really believe these imaginary family struggles in maintaining a family is the worst thing in modern day oh boy you've lived in a bubble your entire life :)

[shut vine]

Well when you say whats your solution then, what do we replace it with.. it kinda hints that there should be a new law to replace it...

What would you consider the most destructive thing in the modern day to society is?

Single parent households predict poverty at about 52%

[eager hawk]

if you don't mind me saying equating solution-making to rule-making is a very narrow view. there's a reason why NGOs exist and are often the forefront of United Nations solutions for many worldwide issues.

[shut vine]

That's to say, 52% of all people living in poverty are single parent households.

[eager hawk]

define "modern day society" first before i answer

[shut vine]

Last 40 years.

[eager hawk]

worldwide?

[shut vine]

USA

We're talking USA politics and what the US can do to solve its issues, was my understanding.

[eager hawk]

and also, the way you phrased it earlier, makes it sound like many of these divorces are due to governmental influence. you really think that's the case? don't you think there's some other, personal experience in these households outside of the influence of the government that has caused these divorces? oh boy

[shut vine]

Of course that's an element. But divorce has sky rocketed since the government got more involved.

So I guess you're struggling to find the answer?

[eager hawk]

struggling to find the answer to what? the worst thing in modern day society? well i can agree that increasing divorce rates are an issue, are they the worst thing to happen in the last 40 years? no. do i think governmental influence caused these rising divorce rates? heck no not by itself -_- I can search up a fuck ton of terrible things in the last 40 years that have happened that is subjectively and objectively worse than this.

[eager hawk]

show me proof it is causation. i would like to debunk your claims on that.

and side note i'm glad you have the US leftist/liberal views of creating social programs to support families

[eager hawk]

well now that you know schools in the US are tied to income/mortgage tax in the neighborhood of that school, hence making quality of school causationally equivalent to the wealth of the area, that's not fair right? so there should be some changes in how schools are funded -- which, as i said earlier for reparations funds for example sent to these underfunded schools. do you think this is a good solution>?

[shut vine]

I suppose one could equate it to a leftist view, I don't particularly think down lines of left and right. I see the merit in promoting family unit to remain together as it gives children the best chance.

If parents don't want to remain together and can't afford a child, it should be put up for adoption.

If they do, but they're struggling financially, they deserve financial aid for putting their child first.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/252847/number-of-children-living-with-a-single-mother-or-single-father/

[eager hawk]

i was just stating it was a leftist view you had there. in case if you were to vote conservative, i just wanted you to know you'd be voting against it.

[shut vine]

I have to brb

[dusky raft]

Students shouldn't be tied to a single school

[eager hawk]

nice, another leftist view (that's often yelled at as being socialist here in the US) to help financially struggling single parent households instead of telling them to suck it up and kill their health by taking on more jobs or stuff. good stuff mate, i agree with you that there should be some support of equity to help out these kids in relatively troubled households

[eager hawk]

yes single parent families are increasing, but it seems to me that some of the increase is correlated to population increase in the US. if you're just linking this as a resource that's fine, but if you're presenting this as an argument well i see no argument

[foggy fern]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

[eager hawk]

that's fine, we can continue this conversation later :) man that was a long convo, thanks for putting up with me dude, i appreciate you stating your opinions and engaging in conversation with me

[eager hawk]

yeah i agree with you amaranth and believe james has shortcomings with this knowledge, that the CRA was implemented following the jim crow laws along with affirmative action to try to speed up the terrible disparities that were in place after the abolishment of the jim crow laws

[dusky raft]

Single parent families are not the best model to bring children up, most of the time. While I don't mind having a safety net to save people, it does become an issue when the system and or children are being abused in the process.

[eager hawk]

they are most definitely not. you and james keep talking about how the system causes these divorces, yet show no proof or law that incentivizes these actions. if you're going to argue on this topic can you please bring up your sources?

[foggy fern]

If people didn't have a safety net they'd put up with shitty relationships and abuse because they wouldn't have a choice

[dusky raft]

It kinda is the system, not exactly welfare alone, but compounded with the war on drugs and shitty selection of partners, to be blunt.

And it further compounds the spiral of poverty.

I'm not saying people can't change, but being in a horrible environment can breed horrible personalities.

[eager hawk]

are you taking back your claim that the government had anything to do with increased divorce rates? because you didn't mention anything government-intervention-related except the war on drugs -- and i'd actually like to see your sources for why you believe the war on drugs contributed to increased divorce rates if that's your claim

[dusky raft]

I don't have on hands right now, but considering the amount of people in prison for drug charges, with a good portion being black and male.

[eager hawk]

so you think the prison industrial complex is a major cause for a lot of these divorces? or just one of them with more systematic issues and beneficial societal developments at play?

[dusky raft]

It's a symptom to a larger issue

Plus fuck private prisons

[foggy fern]

The order directs the Justice Department to decline to renew contracts with privately-operated, for-profit prisons. This effort began under the Obama administration and was championed by then-DeputyAttorney General Sally Yates. The policy was quickly axed by the Trump administration in 2017. Now, scholars are taking a deeper look at the restored policy, and questioning its overall impact on racial inequity.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/biden-s-order-terminates-federal-private-prison-contracts-here-s-n1255776

[eager hawk]

@dusky raft @shut vine i haven't read the entire thing yet but this academic paper seems to provide a comprehensive analysis of reasons for rising divorce rates

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3972308/

[shut vine]

Might I implore you to figure out where the issue in your logic is

[eager hawk]

i was just saying, from a general point of view with statistics, that you cannot simply look at this data and say that divorce rates are increasing, when the data doesn't control for population increase and increase in marriages, etc. it's not looking at data rates on a per capita basis is what i'm saying, and that can be misleading.

[eager hawk]

you just shared with me the data, so... i don't know what argument you're trying to showcase with it. was what i was trying to say in the second half of my initial response

[eager hawk]

if i didn't hit it right, mind if you explain to me why i have an issue with this logic?

[shut vine]

Per capita comparison is a faulty comparison

Birth rate, or the number of non-adults is the only comparison you can draw to that number that would give remotely relevant statistics

[eager hawk]

you're trying to make the argument that divorces are worse than they have been in the past right?

[shut vine]

I'm not even talking about divorce

Doesn't matter if they were married to begin with

[eager hawk]

ok, so you're trying to make the argument that there are more single parent families than before right?

wait frick i think i had a brain fart with per capita..

[shut vine]

I'm saying that if you take into account the number of children, not the entire population, then you can compare that number to the number of children in single parent families.

If you compare it per capita as a statistician you'd get fired

[eager hawk]

yes that will give you a more accurate data than how it was originally presented in the data. yes i had a brain fart with my terminology, my fault for that.

[shut vine]

The birth rate has halved in America since the 60's btw

As in per capita

Didn't the article you linked also do it?

Oh it was divorce rip

Plenty of people have children out of wedlock

[eager hawk]

...no wait, the data of single family homes would be best represented if it was portrayed as a percentage of children that are under a single parent family household over all children living in a family, and compare that over the decades.

[shut vine]

Also sorry I was incensed because I thought the article you linked also cited that comparison

Yeah correct

[eager hawk]

no worries, we had some miscommunications

[shut vine]

I'm not citing the birth rate as evidence of my opinion

Just as a good indicator that we can't trust per capita

[eager hawk]

ok, and so going back to your original argument, you're saying governmental control is the single most destructive factor and influencing factor in creating single parent families?

or whatever you said

[shut vine]

No no, I believe that people are generally, but the government has made it worse.

[eager hawk]

"Government and societal push either via words, ideas, or legislation; that glorifies single parent households and erode the foundation of the family unit is in my opinion the most destructive thing occurring in the modern day."

by the way you phrased it it seems like this governmental/societal push is the most destructive thing to families

[shut vine]

If the government contributes to the biggest factor that can be linked to poverty, it's reasonable to conclude it should fix that yes?

I feel like that's a reasonable statement.

[eager hawk]

you keep saying the government contributes the government contributes, but never cite the actual legislation that's made the number of single parent families worse

[shut vine]

Yeah I believe that's the case, the government is not entirely to blame.

I think they have a lot to do with the direction of society though, and heavily shape views of society.

Like with Jim Crow laws.

I'm talking in hypothetical.

So assuming that the government does this, you agree with me it should stop? Or do you think they should continue to perpetrate that and possibly do more to make it worse?

[eager hawk]

brb gonna shower, hope you bring your sources for how governmental control led to single parent family households by the time i come back :)

[eager hawk]

can we stop talking in hypothetical and talk about actual things that have been happening?

[shut vine]

Sure, but you'd have to do the same, and we'd have to agree that those things happened.

Though I don't see why it's so hard to give an answer to that question.

[foggy fern]

In an ideal world where the government could pinpoint some policy and say "this is causing the problem and removing it won't cause other problems" then sure

[shut vine]

If we cannot first come to an agreement about what would constitute a problem that should be changed there is basically little incentive for me to put the effort in. Each time I've presented evidence of my stance it's been "yeah but" after.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/family-breakdown-and-americas-welfare-system

[foggy fern]

Otherwise it's a balancing act, just like everything else

[shut vine]

Yeah, correct.

As with anything at this scale it's insanely complicated and delicate to fix.

Having to earn 20K a year in 1975 to make it worth it to stay with your partner is the equivalent of at least 75K in today's money.

[foggy fern]

They point to old welfare systems and then to how many people receive welfare of some kind today and conveniently pass over the welform reform that happened under Reagan and Clinton that changed how those systems work

[shut vine]

"yea but"

[eager hawk]

yes they should stop if in this hypothetical scenario getting rid of whatever government policy that makes the single parent family household percentage rise issue worse has more benefits than drawbacks

[shut vine]

Alright brilliant.

[foggy fern]

You know a great way to reduce welfare? Require companies to pay a living wage

Then people won't qualify for it anymore

[shut vine]

Free market also does the same

[eager hawk]

it's not hard, it's just tiring to have to answer back to your hypothetical scenarios in seemingly your attempt to try to reinforce your views when many of these hypotheticals do not directly correlate to how it works in the real world. it's fine to use it just seems to be overused. and yes i will also stop using hypotheticals and start using more academic papers to cite my sources.

[foggy fern]

I can only go back to 1959 but that was before a lot of these welfare programs existed so... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate%2C_1959_to_2017.png

[shut vine]

The problem I have with it is if we cannot agree on criteria before we discuss it, we don't know where the opinion waivered

if rather

[eager hawk]

so james, where's the basis in your claim that government has a role in creating this issue where the percentage of single family households is rising? where's your sources?

[shut vine]

Link above

[foggy fern]

His basis is that you get more welfare assistance for a single family home

[shut vine]

I mean, if you have an option of having 10K with 3 people in the house, or 20K with 2 people... is the incentive to stay together or part?

[foggy fern]

There is some truth to this but my experience with it has been people just lying about being together if they're in that situation, not the dad leaving

[shut vine]

If you can't agree the incentive from the government there is to part..

I need to find Houston's number.

[foggy fern]

But sure, the programs are designed to help you the more help you need

If you put yourself in a situation where you need more help you'll get more

[shut vine]

Why wouldn't a family of 3 need MORE help if in poverty than a family of 2?

[foggy fern]

I guess I was assuming at least one of the two was working but yeah

The whole situation with losing benefits if there is a man in the house is actually pretty blatant sexism too

[shut vine]

Yea it is

[foggy fern]

It's our Puritan heritage bullshit again

[shut vine]

FDR implemented that

[foggy fern]

Man should be providing for the house so you don't need help, if there is no man the community (now outsourced to the government because we got too big) should pitch in to keep them going

[shut vine]

No shock

[foggy fern]

Hard to say if he believed it or if that was just the best he could get, I haven't looked in to that aspect of him

[shut vine]

FDR is the one who sent his goons to study under Mussolini

[foggy fern]

Well sure, from the 20s until we found the camps Italy, Germany, and the US were all copying each other

[shut vine]

My point is not that social programs need to be completely cut, but a lot of them need to be rethought.

Welfare needs to be focused on removing people from welfare, if that makes sense.

Empowering them to change their life for the better, not making them reliant on it.

[near glen]

That's not how the future is gonna work

There is less work available in the future, we need more welfare, we need UBI

[shut vine]

Well you see, you're wrong because I have a time machine.

[foggy fern]

We have a lot of programs for helping people make their life better

[near glen]

UBI is the simplest welfare possible because it removes all bureaucracy

[shut vine]

The only way an UBI can ever work is in a dictatorship.

[foggy fern]

I myself went through the Job Corps program instead of finishing normal high school https://www.jobcorps.gov/

[shut vine]

You have to enforce authoritarian controls over prices, otherwise it's futile.

[foggy fern]

I didn't really use anything I got from that program in the end but I got to see how it works up close and personal

[shut vine]

Yeah I must admit there are plenty of good programs the governments run.

[near glen]

Wdym futile?

[shut vine]

Many bad ones too.

[eager hawk]

i read through the article, thanks for linking it James.

[eager hawk]

https://epod.cid.harvard.edu/article/dispelling-myth-welfare-dependency

[shut vine]

So UBI becomes $10. So the price of living goes up $10.

UBI only works if you control the market completely.

[near glen]

Why?

[eager hawk]

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/welfare-childhood/555119/

[near glen]

You don't create more money, there is no inflation coupled to UBI

You just combine all current welfare systems

[shut vine]

So.. who pays for it?

[near glen]

Taxes?

Who else? Lol

[shut vine]

So the cost of living goes up 10$

[near glen]

Why?

[eager hawk]

i have the same question, i'm confused on how UBI will actually work

[near glen]

UBI works because it's so much simpler than all other welfare systems

[shut vine]

Who says, is a little thing invented in the 600BC.

Mathematics

[near glen]

The overhead is removed

Well, explain yourself then

Do you mean that nobody is gonna want to work anymore? Because that has been disproven in studies, ppl actually enjoy their work more if their lifelyhood doest depend on it

[eager hawk]

do you really think the reason for these increased divorce rates is so that they can freeload from the government more? 😅

[shut vine]

UBI, everyone gets x dollars from the gov, that means the government expense goes up by x dollars multiplied by population, which means the taxes go up by x dollars multiplied by population.

Thus the taxes pay for the UBI, and the UBI pays for the taxes.

[foggy fern]

Unrelated note, every time I see my Grandma she complains about how Biden is making gas prices go up

[near glen]

You don't tax UBI tho?

You tax income and wealth

[foggy fern]

I just realized gas prices tanked a year ago when everyone stopped driving to work and have been climbing since

[eager hawk]

seems like you're oversimplifying it, mind if you cite a source instead of paraphrasing it on your own?

[near glen]

Gas prices are controlled anyways, the oil countries do whatever they want, they just reduce production to drive up prices

Reason 136273 why we should stop using oil to drive

[shut vine]

Okay so. You have a population of 100 people. The yearly UBI for a person is $10,000. Which means you need $1,0000,000 in taxes to fund it. So how much would you have to increase taxes to pay for that?

[foggy fern]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

[eager hawk]

gotta blame OPEC not Biden lol

[eager hawk]

mind if you cite a source instead of simplifying the context on a discord chat

[shut vine]

Mathematics

[near glen]

Mathematically UBI works, ppl did the models. Socially it works too, studies show ppl don't just stop to work, while i don't know the article amaranth linked it seems to cover that

[shut vine]

They teach it in school I think, maybe not these days

[eager hawk]

can you cite the source that uses mathematics to prove this claim? i do not think this is just simply "common sense" as you are trying to put it.

[near glen]

You extremly oversimplified it

Don't be stupid

[foggy fern]

He's saying if you raise taxes on businesses to cover the UBI they'll just raise prices to offset the taxes and all of the UBI will go to the price increases

[shut vine]

I never made a claim, I asked a question.

[eager hawk]

hello?

[shut vine]

Ah so we're taxing businesses

Oh that was an opinion.

Just like he made a claim.

[eager hawk]

again can you cite your sources.

from experts

[shut vine]

Not until he does.

[foggy fern]

That's some microeconomics stuff and an economics major tried to explain to me once why the economy doesn't really work that way but it was complicated and I forgot it all 😛

[near glen]

I don't try to explain how it works because it's not my expertise, but i know that it works because ppl who are experts did the hard work to prove it

[shut vine]

I was refuting his claim with an equally verified claim.

[foggy fern]

It's one of those things that's true at a small scale but not at a large scale though, like microeconomics is quantum physics or something 😛

[plush crypt]

Would you mind sharing a source for how it would be funded, Mini?

[near glen]

Amaranth showed an article with some hard facts

[plush crypt]

I'm no supporter of UBI as it stands, but perhaps it'd be something I change on after a good read ^^

[shut vine]

The problem I specifically have with UBI is it's untried thus purely theoretical.

[foggy fern]

But Hayek and Friedman endorsed it

[eager hawk]

Stockton CA ive read has done experiments, as have many other cities, but yes they have been on a city level.

[shut vine]

If you combine that with human factors, and economic ones it seems unlikely it'd be viable.

Friedman did? Surprised to see that name here.

[foggy fern]

The problem with a trial for UBI is that unless it's for life or for at least like a decade people aren't really going to change their behaviors, they're just going to pocket the extra money

[shut vine]

Yeah human factors are my biggest concern.

[foggy fern]

'Negative Income Tax' (NIT) was proposed by Juliet Rhys-Williams while working on the Beveridge Report in the early 1940s and popularized by Milton Friedman in the 1960s as a system in which the state makes payments to the poor when their income falls below a threshold, while taxing them on income above that threshold.

[eager hawk]

i believe there was a country in southeast asia that has implemented it country-wide and we're seeing the issues there with dependence, iirc

[shut vine]

Ah I see.

I'm guessing he was proposing a flat tax unless below a certain threshold.

I'll have to see, that I'm curious about, since it semi-conflicts with his other views

[near glen]

We tried extreme capitalism and it arguebly failed, so why not try smth else?

[shut vine]

Actually it was very sucessful.

Also socialism has been a complete flop.

"oh but you havn't tried true socialism" "oh but you havn't tried my nazism"

[foggy fern]

I don't see anything on the wikipedia page about it being paired with a flat tax

I do see that he expected it would replace all other forms of welfare

[shut vine]

He made a lot of videos, be more interesting to see him say it.

If I find anything I'll link it

[foggy fern]

Instead we did the weird "earned income tax credit" which is a negative income tax but on top of all the others

[shut vine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Unwatched

Unadulterated by edits

[foggy fern]

As of 2000 it sounds like he still supported it

[near glen]

Basically, UBI is part of a broader transformation of society. We will develop into a knowledge society from the currently industrialized society. Work will be more and more automated and human resources will instead be spend on research and creative work. UBI supports that, because there will not be enough work for everyone

That's my prediction, i don't remember where I heard the term knowledge society first

[shut vine]

I personally think the ideal society will end up being a mostly capitalist one with well thought out social safety nets.

[foggy fern]

Nixon seemed to like the idea and it was popular on the right but they just couldn't quite get it passed

[shut vine]

Of course, only a theory.

[foggy fern]

Then support on the right died out pretty much entirely

[eager hawk]

i know it's not the correct terminology used to describe their economic structure but the scandinavian countries seem successful in a lot of things the US sucks at

[foggy fern]

To the point that you were surprised someone on the right could have been a supporter 😛

[near glen]

Capitalism has the problem that it's build upon the myth of eternal growth

[shut vine]

That's the problem with the political oligarchs. Actual worthwhile solutions get squashed quickly.

[near glen]

Eternal growth isn't sustainable when resources are limited

[eager hawk]

whoo we've got an American democratic socialist in the room 🙌🏽

[shut vine]

I'm anti-democratic tbh.

[near glen]

So pro dictatorship?

[eager hawk]

what??

[shut vine]

I take a similar view to Socrates.

[foggy fern]

Meritocracy is just another way of saying dictatorship

I wish it wasn't but it is

[shut vine]

There is a fundamental issue with Democracy, that is that people don't know who the best person is generally speaking.

They're sold snake oil by evil people who know how to manipulate them.

[foggy fern]

Just like communism is another way of saying dictatorship, that's just how people work

[shut vine]

Democracy is sadly the only "fair" system we've come up with.

[foggy fern]

A lot of these systems work really well below 150 people

[shut vine]

But those factors tend to mean a smaller government is better giving people individual freedom to control their own lives.

[eager hawk]

damn so youre calling people dumb, instead of leaving it as is and thinking there's no solution to it how about we strengthen the education system so that it's not an issue like we see with people electing Rep Majorie Green for example

[foggy fern]

Like, you can do real communism at those scales

[shut vine]

I'm more libertarian as American's would call it.

People should be free from government influence to be able to swing their arm around as much as they want until they hit someone.

[eager hawk]

uhm libertarians call for zero social safety nets which is contrary to what you just said

[shut vine]

That's why generally I dislike labeling myself.

There is no real single tribe I belong to.

[foggy fern]

Eh, there are "left leaning libertarians" who think social safety nets and universal healthcare are needed to keep the markets running smoothly

[eager hawk]

it's because your beliefs mostly align with the American democratic socialist one

[shut vine]

It's really bad to put people into little boxes of identifiable characteristics like that btw.

[eager hawk]

what would "swinging your arm around" entail in this line?

[eager hawk]

well in the end you're voting for one party or the other

[near glen]

Because your system is so fucked and you only have two real choices ^^

[shut vine]

It's an analogy. People should be free to do as they please, swinging and flailing their arms, but as soon as they hit someone then the government should be involved.

[eager hawk]

yup

[foggy fern]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[near glen]

Thankfully other countries have more parties

We have a good chance that the government we elect in germany this year will be formed of 3 parties

[eager hawk]

free to do as they please of what? i think the limitations and freedom presented by american democratic socialists is enough of a freedom to be able to swing/flail arms

[foggy fern]

Free to do whatever they want

[shut vine]

Basically if I don't impede you from your freedom, my freedom should not be limited.

[eager hawk]

and American Democratic Socialists agree with that :)

[shut vine]

They actually want to control my speech, so no they do not.

Oh wait

[foggy fern]

Now you get in to what aggression means

[shut vine]

I'm conflating politicians and people

[near glen]

No, they define stuff differently. Your speak can hurt the freedoms of others

[shut vine]

No it can't.

[near glen]

And that's where we disagree ^^

[eager hawk]

that is fear-mongering using misleading evidence done by the right-wing media. american democratic socialists only want to control speech if, as you said with your flailing arm example, if whatever speech you say "hits someone"

so yeah with that viewpoint youre still an american democratic socialist

[near glen]

Yuukster his issue is that he thinks you can't "hit someone" with speech

Which is wrong

[shut vine]

Excluding the fundamental ones that are widely accepted, like inciting violence, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

No I don't think me saying something to someone has any impact on their freedom.

[near glen]

CSpeech can attack my freedom of human dignity for example

[shut vine]

Speech is not violence, and never will be.

[near glen]

That's wrong

Mobbing is violence, no?

[foggy fern]

https://xkcd.com/1216/

xkcd: Sticks and Stones

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can make me think I deserved it.

[shut vine]

Mobbing?

[near glen]

It mental violence, not physical, but it's violence

Just an example

[foggy fern]

Always a relevant xkcd

[near glen]

That's the fundamental thing americans often don't want to understand

[eager hawk]

if what you say threatens their existence then yes that is an issue, that is "hitting someone". if a political leader saying that muslims are terrorists, mexicans are rapists, and causes people of these marginalized groups to get hurt/marginalized/abused, or as in your analogy "hit", then yes that's an issue.

[near glen]

Words do hurt as much or worse than physical violence

[shut vine]

What could you say to me that threatens my existence?

I believe there is nothing you can say that would cause me to cease to be alive.

[eager hawk]

not that many because you from my understanding are a cisgender white male

[near glen]

I can use words to make you wanna kill yourself?

But don't try to compare mental and physical violence, it's different, but both exist

[shut vine]

Ah I see.. so if I were to kill myself because you are disagreeing with me now... you'd be committing violence against me?

Or does your position have some flaky nuance

[near glen]

No? Don't try to spin my words. I can use my words to cause harm if I intend too, then i am commiting violence

[eager hawk]

^

[shut vine]

So intent is the factor

[near glen]

Disagreeing isn't causing harm

[shut vine]

So how do you prove the intent in what someone says?

[foggy fern]

That's up to the prosecutor 😛

[eager hawk]

if they make personal verbal threats i can think that would be one.

[foggy fern]

But generally you do that by showing it's a pattern of behavior or discussions about the conduct with other parties

[shut vine]

So, by that logic anything can be violence. It's up to the courts to decide.

[foggy fern]

Also this is already illegal in the US, it's called harassment

[near glen]

It's obviously much harder too prove but we weren't talking about how to prosecute such offenders, we were talking about if that even exist

[shut vine]

Yeah harassment is illegal, you have to tell the person to cease though.

In the US at least.

That's a reasonable limit on that freedom.

[eager hawk]

if we were to put all legal issues aside, would you support not saying things that harm other individuals, and that words can hurt individuals and make long-lasting impacts? whether be saying a racial slur, death/harm threats, getting personal like fat-shaming? and that there should be grassroots work to prevent this rhetoric from continuing to exist?

[shut vine]

Absolutely.

The problem I will always have with subjective things is, the day that someone who shouldn't be in power gets in power, it's ripe for abuse.

I am against people who act like that without reasonable provocation.

[eager hawk]

good, well i can say that such verbal actions would fall under the analogy that you said of "hitting someone", but whether if the government should get involved i do not believe so. politicians are more than just enforcing, creating, and abolishing legislature. it's also about being a leader to their constituents.

[shut vine]

i.e. you disrespect me, you can go jump if you want me to respect you.

[foggy fern]

Pretty much all laws are subjective though because in the end it's two people arguing their case to a judge and/or jury

[shut vine]

I agree mostly, however I'm not for the government stepping in in areas of speech specifically, and anything subjective really.

[foggy fern]

And trying to codify exactly what is/isn't legal is a _really_hard problem

People are messy

[shut vine]

Well you know what I mean, there is a lot more nuance in these matters than your standard murder.

Of course everything is to some degree subjective.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall has a famous quote about my opinion on the matter.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I would rather people have unquestionably evil opinions, and have the chance to tell them they are wrong, than the government silence them.